Axis of Bob

Absolute hero. Any who deny his toughness, both physically and mentally, should be judged as the fools they are. Michael Clarke is a magnificent batsman and an outstanding captain both tactically and leading by example. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I can't wait to see what deeluded says now.

He shouldn't really need to. He's toughed it out for years with a bad back to become one of the best batsmen and captains in the world. People are going to hate him because he has made them look stupid. That is their problem, not his.

Interesting cricket at the moment, because the aggressive cricket seems to be a definite plan. I'm just trying to work out why. Maybe it's because they feel that the bounce and pace of the pitch will get batsmen out sooner or later. Maybe it's because they want to knock England off their line and length, allowing more scoring opportunities of a fast scoring ground. Maybe it's a mental thing where they want to dominate England. Maybe they are just nervous about the pace and bounce in the pitch. My guess is that it's a combination of the first and second. The bounce will get you if you keep the ball in the right spots, so they are using attack to get the ball out of the right spots. Either way, it's thrilling cricket and Smith is playing beautifully. Really mature.

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.

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.

Just because seat belts haven't reduced the road toll to zero doesn't mean that they don't work. It's the same with DRS.

If we needed Wines as much as you say we do then Magner would be playing now. Or Couch. Or McKenzie. They aren't. Remind me again of all the classy, hard running finishing midfielders we have one the list at the moment that can take Toumpas' spot. Who are they? Look at the players we selected in the draft: - Toumpas, Viney, Kent, Jones, Terlich, Stark, Clisby, Barry. - We also brought in Dawes, Hogan, Pederson, Byrnes and Rodan. Aside from Viney (and Stark as a rookie), every non-KPP we drafted was a running outside player that could hit targets. Drafting Wines would have been totally against this. Why was this the case? Well look at the weekend, where our inability to run and hit targets resulted in us losing by over 100 points. I would assume that we will probably follow this path again, as we get more and more runners with good skills. So who are the hard running, skilful midfielders that are ready to take Toumpas' spot?

And if Toumpas turns out to be a better player than Wines .......? Should the Bulldogs have picked Terlich at pick 4? Terlich has been doing better than Macrae. Maybe GWS should have picked Matt Jones at pick 2, because O'Rourke has done nothing so far, while Jones has played nearly every game. I would have thought that selecting players for today was the idea of trading, while drafting was for the long term. It's probably my fault for accepting mediocrity, rather than being irrational.

If Wines was playing for us, then I could guarantee that there would be posters saying "We have so many butchers of the footy and now it looks like we've wasted pick 4 on another one. FMD!" They'd probably be the same ones that currently whine about Toumpas.

Porte had a phenomenal ride. He was much stronger than Froome and also did all the work for him up both climbs. Froome had a bad day, but Porte was every bit as strong as Quintana and Rodriguez, which is a great sign for him.

He probably hit it, but could you overturn the umpire's decision based on the evidence? It's not about the balance of probability, hence why Hawk-eye has an 'umpire's call' option. However, I've seen worse. It's a shame that such a great game ends like that, because it takes away from the match itself.

Could you say, conclusively, that he hit it? It's a bad way to end a great match.

37 to win. Can we dream?

I think that Vaughan is correct. Broad made a decision in the heat of the moment that he valued his wicket more than he valued a lifetime of being branded a cheat. Mind you, I suppose he already will be branded a cheat for his ball tampering exploits in South Africa and being a general tool. Not a good reputation he already has for one so young.

Nasser Hussein is incredibly enjoyable to listen to in a position of English adversity. He's such a massive whinger and sore loser and it makes you realise why England were so bad when he was captain. Such a victim.

And then some actual magic to get Trott! (I think he probably hit it, but he's out)

Ah, Starc with a little bit of Mitchell Johnson magic to get Root.

Geez, I knew he could bat, but this is something else. Incredible stuff. Incredible, sensible, and effortless.

Hmmm, maybe he should have started his career batting at 7!

Haddin gets a lot of grief, but he was OK behind the stumps. It was certainly one of the tougher days he'll have to keep as the ball was moving around and we sprayed the ball around a fair bit. I agree with the Clarke at 5 calls. He's such a good player of spin and so important to us that we need to give him the best chance to make runs for us. I'm sure that's why Cowan is at 3, so that he could blunt the attack for more than one ball. Smith batted very well when he came in. Really sensible batting and looked well organised - far more so than a few years ago. Rogers was stiff. Also, picking Agar (who could easily finish his career batting at 7) to bat at 11 means that we have no free wickets all the way through the lineup. Agar has a couple of 50s to his name in very short first class career and has batted exceptional well at time. In fact, my personal batting order for the tail could possibly be Pattinson, Agar, Siddle, Starc (and Starc has a test 99 to his credit and averages in the 30s!). Certainly a long way away for our tail of a few years ago (where we had Siddle, Harris, Hilfenhaus and Doherty/Beer/Lyon).

Yep, awful shot. Clarke got a ripper, but Cowan's was the sort of shot that shortens a test career. Rogers looks OK and Smith actually looks reasonably comfortable. I apologise in advance for the two quick wickets I have likely just created.

Agar has started very well. Tall, bouncy and a really nice trajectory. Trott doesn't look that comfortable against him. Still very, very early but like promising.

I think it's also important to note that the conditions in India are unique. These are strange pitches for Australian batsmen and bowlers, and the style of bowler India has is ideally suited to the conditions. If you look at the spinners that India has (that are successful) you will note that they are spinners that would not do well in Australia (or most pitches). Indian spinners are accurate and bowl mainly sidespin. In Australia these balls just go straight because there's no purchase in the pitch, and Indian spinners have very little success in Oz. Aussie spinners have to bowl with lots of overspin to get the bounce, which is dangerous on our pitches (like Lyon, but also mainly leggies). But the lack of speed and bounce in India means that these balls spinner slowly and predictably. Indian spinners, with their darty, accurate sidespinning deliveries, can get good variation with fairly pedestrian deliveries. They don't need many revs (as seen by Jadeja) to turn the ball. Too many revs can mean being ineffective because you know every ball will turn. What does this mean? Our batsmen have seen very little of this bowling, and have had to respect it even less. Our bowlers aren't used to being played so easily. But, most of all, I don't see this as being detrimental to our Ashes preparation at all. It's irrelevant. The game will be won and lost with pace and the ability to deal with it. India means nothing. Also, India is going to do well at home with these pitches, but it will ruin them overseas because they will have the same problems we have had in India. The difference is that there's only really one place in the world that has conditions just like India.

It seems like there's been something like this brewing for a while. Obviously there is a feeling that the culture in the team just isn't good enough and they needed to do something to show that. I don't have a problem with it. It's like Ross Lyon dropping Dal Santo and Milne in his first season for not following defensive instructions. Arthur is telling them that playing for Australia is a step up in commitment from Shield. It's also not a bad time to do it, given that the series is pretty much lost already. I agree that the team is in trouble if this action is required to correct the problem. Coaches don't pull out that card unless it's really needed.

I'm happy to pull up some old posts on Pup Clarke. Seeing the ball pretty well at the moment.