Bowling spin in Australia (and South Africa) is very different to bowling spin anywhere else.

Overspin is much more important because of the bounce. And the hardness of the pitches means that a ball that has only sidespin won't get much purchase on the pitch.

Most spinners across the world get wickets by threatening the stumps (either with the stock ball or its variation). But the bounce and hardness of the pitches means that the variation and the stock ball are pretty much the same. It makes it very difficult to get wickets because there is no deception.

By using overspin you can create deception through flight. Then you can exploit the misjudgment in length with the extra bounce to get catches around the wicket and catches from attacking shots. Look at how effective Lyon is when people attack him, but his lack of variation makes it hard for him to bowl out defensive batsmen on wearing wickets.

Conversely, there are a number of excellent spinners (predominantly finger spinners) who struggle a lot in Australia. Swann, Harbhajan, Ajmal, Panesar, Herath, Ashwin ..... All of them attack the stumps, and rely on the pitch to grip and turn a ball that would otherwise drift on. Swann struggled here last time when he was at peak form and Australia were utterly awful. He averaged 40 with the ball. I thought he'd be better in Adelaide, but his turning ball doesn't do enough to let his sliding variation be effective.

Interesting points Bob. So you would select 4 quicks for Perth if in England's shoes?

Edited December 8, 201311 yr by P-man

  On 08/12/2013 at 02:04, jazza said:

wrong again RHINO

I don't hate for starters

good leadership by Clarke mmmmm maybe

but where was that 3 months ago? no appearance your worship

ive also noticed his back injury never appears when were winning or he is making runs

good to see the first all round performance by the team for a few years

btw,ball back in your court

Clarke is as good a tactical captain as there is in the world right now. Far, far better than Cook. This was no different in the winter, when the team was playing pathetically.

He's our best batsman too, as his form shows. Making up some conspiracy theory about his back injury is a sign that you really don't have an argument to defend here.

Oh, and how about Haddin's fantastic catch yesterday to get Root out? Great keeping, to go with his great batting too (batting which has put us in winning positions in both Tests).

  On 08/12/2013 at 11:37, P-man said:

Interesting points Bob. So you would select 4 quicks for Perth if in England's shoes?

I don't think they want to go with four quicks. That would mean Anderson, Broad, Bresnan (surely) and one other, but the other would be Tremlett, Finn or Rankin, all of whom are out of form and struggling in Australian conditions (and each of whom lengthens the tail compared to Swann).

If they keep Stokes at 6 (I don't think they can afford to, but they might be inclined to persist with him), they'll have their fourth seamer anyway.

Wow. First over of the day and Broad pulls straight to deep square leg.

Edit: We'll take it.

Edited December 9, 201311 yr by titan_uranus

and the fat lady has sung

going to the waccattoir 2 nil is awesome

lehmann likely to get an OA

rhino

when the teams doing well its doing well

I said clarkes back injury only gets mentioned when hes not making runs and were losing,

do you equate making runs = leadership?

remember,there is only ever one specialist in the team

ive always said that and will stick to it

theres always 4/5 bowlers 6 batsmen

and just to remind you,my statement was because of gilchrist wicket keeping has changed forever

he ultimately made selectors pick batsmen/keepers not pure glovemen

keep going though.i think you've replaced my wife

hope you can cook

ball in your court nancy

2/0

btw bob, it seems k okeefe agrees with you, he spoke on radio about it yesterday

Edited December 9, 201311 yr by jazza

  On 08/12/2013 at 05:23, Macca said:

Happy to go with the old adage "Never change a winning side" dl. It's been so long since we've had some real stability in the make-up of the side. Winning does change the thinking.

If England can keep us out in the field well into tomorrow, one of the quicks might become doubtful for Perth. Clarke would be aware of that however, and will no doubt use the fast bowlers with that in mind.

We get another one soon and the rest might fall sooner rather than later.

well we're 2 Up.

would you go with 2 spinners in Perth (Lyon/Smith), or just keep the alrounder & rest Lyon (12th man) for one Test match, for Faulkner (2 left arm swing quicks), + Siddle, Harris, & Johnson ?

more versatility with the other swing bowler/batsmen?

