5/112. Rogers caught at mid-off. Doesn't help his career, and doesn't help our chances of winning this Test. England's using the same tactics we've used all summer - disciplined, tight bowling, building pressure and leading to bad shots. Smith and Rogers both got out through attacking shots when they've been defending all day.

Of course, it doesn't help when Warner and Watson throw their wickets away (as per usual).

Great idea to bowl first. What total madness!!

Great idea to bowl first. What total madness!!

its not the wicket WYL, its the letdown of Australia's batsmen after collaring the Ashes. the bowlers were off yesterday in the first session as well.

Warners dismissal? Watson's I haven't seen yet. & the others?

Snicko gets Bailey and we're in a real pickle for the first time in the series. Who would have thought it on what seemed such a good track?

Great idea to bowl first. What total madness!!

Typical response from you.

This has nothing to do with bowling first. In fact, today's conditions are more suited to batting than yesterday's were.

The problem is not the bowling, or the fact that they made 255 (sub-par). Our batting has been iffy all series, and this is another instance of that. In our first innings we've been 6/132, 4/174 and 5/143. In each of those, Haddin and some others (e.g. Johnson, Smith) have made runs as the innings has gone on, to keep us either in the game or well ahead. If Johnson and Haddin can put on 100, we're still well in the game here, but that doesn't change the fact that our batting is just not good enough to get us where we want to be (number 1).

Watson's not good enough, his Perth century notwithstanding. Rogers probably isn't good enough, he seems to be in every innings but can't get to 100. Bailey definitely isn't good enough and shouldn't be on the plane to South Africa (maybe shouldn't even play in Sydney). Smith and Warner need to develop consistency, whilst Clarke hasn't batted well since the first innings in Adelaide.

Snicko gets Bailey and we're in a real pickle for the first time in the series. Who would have thought it on what seemed such a good track?

Disagree. See above - this is the third time in four first innings this series we've been 5 or 6 down for not much.

Typical response from you.

This has nothing to do with bowling first. In fact, today's conditions are more suited to batting than yesterday's were.

The problem is not the bowling, or the fact that they made 255 (sub-par). Our batting has been iffy all series, and this is another instance of that. In our first innings we've been 6/132, 4/174 and 5/143. In each of those, Haddin and some others (e.g. Johnson, Smith) have made runs as the innings has gone on, to keep us either in the game or well ahead. If Johnson and Haddin can put on 100, we're still well in the game here, but that doesn't change the fact that our batting is just not good enough to get us where we want to be (number 1).

Watson's not good enough, his Perth century notwithstanding. Rogers probably isn't good enough, he seems to be in every innings but can't get to 100. Bailey definitely isn't good enough and shouldn't be on the plane to South Africa (maybe shouldn't even play in Sydney). Smith and Warner need to develop consistency, whilst Clarke hasn't batted well since the first innings in Adelaide.

typical response is it?

I actually agree with what you have stated.

It's the reason WHY Clarke made the wrong call.

It was cocky. He handed England the initiative.

What's not mad about that?

Haddin has just had a very lucky escape!!!

typical response is it?

I actually agree with what you have stated.

It's the reason WHY Clarke made the wrong call.

It was cocky. He handed England the initiative.

What's not mad about that?

Haddin has just had a very lucky escape!!!

So you agree the batting conditions today are better than yesterday, yet you think we made the wrong decision?

The issue in this Test is our batting. It's not good enough. If we'd batted first, we'd have been bowled out by stumps yesterday (at the rate we're going, having just lost Johnson) for a crap score (currently 151), giving England momentum and confidence.

The way this Test is going, we'll be 50-100 behind on first innings, probably bowl them out for around 250-300 again, will have to chase something between 300 and 400, which will be too much for us unless we can rectify our awful batting. But that's the issue - our batting. Bowling a team out in the first innings for 255 is fine. Being bowled out for less than 200 afterwards is not.

Edit: Having said that, Harris, Siddle and Lyon can all bat, and if one of them can stick around with Haddin, we can chip off a lot of this deficit. Harris does have a 50 in this series already.

Edited December 27, 201311 yr by titan_uranus

So you agree the batting conditions today are better than yesterday, yet you think we made the wrong decision?

