How immune does that make you from the chop? Someone would have to make wayQuick reminder Ollie Pope is vice captain
How immune does that make you from the chop? Someone would have to make wayQuick reminder Ollie Pope is vice captain
I'm not arguing in favour of dropping Pope but Buttler was vice captain for a while and showed no ability to keep, bat in test matches, or offer any leadershipQuick reminder Ollie Pope is vice captain
And considering the Australians have to start again tomorrow, it wouldn't be surprising if we still took the lead in the first innings, despite the fact that the Australian batting is miles better than ours on paper.Not really. The big schooling today was that in any tight game, you cannot make basic mistakes. Aussies bowled 3 no balls in our first innings, we've bowled 13, missed a regulation stumping and catch. Nothing to do with bravado, that is just performance.
I'd say they knew it was a good pitch, not doing much, with pretty even bounce in general. A pitch you can still score at a fair lick on without taking taking too many risks. That why I was annoyed at the way Bairstow and Ali et al got out. There were so many runs out there without the need for risk.And considering the Australians have to start again tomorrow, it wouldn't be surprising if we still took the lead in the first innings, despite the fact that the Australian batting is miles better than ours on paper.
Australia left about 50 almost completely risk free runs out there today because they were batting too conservatively.
This is true. But it doesn't alter my view (which was pretty strongly expressed by both the English and Australian commentators in the first half of the day) that the Aussie batters allowed England to get away with a lot of poor or mediocre bowling.I'd say they knew it was a good pitch, not doing much, with pretty even bounce in general. A pitch you can still score at a fair lick on without taking taking too many risks. That why I was annoyed at the way Bairstow and Ali et al got out. There were so many runs out there without the need for risk.
Yes, I was placing wrong emphasis on your statement. Australia tend to take their time as opposed to the class of 2001 who were much quicker gatherers.This is true. But it doesn't alter my view (which was pretty strongly expressed by both the English and Australian commentators in the first half of the day) that the Aussie batters allowed England to get away with a lot of poor or mediocre bowling.
I'm not suggesting running down the pitch at Anderson first thing, I'm talking about hitting full tosses and half volleys for four and putting England under pressure. Whether because of the slow pitch or the chat about each team's approach, Australia didn't score anywhere near as quickly as they could have done.
If they had, they'd be looking at parity on the first innings as a minimum. As it is England still have a chance.
Interesting to compare this game to the 1st test at Edgbaston in 2001.Yes, I was placing wrong emphasis on your statement. Australia tend to take their time as opposed to the class of 2001 who were much quicker gatherers.
The run rate in the 2021 series was very low for both sides. They seem to be opposite to us in that respect now
Hopefully tomorrow morning will bring something. I don't fancy England conceding a lead here. But I'm always a bit glass half full. I've had 42 years of it.
I remember the Edgbaston Test of 2001 for Caddick's cameo in the first innings. The 1997 Test was the one that stands out. England took a 350+ lead on first innings and the Aussies knocked them off with two wickets down and then collapsed.Interesting to compare this game to the 1st test at Edgbaston in 2001.
England actually scored marginally faster than Australia in the first innings of that match, but both teams were going at near enough 4.5 an over.
We can only compare the first innings, since Australia didn't need a second to win.
Speaking very generally, I think the fast scoring of that Australia team tends to be exaggerated compared to the current England team - they generally scored at about 3 an over and then Gilchrist would come in and smack it about.ENG vs AUS Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Birmingham, July 05 - 08, 2001
Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, ENG vs AUS, Australia tour of England and Ireland 2001 at Edgbaston, Birmingham dated July 05 - 08, 2001.www.espncricinfo.com
Speaking more generally - positivity doesn't have to align with scoring quickly, there's a wonderful paragraph I read in a book by Simon Hughes (I think?) about watching Boycott use his feet against spinners to get right forward or backwards and control where he played the ball.
One match later at Lords wasn't it?I remember the Edgbaston Test of 2001 for Caddick's cameo in the first innings. The 1997 Test was the one that stands out. England took a 350+ lead on first innings and the Aussies knocked them off with two wickets down and then collapsed.
It was Glen McGrath's first Test in England and folk were berating him for being knocked around the park. I remember saying that once he works out that you need to pitch the ball a yard up in England he'll be a different animal. He worked it out, alas.
The thing I noticed about pitches in Australia was how it suited certain players from certain pastures. The closest we had was The Oval (as was then) when the Brinds were the groundmen. It's no coincidence that Thorpe was the player the Aussies wanted most. As regards touring, Robinson would always be first name on the sheet.One match later at Lords wasn't it?
I seem to remember him saying relatively recently that a good length in Australia isn't actually much different to in England, because the extra bounce means you want to pitch fuller than you think to draw that batsman forward.
On that subject, it's interesting to look at Smith's dismissals today and at Sussex. On English pitches I'd suggest that starting within your crease and playing back to a straight, good length ball will inevitably lead to you getting out LBW. But in Australia most of those balls will pass comfortably over the stumps so he can get away with it.
I can't remember if he played that way in thr 2019 series, but I think in general England's bowlers have been too quick to abandon the basic principles of trying to hit the top of off when they've bowled to him.
And the men's team current selector is our very own Luke WrightYou're preaching to the converted here mate.
The only people who can't see this are international selectors.
Not sure Luke Wright works the same way as Gareth Southgate?Unfortunately it’s a bit like the England football team a closed shop and certain players always play
Pietersen talking about batting is very interesting.Sky Sports coverage is very good. Pietersen can rub the wrong way but the overall analysis provided but their team is impressive.
MehHere we go.
Great game this