[Cricket] England v Australia- 5th Test- Sydney 3rd-7th January 2018

[spring hall convert]

Bayliss has not improved this side at all.

I'd argue he wasn't really brought in to improve this side. He was brought in to get our one day cricket up to standard, which he has.

I think the time may have come for separate coaches for the one day and test teams. The disciplines are so different now.

 

[Audax]

I'd argue he wasn't really brought in to improve this side. He was brought in to get our one day cricket up to standard, which he has.

I think the time may have come for separate coaches for the one day and test teams. The disciplines are so different now.

The irony here being that you had exactly that not so long ago. I believe you still do, but the structure is a little different so it's not as obvious (Bayliss remains in overall control, but there are match-type specific coaches in the setup iirc).

 

[Dave the OAP]

10. Hazlewood has 2 to bowl at Moeen first thing in the morning. Could be carnage in the first hour given how long the English tail is this game.

Before the new ball was taken, with 220/3 on the board, it was England's day. 10 balls later and it's Australia's day and prospects of a very deficient first innings total looming.

Have to feel Root was done in by the ball before. He was lucky to survive that one, it's probably affected his thinking and resulted in the poor shot being played. Whether that's the case or not, though, it's yet another case of a 50+ score not being converted. It's interesting to compare with Smith: both have played roughly similar number of innings, and both have scored a similar number of 50+ scores. In fact, Root has more: 49 scores of 50 or more from 118 innings (41.5%), while Smith has 45 from 110 innings (40.9%). Where the stark difference lies is in the conversion of 50+ into 100+: Root has just 13 centuries (11% of all innings, 26.5% of those where 50 is reached) to Smith's 23 (20.9% of all innings, 51% of those where 50 is reached). That difference becomes even more in Smith's favour when you take into account his "first" career (picked as an all-rounder) where he didn't impress - Smith didn't have any 100+ scores until his 23rd innings, while Root's first his 10th innings. Smith's innings-to-centuries conversion rate since that first hundred is a massive 26%, while Root's is half that at 13%.

But Smith is the world's number 1 batsman.

Root unfortunately has been lured into the trap that the English love to do. Find a young player who is very very good....see him score amazing scores...build him up in the press as the next Bradman...start to whinge about where he should be batting 3 or 4...question his stickability after a couple of low scores...make him captain when he is too young and inexperienced...expect him to get all the runs when everyone else around him is struggling and he is thinking about what he should be doing as a captain.....now he is being questioned, especially by Vaughan who is the most negative **** these days ( Oh it wasnt like my days) since Boycott.

I have been watching and playing cricket for over 50 years and I was just waiting for the Root is to blame headlines in the press and it wont be long. The simple fact is that we are probably number 5 in the world after Aus, Ind, Pak and SA and people must accept that. We may be quite good at hitting the ball hard out the ground in mickey mouse cricket, but in test cricket we havent the mentality to hang around and bat for a session, let alone a day. Some of the shots that our top 4 play are just reckless, especially when they are just in...

 

[Audax]

But Smith is the world's number 1 batsman.

Root unfortunately has been lured into the trap that the English love to do. Find a young player who is very very good....see him score amazing scores...build him up in the press as the next Bradman...start to whinge about where he should be batting 3 or 4...question his stickability after a couple of low scores...make him captain when he is too young and inexperienced...expect him to get all the runs when everyone else around him is struggling and he is thinking about what he should be doing as a captain.....now he is being questioned, especially by Vaughan who is the most negative **** these days ( Oh it wasnt like my days) since Boycott.

I have been watching and playing cricket for over 50 years and I was just waiting for the Root is to blame headlines in the press and it wont be long. The simple fact is that we are probably number 5 in the world after Aus, Ind, Pak and SA and people must accept that. We may be quite good at hitting the ball hard out the ground in mickey mouse cricket, but in test cricket we havent the mentality to hang around and bat for a session, let alone a day. Some of the shots that our top 4 play are just reckless, especially when they are just in...