The issue in this Test is our batting. It's not good enough. If we'd batted first, we'd have been bowled out by stumps yesterday (at the rate we're going, having just lost Johnson) for a crap score (currently 151), giving England momentum and confidence.

The way this Test is going, we'll be 50-100 behind on first innings, probably bowl them out for around 250-300 again, will have to chase something between 300 and 400, which will be too much for us unless we can rectify our awful batting. But that's the issue - our batting. Bowling a team out in the first innings for 255 is fine. Being bowled out for less than 200 afterwards is not.

Edit: Having said that, Harris, Siddle and Lyon can all bat, and if one of them can stick around with Haddin, we can chip off a lot of this deficit. Harris does have a 50 in this series already.

Yes we have a batting weakness.

Watson and Bailey have been sub par in the first innings in all 3 games.

But putting a score on the board first up is important. Chasing is always harder.

Harris is gone.

And we have to bat last.

We have given them the game!!

Edited December 27, 201311 yr by why you little

Big day tomorrow. If England bat well, the Test will be gone. Unless Lyon can stick around to help Haddin whittle the deficit, we'll be around 80 runs behind. We'll need to bowl them out for no more than 270 if we want to win, so we'll really need to do another good job with the ball. The way we've bowled and they've batted this series, that is certainly not out of the question.

Nonetheless, if we're chasing 400, 350, even 250, our batting has to improve or it won't matter. Only Clarke and Harris were actually beaten by their deliveries. The rest weren't patient or couldn't deal with the pressure and got out to bad shots (Rogers, Warner, Watson, Smith, Bailey, Johnson, Siddle).

Yes we have a batting weakness.
Watson and Bailey have been sub par in the first innings in all 3 games.
But putting a score on the board first up is important. Chasing is always harder.
Harris is gone.
And we have to bat last.
We have given them the game!!

What difference would batting first have made? We're batting ineptly in this Test, batting first wouldn't have changed it, and if anything, we'd have done worse given the conditions were better for bowling yesterday.

The simple fact of the matter is that, if we lose this Test, it will be on the back of bad batting, not bad bowling, and not the fact we bowled first. The bowlers did their job. The batsmen didn't.

Big day tomorrow. If England bat well, the Test will be gone. Unless Lyon can stick around to help Haddin whittle the deficit, we'll be around 80 runs behind. We'll need to bowl them out for no more than 270 if we want to win, so we'll really need to do another good job with the ball. The way we've bowled and they've batted this series, that is certainly not out of the question.

Nonetheless, if we're chasing 400, 350, even 250, our batting has to improve or it won't matter. Only Clarke and Harris were actually beaten by their deliveries. The rest weren't patient or couldn't deal with the pressure and got out to bad shots (Rogers, Warner, Watson, Smith, Bailey, Johnson, Siddle).

What difference would batting first have made? We're batting ineptly in this Test, batting first wouldn't have changed it, and if anything, we'd have done worse given the conditions were better for bowling yesterday.

The simple fact of the matter is that, if we lose this Test, it will be on the back of bad batting, not bad bowling, and not the fact we bowled first. The bowlers did their job. The batsmen didn't.

the pitch is not that bad. It's getting quicker.

Clarke won the toss and bowlled. I bet he regrets it now. Actually he would have regretted it after the first hour.

Why choose to bat last on this pitch?

I can see no reason for it.

yes it was a wrong decision to win toss and bowl first

for three games he won the toss and batted for three convincing wins

why for the love of god would you change a winning strategy

they didn't change a winning side (when they could have possibly justified it) so why change a winning strategy especially against the odds

even blind freddy can see that

now with 3 whole days to go they will need a small miracle to win

and worse they have allowed the poms to regain some confidence when they could have kept them under the hammer

the pitch is not that bad. It's getting quicker.

Clarke won the toss and bowlled. I bet he regrets it now. Actually he would have regretted it after the first hour.

Why choose to bat last on this pitch?

I can see no reason for it.

That's right - the pitch was better for batting today than it was yesterday. And yet we still blew it with the bat. We would only have done worse by batting first.

yes it was a wrong decision to win toss and bowl first

for three games he won the toss and batted for three convincing wins

why for the love of god would you change a winning strategy

they didn't change a winning side (when they could have possibly justified it) so why change a winning strategy especially against the odds

even blind freddy can see that

now with 3 whole days to go they will need a small miracle to win

and worse they have allowed the poms to regain some confidence when they could have kept them under the hammer

How? How would they have kept them under the hammer with a sub-200 score?

