Well we’ve just woke up here at BOC, and it appears that England have just had a nightmare. Having been put in to bat, Australia have declared on 442/8 and leaving England with a tricky 28 overs to face tonight. And without further ado, here’s the live blog:
0906 Starc bowls the first over, getting over 93mph. Bowling very full, but no swing and England play it safely with two singles.
0910 Hazlewood from the other end. Again fast and full from Australia, England score 5 runs and no real drama for England.
0916 Starc’s second over, and it looks like he’s warmed up. Stoneman gets a leading edge on the first ball and it goes in the air past backward point for four. Stoneman also plays and misses on the third ball before getting off strike with a single. Cook blocks out a yorker to finish the over.
0921 Hazlewood’s second over, and there’s an LBW shout first ball despite it pitching outside leg. Stoneman’s bat splinters whilst blocking out another yorker. Another LBW appeal whilst pitching outside leg on the last ball, which will always happen until the ball swings or Hazlewood bowls from the other side of the wicket.
0927 Starc’s second ball of the over and Cook plays and misses at a swinging ball well outside off stump. Some light relief at the end of the over as an Aussie fielder is wrongfooted by a ball hitting the edge of the square and gifting Stoneman a couple of runs.
0931 Cook gets a four off his legs on the first ball of Hazlewood’s over, then Stoneman flashes hard at a wide delivery which goes over the fielders at point all the way to the boundary. 11 runs from the over.
0936 I’m surprised Australia haven’t tried any bouncers so far. Whilst obviously bowling full is a good tactic, I’m curious how well players can pick up the short ball under lights. That said, Cook comfortably guides a waist-high delivery with a controlled pull.
WICKET Starc bowls a full delivery at Stoneman’s leg stump, and the batsman is trapped deep in the crease playing across the ball. He goes for a DRS appeal, but unfortunately for England it shows 3 reds so they lose a review. England 29/1.
0940 Quiet over from Hazlewood at the other end. A shout for caught behind from the keeper after a glance from Cook’s pads. Vince to face his first ball from Starc at the other end…
0944 Vince blocks out the first ball, a full yorker on the stumps. Starc draws him into a play and miss outside off stump, but Vince survives with six dot balls.
0946 Cummins replaces Hazlewood, and it’s a huge appeal from Australia first ball as Cook is squared up and the ball glances off his back thigh guard to the keeper. Before another delivery can be bowled, RAIN STOPS PLAY!
0957 Bad news for England, the covers are coming off.
1003 And they’re back on again.
1018 And back off again…
BT Sport had a feature on Ben Stokes in New Zealand, which seems like a moot point. Also a mute point, as Graeme Swann was talking in the studio during the rain break so I had turned off the sound. It seemed like they were seriously talking about his return and hyping him, but with his lacklustre performance in his first game and the legal process dragging on I doubt he’ll be ready in time for an Ashes return.
1027 Umpires have just inspected the field. Apparently play has to resume by 1040 am in order to play again today. Fingers crossed!
STUMPS England are 29/1 and 413 runs behind. Presumably play will begin 30 minutes earlier tomorrow, personally I think I’ll just have another lie-in.
Hostage to fortune here, but if the Day/Night terrors don’t turn up as advertised (c.f. Day 1) then it might just be that this is really a bit of a draw pitch.
Of course, scoreboard pressure all on England now…
Yeah, no one is considering an England win at this point.
Even with the loss of the wicket, I am seeing the Man of Iron (steel, not sure) continuing his heroic day-night average and scoring all his runs for the series in this one match (which will keep him in the side for 5 more years)
We will get 575, and then bowl them out for 124
I really should stop drinking on Sunday mornings
Pass the gin.
Let’s be honest, 440 is a good total, but it’s not so massive England shouldn’t be able to compete. The problem is that we don’t have any faith in England’s batting and that’s why it looks like they’re doomed from here.