I'd like to see Faulkner in Melbourne's humidity & maybe Sydney as well?

Maybe rest Lyon, bring him back for the Melbourne/Sydney double, along with Faulkner in for the last 3 Ashes tests... & give Siddle & Harris a game off each after Perth?

terry alderman says a must for perth is an into the wind bowler

speed and spin is irrevelent ,whoever does the job must be capable of bowling consistently into the WIND

btw,saw Faulkner in the last series and was impressed DL

  On 09/12/2013 at 01:37, jazza said:

rhino

when the teams doing well its doing well

I said clarkes back injury only gets mentioned when hes not making runs and were losing,

do you equate making runs = leadership?

remember,there is only ever one specialist in the team

ive always said that and will stick to it

theres always 4/5 bowlers 6 batsmen

and just to remind you,my statement was because of gilchrist wicket keeping has changed forever

he ultimately made selectors pick batsmen/keepers not pure glovemen

keep going though.i think you've replaced my wife

hope you can cook

ball in your court nancy

2/0

btw bob, it seems k okeefe agrees with you, he spoke on radio about it yesterday

I think your ex wife Nancy had an easy decision to make.

not ex

passed on 1year ago

good try though

Drop Swann for Perth?

Hmmm, Swann is not great there because his slightly undercut spin ends up just being a skiddy off cutter. Would I drop him? If they continue with Stokes then there's a spot for him, but if Stokes is replaced by a batsman then I'd replace Swann with Bresnan. I doubt they'll drop Swann, but rather play the 3 quicks plus an all-rounder and Swann.

I'd bring in Finn or Rankin in place of Panesar. England need to change the momentum of the series and a conservative approach with Tremlett is going to be shuffling deck chairs. They need raw pace and bounce to actually challenge the opposition. Their current attack is honest, but not challenging.

If they can't change the moment with their bowlers then it'll be 3-0.

The interesting question for Australia will be Nathan Lyon. Do we pick an out and out quick, a spinner or go half n half with Faulkner or Henriques.

Johnson and Stokes both cited for contact (when Stokes was running and Johnson didn't move).

Nothing will come of it I think.

stokes/johnson

low impact

no damage

ball wasn't within 5 metres

87.50 points loading

all clear for perth

  On 09/12/2013 at 03:22, jazza said:

terry alderman says a must for perth is an into the wind bowler

speed and spin is irrevelent ,whoever does the job must be capable of bowling consistently into the WIND

btw,saw Faulkner in the last series and was impressed DL

Yeah I think we're well placed for real pace bowlers, with Johnson back joining Pattinson as a genuine strike bowler, with Harris & Siddle as topshelf 2nd pacemen. but the extra variation IMO we don't have yet is that 'Anderson' type. the spot Alderman himself held down.

I'd like us to try out Faulkner to see where he's at for this coming Test match, & maybe for the remainder of this series.

I'd be going safety first for Perth. Unchanged lineup.

As for England, I'd be giving serious consideration to Anderson's spot. When the conditions don't suit swing bowling he is rendered almost totally useless.

I read somewhere that they can recall Onions if need be. Not sure if that's true, but his Durham side won the County Championship where he was the leading wicket taker. Pretty unlucky not to get called up when they are picking the likes of Tremlett and Finn.

Should be no change for us. Every year going into Perth someone out there says 'let's go with four pacemen' but our current trio plus Lyon are doing a great job of bowling as a unit, and Perth's pitch suits Lyon's bowling anyway.

As for them, they need a true batsman at 6, so I'd be replacing Stokes with Bairstow or Ballance. They'll have to drop a spinner, and it will probably be Panesar, with Bresnan coming into that spot.

  On 09/12/2013 at 04:16, Axis of Bob said:

Drop Swann for Perth?

Hmmm, Swann is not great there because his slightly undercut spin ends up just being a skiddy off cutter. Would I drop him? If they continue with Stokes then there's a spot for him, but if Stokes is replaced by a batsman then I'd replace Swann with Bresnan. I doubt they'll drop Swann, but rather play the 3 quicks plus an all-rounder and Swann.

