ThePortForum.com

Daniel, rather than give advice that no-one will listen to like Derek does, would you pad up and go in number 4 to show the England batsmen just how flat and slow this strip is and how feeble the Aussie bowlers really are? I'll look after your bottle of wine for you.

AHB wrote:Daniel, rather than give advice that no-one will listen to like Derek does, would you pad up and go in number 4 to show the England batsmen just how flat and slow this strip is and how feeble the Aussie bowlers really are? I'll look after your bottle of wine for you.

I'm at the Nursery ground right now, dictating this message to Baylissers as I take a few hurled down off 17 yards. Cooktop seems awake at present but we need him to stay there all day. I'll trot out when Ballancey falls over his shoes.
Michael aided our cause no end with his pointless delayed declaration, and Cooky put the spinners in at both ends to run through as many overs as possible in the meantime. The morning session, perversely enough, felt like ours.

Oh, I have a middle order batsman for our fixture against the OLTCC in 2016.

Oops...!

Not to worry, I'm sure Bell will save the day...

DRT wrote:Not to worry, I'm sure Bell will save the day...

Don't you have any new material Derek? I'm sure I heard that one when you did your last tour..

Some other things that have been said before...

DRT wrote:A time will come soon when Bell and Cook will need to perform with bat in hand and on the evidence of the last four days they might be found wanting.

djewesbury wrote:England will win and Derek'a losing streak will continue.

At this point, a draw is as good as a win. England can still draw.

Current odds 13/2 - not a bad punt at this stage.

DRT wrote:Current odds 13/2 - not a bad punt at this stage.

Undate: now 16/1

Do it. I'm against betting personally, high moral standards and all that, but if you put a double-mag on for me I'll sort you out from my winnings.

That was not out.

djewesbury wrote:That was not out.

I think you'll find it was.

As I predicted, England lost in four days. Personally I'm looking to the positives and enjoying planning the itinerary for the eight-week cruise I've been asked to plan for Ian Bell, leaving this week.

One hundred and three? Please say that that was mis-read or mis-heard, and was 100 for 3, rather than just miserably mis-batted.

jdaw1 wrote:One hundred and three? Please say that that was mis-read or mis-heard, and was 100 for 3, rather than just miserably mis-batted.

Unfortunately one hundred and three all out is correct. A complete shambles and actually quite painful to watch, even for me.

Next prediction: Edgbaston (Birmingham in July) = rain saves the day and it's a draw.

They were talking about team changes on TMS, the feeling being that Australia got their team changes spot on and reflecting with some sadness that they could not imagine changes in the England team which would produce such a swift turnaround.

I kind of agree, I know there was some talk of throwing out Lyth, Ballance and Bell (in that order) but I can't think who might come in instead. Morgan? Hales? Neither seem ideally placed to steady the top order. And the bowling; if England are going to continue to produce these dead flat tops then they are going to need to find a different set of bowlers to take twenty wickets. And there isn't anything anyone can do about the toss, which I think was the most influential moment of the test.

Toss: yes.

There are other names, though I forget them now, in the county circuit - promising uncapped youngsters. I think a policy of 'one in, one out' might be prudent, and perhaps best to start with Ballance for the minute, much as I concur with the general rumbling about Bell. Swann's revelations a while ago about Bell's insecurity and need for constant reassurance were unsettling. He can't be indulged. If others felt strongly that he should be given the chop first, I no longer hold a candle for him so chop away.

LGTrotter wrote:I think was the most influential moment of the test.

I watched most of this Test and whilst I agree that the toss played a part I don't think it was the most influential contributing factor. The most influential moments came when England's front order surrendered their wickets for nowt and when the England bowlers couldn't find the wicket anywhere near as well as the Australians. If England had batted first I think this Test would have finished yesterday without the need for Australia to bat twice.

A very sad state of affairs which I hope is not repeated in the remaining three Tests otherwise it will be quite dull.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I think was the most influential moment of the test.

I watched most of this Test and whilst I agree that the toss played a part I don't think it was the most influential contributing factor.

Then we must agree to differ.

However your last point;

DRT wrote:A very sad state of affairs which I hope is not repeated in the remaining three Tests otherwise it will be quite dull.

is I think a very accurate one. I hoped for a contest, which this emphatically was not. Watching very unmatched sides is never an edifying experience.

LGTrotter wrote:Watching very unmatched sides is never an edifying experience.

Though its pleasure depends on whether one’s own side is the superior.

I've just learned that the shadow England selection committee will be meeting on Tuesday evening at a place called the "Boot & Flogger". I assume that much debate will be had before the ideal Edgbaston England side will be chosen.

Oh no, AB is still pressing his case for selection, even after publishing that scurrilous memoir, "AB: I think that's about everyone p*ssed off with me now".

Oh no, now I see that Bairstow is back in the frame and Bell is off the hook because Edgbaston is his home ground.

Having seen a friend today I was struck by his rage at the selection ahead of the next test. Bell has been promoted to three, Root to four, Ballance has been dropped, to be replaced by Bairstow coming in at five. I think I am less upset by this because it is just what I thought they would do. That does not make it a better decision. Root looked happy at five, leave him there (see previous promotion of Trott to open which also proved a dumb idea). Bell at three does not feel like a strengthening of that position. To my mind Ballance represents the future and I think it might be worth spending more time and patience on him rather than on Bell. The England selectors, having found themselves in a hole have decided to keep digging.

I think Ballance needs to take time away to sort out a solution to his now known weakness of playing far back in his crease.

flash_uk wrote:I think Ballance needs to take time away to sort out a solution to his now known weakness of playing far back in his crease.