Root's a quality bat. That much is clear - you don't score as many 50+ scores as he does without having some talent. There's clearly something missing in his temperament though. Looks to me like he drops out mentally once the hard work is already done. If he can iron that out of his game, he has the potential to be as good as Smith. So I don't think the comparison with Smith is that unfair. Root scores more 50+ scores than Smith does. The only thing stopping Root from being one of the top 2-3 bats in the world is that conversion rate from 50's into 100's, and that's the key difference between Smith and Root.

 

[spring hall convert]

The irony here being that you had exactly that not so long ago. I believe you still do, but the structure is a little different so it's not as obvious (Bayliss remains in overall control, but there are match-type specific coaches in the setup iirc).

I just think that a scenario where the guy carrying the can for Test performance knows **** all about country cricket isn't right.

But my original point is assessing Bayliss' performance as coach is tricky because it really depends on where your (and more importantly the ECB's) priorities are. Under him and Farbrace, England very quickly went from 8 or 9 in the world to 2 or 3 in the world in the one day stuff and are roughly where they were in Test cricket.

 

[spring hall convert]

The simple fact is that we are probably number 5 in the world after Aus, Ind, Pak and SA and people must accept that. We may be quite good at hitting the ball hard out the ground in mickey mouse cricket, but in test cricket we havent the mentality to hang around and bat for a session, let alone a day. Some of the shots that our top 4 play are just reckless, especially when they are just in...

And we have a bowling attack that can't take 20 wickets in the subcontinent or on good tracks without swing. We have to begin the process of addressing this now and that means playing a proper spinner and a proper quick, even if results suffer short term at home.

Or accept that we're going to get hidings when we go to Australia and India and struggle against Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I'm of the opposite view. Night watchman is an absolutely shìt concept, so I'm glad Bairstow went out. A recognised batsman ought to be able to see out two overs, and just because he didn't on this occasion doesn't prove that it was a bad idea.

That is a very strong opinion about something that must surely be at least debatable...

Ed Smith on TMS was more balanced in his observations about the use of a nightwatchman. He made a good point that Bairstow in particular is a "poor starter" (likes to feel bat on ball a bit quickly) and thus is especially vulnerable early on. It is with T20 hindsight of course, and the horse has long disappeared over the horizon, but I don't think Bairstow should have been allowed to go in against a new ball with only a couple of overs left in the day...

 

[Uncle Buck]

I have been watching and playing cricket for over 50 years and I was just waiting for the Root is to blame headlines in the press and it wont be long. The simple fact is that we are probably number 5 in the world after Aus, Ind, Pak and SA and people must accept that. We may be quite good at hitting the ball hard out the ground in mickey mouse cricket, but in test cricket we havent the mentality to hang around and bat for a session, let alone a day. Some of the shots that our top 4 play are just reckless, especially when they are just in...

I disagree with us being 5th in the world.

The reality is the 5 you list are all fairly closely matched, but nobody seems to be able to win away on a regular basis.

South Africa were soundly beaten in England (oddly England did win out there).

Last time Australia and India came to England they were beaten with ease (I know the last Ashes were 3-2, but England were 3-1 up having destroyed Australia at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge and did not turn up at the Oval).

At present there is not a stand out team and the home team is making sure that the pitches suit their bowlers, which is within the rules.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I disagree with us being 5th in the world.

The reality is the 5 you list are all fairly closely matched, but nobody seems to be able to win away on a regular basis.

South Africa were soundly beaten in England (oddly England did win out there).

Last time Australia and India came to England they were beaten with ease (I know the last Ashes were 3-2, but England were 3-1 up having destroyed Australia at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge and did not turn up at the Oval).

At present there is not a stand out team and the home team is making sure that the pitches suit their bowlers, which is within the rules.

as it always has been. I remember my Dad getting all uppity when we went to India I think it was when they had two world class spinner Behdi was one and on the radio they were saying that the pitch had been "manipulated" to take spin...as a kid I had no idea what that meant until I played for Sussex Young Cricketers and we went to play at Canterbury against Kent YC's and the wicket had been "prepared" as flat and hard to take bounce from a couple of quicks they had...

