It looked on for an interesting, close, low scoring game, but England may yet establish a decent lead. Had to laugh at Yawn claiming 70 runs would be a match winning lead but 40 runs wouldn't, on any pitch 30 runs can come very quickly.
England's top order all got in, only Pietersen made much of his start. His may prove a good innings on the pitch, but Carberry again got to 30 and didn't go on, all six of England's top order made it to 24+ and only one passed 40.
In fairness to the aussies, at least only two of their top seven made it past 20 and could end with both making fifties. Again I highlight the negatives of five bowler theory, not only lacking that batting when needed, but Stokes' 1/38 on a pitch where so far 250 looks a good total is just splitting the strength of the attack ie using a fifth bowler, and indeed the spinner, when the three main seamers were/are doing the damage.
Some will argue 'pressure' (buys wickets), actually I think wickets buy wickets and pressure ie it's the other way around, especially in ODIs. And all the allegations I've heard about England's pedestrian batting, well so far they've scored quicker than the aussies, it's what happens when facing "disciplined bowling" that takes wickets.
Will still only be 1-3 IF England can convert this into a win, I think their chances are diminished by the inclusion of Stokes and Panesar, and possibly Bairstow if his catching/keeping sees any chances go, although England have already shelled a few between them.
Some are of the growing view England rely on their bowling to get them out of fixes, is this another example? Obviously if you don't take wickets then you will be under the cosh and so to some extent the bowlers need to support the batsmen
For those who missed it. Coming from a football background, its always cringe-worthy to hear him comment about Arsenal or English football - so now that his opinions have filtered into the cricket world is quite dull.