I'd bring in Finn or Rankin in place of Panesar. England need to change the momentum of the series and a conservative approach with Tremlett is going to be shuffling deck chairs. They need raw pace and bounce to actually challenge the opposition. Their current attack is honest, but not challenging.

If they can't change the moment with their bowlers then it'll be 3-0.

The interesting question for Australia will be Nathan Lyon. Do we pick an out and out quick, a spinner or go half n half with Faulkner or Henriques.

Surely England's bigger issue is their batting, not their bowling? If I were England I'd be far more worried about getting runs out of Cook, Carberry, Pietersen, Prior and whoever bats at 6 (Stokes, Ballance or Bairstow). I'd also be worried about their inability to play long innings and their struggles with pace and bouncers.

Their bowlers, though, should still be thereabouts given our batting. It really only takes one batting collapse from us to shake the series up, and we're a side with Rogers, Watson, Smith and Bailey in the top 6, none of whom are in any particular form at the moment.

I'd say Watson is in perfect form. Makes 50 and then gets out. Sounds like the Watson I know.

  On 09/12/2013 at 05:56, titan_uranus said:

Should be no change for us. Every year going into Perth someone out there says 'let's go with four pacemen' but our current trio plus Lyon are doing a great job of bowling as a unit, and Perth's pitch suits Lyon's bowling anyway.

As for them, they need a true batsman at 6, so I'd be replacing Stokes with Bairstow or Ballance. They'll have to drop a spinner, and it will probably be Panesar, with Bresnan coming into that spot.

Surely England's bigger issue is their batting, not their bowling? If I were England I'd be far more worried about getting runs out of Cook, Carberry, Pietersen, Prior and whoever bats at 6 (Stokes, Ballance or Bairstow). I'd also be worried about their inability to play long innings and their struggles with pace and bouncers.

Their bowlers, though, should still be thereabouts given our batting. It really only takes one batting collapse from us to shake the series up, and we're a side with Rogers, Watson, Smith and Bailey in the top 6, none of whom are in any particular form at the moment.

if I were england I'd alter their lineup order. I'd have Bell @ 3, Root @ 4, & then Pietersen @ 5. for starters.

England - "We have to look deep into our inner souls to drag something out."

# But he is not the only senior player to be struggling, with England not having passed 400 for the last 20 Test innings.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/25296305

  On 09/12/2013 at 04:16, Axis of Bob said:

Drop Swann for Perth?

Hmmm, Swann is not great there because his slightly undercut spin ends up just being a skiddy off cutter. Would I drop him? If they continue with Stokes then there's a spot for him, but if Stokes is replaced by a batsman then I'd replace Swann with Bresnan. I doubt they'll drop Swann, but rather play the 3 quicks plus an all-rounder and Swann.

I'd bring in Finn or Rankin in place of Panesar. England need to change the momentum of the series and a conservative approach with Tremlett is going to be shuffling deck chairs. They need raw pace and bounce to actually challenge the opposition. Their current attack is honest, but not challenging.

If they can't change the moment with their bowlers then it'll be 3-0.

The interesting question for Australia will be Nathan Lyon. Do we pick an out and out quick, a spinner or go half n half with Faulkner or Henriques.

I'd go in unchanged if all fit.

  On 09/12/2013 at 03:16, dee-luded said:

well we're 2 Up.

would you go with 2 spinners in Perth (Lyon/Smith), or just keep the alrounder & rest Lyon (12th man) for one Test match, for Faulkner (2 left arm swing quicks), + Siddle, Harris, & Johnson ?

more versatility with the other swing bowler/batsmen?

I'd like to see Faulkner in Melbourne's humidity & maybe Sydney as well?

Maybe rest Lyon, bring him back for the Melbourne/Sydney double, along with Faulkner in for the last 3 Ashes tests... & give Siddle & Harris a game off each after Perth?

Unchanged line-up, dl. Sounds a little boring but it's not just because of the "Don't change a winning side" default mode. Team harmony and that 'all conquering' attitude that a team can suddenly have are also very important. We're playing well as a team and even one change could disrupt things a little.