I think if it is a matter of confidence and just to remind himself he can score runs then sure, go back to the county circuit for a while. But if it is a matter of technique then the place to practice that is in the nets, then have a go against the side that troubled him. The trouble seems to be one of nerve against fast bowling. And I, for one, don't blame them in the slightest. People get badly hurt, even killed. Run away would be my advice.

LGTrotter wrote:

flash_uk wrote:I think Ballance needs to take time away to sort out a solution to his now known weakness of playing far back in his crease.

I think if it is a matter of confidence and just to remind himself he can score runs then sure, go back to the county circuit for a while. But if it is a matter of technique then the place to practice that is in the nets, then have a go against the side that troubled him. The trouble seems to be one of nerve against fast bowling. And I, for one, don't blame them in the slightest. People get badly hurt, even killed. Run away would be my advice.

Yes he needs to work on technique in the nets - I think these things take time to address though. Will he have it licked before this series is finished? I doubt it.

flash_uk wrote:Yes he needs to work on technique in the nets - I think these things take time to address though. Will he have it licked before this series is finished? I doubt it.

Very true, you have convinced me, drop Ballance.

An interesting day.

LGTrotter wrote:An interesting day.

A very good summary, with which I fully concur.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:An interesting day.

A very good summary, with which I fully concur.

Somebody has to be less deferential to management. Which is presumably me.

Were the rain intervals sufficient for it to be less than a whole day?

The morning session tomorrow could well decide this match. If Oz take a couple of wickets then a classic England collapse could easily follow, leaving a lead of maybe 120 or so at best. Will the Oz second innings be better than the first? They would have to hope so! Perhaps a lot better, and that could leave England batting last chasing maybe 200-250, not easy I would say.

The flip is England put on some runs in the morning and after lunch, then a new ball appears after tea. This could see England open up a 250-300 odd lead. It's hard to see Oz coming back from that.

Edit: I would add, a lot rests on Bairstow...if he weathers the early storm in the morning session, my money is on an England win by an Innings margin. If not, who knows...

jdaw1 wrote:Were the rain intervals sufficient for it to be less than a whole day?

Yes.

While I fear this may come back to bite me, I just can't see how Australia escape in this game. Too few runs, too much time, England are already up to their total with seven wickets left, batting last will be less of an issue on day 3 or 4, the list goes on and on for Australia. Maybe we will look back and say this was the day Australia lost the Ashes.

Nb; I seen to have been wrong about this series rather a lot already.

I feel cautiously optimistic. I have been following this game in the traditional English way, viz., in France. And a most gripping <day it was too, it even persuaded me to stay in and not visit the historic bastide nearby. I would expect England to bat all day and win by an innings. The collapse is never too far away as a possibility but I don't think it's the most likely option. I feel good about the batting to come. I recall Nass's 200+ in '97. Time for Root to do similar?

And - Bell... opinions please?

djewesbury wrote:I feel cautiously optimistic. ... I would expect England to bat all day and win by an innings.

djewesbury wrote:And - Bell... opinions please?

A modern day hero.

Not the best of starts to day two.

DRT wrote:Not the best of starts to day two.

No, not by any means.. but not quite a collapse yet, even with the two cheaper wickets earlier. A lead of 100 to (perhaps optimistically) 150 is hopefully still enough.. I'd prefer a close game well won than one that's predictably out of reach in 2½ days.

djewesbury wrote:I would expect England to bat all day and win by an innings.

Still possible, but will require some splendid tail-end batting and even more splendid bowling.

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:Not the best of starts to day two.

No, not by any means.. but not quite a collapse yet, even with the two cheaper wickets earlier. A lead of 100 to (perhaps optimistically) 150 is hopefully still enough..

150 would certainly give the Auzzies an uphill task to win. I think they would be relieved to get away with 100 but England already have that with no sign of an imminent collapse. Broad standing up well.

djewesbury wrote:I'd prefer a close game well won than one that's predictably out of reach in 2½ days.

Ditto.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:No, not by any means.. but not quite a collapse yet, even with the two cheaper wickets earlier. A lead of 100 to (perhaps optimistically) 150 is hopefully still enough..

150 would certainly give the Auzzies an uphill task to win. I think they would be relieved to get away with 100 but England already have that with no sign of an imminent collapse.

England AO leading by 145: good guess.

Oz 76-4 - this could be over this evening and Daniel could be the new Champion Guesser of Results

Listening via TMS on YouTube and looking forward to watching the highlights this evening. I have a dodgy Sky stream but I can't watch that while I'm doing my 30 lengths.

If we get them all out at, say, 7:25pm, and they lead by a measly few runs, would Australia be allowed to concede?

jdaw1 wrote:If we get them all out at, say, 7:25pm, and they lead by a measly few runs, would Australia be allowed to concede?

Not sure of the rules or whether or not an Australian is genetically capable of doing that.

They now have a commanding lead of 5 runs with four wickets remaining so are presumably starting to feel optimistic.

For those without Sky, the Hardy's adverts that play after each wicket falls, and of which there are many variants, are quite amusing.

DRT wrote:with four wickets remaining so are presumably starting to feel optimistic.

Now slightly less optimistic.

Indeed.

Before Daniel turns up to tell us there is no crisis in English cricket I would like to mention that it is quite disappointing from a neutral point of view that we have now had three totally one-sided test matches. Zero tension in the game. It feels a bit like tossing a coin to see who wins, and not just when it's at Lord's!

Is this down to having two teams that are incapable of consistency or is it something to do with the wickets at the three grounds significantly suiting one team over the other?

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:with four wickets remaining so are presumably starting to feel optimistic.

Now slightly less optimistic.

...and in case you missed it that was a joke.