It’s pathetic really. England should be looking at this thinking ok, now it’s our turn and we’ll go past you and put you under pressure. But the batting is brittle and the inexperience is entirely down to the ECB and selection, since half of them are essentially unknown qualities.
And Australia might have more pace, but they’re also pitching the damn thing up and looking to take wickets, something that England seem (bar Broad) totally incapable of even considering.
What is this pitching up you speak of? Surely that just leads to batsmen driving you…oh and edging…I see now
Even on the chat it all seems to be how England are on the rack.
If this wasn’t a day night test, 440 would be a little low for Adelaide, it’s always the best scoring ground in Australia, but unfortunately as you say it is our batting.
If Cook gets in tomorrow (I think this evening is more about surviving) and someone sticks with him, we could have 300 on the board for not very much.
IF IF IF
LikeLiked by 1 person
Day 2 in 2006. England 550-odd for 6 and Aussie 28/1. Went at them hard that evening. Had them three down early the next day.
But always worried.
“What is this pitching up you speak of? Surely that just leads to batsmen driving you…oh and edging…I see now”
It’s amazing how old fashioned theory that has worked for decades is cast aside by modern geniuses. Also, if you pitch it up and they miss….. you get LBWs. Just like Stonemans wicket.
I was intrigued by someone recently suggesting bowling at the stumps. Might be worth a try Jimmy boy
This is how Anderson takes wickets: http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerDismissBowlGraph.asp?PlayerID=3065
33.4% are bowled or lbw. That’s a rather big proportion to be removed from the equation by bowling short and outside off. Now, yes, he sometimes bowls outside the stumps to set a batsman up, and that’s frequently brilliant. But not the same as much of today.
Shiny Toy screaming out for two LBW appeals clearly, and I mean clearly, pitching well outside leg stump.
Cook looks a little better balanced at the crease this innings than in the first Test…
A few early leg stump half volleys get the feet moving better….
Does always help! But he’s a little less crablike and rather more side on.
I was just about to write about tempting fate, and Stoneman went. Given what people said about a Marsh review earlier the biggest surprise about that review was that it wasn’t going over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’d want a Starc yorker first ball, wouldn’t you…
Looking at the weather radar this won’t last long. 15 miles further east and we might be done for the night.
Off topic …..
just watching Sky Sunday supplememt or should be renamed the Man united fan boy show. They are as usual eulogising about everything United. Then they get on to City and its all …..”yes but…yes but.” ” you don’t get extra points for winning 5-0″ Funny they never say that when United score 5-0 do they.
When Sir Alex Feguson was playing attractive winning football they were eulogising him. Now United play a more defensive style under the special one they are all about so called tactical master classes. Suddenly attractive football is not important. Frigging liars.
These guys are fakes. They are all fan boys masquerading as independent football writers. Frauds the lot of them. They should be made to wear their United scaffs and rosettes when they appear on tv just like Motor racing drivers wear their logos. Then we can see what liars they really are.
“Northern football writer” it says on the caption. Total Balls….. “Man U fan boy” is what it should say.
If you mean James Ducker, he is indeed a United fan. This is par for the course with the reporting, his predecessor at the Telegraph was such a rabid United fan that City wouldn’t speak to him (they didn’t ban him, they just wouldn’t talk to him outside of formal events), which is why he got moved on.
City fans have known it’s like this for ages. It’s interesting to see others spotting it too.
It’s so obvious. And I am most definitely not even a Man city fan.
This James bloke should be made to wear a United scarf on TV so we can all see what a fraud he is. It’s the pretence that they are Independent, and the numbers of them that pisses me off.
Just another reason why the English football writers are a waste of time. They have nothing to offer. Pure propaganda. If you want to write for a Man U fan site fine. Or get a job working on MUTV. Or wear your colours on your sleeve when you go on TV. But stop pretending you are a fair voice.
Everyone of their colums should have a health warning at the top of the page. “THRE NOW FOLLOWS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF MAN UTD FOOTBALL CLUB.”
Their sports editors are cowards also because the reason they employ these fan boys is because Man U have more fans than anyone else so they are worried that might upset them.