I also share the thoughts of a few other posters that Lyon could well be suited to the Perth track because of the bounce that he achieves. "Roo" Yardley is a half decent comparison although Bruce spun his off spinners with his middle finger. As you no doubt remember, Yardley got good bounce and had a stellar year in the mid 80's where he took 35 odd wickets in 6 Tests.

Nathan also possibly needs to know that his position is a bit more secure. On top of all that, he leads the team song!

The up and comers might have to bide their time for now. We play Pakistan in Abu Dhabi/Dubai (?) for 3 Tests in October and then India are here in the summer of 2014/15 for four Tests. Ideal opportunity to blood a new player or 2 in those series.

I reckon the guts of this team will tour South Africa now that we've turned things around.

If we win in Perth, the selectors might decide to experiment but that might involve giving the quicks a game off (each) None of them would be putting up their hand though. Sore spots and aches and pains can be put aside when you're winning.

Winners are grinners

Australia surely to be unchanged for Perth.

England I'm sure will rush Bresnan back, for Panesar, then just a question of whether they look to bolster their batting by bringing Ballance or Bairstow in for Stokes or pin their hopes on Prior's form turning around, bat Bresnan at 7 and bring in Finn or Rankin for a bit of pace x factor in Perth and having 5 bowlers.

No easy answers for England, but their depth with both bat and ball is certainly starting to look a little thin.

  On 09/12/2013 at 09:28, Tall Defence said:

Australia surely to be unchanged for Perth.

England I'm sure will rush Bresnan back, for Panesar, then just a question of whether they look to bolster their batting by bringing Ballance or Bairstow in for Stokes or pin their hopes on Prior's form turning around, bat Bresnan at 7 and bring in Finn or Rankin for a bit of pace x factor in Perth and having 5 bowlers.

No easy answers for England, but their depth with both bat and ball is certainly starting to look a little thin.

Hard questions for England.

But surely given their batting weakness they will not jettison Stokes to bring in another bowler. They would have to bat Prior at 6 and the brittle tail will already be loooong enough in Perth.

If they want to try something different depending where there armageddon meter is (crisis vs panic) they will drop Panesar and bring in Rankin ahead of Bresnan. Maybe spark a bit of difference and use someone who will be difficult at such a tall height on the extra bounce in Perth.

  On 09/12/2013 at 07:41, Macca said:

Unchanged line-up, dl. Sounds a little boring but it's not just because of the "Don't change a winning side" default mode. Team harmony and that 'all conquering' attitude that a team can suddenly have are also very important. We're playing well as a team and even one change could disrupt things a little.

at the moment Faulkner is 12th man, so the squad would remain the same, re harmony, just altered for balance, a switch of 12th man for one game. I wanted to spare the quicks by having the extra quick, to ease the workload, but if Lyon can be dangerous & economical at the WACA, then he' can share the load?

I also share the thoughts of a few other posters that Lyon could well be suited to the Perth track because of the bounce that he achieves. < (I didn't realise this) "Roo" Yardley is a half decent comparison although Bruce spun his off spinners with his middle finger. (I didn't know that, don't know about spin bowling intricacies) As you no doubt remember, Yardley got good bounce and had a stellar year in the mid 80's where he took 35 odd wickets in 6 Tests.

Nathan also possibly needs to know that his position is a bit more secure. On top of all that, he leads the team song!

The up and comers might have to bide their time for now. We play Pakistan in Abu Dhabi/Dubai (?) for 3 Tests in October and then India are here in the summer of 2014/15 for four Tests. Ideal opportunity to blood a new player or 2 in those series.

I reckon the guts of this team will tour South Africa now that we've turned things around.

If we win in Perth, the selectors might decide to experiment but that might involve giving the quicks a game off (each) None of them would be putting up their hand though. Sore spots and aches and pains can be put aside when you're winning.

Winners are grinners

From the 'Mirror' online ... England have been utterly outplayed - and the truth is that it could be too late to salvage the Ashes

Test Match Special Podcast ... England defeated by 218 runs (includes interviews with both captains)

The predicted forecast for the first 3 days in Perth ... hot, dry and 36 degrees.