This pitch is slow. On Day 1 the conditions suited the bowling, especially Anderson's bowling. We showed today that with good English bowling, we're still a weak batting side. Why would batting on Day 1 have changed that?

Once again - we are losing this Test because of our batting. 100% because of our batting. Choosing to bowl first has no relevance except for the order in which we batted.

Yes we have a batting weakness.

Watson and Bailey have been sub par in the first innings in all 3 games.

But putting a score on the board first up is important. Chasing is always harder.

Harris is gone.

And we have to bat last.

We have given them the game!!

Absolutely right, WYL.

And I reckon it was a gutless decision by Clarke, with our collapse for 98 last Ashes Boxing Day at the forefront of his mind.

He saw the clouds and a bit if moisture in the pitch and didn't have the confidence in his batsmen to tough it out for a session then benefit from the huge advantage of RUNS ON THE BOARD.

We might still win this game, but it will take a heroic effort, instead of cruising to a trouncing like in the first three tests.

38 Degrees today. Australia will be in the field most of the day.

Great way to set up a 4th innings!!.....

clarke=bad back made him leave the ball

pick 7 batsmen =covers all weaknesses

watson=cant be dropped ,to much value to opposition with his sookyness

as i said earlier winning covers all cracks

but nothing covers the total stupidness of the last 2 tours

for three games he won the toss and batted for three convincing wins

why for the love of god would you change a winning strategy

they didn't change a winning side (when they could have possibly justified it) so why change a winning strategy especially against the odds

even blind freddy can see that

Because those conditions were those conditions and these conditions are these conditions?

With tosses, you can't take a strategy that worked on a pitch on the other side of the country and blanketly apply it to a pitch with different properties and conditions. As captain it's Clarke's job to determine when batting conditions will be at their best. Obviously he thought they would be at their best at the end of the game. I'll wait to see how the chase goes and how the pitch plays on day 5 before passing judgement.

It seems a tad premature to slam the decision to bowl first two days in to a Test.

Because those conditions were those conditions and these conditions are these conditions?

With tosses, you can't take a strategy that worked on a pitch on the other side of the country and blanketly apply it to a pitch with different properties and conditions. As captain it's Clarke's job to determine when batting conditions will be at their best. Obviously he thought they would be at their best at the end of the game. I'll wait to see how the chase goes and how the pitch plays on day 5 before passing judgement.

It seems a tad premature to slam the decision to bowl first two days in to a Test.

there needs to be very exceptional circumstances to put the other side in first

these weren't exceptional, the pitch wasn't a green top

the safe decision this test was to bat first

the result so far (barring a small miracle) would seem to indicate clarke made a big gamble which failed

Absolutely right, WYL.

And I reckon it was a gutless decision by Clarke, with our collapse for 98 last Ashes Boxing Day at the forefront of his mind.

He saw the clouds and a bit if moisture in the pitch and didn't have the confidence in his batsmen to tough it out for a session then benefit from the huge advantage of RUNS ON THE BOARD.

We might still win this game, but it will take a heroic effort, instead of cruising to a trouncing like in the first three tests.

If we'd batted well in our innings, put on 300+, the word 'gutless' could have been substituted for 'smart'. Bowl first, in the best conditions, knock them over while there is a bit for the bowlers, then bat as we needed to, strongly, and put runs on the board, with 10 wickets already in the bag.

Where were these magical 'RUNS ON THE BOARD' going to come from? You just saw us bat on this pitch in conditions better for batting than on Day 1, and we stunk. Why would batting first have changed that? If anything, we'd have done worse, not better.

The key here is our batting, not the toss.

clarke=bad back made him leave the ball

pick 7 batsmen =covers all weaknesses

watson=cant be dropped ,to much value to opposition with his sookyness

as i said earlier winning covers all cracks

but nothing covers the total stupidness of the last 2 tours

Yep, 7 batsmen. I'd take that over England's 6, especially when their keeper was dropped for poor keeping.