 

[BensGrandad]

I think that I would have sent Moeen Ali out for the last over or two and kept Bairstow back for the morning session to bat with Malaan and perhaps put on some runs. This is two fold as JB is more likely to get a big score than Moeen Ali but is a slow starter and MA is more likley to have kept his wicket intact by his style of batting.

 

[Perry Milkins]

I think that I would have sent Moeen Ali out for the last over or two and kept Bairstow back for the morning session to bat with Malaan and perhaps put on some runs. This is two fold as JB is more likely to get a big score than Moeen Ali but is a slow starter and MA is more likley to have kept his wicket intact by his style of batting.

Really?

 

[Simster]

I think that I would have sent Moeen Ali out for the last over or two and kept Bairstow back for the morning session to bat with Malaan and perhaps put on some runs. This is two fold as JB is more likely to get a big score than Moeen Ali but is a slow starter and MA is more likley to have kept his wicket intact by his style of batting.

Agreed. If Bairstow is a notorious slow starter, then just drop him one down the order and let Ali come in. Night watchmen are just a stupid idea. It just makes a mockery of the whole reason behind putting your best batsmen in before the rabbits.

 

[Audax]

That is a very strong opinion about something that must surely be at least debatable...

Ed Smith on TMS was more balanced in his observations about the use of a nightwatchman. He made a good point that Bairstow in particular is a "poor starter" (likes to feel bat on ball a bit quickly) and thus is especially vulnerable early on. It is with T20 hindsight of course, and the horse has long disappeared over the horizon, but I don't think Bairstow should have been allowed to go in against a new ball with only a couple of overs left in the day...

TMS pundits (forget who specific) also made a very valid point that the current England line up (without Woakes in the side) probably doesn't have a clear choice for nightwatchman anyway. Especially when you're sending him out to face Starc with a new cherry and getting late swing. I wouldn't be surprised if they did have someone padded up to take on those duties, and made an on-the-spot decision that sending a nightwatchman risked losing the NWM to a Starc late swinging yorker and still exposing Bairstow, so they chose to send out the best bat they had left and hope for the best.

Possibly what should have happened is for Malan and Bairstow to refuse the run at the end of the Starc over and let Malan see off Hazlewood as the set man.

Last time Australia and India came to England they were beaten with ease (I know the last Ashes were 3-2, but England were 3-1 up having destroyed Australia at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge and did not turn up at the Oval).

At present there is not a stand out team and the home team is making sure that the pitches suit their bowlers, which is within the rules.

We were soundly beaten, but there was more to that series and a 3-2 scoreline was actually quite fair. It came down to which side won key sessions, and a couple of inspired bowling spells from Anderson and Broad. The Aussies also brought a badly structured side for that series. Clarke and Smith in the same side didn't work (because they're both natural #4's), Johnson and Starc together in English conditions didn't work (Siddle should have played).

To be fair, you've brought a badly structured side to Australia as well. Too many left handers in a side facing Lyon in conditions suitable to his style. Moeen kept in the side despite having been comprehensively worked over and with confidence clearly shattered. Broad/Anderson having no answers unless the conditions came to them. Root not converting his starts into match winning (or saving) contributions. Same can be said of Stoneman and Vince - they've both made some great starts and then thrown it away.

One thing you get to go home with, though - I think Malan's secured the #5 slot. As long as the selectors don't go stupid and try solving the #3 slot by moving Root or Malan up, you've got a solid 4/5/6 (once Stokes returns) for the future.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

TMS pundits (forget who specific) also made a very valid point that the current England line up (without Woakes in the side) probably doesn't have a clear choice for nightwatchman anyway. Especially when you're sending him out to face Starc with a new cherry and getting late swing. I wouldn't be surprised if they did have someone padded up to take on those duties, and made an on-the-spot decision that sending a nightwatchman risked losing the NWM to a Starc late swinging yorker and still exposing Bairstow, so they chose to send out the best bat they had left and hope for the best.

Yes. Agreed that there were many factors at play.