Punter calls the Aussie Pace attack “kids”
Starc is 27
Cummins is 24, but in cricket years he’s 34.
Play abandoned for the day.
I’ll call that Australia’s day.
But, while Starc has done a fair bit with the ball, it’s been no means unplayable. No reason why England can’t dig in and bat through tomorrow. If they do that, the draw, at least, is on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can think of 10 reasons why that won’t happen. Cook, Vince, Root, Malan…
Only 10 reasons?
9 sessions left in the match. England have 19 wickets left. They will have to bat 7 of those sessions to be safe. Maybe less if the rain helps them.
I make no predictions, but if Shaun Marsh can see off 230 balls then so can Cook, Root and Ali. Whatever Vince and Malan score is a bonus.
In other words, two away Tests ago…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Earth to Stocks…Earth to Stocks……
England are crap away from home. Unless they play on pitches with some seam and swing they are very average.
Perhaps he could ask Strauss where are all the young players coming through? Fast bowlers? Spin bowlers? Test match batsmen? Test cricket is not the prority anymore. Just ask 39.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But India concentrate on T20 nonsense. And still have excellent test players coming through…
Australia, not so much. Plenty of bowlers but batting cupboard looks awfully bare.
India has over a billion people, and cricket is possibly their premier sport. In England, generally sporty people will likely be drawn into football over cricket. Apart from the much greater public awareness of football in the UK, it’s also a smart career decision. I’d bet that the 1000th highest paid English footballer gets a lot more money than the 20th highest paid English cricketer.
The ECB don’t seem to have any decent plans for increasing the popularity of cricket, increasing the number of kids playing it, or increasing the quality and coaching of professional players. So we’re screwed for a generation or more, I’d guess.
Population isn’t the driver, it’s about how embedded a sport is in a culture. That’s why NZ are the premier rugby team in the world. Once you have a certain critical mass, it makes no difference how big the population is.
Their forward passing also helps….
You have to remember that in England cricket has disappeared from the sight of most kids for 10 years. It just vanished into thin air over night. No live coverage at all on free to air tv. No longer played in state schools.
These things have an effect over time.
Yes. It appears to be the case (I’m having a hard time finding figures which go back beyond 2010) that the number of children playing cricket is falling significantly. What makes me particularly curious is the gender split, as I would think that girls cricket is actually growing which would mean the decline in boys cricket is even greater than the headline figures might suggest.
So according to the latest Taking Part government survey, from 2010/11 to 2016/17 cricket participation in kids aged 5-10 has fallen 21.2% and in kids aged 11-15 it’s dropped by 22.5%.
Meanwhile, according to Sport England’s Active People Survey, cricket club membership for players aged 16+ has declined by 13.7% from 2007/8 to 2016/17.
The ECB’s plan to counteract this is to show 10-20 T20s per year on the BBC from 2020 onwards. Fingers crossed this will work, but I kind of doubt it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The ECB have taken to only publishing overall participation levels, precisely because the rise in girls and women playing (which is good news) masks the decline in male cricketers. Of all the things the ECB ought to be criticised for but aren’t, that is right at the top.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those figures are shocking but not surprising. They should be grounds for mass resignations for most at the ECB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS – Channelling my inner Botham, I stand by what I said at the start of this series. Shaun Marsh is a quality batsman. He was always going to be the difference between these two sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They have been showing the 1986/87 series, and the match at Adelaide. Wow, what a pretty ground it was, and what giant clusterf*** the new one is. No soul, no beauty. Just another football stadium.
On the plus side, 30000 extra people per day of test cricket/BBL match get to watch live cricket. Given that public access to cricket is one of the bugbears of many who read this blog, surely that counts for a lot.