Haddin is arguably man of the series. Has dropped nothing. Also bailed us out twice, and, hopefully today, a third time. Your continued criticism of him is ridiculous, baseless, and belies your lack of understanding and fairness in cricket analysis.

there needs to be very exceptional circumstances to put the other side in first

these weren't exceptional, the pitch wasn't a green top

the safe decision this test was to bat first

the result so far (barring a small miracle) would seem to indicate clarke made a big gamble which failed

You have still failed to answer my question - based on this batting performance, how would batting first have made a difference?

A good rearguard action from Haddin & Lyon to get the score over 200 but now is the true test of our mettle. We have to bowl on a pitch that's getting easier to bat on, in the heat and with Watto a bit dodgy.

Win this and we really do deserve to go up in the test rankings.

If we'd batted well in our innings, put on 300+, the word 'gutless' could have been substituted for 'smart'. Bowl first, in the best conditions, knock them over while there is a bit for the bowlers, then bat as we needed to, strongly, and put runs on the board, with 10 wickets already in the bag.

Where were these magical 'RUNS ON THE BOARD' going to come from? You just saw us bat on this pitch in conditions better for batting than on Day 1, and we stunk. Why would batting first have changed that? If anything, we'd have done worse, not better.

The key here is our batting, not the toss.

Yep, 7 batsmen. I'd take that over England's 6, especially when their keeper was dropped for poor keeping.

Haddin is arguably man of the series. Has dropped nothing. Also bailed us out twice, and, hopefully today, a third time. Your continued criticism of him is ridiculous, baseless, and belies your lack of understanding and fairness in cricket analysis.

You have still failed to answer my question - based on this batting performance, how would batting first have made a difference?

Psychological.

And avoiding the 4th innings bat. It's not rocket science.

Because those conditions were those conditions and these conditions are these conditions?

With tosses, you can't take a strategy that worked on a pitch on the other side of the country and blanketly apply it to a pitch with different properties and conditions. As captain it's Clarke's job to determine when batting conditions will be at their best. Obviously he thought they would be at their best at the end of the game. I'll wait to see how the chase goes and how the pitch plays on day 5 before passing judgement.

It seems a tad premature to slam the decision to bowl first two days in to a Test.

I agree nasher, & in my mind the ball coming off the pitch slower with less bounce then the earlier tests is closer to English conditions, & suits them more than Brisbane.

Our strength has been bowling them out cheaply & having them under the pump.

but on this wicket where the ball isn't coming on as well, our bats look pressed to score freely. as well as their bowling strategy.. comes back to what Bill & Tubby say, keep rotating the strike & grab the singles, spread the field, & the runs will grow.

there needs to be very exceptional circumstances to put the other side in first

these weren't exceptional, the pitch wasn't a green top

the safe decision this test was to bat first

the result so far (barring a small miracle) would seem to indicate clarke made a big gamble which failed

hiding our top order

If we'd batted well in our innings, put on 300+, the word 'gutless' could have been substituted for 'smart'. Bowl first, in the best conditions, knock them over while there is a bit for the bowlers, then bat as we needed to, strongly, and put runs on the board, with 10 wickets already in the bag.

Where were these magical 'RUNS ON THE BOARD' going to come from? You just saw us bat on this pitch in conditions better for batting than on Day 1, and we stunk. Why would batting first have changed that? If anything, we'd have done worse, not better.

The key here is our batting, not the toss.

Yep, 7 batsmen. I'd take that over England's 6, especially when their keeper was dropped for poor keeping.

Haddin is arguably man of the series. Has dropped nothing. Also bailed us out twice, and, hopefully today, a third time. Your continued criticism of him is ridiculous, baseless, and belies your lack of understanding and fairness in cricket analysis.

You have still failed to answer my question - based on this batting performance, how would batting first have made a difference?

as what wyl said

plus why would you assume that if they batted first they would still make the same score as they did batting second?

Good work from Haddin (what a star) and Lyon to get us up to 200, but assuming we do our job with the ball as we've done all series and end up with a target of 300-350, we're going to need an enormous improvement with the bat to get close. You'd favour England from here, after that awful batting display.

Psychological.
And avoiding the 4th innings bat. It's not rocket science.

Psychological what?

We go first. We made 200 (probably closer to 150 given the conditions on Day 1 were even worse for batting). They come out and make 250. We're then behind.

How does England fare worse psychologically? They come out to bowl in the third innings knowing they'd already knocked us over easily in the first dig, and with us 100-odd runs behind. No difference, aside from the order of the innings.