Same 13 for Lords. I suspect if we'd've lost that Bairstow's place might have been under scrutiny. Lords is Finn's home turf .. will he be 'risked' or will Bresnan or less likely Onions come in ?
Same 13 for Lords. I suspect if we'd've lost that Bairstow's place might have been under scrutiny. Lords is Finn's home turf .. will he be 'risked' or will Bresnan or less likely Onions come in ?
With back to back Tests, it would take something extraordinary for a batsman to be dropped between the 2 Tests. Especially as Bairstow has played so little cricket over the last month, and batsmen tend to be more secure in the England team than bowlers, where it is considered normal to have a squad of 13 with 2 spare spare seamers and no spare batsman!
...i think the conditions may be even less favourable for Finn than Trent Bridge ..I d go for Bresnan but i am just a little bit worried about what decent bowling choices we might have outside the squad as the series progresses (for pace and spin bowling)
Don't think Bairstow's place should be under scrutiny at all really, and not just because I am a firm believer in not just dropping people on the back of one bad performance. Bairstow got starts in both innings, he now just needs to convert these into something more substantial. He has a good presence at the creae, and is the type of player you want in the team as he can up the tempo when needed.
Same 13 for Lords. I suspect if we'd've lost that Bairstow's place might have been under scrutiny. Lords is Finn's home turf .. will he be 'risked' or will Bresnan or less likely Onions come in ?
Keep him in the squad - but he had three/four spells in the match where he bowled short and wide. The pace was there but no rhythm in his bowling. I think Bresnan will play and he should strengthen the batting, he seems to have recovered from his elbow operation well enough.
Bairstow batted well enough in the first innings not so well in the second dig, but he needs runs at Lord's.
I think Finn is the only shaky one, I'd have Onions ahead of Bresnan because I think he terrifies batsmen and is acutely consistent. Has Finn done anything so badly aside the dodgy few overs he had yesterday?
He went for 5 plus in the first innings... But did take 2 wickets in 2 balls. Not sure how much of a confidence player he is. They'll pick bresnan, however much onions makes sense
I think Finn is the only shaky one, I'd have Onions ahead of Bresnan because I think he terrifies batsmen and is acutely consistent. Has Finn done anything so badly aside the dodgy few overs he had yesterday?
There's a lot of competition for the last bowling space in the squad with Onions and Bresnan lining up behind Finn, whereas with Bairstow unless someone comes in to the squad at the last minute there is no obvious alternative.
Regarding Bresnan or Onions, it may come down to the wicket - dry and dusty and the ball will reverse, therefore Bresnan, if it looks a seamer's paradise then Onions will play. But England under Flower like to bat long and squeeze every possible run they can out of an innings so I think Bresnan get the nod. Plus Lord's has tended in recent years to be pretty flat by day four/five and his scudding fast medium pace is better suited to the ground.
It's a bit tough on Onions if he doesn't play, as he'll end up spending the whole summer watching England bowl, then when he gets his chance will have completely lost his match sharpness. Jimmy Anderson suffered from this at the start of his England career, hardly ever playing, when a year of solid county bowling may have benefited him.
I wouldn't go with an extra spinner either to be honest. Personally, I think Joe Root has shown in ODIs and in his few overs at Trent Bridge that he very capable with the ball and was surprised to not see him used more. Personally, if the pitch is right, I'd keep Finn. If he can get his confidence up he is a quality bowler and with a bit of bounce in the pitch he could cause real problems.
It will be really tough on Finn if he gets dropped. That pitch at Trent Bridge offered him nothing. We do not have many natural 90mph+ bowlers and he should be used properly. He should be used in 5 over spurts, and that is starting with the new ball, he should be told to give everything and bowl with full aggression. We looked woefully short of bowlers over the weekend. Swan was thrown by the Aussies using their feet and Finn suffered from a loss of confidence which was not helped by his captain. Use Finn properly or don't play him at all. Onions is a better bowler than Bresnan at this level but Flower and Co are obsessed with bowlers who can bat. The Aussie tail goes on forever but that should not matter. Pick batsmen who can bat and bowlers who can bowl. If we had 5 international class bowlers offering a full range (A mix of, Genuine quick, couple of swinger/seamers, Offie, Leggie, SLA) then we should play them and Prior should bat six, but sadly at the moment we don't.