I believe the ground has maintained much of the old character. The old scoreboard, the Moreton Bay Figs, the hill, the Cathedral in the background are all still there. The rest of the ground really wasn’t that pretty. My memories of watching cricket at Adelaide Oval stretch back to the early 90s, and I don’t long to bake in the sun without any shelter whatsoever on the bare concrete terraces that made up the eastern side, and while the old Giffen/Smith/Evan members stand might have looked like they had old world charm from afar, once you were sitting in them, they were a bit too old world. The new stands look better than the old Bradman stand at the southern end.
Adelaide Oval is the second best test ground I’ve been to behind Cape Town. It had character and charm, it had the old scoreboard and an open terrace. It catered for all. But time and money moves on. I’ll say this from seeing it on the TV, it isn’t as ugly as the MCG. The stands look quite decent for what is now, in essence, an AFL stadium, and there is still some of the old remaining.
I can vouch for the Giffen/Smith/Evan stands being crap. You pay a lot of money to watch cricket, and having a view interrupted by beams is not what a modern sports fan should put up with.
Iam sure that all the reasons for its redevelopment make commercial sense. More people, better hospitality etc etc.
It’s just as you get older you see the passing of old ways and old friends. I am glad I got to see (even only on TV) a time when there was real charm and diversity in cricket grounds. There was beauty to some of them. Part of the whole old fashioned cricket way of life. Same as the cricket writing that has long since departed the same platform.
I watch a lot of cricket these days on my TV and honestly I only know it is being played in a certain city because Iam told it is. All stadiums look the same. Concreate Roman theartres. Same Is true of modern premiership grounds.
Just have to put it down to glass is half full that you were lucky enough to see the old world that has gone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, what with Mark and his MancyU rant
The weather in Adelaide helping Eng from being total pants
I suggest we all head off and enticingly fill in
The BOC yearly poll for our (and their) sins…?
I have a theory that Broad and Jimmy convinced Root to bowl as they would “enforce”. And did not.
I think in the context of the final first innnings score this looks somewhat silly:
I wonder what Rabada is thinking…
Remember the legendary 4th day at Headingley against Sri Lanka? When people tried to absolve Cook of the blame for that nonsense by saying the bowlers (Broad and Jimmy) bowled how they wanted to?
As for the send-off, and the media urging us on to be arseholes, that’s great. Just great. The last lot out there were hammered and unpopular. This lot want to emulate that again?
Just to piss off more people…..I will have another rant…I know how unpopular this will be. But I don’t care. You said you want disagreement……so brace for a firestorm.
I see we have to have more gender politics imposed on us. Match of the day 2 now has to have its “token” obligatory female. With shrieking voice.
Can’t men just have one little area of life left alone from endless female hectoring? One oasis of escape through mens sport? I notice last week in all the Rugby autumn internationals that in all matches the interview afterwards has to be “compulsory” conducted by a woman. Are there no male rugby interviewers left at the BBC now? Has the coffe machine at BBC central so full of oestrogen that all the male sports reporters are turning female? The feminising of male sport continues at warp speed.
It is imposed from above for political reasons. I have no problem with Womans sport, and woman playing sport, but most woman are not remotely interested in Womans football, rugby or cricket. They prefer shoes,and fashion, and shopping. So they have to invade male sport.
I see ESP laid off another 150 staff last week adding to about 200 they laid off earlier in the year. That’s what happens with falling ratings. Can’t help thinking this is what happens when you impose gender and social politics onto all your sports coverage.
And men are never allowed to criticise this encroachment of their one haven from
modern life without being called sexist. The worst aspect is its so false. You know they are only there for tokenism, and some idiot producer with a clipboard who has a list of quotas that must be filled. Completely fake.
We have a considerable female readership on here. Why do you want to piss them off, Mark?
We said before, we don’t like to moderate. That policy should not be abused and put us on the spot. Over the last few years we’ve felt the need to moderate incredibly rarely. We are on the lookout for new readers, new people to talk to. We are not looking to just have disagreement for disagreement’s sake, and certainly not for posts that aren’t cricket related. This sort of comment, disagree with it as I do, does little to encourage people to join in.
