The Professor wrote:Said it before and I'll say it again....these are a group of English players raised on white ball cricket coached by a coach whose home us in white ball crucket who were playing shots like they were playing white ball cricket.
Agree. It's in attitude rather than ability. Australia seem to have the capacity to switch between the two formats better.
It seems as though England have been pretty unlucky with injuries to their bowling line-up. Wood & TRJ out, Moeen's been bowling injured, Broad apparently has a niggle (explaining his lack of incisiveness), Overton was bowling injured for the second half of this game and will be out for Melbourne. Picking injured players is not good policy, but is it any wonder that England can't take 20 wickets if their bowlers aren't fit? Anderson's about the only one who's not injured, and guess what, he's done ok. You can't bowl sides out on these sort of wickets on your own. Add Stokes' self-inflicted absence, and it's no wonder we're struggling.
Meanwhile, Australia's normally fragile attack has come through 3 consecutive games unscathed, and will probably manage all 5. Doesn't seem fair somehow.
I'd put Crane in rather than Curran in Melbourne, just for something different. We're on about our fifth choice fourth seamer, so what, ninth best fast bowler in the country? If the best three or four can't get the Aussies out, how will adding an also-ran make any difference? England's attack is already one-dimensional, and our spinner can't buy a wicket. Why not try it? He can't do much worse than the other bowlers have done, and the variation might just add an edge that has been lacking.
But to be honest, England have the players and ability to win in Melbourne. They just need their key players to step up and find a way to press home the advantage when they get it.