Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:question marks over Mitch2's fitness?

if there are, perhaps they should play him and hope it all works out

Maybe they watched Murtagh and will play stocky medium pacers.

Hazlewood bowled well last time at lords, and his control with the slope is vital. I think his selection makes sense if he is bowling well. By all accounts he bowled well in the tour game just completed.

Many stories surrounding Starc from an injury risk to not finding his test match length. Either way Australia has decided that Cummins will be their main strike bowler and Lyon will be in the second innings.

With Siddle and Josh it seems Australia are trying to suffocate the english bats. Which makes sense. Australia don't have a 5th bowler in the same way England has, so they need bowlers who can bowl that longer spell. If Starc is carrying a niggle, then its to much of a risk to play him.

Pattinson bowled well in the first innings at Edgbaston but not so well in the second. Siddle bowled with more control and works as a great foil to Lyon. The Australian selectors seem to be looking for balance in their bowling line up. A fully fit and performing Starc would be selected but their are obviously problems there.

Ultimately Australia has 6 bowlers who could do a job for them, it is an embarrassment of riches for them, so hopefully the selectors make the right decisions for each test.

Batting wise it seems to be the opposite. With back up bats of Mitch 3, Labuschagne and Harris, the options are very limited.

Starc was in the squad of 12 which does suggest he's fit to play.

perhaps you should write that all down for the England selectors, yuppie; show them the kind of thought processes that will stop them looking stupid half way through every test match.

of course you'll have to type it out in times new roman and put it in a shiny green plastic wallet before you send it to them or it won't get past the doorman at HQ

and you'll have to put instructions on the front of the plastic wallet or Ed Smith and co won't be able to work out how to open it and they'll just use it as padding so that they don't hurt themselves when banging their heads on the desk whilst saying "stupid, stupid, stupid!" over and over again by lunchtime on Thursday

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Starc was in the squad of 12 which does suggest he's fit to play.

Or giving him enough time to prove he is fit or he has his lengths right? Arguably harsh on Pattinson though.

In the first test Langer made his selections on the morning of the game. I wonder if that will happen tomorrow as well.

Langer seems to like the control aspect of the game though. Patience and persistence. This explains Siddles inclusion over going for all out attack.

What ever attack Australia goes for i think most Aussie supporters believe that it will do its job. The fear is getting bowled out for 60 and not giving the bowlers a chance to win Australia the game.

In the ES..

'Jofra releases the ball from an awkward 7'1 - three inches higher than Broad, who is two inches taller, at 6'5'.

So has Archer longer arms?

does Broad 'fall' in his delivery stride?

The Lord's toss factor -
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... =aggregate

In the last 10 years, Lord's has hosted 22 test matches. Of those, 15 have been won by the team batting first, with 3 draws. Only 4 have been won by the team fielding first, and only on 2 of those 4 occasions has the team winning the toss elected to field and actually won the game (and one of those was England's thrashing of a sorry West Indies 2 years ago). On the other hand, teams winning the toss and chosing to field have lost 7 of the 11 times they have done that, with 2 draws.

Interestingly, teams losing the toss and getting sent in have the highest batting average. But when teams choose to bat first, the second innings has a lower average than the third, then the fourth drops off sharply. The third innings tends to be quite productive here.

There often seems to be a temptation to send teams in at Lord's because there is often a bit of green on the first day and some clouds around, but it seems it's almost invariably a mistake. Teams think they can run through the opposition, but it rarely does as much as expected. If the batting team can weather the early movement and get through to lunch on day 1 only 2 or 3 down, they almost invariably win, as any cheap wickets you lose in the first innings tend to be more than compensated for by the massive advantage of bowling last. It's really hard to bat here in the 4th innings compared to the 3rd.

Given the fact that the pitch is reportedly already a bit brown (current rain notwithstanding), and Australia have Lyon in their ranks, if Australia win the toss and bat first, there's a pretty good chance that's the Ashes gone right there.

yuppie wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Starc was in the squad of 12 which does suggest he's fit to play.

Or giving him enough time to prove he is fit or he has his lengths right? Arguably harsh on Pattinson though.

In the first test Langer made his selections on the morning of the game. I wonder if that will happen tomorrow as well.