I would just add the story of Doris Burke in the US on ABC/ESPN for basketball. She has worked her arse off to get where she has. She is so knowledgable about basketball she has been a commentator and a pundit. She has the respect of the toughest of male cookies in the environment, including one of the worst interviews in sport, Gregg Popovich in the middle of games. She gets horrendous, and I mean horrendous abuse, on social media just for doing a job she patently loves, is absolutely qualified for, and performs better than the vast majority of her peers. Why should she be denied an opportunity to fulfil her ambitions? Rather have those who’ve got there through graft than the Lovejoys of this world. By a mile.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s your site Dmitri, and you have the right to moderate whatever you want. And whatever subject you choose. I have no problem with that. And would defend your right to do so. However I did note that It was mentioned that you would like a bit more argument. Obviously that appears to be not on this particular subject.
I don’t want to piss off anyone for the sake of it. This is not an attempt to be controversial for effect. But I do believe in saying things which may not be popular. I know this subject is not popular, but it is my view. I don’t doubt that individually some of these woman may be knowledgeable of certain sports. What I resent is the way this is pushed quite deliberately in a blatently politically correct way. It is part of much more wide ranging social agenda that most people are not aware of.
Make no mistake this is being impossed top down, not bottom up. I see a quite deliberate attempt to femismise all mens sports coverage and at the same time to remove male role models from modern culture. Most men are now portrayed in dramas and films as weak, or stupid or wife cheating or criminal. When all those fail…gay. Even in documemtries working class culture and particularly male role models are in short supply. I don’t think this is by mistake but by design.
Anyway, This Subject is obviously taboo. Watch out Gary Lineker, You will soon be replaced by Gabby Rosslin.
It’s not taboo Mark, and it’s still not going to get moderated. It’s just that it places us in a difficult position in terms of others objecting to it. It’s the immovable force against the unstoppable object.
Any community has to get on by respecting those with different views, irrespective of whether we might agree with them or not. It’s a delicate line to tread, and one that’s not easy, and I promise you, it’s something that we discuss.
Refusal to moderate unless it breaches the three conditions posted the other day is an absolute. Asking everyone to not cause us headaches by setting friend against friend, poster against poster is just a friendly request from the four of us, because (and this isn’t corporate bullshit sanctimony) we really do value the different views.
Not going to stop you, not going to remove a post. But does cause us stress. Yes it does.
Appreate that, and fully understand your dilema.
I will reign my neck in on this subject. Just as a parting point I will say that the only sports my wife and her friends are interested in is anything female or male on horses…. woman playing tennis, yes. Or woman at Olympics.
Woman playing football or cricket or rugby. Absolutely no interest whatsoever. I on the other hand have no interest or expertise in shoes, fashion or cosmetics. And my wife is delighted it stays that way.
I’m not biting
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok, I’ll bite. In a very small way.
I might have a bit more sympathy for the “men are never allowed to criticise this…. without being called sexist” if your opening gambit didn’t include sexist phrases like “shrieking voice” and “endless female hectoring,” not to mention the nonsense (for which my daughter would probably stamp on your foot for) of the “they prefer shoes and fashion and shopping.”
I’m guessing your female circle of acquaintances is quite small. Or quite self-selecting.
Can’t imagine why that might be!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said Northern Lights.
Mark if you feel that strongly about it go and write your own blog and see how successful it is.
For what it’s worth I think it’s great that women are involved in sport as competitors, as journalists and as reporters and comentators. Sure enough some might not be that good and some might be very good. Just like the men in fact.
As a huge fan of this blog I’d be gutted if any female followers stopped reading it because of Mark’s views.
As I say I am not against Womans sport in any way, and many woman particpate in sport which is good for them, and their health. But they don’t watch female sport in big numbers which is why most female sports are done on a small budget.
I’m sorry if this view is offensive but it s true. How much money generated by the men’s game goes to fund Womans cricket? If Womans cricket is so popular it could fund itself.
I certainly hope no female will stop reading this site because of anything I have written, but no woman I know would be driven away so easily.
