You may well be right, but I’m not sure Boland is the type of bloke to be rested. He’s bowled 57 overs across two tests with big breaks between them.
Neser’s batting may swing it in is favour as well.
Still think Boland will play.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
Neser’s batting may swing it in is favour as well.
Still think Boland will play.
It's a good call CTT. Was thinking the same thing.
Whilst Boland hasn't bowled too much this series, they'll be wary of only 4 days between Adelaide and Melbourne. If Boland has a big load next up it will impact him for the MCG and then the SCG quickly again after that, where they'll want him fresh for.
Expect our bowling attack for Adelaide to be:
Starc
Cummins
Neser
Lyon
Green
Starc could possibly miss Boxing Day, depending on workload and his body post Adelaide.
We'll be wary of the burnout that has hurt us late in recent home series.
I think the bowling attack will be the same as you do. Hate to see them rest Starc, but if the series is done as a contest by Boxing Day it would make sense. No point in killing the golden goose for a dead rubber.
Haven't read much about the one thing that I thought took the game away from England more than anything else - the partnership between of all people Starc and Boland - "chasing" 334, took us from 8/416 to 9/491 AND used up all the good daylight hours and left England batting right when the sun was setting. Would have been some effort to win after that.
555558
They were lauded for batting slowly and in test match style. Finally! Bazball put aside for test cricket!
But weirdly it was the wrong play. Getting close to the twilight hour and going berserkers was the better baz.
Bat too long and they miss the witching hour.
But if they went too loose they dont make enough runs. Where was the heart and courage to take the game on?
Send England back, they are broken.
Its a fair point on England,s cricket strategy.
They were lauded for batting slowly and in test match style. Finally! Bazball put aside for test cricket!
But weirdly it was the wrong play. Getting close to the twilight hour and going berserkers was the better baz.
Bat too long and they miss the witching hour.
But if they went too loose they dont make enough runs. Where was the heart and courage to take the game on?
Send England back, they are broken.
With the ashes to be retained in Adelaide?
No chance La La
You play your best eleven.
England had the golden ticket batting first.
Bat through day 1 in excellent conditions, lose as few wickets as possible at night, keep us in the field in the next day session and rip through us night 2.
But no, they felt 330 was enough
First 2 tests have just used up 6 out of 10 days. I think these finely tuned athletes should be able play Adelaide. We still go with the best side and if anyone needs resting they can skip the Sydney test when we are 4-0 up.
While I'm enjoying the struggles that England are having in this series Carts, and with the Aussies forcing them to abandon bazball in their 1'st and 2nd innings. What more could Stokes and Jacks do? They came together with the score 6/128, still trailing Australia's 1st innings score by 49 runs.
They put together a 96 run partnership, they would've liked another 70 or so more which would've made it a tricky run chase in the dark after the tea break.
Also, after Jacks went out they lost their last 3 wickets for 17 runs.
They were the last two batsmen Tiger, so yes any chancy shot selection would’ve been dangerous.
But first session was the time to make runs if they wanted to post any kind of total at all.
They batted to avoid an innings loss, which is fair enough, but tells me they are already broken
I think this is it, the last session of Day 3 left them looking at 2 options.
1 - come out firing and potential lose by an innings
2 - Protect your wicket at all costs and hope you can stay batting long enough that you can set a target and then bowl at the Aussies under lights
Due to being the last recognised batsmen, they simply had to play defensively and try and eek something out. If we'd been 3 or 4 down, then likely they do as suggest Carts, instead of scoring about 100 runs across a session and half, they might have batted half an hour past the dinner break but have scored at double the scoring rate, potentially putting an additional 120-150 runs onto the target and setting a score of 200+ which I think could have been tricky coming out to bat under lights.
FWIW I still reckon the Aussies would have chased that down, we lost it with losing wickets too easily in the 1st innings again and then our ridiculous bowling tactics of bowling back of a length and then not manning the boundaries behind square, how easy was it just to guide the ball down to 3rd man repeatedly for the Aussies, a relatively risk free shot , 4 runs on repeat.
What Stokes and Jacks partnership really showed though was once you got in, you could actually bat fairly comfortably, whilst there was the odd ball that did something, it was fairly easy batting, and I don't think the Aussies bowled poorly, they still bowled well, just there wasn't much there from the wicket once you had your eye in, but seemed a tricky pitch to negotiate whilst you were getting set. Instead of acknowledging that, getting set, and then once in bring the aggression, England batted like a bunch of arrogant, impatient morons. The way they've batted across both tests, they've collectively (bar that 1 partnership and Joe Root) shown no respect to the Aussie wickets or the Aussie bowlers IMO and they've received their just desserts due to it.
