titan_uranus

Dear lord, 4/16 after 16 balls. Rogers, Warner, Marsh all get ducks. Voges, shunted down to number 6, is already at the crease 20 minutes into the innings. This is the Test with the Ashes on the line. What an inept response.

And that's it - Ashes almost certainly gone. 3/10 after 8 balls. Clarke moves down to 5, already batting 6 minutes in.

If you choose not to go to the football because you'd like to boo Goodes (or any other player) but you fear being called a racist, then good riddance. The stadium will be better off without you.

Just noticed a couple more we've broken this year: Win a game in July (broken in Round 16 vs Brisbane) - we'd lost our last 16 games in July and the last win was Round 17, 2011 vs Port Adelaide (in Darwin). Win a game in August (broken in Round 18 vs Collingwood) - we'd lost our last 10 games in August and the last win was Round 21, 2012 vs GWS.

I'm not sure why Haddin would be considered more stable as a middle order batsman (let alone batting at 6) when he's average around 15 for the last year, whilst Nevill is coming off a 50 when he tried to hold the second innings together at Edgbaston. Not bringing Haddin back can be debated, but Nevill took his chance and did more than enough to hold his spot. Agree with dropping Clarke down a spot though - as a last-ditch attempt to get his form back, I'd bad S Marsh at 4 and Clarke at 5, with M Marsh at 6 and Nevill at 7. I don't know if a change will be made to the bowlers, but I think it's really risky to play Cummins who's played just one first class game in two years. Siddle's deserved a recall and on that basis I think it would have to be Hazlewood who makes way (more like-for-like that way), but we may well leave it as you say.

Next week a ripping chance to knock another two off the list. We play our best football against sides between 5th and 14th on the ladder. When we hit the top 4 sides we wilt, when we play bottom 4 sides we buckle under the pressure of expectation. North is right in the bracket of sides I like us playing against (ditto Bulldogs and GWS, when we get to play them).

Clarke dropping Bell was the last tiny little chance we had in this Test. It's hard to believe we're going to be 2-1 down against a side with Lyth, Bairstow, Stokes and Buttler in its top 7, Moeen as the spinner, and Finn as a pace bowler, but such is Australian cricket at the moment. Marsh in for Voges, and I'd drop one of Starc or Hazlewood for Siddle - the stats suggest Starc is performing worse but Siddle is more like for like with Hazlewood than Starc. Need to back Rogers, Warner and Smith in to make runs without Anderson bowling with the new ball at Trent Bridge, get a platform for Clarke (maybe put him down to 5 and put Marsh at 4) so that he can bat with a bit of freedom possibly.

Classic Australian batting woes. Moving ball and pressure of needing to bat a long innings and we crumble, again. Voges has to be dropped. Clarke can't be dropped but we're playing one short at the moment with him at 4, we need someone stronger at 5. Mitch Marsh is a good player and I like him in the side but he has to be a better batsman to hold his spot at 6. Inexcusable from Smith to do that after failing in the first innings. We should already lead by 100 though, failing to knock the tail over was partly unlucky (lots of misses from Moeen) but partly we let them off. Starc's bowling in particular was putrid. Agree with both. Voges is hopeless and Marsh is in form. That change has to be made. Starc is dangerous when he gets it right but he isn't getting it right enough.

That's your definition of 'elite'? Gets a game for a strong side? Not only is West Coast not yet 'elite' (they'd want to achieve something first before they get that mantle), even if they were he's not 'elite'. He's still learning how to play FFS!

Another Watts v Naitanui thread! Yay!

Possibly no Riewoldt and at the G, and against a side who, until the last quarter against Richmond, had kicked just 10 goals in their last 7 quarters (3 of which vs GWS came in 2 minutes). St Kilda have been getting a fair bit of positive media recently (a 110 point win does that I guess), but I maintain they are overrated and overhyped. That of course doesn't mean anything and we could easily lose the game convincingly, but we are more than capable of winning this one.

Ripping efforts from Smith and Rogers with the bat, and then the pace bowlers with the ball. The extra pace of Johnson and Starc was evidently important. The fightback from Stokes and Cook was good but they're still 282 behind the follow on and 482 behind our score. There's Buttler and Moeen still to come but at the same time there's 3 days left and a mountain of runs. We're in a great position.

Well you hadn't quoted that post so forgive me for not reading your mind. That aside, I don't share your thoughts on Garland, and even if he is shutting down the third tall, if they're the third best then we need to be asking more from a senior player than that. I don't mind if McDonald and Dunn are playing pure defensive games when they're being given numbers 1 and 2, but for most opposition sides number 3 shouldn't be such a threat to stop Garland from peeling off, linking up, and once in a blue moon taking the first option when he gets the ball. The other issue I see is that I don't think we can go long term with Dunn as the second tall defender. Frost may end up being that player, and Dunn then becomes the third defender. I'd take that before I take the current set up. I'd like to see Garland get some attacking flair into his game. At least Grimes had developed that this year.

See? This is what I'm saying. What is it you see in him? At present, is this the best argument in favour of Garland that you've got? We need to keep him because of Howe, Cross and Grimes? The four names you've mentioned are four massive parts of the problem at this club. The fact that Howe will likely leave, Cross is petering out, and Grimes is in and out, is not a reason to keep Garland without Garland actually having an important role to play. What is that role? So far in 2015 Grimes has been the more attacking, more likely to use the first option and has provided more run.