I am going to respectfully ask for all parties to this to end the comments on this particular issue. This is only going to end in further recriminations and nothing great is going to come from it.
I made the point earlier that we treasure our no moderation policy. I also tried to make the point that this is a two way street and we shouldn’t be put in place to decide to moderate. For us to keep it intact, it also needs people to take responsibility for what they say and how it might impact. It is why we do not want people to talk politics on here – nothing good comes from it.
If this isn’t respected, I’ll have no choice but to close comments on this post. Something I’ve never done. Don’t make me do it. [Update – I cannot close comments without installing a plug-in which will cost us £30+ a year. The nuclear option is turn the post private. As I said, don’t make me do it.]
As I clearly state…..my comments about shoes, and fashion and shopping where made in relation to what woman prefer. Shopping or actually watching female sport. Most woman don’t watch female sport. You may not like it, but it’s a Fact. You may not like it, and your daughter and your LARGE circle of female friends may not like it but it’s true.
Which is why there is no money in female sport outside of a very few sports like tennis and golf. If it was not the case……Match of the day would have the Premiership Womans league on Saturday night at prime time.
Female sport would love to have the vast amounts of money generated by shoe sales and fashion and retail. Sorry if you find that offensive, but it happens to be true. When woman on mass stop funding those industries and instead plough their money into watching female sport I will listen, but I won’t hold my breath.
There isn’t the time or the space here to enter a long discussion about the relative popularity of sport on TV, whether female or male. I’d guess a lot more people watch women’s tennis than watch men’s curling, but what does that prove?
Whatever else is true, I want my daughter to grow up knowing that whatever she happens to be interested in, she won’t be hindered from doing it just because she’s female. Seeing female journalists talking about sport on TV – whether its men or women playing the sport – shows her that you don’t have to be a man to be a sport’s journalist. Unless you think (which I’m sure you don’t) that you can only comment on sport if you’ve played it at the highest level, like Mr Michael Vaughan?
I’m sorry you feel your men-only enclaves are being encroached upon when one or two out of the twenty or thirty people in the TV and print media talking about the cricket is female. There is certainly some truth in your point about invisible quotas and box-ticking, but sadly you’re not the person best placed to complain about it if you come across as simply against any female involvement in places you don’t like seeing them. In fact, you sound very much like an old-fashioned MCC member horrified that they now let women into the Long Room at Lords.
How do you feel about the female posters on this blog? Assuming you think they have interesting and valid things to say, why shouldn’t the newspapers and TV let female journalists comment on the cricket? I’m not a fan of Ebony Rainford-Brent but I still prefer her to Graeme Swann. Nothing to do with gender, all to do with the relative pain in my ears when they talk.
Luckily for those of us who don’t fancy spending their spare time shopping or watching tennis, the world is more complex than that.
Also, assuming it is true that those T20 leagues generate a lot of money (and I’ve seen conflicting accounts) and Test cricket is supposed to live off these, never mind the county game (which is my personal favourite), are you suggesting we should only have T20 in the future, because that’s where the money is? I might be a hopeless romantic, but I don’t believe only things that generate a profit are worthwhile. (Of course, that’s a different can of worms.)
Personally I suspect that eventually T20 and Test/First class cricket will become completely separate sports, like rugby union and rugby league. All sports are basically run as businesses now, and at some point they will ask why they are using money from one format to finance the other. And not come up with a good enough answer.
Not going to go away or be annoyed at all, but I’d just like to say I think you’re missing a point, Mark, which is that quite a lot of women do watch men’s sport. Obviously not those in your family, but we do. Sometimes for reasons you might find quite annoying, such as when we’re young and the players are handsome. But also out of genuine interest and with a bit of expertise and from loyalty – the most dedicated football supporter I know is an older lady. And we buy tickets and pay Sky subscriptions (with the money we have left over from shoes). So maybe the female commentators are there to represent us, the female part of the audience? Is that not OK?