Hear what u r saying spooker but I think we need to see what workload he has in Area51 first.
If we polish them off in 2 and a half to 3 days and he hasn't overbowled, that gives Cummo 2 extra days to recover for Mighty Melbourne.
Will be an interesting watch on many counts.
Very happy to go to the mighty G (as a dead rubber) with the urn retained, and Baz and Bazball, busted.
We will still pack the joint out.
I need my schadenfreude so have been checking all the pommy talk panels and podcasts.
Almost to a man they are saying the Aussies were “there for the taking” because “on paper” England has more talent and ability with Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon out, Weatherald being unproven, Head being a “part-time” opener, Green being overrated and our batting just fragile in general.
Madness.
Even if all those things are true, how can you say England are the better team? Convince me that Crawley is better than Weatherald, Duckett is a more effective opener than Head, Pope is better than Labuschagne, Root is better than Smith, and so on.
Is Smith better than Carey? Archer better than Starc? Carse better than Neser?
I just cannot for the life of me fathom how so many English pundits and fans STILL think their named teams thus far are objectively better than ours.
Almost to a man they are saying the Aussies were “there for the taking” because “on paper” England has more talent and ability with Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon out, Weatherald being unproven, Head being a “part-time” opener, Green being overrated and our batting just fragile in general.
Madness.
Even if all those things are true, how can you say England are the better team? Convince me that Crawley is better than Weatherald, Duckett is a more effective opener than Head, Pope is better than Labuschagne, Root is better than Smith, and so on.
Is Smith better than Carey? Archer better than Starc? Carse better than Neser?
I just cannot for the life of me fathom how so many English pundits and fans STILL think their named teams thus far are objectively better than ours.
Last edited:
Is that the last of Josh Hazlewood?
Be a shame if this is how he goes out but at 34 years of age & now breaking down with injuries you have to wonder.
Regardless he's a pretty big loss.
Be a shame if this is how he goes out but at 34 years of age & now breaking down with injuries you have to wonder.
Regardless he's a pretty big loss.
Position for position, you might argue the Poms win on
Atkinson > Doggett (barely)
Stokes > Inglis (I’m comparing keepers so these two remain)
Brook > Green (for now)
That’s 3 from 11
Weatherald = Crawley for now, I don’t think Crawley has been good enough in ashes cricket to win
Atkinson > Doggett (barely)
Stokes > Inglis (I’m comparing keepers so these two remain)
Brook > Green (for now)
That’s 3 from 11
Weatherald = Crawley for now, I don’t think Crawley has been good enough in ashes cricket to win
I tend to agree with most of your posts at the minute and England probably have overrated their own, but then you do the same with:
Brook > Green (for now)
Seriously? I'll wager you any money that Green never gets close to an average of 55 in tests. They are the same age, pretty much same number of tests (Green has played 2 more), yet the difference is huge in terms of batting, 55 average vs 34. Even catching, Brook takes more catches than "bucket hands" Green. Sure Green can bowl, but then don't compare them as 5th spot batsmen.
Crawley also has way more runs on the board to not be considered to be better than Weatherald at this stage of their careers. Crawley has his issues and its largely in the fact he doesn't leave enough and then gets out way too many times, way too early. There was a stat that was shown when he was batting in the 2nd innings I think, once he passes 30, he averages 74. Its a pretty good stat, and indicative of Crawley. I don't have the stats, but I reckon the reason why his averages are so low, is because he gets out for less than 10 way more than most other openers. Its an issue, but you can't claim Weatherald is better than him right now.
I think if you did a best 11 right now, its indicative of where England are at, I think you've got the bowlers spot on, the only bowler we might have 1 in front of is Doggett, and I'd counter that with saying thats only because Cummins and Hazlewood aren't fit, of our current best 11's, sure we get 1 bowler in there, but if they are fit we wouldn't have any bowlers in a shared lineup, and we wouldn't a keeper either. I like Smith, and he's a much better batsmen than he's shown on this tour, but Carey is at least a level above him if not more than that.
Weirdly enough from a batting perspective I'd have the list (not necessarily shown in performance this series) as:
Crawley
Head
Labusachagne
Root - yes ahead of Smith, in Smiths prime he's a better player than Root and he's batted really well in this series, but Root is better right now overall
Brook
Stokes
Carey
Weirdly 4 England and only 3 Australia in that top 7, which highlights how poorly we've batted around these guys, and to an extent these guys. Brook has got out in some stupid ways, but it takes more than hoping for these 4 to fire everytime, its just not going to happen, and the Aussies overall batting lineup has batted better collectively and in partnerships, and a lot of that is down to the Bazball moronic focus they have at the moment, they need to temper their aggression.