Just to add, I still reckon that weather permitting, England should win this series 5-0. Australia seriously overperformed in the first Test, and relied purely on their tail, which won't be able to keep reproducing performances like that. Their top order managed about 250 runs in two innings, when England's bowlers weren't bowling well, and they don't really look like putting many more runs that that to me. England should be able to bat better, and I think they will in the future Tests, fancy them to score 400+ at Lords.
I think you are making two errors, over estimating us and under estimating he Aussies.
Perhaps, but really think England can play a lot better, both in batting and bowling, and can't see the Aussies playing much better than they did in that First Test.
I think you are making two errors, over estimating us and under estimating he Aussies.
dont think so, we can play a lot better and this is the worst aussie side for decades. Apart from Clarke I can't see an aussie batsman getting serious runs throughout the series.
Australia have a funny batting lineup, with only Clarke likely to consistently make big runs (assuming his back stays ok) but everyone else from 1-11 is then much of a muchness, their 8-11 is probably one of the best ever.
I think you are making two errors, over estimating us and under estimating he Aussies.
dont think so, we can play a lot better and this is the worst aussie side for decades. Apart from Clarke I can't see an aussie batsman getting serious runs throughout the series.
In some ways they don't need to - just about the entire Aussie side average over 30 with the bat - or near to it. If you get say two half centuries in an innings plus six/seven scores of 30-40 and a couple of failures you'll end up with 300-350 most times and maybe more and that without a standout performance. That's not enough to consistently win Test matches but it gives their bowlers something to defend and should England then underperform batting wise then it might just be enough to sneak a win. The last time Australia won an Ashes Test, at the WACA, England underperformed twice with the bat against modest Australian totals, so it can happen.
Agar and Pattinson are never test no 11s. Both of them should be much higher in the order. Their real problem, as you say, is that their frontline batsmen are, in the main, horribly poor. Cowan, Hughes and Rogers are piss poor players, definitely not test standard, whilst Watson and Smith are inconsistent to say the least.
Haddin always worries me as he's got a bit of mongrel about him (as the convicts would say) and Clarke is just absolute class as a batsman.
I don't think I've ever seen a test side without a proper tail before though - Siddle and Starc can both bat as well as Broad and Swanny can.
Worryingly, they don't look like they're going to struggle to take 20 wickets, whereas we do.
If they put as much effort in as they did in the first test, this could be a classic to rival 2005 - with the Aussies playing the underdog this time round.
Worryingly, they don't look like they're going to struggle to take 20 wickets, whereas we do.
England play four front line bowlers which is inherently dodgy - if a bowler is injured as Broad was at TB then England have to get by on three bowlers plus a few overs from Trott/KP/Root. Added to that Finn bowled poorly, Swann was ineffective although he was ok - but once they started using their feet to him he was negated. Fortunately Anderson was superb in both innings.
Even if all four bowlers stay fit and bowl well it still gives them a load of work to get through - if you assume that England will take one wicket every ten overs or so that means that when batsman 8 and 9 come to the wicket each bowler has already bowled 15-20 overs and if that batsman can score runs then they have the luxury of batting against tired bowlers who may be using an old ball.
England need to find a Kallis or a Watson - someone who can send down a few overs here and there if needed and be a front line batsman.
England have needed a genuine all-rounder as the final piece in since Freddie's decline and retirement. Some hoped Bresnan could be it but I think he's some way off Flintoff in both aspects of the game. Not really anyone on the horizon either except perhaps Ben Stokes.
Worryingly, they don't look like they're going to struggle to take 20 wickets, whereas we do.
England play four front line bowlers which is inherently dodgy - if a bowler is injured as Broad was at TB then England have to get by on three bowlers plus a few overs from Trott/KP/Root. Added to that Finn bowled poorly, Swann was ineffective although he was ok - but once they started using their feet to him he was negated. Fortunately Anderson was superb in both innings.