Regarding your earlier point about the absence of good male role models on TV, I agree with you, but I don’t think it’s a female plot or ‘political correctness’. I think there’s a general infantilisation of both genders. We could have a lengthy discussion about it but this isn’t the place. Certainly, today’s cricket players don’t offer role models of anything very grown-up at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Newman’s first line –
“Nasser Hussain can never travel too far without being reminded of his infamous decision to bowl first in Brisbane 15 years ago. Joe Root may get to know the feeling unless England’s batsmen dig their captain out of an almighty hole”
And later –
“Marsh who, in the company of Pat Cummins, firstly frustrated England and then started embarrassing them as they made a total mockery of Root’s ill-fated gamble at the toss”.
Newman is really determined that Root owns every potential defeat and every questionable decision is linked back to him. No “he’s inexperienced and learning”, no “never lost his dignity”, nothing from the playbook of the previous four years.
There’s “England’s one-dimensional attack was bereft of pace, energy, imagination and ideas while the body language was of a beaten team at an absurdly early stage of the series on only the second day of the second Test” as well. Just in case anyone didn’t get the message.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They still long for Cook. He’s like their very own Bonny prince Charlie in exile……”Oh won’t you come back again.”
Root has had more stick as captain (deserves it for this call) than in all Cooks career.
Saw this coming from so far away I was checking his tweets at 6:15am for any evidence of #blameRoot.
No-one, and I mean no-one, at Brisbane that day in 2002 thought bowling first was a good idea outside of the England brain’s trust. There hadn’t been a drop of rain in the area for ages (I remember the drought warnings everywhere).
Watch the intro to the opening day’s play. Boycott, the ultimate bat first man, said he didn’t know. Root bats first and we are bowled out for 100 and he gets it. But somehow it’s worse because, reasons….
Cook was inexperienced and learning as captain past his 30th birthday, and having been in charge for a couple of years.
Welcome to the media of old, Joe.
Cook was given a pass for his whole period as captain. The media through away their entire integrity to protect Cook and Strauss. Now Cook has gone… normal service has been renewed. Oh, and Root has to be blamed or the fires may start to lap at Strauss’s feet.
Quite shocking the deception . This last 4 years has been a blip, not the norm. As this site has documented.
Your right about one thing – it will be unpopular.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry – that was meant to be a reply to Mark
Shaun Marsh made four centuries in 24 tests before this one. Why is everyone surprised that he gets runs?
Also, about Blundell getting a century against West Indies: “Poor Trent Boult”? I had to watch this for an hour and a half! At least Blundell had the decency not to play a half-hearted sweep shot on 99. On the plus side, I didn’t get up to watch England-Australia this morning. 😉
Only 24 tests for 8 recalls? Wow! He must be wondering what a full series feels like. Aussie selection certainly not erring on the side of “rather one too many than one test too few” (CF Vince).
It was always going to be boom or bust. That’s been the story of his career. It might be a return to bust before the end of the series.
There were some massive leaps in logic made by the selectors to contrive to pick him, but it wasn’t the worst they could do. He might have been the least risky pick, and couldn’t have been worse than his brother, Ferguson, Maddinson or any of the other duds that have played at 6 in the past 5 years.
120* and 50 must be the best return from 6 and 7 that Australia have had in a decade.
He is in the same sort of group as Khawaja. He’ll have good spells and bad spells. He’ll never be THE man, but he could be a useful batsman. It’s so damn hard following a golden generation of batsmen.
Similar to how it took Australia five years before they stopped trying to measure Nathan Lyon vs Shane Warne – but in that they stuck with him they found that he had become Nathan Lyon and this in fact was all right.
Team compositions have to change over time and there is going to be tension between the roles of established players and developing ones.
Of course Anderson always opens the bowling. Wherever will a partner to Cook be found. The wicketkeeping has to score runs and shepherd the tail. The spinner has to be an all rounder. The ECB XI is built around long term fixed points and conceptions that reach right back into the pipeline.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“they stuck with him”.