He was fiddling at a ball well outside off. He should be better than that. S Marsh at least is in form. The only reason Voges is playing is because he made a century against the worst side in Test cricket. He has very few credits in the bank and I don't think he'll make it through the series (at his age, if he's not making runs, he shouldn't be playing). How many credits does Haddin have? He hasn't made a century since 2013, he's only made it to 50 once since the last Ashes series (18 months ago). He's also dropping catches. Like Voges and Watson, not sure he'll make it to the end of the series. Agreed. It's not as bad as the result seems. However, if we don't get a few things right at Lord's we can kiss the Ashes goodbye.

Hogan shouldn't be immune from criticism. However, it should be put in perspective. If you're going to have a go at Hogan, you should also be having a go at the senior players yet again not playing well (how many of Dawes, Cross, Vince, Jones, Dunn, Garland, Lumumba and Howe played good games today?). FWIW Hogan acted 'sulkily' far too much for my liking today. He is going to get beaten every now and again in his career; Hurley's in AA form, Hogan's not the first forward he's had the better of. But I didn't like how Hogan didn't really look to put in second efforts today, which is something he's done this year quite well. Bad game, but not even close to a concern, let alone one of the more serious concerns.

Moeen comes on for the last over before lunch, Warner and Smith cruising, and he takes Warner out. We've now lost 4/9 with our iffy middle order yet again not standing up when needed. Voges has played one outstanding innings but it was against the West Indies and he hasn't done anything of note since. Clarke doesn't look fully fluent, Smith's thrown his wicket away twice with poor shots. Watson and Haddin are both out of form with the bat, I can't see either of them making a respectable score. I'd drop Watson for Mitch Marsh and bring Siddle in to replace Starc. Voges gets another chance but Shaun Marsh is in better form and we're going to be 1-0 down in a few hours, we can't afford to lose more Tests. If Voges isn't performing that one century he made shouldn't be the only reason he's in the side.

I tend to agree with you. I don't see in Garland what everyone else appears to see. He is horrendously slow at disposing of the ball, generally makes bad decisions too. I wouldn't say he's a good kick - we have worse, but it's not like he has some silky kicks we can't afford to lose. I don't consider him good one-on-one, again we have worse but we have better. He's not tall or big enough to play as a key defender but we have Jetta to play on smalls. I really don't see it.

It's absolutely time to drop Watson. Useless with the bat, and he's only bowled 13 overs in the entire match. That's not enough to keep his spot as an all-rounder, and his batting is nowhere near it. Mitch Marsh is in form. It's time to make the switch and stick with it. As for the Test, I have no doubt England will be disappointed with having been bowled out so quickly, leaving us two full days to, theoretically, slowly work down the target (which I'd have thought is 50-100 lower than what they'd have hoped to set). However, we're not going to score 400 runs batting last on this pitch, so the Test is gone. Haddin's dropped catch on the first morning was always going to be huge. I don't think I'm being melodramatic in saying I think he dropped the Test.

Poor result in the end. Everyone got a start. Everyone gave it away. Smith, Clarke and Voges all got out to terrible shots, rather than good bowling (although Voges was feeling the run rate pressure). Rogers got out to a poorly played shot too. Should have gone on with it unfortunately. We're now in the unfortunate position of needing to rely on Shane Watson, along wit Haddin and the tail, to get us another 150 runs. Not sure how comfortable I am of that prospect.

Pretty flat bowling. Johnson's yet to translate his form from 2013 to a country with flat pitches (e.g. UAE last year v Pakistan). First attempt in England was a failure - without his bounce and being down on pace as a result, he was a lot easier to play. He's got a bit of work to do. Starc got a lot better and kept swinging it, if he's injured that's a big loss. I thought Lyon fought well too, for a Day 1-2 pitch. Meanwhile, that LBW decision against Warner was abysmal! That pitched miles outside leg and hardly hit him in line with off - with the angle that was going to miss off stump too.

Pitch is a road so 7 wickets on Day 1 is quite good, but how many times in his career have we said that a Haddin drop has defined the day? If he'd held that (easy) catch, there's a fair chance they'd have been bowled out on Day 1. Hazlewood was great. Starc got better but opened terribly. Johnson was no good.

I don't think McDonald's the kind of player to 'believe his own hype' or anything like that. I think the issue is one of confidence - he started the year out well and was confident and it built up for a period of, what, 8 weeks? But around the time when he got belted by Cloke in a quarter I think he's really fallen away since then, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lost confidence a bit from the experience of being embarrassed in front of 60,000 people in that first quarter.

What does 'not afraid to show it' mean? By his 2014 standards Dunn's had a crap year.

Right, well, Harris has retired. What a pity. Loved his bowling and a staple of our recent wins has been Harris' ability to swing the ball early and often and create huge problems for opposition batsmen. Clearly now we start with Johnson, Hazlewood and Starc, and Siddle may well make a surprising appearance this tour. Cummins brought in to replace Harris, so there is depth in our reserves at least.