Even if all four bowlers stay fit and bowl well it still gives them a load of work to get through - if you assume that England will take one wicket every ten overs or so that means that when batsman 8 and 9 come to the wicket each bowler has already bowled 15-20 overs and if that batsman can score runs then they have the luxury of batting against tired bowlers who may be using an old ball.
England need to find a Kallis or a Watson - someone who can send down a few overs here and there if needed and be a front line batsman.
Very harsh on Swan, the pitch was so slow that they could play him later than they normally would be able to, slow pitches don't help the spinners either.
In spite of that he still got 2-60 in their 1st innings - including a beauty to get Haddin - and 2-105 in the 2nd Innings including a critical spell to get Smith and Hughes, both with top deliveries.
Just as importantly, in that 2nd Innings he went for only 2.3 runs per over from 44 overs - meaning the seamers could be rotated at the other end, even more important since Finn was bowling like a busted arse.
Swan's ability to get wickets in all conditions, something Panesar can't quite do, is critical to England being such a good team.
Comments
Why wasn't Broad named man of the match ? :-)
Lords is Finn's home turf .. will he be 'risked' or will Bresnan or less likely Onions come in ?
Not to mention he is an outstanding fielder.
Bairstow batted well enough in the first innings not so well in the second dig, but he needs runs at Lord's.
Regarding Bresnan or Onions, it may come down to the wicket - dry and dusty and the ball will reverse, therefore Bresnan, if it looks a seamer's paradise then Onions will play. But England under Flower like to bat long and squeeze every possible run they can out of an innings so I think Bresnan get the nod. Plus Lord's has tended in recent years to be pretty flat by day four/five and his scudding fast medium pace is better suited to the ground.
Which test pitch would suit this?
England have Root and KP who can back up Swann, I wouldn't select another specialist spinner otherwise.
We looked woefully short of bowlers over the weekend. Swan was thrown by the Aussies using their feet and Finn suffered from a loss of confidence which was not helped by his captain. Use Finn properly or don't play him at all.
Onions is a better bowler than Bresnan at this level but Flower and Co are obsessed with bowlers who can bat. The Aussie tail goes on forever but that should not matter. Pick batsmen who can bat and bowlers who can bowl.
If we had 5 international class bowlers offering a full range (A mix of, Genuine quick, couple of swinger/seamers, Offie, Leggie, SLA) then we should play them and Prior should bat six, but sadly at the moment we don't.
Haddin always worries me as he's got a bit of mongrel about him (as the convicts would say) and Clarke is just absolute class as a batsman.
I don't think I've ever seen a test side without a proper tail before though - Siddle and Starc can both bat as well as Broad and Swanny can.
Worryingly, they don't look like they're going to struggle to take 20 wickets, whereas we do.
If they put as much effort in as they did in the first test, this could be a classic to rival 2005 - with the Aussies playing the underdog this time round.
England play four front line bowlers which is inherently dodgy - if a bowler is injured as Broad was at TB then England have to get by on three bowlers plus a few overs from Trott/KP/Root. Added to that Finn bowled poorly, Swann was ineffective although he was ok - but once they started using their feet to him he was negated. Fortunately Anderson was superb in both innings.
Even if all four bowlers stay fit and bowl well it still gives them a load of work to get through - if you assume that England will take one wicket every ten overs or so that means that when batsman 8 and 9 come to the wicket each bowler has already bowled 15-20 overs and if that batsman can score runs then they have the luxury of batting against tired bowlers who may be using an old ball.
England need to find a Kallis or a Watson - someone who can send down a few overs here and there if needed and be a front line batsman.
In spite of that he still got 2-60 in their 1st innings - including a beauty to get Haddin - and 2-105 in the 2nd Innings including a critical spell to get Smith and Hughes, both with top deliveries.
Just as importantly, in that 2nd Innings he went for only 2.3 runs per over from 44 overs - meaning the seamers could be rotated at the other end, even more important since Finn was bowling like a busted arse.
Swan's ability to get wickets in all conditions, something Panesar can't quite do, is critical to England being such a good team.