Langer seems to like the control aspect of the game though. Patience and persistence. This explains Siddles inclusion over going for all out attack.

What ever attack Australia goes for i think most Aussie supporters believe that it will do its job. The fear is getting bowled out for 60 and not giving the bowlers a chance to win Australia the game.

I heard that Pattinson was always going to be rested from either the second or third test due to there being three back-to-back tests in a row, and his injury issues over the years - it's deliberate bowler rotation and management (and with five quality quicks to choose from, why wouldn't you?). He'll probably be back in the next test, while Hazlewood has been selected along with Siddle for the control/strangling factor, which England have proved time and again they don't have the patience to deal with (get bored scoring slowly, attempt to hit out of a rut, fail miserably).

yuppie wrote:Hazlewood bowled well last time at lords, and his control with the slope is vital. I think his selection makes sense if he is bowling well. By all accounts he bowled well in the tour game just completed.

Many stories surrounding Starc from an injury risk to not finding his test match length. Either way Australia has decided that Cummins will be their main strike bowler and Lyon will be in the second innings.

With Siddle and Josh it seems Australia are trying to suffocate the english bats. Which makes sense. Australia don't have a 5th bowler in the same way England has, so they need bowlers who can bowl that longer spell. If Starc is carrying a niggle, then its to much of a risk to play him.

Pattinson bowled well in the first innings at Edgbaston but not so well in the second. Siddle bowled with more control and works as a great foil to Lyon. The Australian selectors seem to be looking for balance in their bowling line up. A fully fit and performing Starc would be selected but their are obviously problems there.

Ultimately Australia has 6 bowlers who could do a job for them, it is an embarrassment of riches for them, so hopefully the selectors make the right decisions for each test.

Batting wise it seems to be the opposite. With back up bats of Mitch 3, Labuschagne and Harris, the options are very limited.

Definitely seems to be the Australian bowling plan. Why not ? The English bats , other than Burns , do not like being tied down. If it didn't work so much on day two , it did on the following morning , when Stokes got out through a bit of a dash just when he and Burns seemed to have the attack at their mercy ; and then Bairstow couldn't resist a shot that was never on when he wasn't getting the scoring going... As a tactic it makes excellent sense . Starc is a fine bowler but I think there is a fear that he might leak quick runs if he doesn't quite hit his best straight away - and they don't want to let England get into their batting comfort zone.
Pattinson was , I think , always scheduled to rest this one. Starc might yet play I guess but otherwise I'm sure he will play a part later in the series.

They have a terrific advantage in Lyon. Even if he doesn't take a bag of wickets he is good to tie up an end.

Edit : ...and , reading on down the thread , I now see BFL has already made the same point...Apologies for embroidering the obvious...

Presume Currran will be drink waiter ? Though I see some pundits calling for him to replace Denly. Suppose if there is a lot of rain about they could decide to go without the spinner but I'd question whether five quicks isn't rather overdoing it , even if one of them is a leftie.
Hopefully no one breaks down this time. And just on that : I read a lot of criticism of England picking Jimmy for Edgbaston ; and clearly with full hindsight it was a wrong call. But to be fair to them all the signs from training were that he was OK ; and for all we know he may have survived the Ireland match , had he played , and still broken down in the Ashes match : injuries happen , no matter how you try to manage players - especially ageing ones. And perhaps worth noting that Stone (young fit and no injury cloud) may well have played instead : and then a few days after the Test he broke down ... in the nets.

Looking forward to seeing how Archer goes. Not expecting him to monster Australia - they are brought up on pace - though he will certainly bring a point of difference to the attack. One thing he might do is help polish off the tail ; which has been a bit of an issue for England in recent years.

I'm not getting carried away with the handsome Australian win first up : still think both teams have exploitable weaknesses and it will be all about who gets it right at the key moments. And judges their reviews better , perhaps

Will Archer take the new ball?

Woakes and Broad I suppose. Most of Woakes' threat is with a newer ball.

Supposed to be a lot of rain on the way.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Woakes and Broad I suppose. Most of Woakes' threat is with a newer ball.

agree

Archer is more likely to offer something when this year's ball goes as flat as a fart after the first 10 - 15 overs