Fourth Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, Chester le Street 9-13 Aug 2013

[Baron Pepperpot]

Good idea. Drop the leading wicket taker in the series so far, who can also bat a bit when needed

Yeah, strange selection that would have been !

 

[spring hall convert]

Our batting (Bell aside) has been disgusting so far, plus with our extremely negative tactics it'll be 3 seamers + Swann.

Eh? Root & Pietersen have both scored tons in this series (Root's a biggie) & this Australian attack is good. Look how they fared against South Africa for evidence of that.

I don't think we've been completely at our best with the bat but disgusting is ridiculous

 

[Titanic]

I would have chosen Panesar over Swann.

Brilliant

 

[spring hall convert]

That surprises me. Given the build up he has had in the run up to this game, I thought he would have been nailed on. Personally, I think Trott is very lucky to have kept his place. James Taylor deserved a go on merit.

I wonder if you people watch cricket outside the Ashes. Trott is not lucky to have kept his place, he's had a tough series, it happens. His record in Test Match cricket is up there with the best & his overall record against Australia is exceptional. I'm a keen advocate of Taylor & I think he's a really talented player but this is just crazy talk. Trott will be England's number 3 in Australia this winter even if he weren't to score another run in the series, on merit. You can't score runs every innings, that's why you have 6 (or 7 in England's case) batsmen.

Get a grip.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So far on this thread we've had:
1) Taylor in for Trott
2) Panesar in for Swann

I, like T Soprano, should be banned from starting threads if this is what's going to happen either with results, or quality of posts...

 

[spring hall convert]

Since when has Chester-le-Street been a test ground? What's its capacity and has it replaced one of the other six? I imagine hotel rooms will be at a premium in such a little town!

Money (the Emirates sponsorship probably doesn't hurt either.)

Having said that Durham is a beautiful place and Chester Le Street, a lovely place to watch cricket.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

The way England start batting is infuriating. I'm all in favour of being careful at the start, but we take it to an extreme level. 1.9 runs an over isn't the way to win a test match... it just means we're on 160 when the second new ball is used, and we're probably 4 or 5 down. We need to be going for a run rate of 3-3.5 an over.

Taylor does deserve his chance, ahead of Bairstow who would be a useful batsman if he bowled like Bresnan. Unfortunately he doesn't.

 

[spring hall convert]

You have to feel sorry for Onions, Tremlett, Finn & Panesar. In most other eras they would have picked up 50+ test caps each

 

[crodonilson]

The way England start batting is infuriating. I'm all in favour of being careful at the start, but we take it to an extreme level. 1.9 runs an over isn't the way to win a test match... it just means we're on 160 when the second new ball is used, and we're probably 4 or 5 down. We need to be going for a run rate of 3-3.5 an over.

Taylor does deserve his chance, ahead of Bairstow who would be a useful batsman if he bowled like Bresnan. Unfortunately he doesn't.

Our general tactics are exceptionally negative. This comes from Flower, and now being backed up by his captain Cook.

 

[knocky1]

So far on this thread we've had:
1) Taylor in for Trott
2) Panesar in for Swann

I, like T Soprano, should be banned from starting threads if this is what's going to happen either with results, or quality of posts...

I thought mine was a classic post but maybe I am just too clever.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The way England start batting is infuriating. I'm all in favour of being careful at the start, but we take it to an extreme level. 1.9 runs an over isn't the way to win a test match... it just means we're on 160 when the second new ball is used, and we're probably 4 or 5 down. We need to be going for a run rate of 3-3.5 an over.

Taylor does deserve his chance, ahead of Bairstow who would be a useful batsman if he bowled like Bresnan. Unfortunately he doesn't.

The ball is new and the Australian attack is decent. The pressure is on. You can't just turn on a tap and start hitting boundaries until you've created a platform from which to attack. This is proper cricket, with plenty of time left to get a result.

Re Bairstow - I think you need to look at your original point, i.e. slow scoring. Bairstow usually scores at a fair rate of knots, and his aggressive punchy style is one of the reasons he's in the side. He needs a score, but I don't think Taylor's done enough to displace him just yet.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

The ball is new and the Australian attack is decent. The pressure is on. You can't just turn on a tap and start hitting boundaries until you've created a platform from which to attack. This is proper cricket, with plenty of time left to get a result.

Re Bairstow - I think you need to look at your original point, i.e. slow scoring. Bairstow usually scores at a fair rate of knots, and his aggressive punchy style is one of the reasons he's in the side. He needs a score, but I don't think Taylor's done enough to displace him just yet.

The Australian attack is OK... nothing more. England put themselves under pressure by not scoring at a decent rate - I'm not asking them to smack boundaries around the park, but today there wasn't a single boundary in the first twelve overs & the Ozzies didn't bowl well.

In terms of Bairstow, I would have kept faith with Compton & had Root down the order. Bairstow is extremely lucky to be in this side.

 

[Titanic]

LUNCH: England 57-1 (27 overs)

Cook 21* Trott 13*

Scoring rate only 2.11 per over, but only one wicket in the session... no real advantage gained by either side, yet.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I thought mine was a classic post but maybe I am just too clever.

I think you may have been scuppered, satirically at least by the Trott shout earlier!

 

[Billy the Fish]

The Australian attack is OK... nothing more. England put themselves under pressure by not scoring at a decent rate - I'm not asking them to smack boundaries around the park, but today there wasn't a single boundary in the first twelve overs & the Ozzies didn't bowl well.

In terms of Bairstow, I would have kept faith with Compton & had Root down the order. Bairstow is extremely lucky to be in this side.

Nonsense. The outfield is really slow so boundries are hard to come by. It's a slow pitch which are always a bit harder to score on. Australia generally bowled a decent line.

The aussie bowlers are much better than you're giving credit for.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I wonder if you people watch cricket outside the Ashes.

Indeed, some ridiculous comments on this thread

 

[knocky1]

I think you may have been scuppered, satirically at least by the Trott shout earlier!

Ok. Too thick.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Nonsense. The outfield is really slow so boundries are hard to come by. It's a slow pitch which are always a bit harder to score on. Australia generally bowled a decent line.

The aussie bowlers are much better than you're giving credit for.

Has the outfield been slow on every pitch England have played on for the past two years?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Nonsense. The outfield is really slow so boundries are hard to come by. It's a slow pitch which are always a bit harder to score on. Australia generally bowled a decent line.

The aussie bowlers are much better than you're giving credit for.

Is it? I wouldn't have said it was quick, but from what I've seen so far I wouldn't describe it as slow either. Seems to be going through to Haddin quite nicely, as did Root's catch at a good height. This square has been a seamers paradise most of the season.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I would have chosen Panesar over Swann.

Panesar has not be overly great for Sussex this season. If it is a spinner on form (which Swann is), then Kerrigan would be next pick.

I suppose at least we could watch Monty having a slash around his off stump.