They also got very lucky – he would have been dropped for this match last year if SNJOK had been fit. However he was probably owed that bit of luck after being dropped for TB in 2013, the match after taking 7/94.
Not sure if you have my twitter feed, Sophie, but Blundell was doing my head in last night. It’s not that he took so long through the 90s it was the pressure he put Trent Boult under while not taking a risk, especially from 96 onward. Then he dances down the track, inside hoicks it for a run to get his hundred. To rub salt in the wounds, soon after he hits Chase for a massive 6.
Also a part of me feels good when Kraigg Brathwaite makes runs.
Heh, I don’t know anywhere near enough about batting that I can judge that, but I figured they didn’t need the runs so it wouldn’t really have mattered if Boult had gotten out and Williamson should have declared already once that kept going for a few overs. (Not really, I suppose.) And, see start of first sentence, and I’m somewhat joking, but I thought Boult looked better than Handscomb the night before. Or morning. I don’t remember.
Brathwaite is wonderfully truculent at his best and his average will continue to improve until he retires.
Martin Samuel in “what the f*** is this” form…
There is a scene in the film The Blues Brothers, when the band – a tight R&B outfit performing covers of classics by Muddy Waters and Solomon Burke – turn up at a honky tonk in the middle of nowhere.
Mistaken for the headline act, The Good Ole Boys, they ask their hostess what type of music her establishment usually showcases.
‘Oh we got both kinds,’ she replies cheerfully. ‘We got country and western.’
What follows is the world exclusive that their bowlers are quicker than ours, with some nuggets he picked up from reading them somewhere else. It’s not Haigh. It really isn’t.
Perhaps his mate Ollie Holt could use his chummy Twitter realtionship with Broad to ask him why England’s bowlers are so unable to pitch the ball up? That of course would break the Twitter matey journo/player ACCESS realtionship.
Instead, they can keep patting each other on the back about Holt’s bland interview with KP. A pointless excercise about 4 years too late. So now KP is ageing, and safely tucked away saving the Rhino he can be rehabilitated from panto Villan to national treasure. It’s the British way.
To be fair, some kind of rehabilitation for him is more than I expected. I more thought it would be at Tony Greig levels. But it is so ironic, isn’t it?
Broad bowled pretty well, I believe.
But if you ask /that / question you are questioning the beatification of St Jimmy of Burnley, and that would never do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone checking in to TMS/BT sport at 3am today? I have a sick child so might actually be awake. Hopefully not.
If Cook is batting at 7.20GMT tomorrow is that a good thing, or are we following on?
Probably a good thing. Although it probably means there has been rain rather than Cook batting out 4 hours.
GD beats the Wood drum again:
If they decide to go that way in Perth, how do they fit Wood into the team? Overton had the best figures and, along with Broad, was the best bowler IMO. If they drop Woakes the tail looks horrendous and they aren’t going to drop St Jimmy of GOAT.
They’ll drop Overton, won’t they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wood is quickish, and that’s it. There’s nothing in his career to suggest he’s going to be a better Test bowler than Jake Ball.
The sacred cow attitude towards Jimmy is ridiculous. If he were a footballer then by this late stage in his career the number 9 shirt would have gone to a younger, faster, hungrier centre forward who’s more likely to score when it matters most – while his skills and experience would perhaps be better utilised in midfield. Clearly on one level he’s irreplaceable and (within reason) stays in the team until he hangs up his boots. But should a 35 yr. old medium pacer who tends only to be a potent wicket taking threat when certain specific combinations of weather conditions and playing surface characteristics align (which happens more often at home than abroad) really be taking the new ball and leading the attack? Oh, but that’s part if the problem, isn’t it? Where is our next potent young strike bowler?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I certainly think that if they don’t pitch it up with the new ball then they should be pulled out of the attack a lot quicker. They often seem to waste the new ball.
Wood gets talked up but he seems to bowl the occasional quick ball rather than a sustained spell of hostile fast bowling. He also doesn’t seem to move it much. I don’t think the Australians will loose to much sleep about Wood playing.