Sending out the batsman, in this case Bairstow, to see off just a few balls feels to me a bit like betting at long odds on. It will "work" and produce a small win most of the time but that doesn't make it the best strategy.

 

[spring hall convert]

One thing you get to go home with, though - I think Malan's secured the #5 slot. As long as the selectors don't go stupid and try solving the #3 slot by moving Root or Malan up, you've got a solid 4/5/6 (once Stokes returns) for the future.

If the penny has dropped finally that Ali isn't a front-line Test Match spinner then I think they'll be a serious temptation to fit him in at 6 in the hope that he can earn his crust as a batman and auxiliary spinner. But you're right, I don't see Stokes or Malan batting at 3, especially in English conditions and Root doesn't want it.

 

[Dave the OAP]

That is assuming Stokes will get to,play for England again.

 

[spring hall convert]

That is assuming Stokes will get to,play for England again.

Blimey. There's a horrible thought.

 

[Pavilionaire]

How ironic that that nightwatchman situation arose when Woakes wasn't playing, he would have been a perfect choice for that situation.

 

[Uncle Buck]

We were soundly beaten, but there was more to that series and a 3-2 scoreline was actually quite fair. It came down to which side won key sessions, and a couple of inspired bowling spells from Anderson and Broad. The Aussies also brought a badly structured side for that series. Clarke and Smith in the same side didn't work (because they're both natural #4's), Johnson and Starc together in English conditions didn't work (Siddle should have played).

To be fair, you've brought a badly structured side to Australia as well. Too many left handers in a side facing Lyon in conditions suitable to his style. Moeen kept in the side despite having been comprehensively worked over and with confidence clearly shattered. Broad/Anderson having no answers unless the conditions came to them. Root not converting his starts into match winning (or saving) contributions. Same can be said of Stoneman and Vince - they've both made some great starts and then thrown it away.

One thing you get to go home with, though - I think Malan's secured the #5 slot. As long as the selectors don't go stupid and try solving the #3 slot by moving Root or Malan up, you've got a solid 4/5/6 (once Stokes returns) for the future.

Fair summary.

I think the England squad was wrong from the start. The Stokes thing has dragged on too long. Whilst his bowling probably would not have made a huge difference, we have missed his batting and ability to take the game away.

It was obvious with the squad picked that the bowlers were too similar. We needed pace in the air and none of those bowlers offer that. Although it would probably have been more painful with Roland-Jones playing.

Whether Finn would have made a difference is questionable, he has an OK record in Australia and might have got something out of Perth, but he could have also fallen apart.

Oddly we have lost most of the games in a session rather than being blown away like last time.

However, administrators aside, it is not all doom and gloom for England. Stokes will eventually be back. I hope they consider Hales at 5, with Malan going in at 3. Vince is not up to it, his technique is too loose and the problems that blighted him before have not been sorted. Cook has another Ashes cycle in him if he wants to, same with Broad. Anderson could play on to the next home series, depends if he wants the 600 test wickets. I think Stoneman, a bit like Rogers a couple of years ago for Australia, offers a short term solution. Also there is not really another option in County Cricket (Hameed needs to sort out his issues with the short ball).

Bowler wise Sam Curran and Jamie Overton probably offer more pace than the brothers playing, if they can stay fit. Also what money on Archer and Garton opening the bowling at the Gabba in 2021? Left / Right combination with pace.

Not sure with Crane at this stage, purely because too many spinners have been overly hyped and disappeared (Kerrigan being an example). Suspect England will continue with Ali for the moment due to the batting and ability to get wickets in England.

End of waffling.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed. If Bairstow is a notorious slow starter, then just drop him one down the order and let Ali come in. Night watchmen are just a stupid idea. It just makes a mockery of the whole reason behind putting your best batsmen in before the rabbits.

But in that situation today, with the new ball, shadows across the pitch, it might arguably be the toughest over or 2 anyone will have to face in the match (given the extra hour). Had Jimmy gone in and got out, the day would have still ended, but we'd be thinking okay Bairstow and Ali still to come.

In some situations they are, when you have 10 overs left or something, but those last moments after Root went, you've got to send one in surely?