titan_uranus

That's the correct DRS decision. The third umpire would have told Hill it was 'umpire's call' on hitting the stumps, and he would have said 'I didn't think it was hitting the stumps'. Therefore, on the catch it was not out because he didn't hit it, but on the LBW it remains not out because, ignoring the bat, it wasn't hitting the stumps. Rogers very lucky, though.

2/12. Warner and Khawaja both found wanting against inswing. Good bowling, but both of them were struggling to get bat on ball in general. Broad's bowled a few leg-side deliveries, but neither was able to put them away. Need Rogers and Clarke to hold on, wear the shine off the ball, see off the swing, because as it keeps swinging we're going to keep losing wickets.

Another wonderful bowling display. Most of our bowling innings this series have been disciplined and aggressive at the same time. Lyon went another step to making the Agar decision look woeful, Bird showed up Starc (Starc may feel disappointed but he continually releases pressure with half-volleys and leg-side rubbish. Run-scoring pressure is what did in Root, Bell, Bairstow and Prior), Watson showed that he has to bat at 6 to be able to chip in with his bowling. Great fielding too (Bird's early stop on the boundary, Khawaja's catch off Trott, Harris' catch off Bell, Haddin's catch of Pietersen, all great). Will be interesting to see how we bat on this pitch. The Rogers-Warner partnership will also intrigue - Rogers is in form, Warner's not, and the Rogers-Watson partnership was doing fine. Pressure's on Warner. Watson meanwhile will hopefully avoid the swing and maybe get to get stuck in to Swann. Very keen to see how Watson goes at 6. All in all, the more we play like this and keep things competitive, the more hope and confidence we can draw for the return series. You could argue Warner's our second best batsman. But you'd be wrong. Rogers is our second best Test batsman, and at the moment Steven Smith is third (which shows you where Australian cricket is at right now). That is, of course, besides the point. Maxwell is not a Test cricketer. His bursts of wickets/runs are just that, bursts. They distort his averages. On the African tour for Australia A he made the big 155, but also made a pair. He also took just one wicket in four bowling innings. It's that kind of inconsistency that renders him a limited overs player. He has talent and potential, no one's disputing that, but he is simply not a Test cricketer. Australia has to stop trying to take limited overs talent and moulding it into Test match talent.

Every time Maxwell blazes away, whether in First Class (almost never) or limited overs format, people salivate and say 'he could be the next big thing in the Test side!' He's not close to a Test player. I'd rather see him keep doing what he's doing and being a long term member of the ODI/T20 squads than attempt to play Test cricket and end up somewhere in between a Test and ODI player. His turn in India highlighted how massively far off it he is, and a blazing ODI 100 doesn't change that.

Fantastic bowling from all of our bowlers. Clarke dropping Root may really come back to haunt us, but we're doing a great job so far. It's going to be mightily frustrating for us if we get close (like, 7/8/9 wickets in) and it rains or the light is bad. So many overs lost to rain/light. And of course, in cricket's wonderful ye olde glory, we take a 40 minute break for lunch at the scheduled time despite losing about 40 overs since tea yesterday. Sometimes cricket baffles.

Great cricket from Australia, but I don't think we're good enough to get a win in this Test. That missed chance/drop from Cook in Lyon's first over might come back to really bite us. Lyon showed why he should never have been dropped; Agar will be back one day, but not right now. I think I can understand why Warner reviewed, with his bat hitting his pad. I think. It didn't cost us (unlike Watson's selfishness did) so I'm not too fussed. Bresnan I think was victim of the DRS' problems. A fully functioning DRS system would have encouraged him, but once Erasmus paid that out, how confident can you be of Dharmasena overturning it? Bresnan wasn't to know which angles were going to be available and what mood Dharmasena is in. I understand his decision, but obviously a bad one.

dee-luded, your opinion of Clarke is misguided, ill-informed, and just plain wrong.

Unfathomable decision. If that isn't considered conclusive evidence, then there's no point having the DRS at all.

Correct decision to replace Agar with Lyon. I certainly don't think Lyon is going to magically bowl us to a victory, but I think he will not only do better than Agar (with the ball, anyway), but he deserves a crack. Warner for Hughes is much of a muchness, really. Bird's pretty unlucky to miss out, I think. Good start so far from the openers. Some of Rogers' stroke play has been great. Obviously the key is to get a nice big platform to give the middle order something to work with, but it's been good so far.

I cannot wait for NFL to start. With Melbourne and the Australian cricket team absolutely stinking, I need to see the 49ers again. Something that resembles a professional, successful team.

As I read this, I heard 'Trengove kicks into the man on the mark'. Apt.

Terrible results from the Sussex game. Cowan 66, Hughes 84, Smith 98*, Khawaja 40. Smith may go on to make a 100, which will save his spot, but what do we do about the rest? Can we drop Hughes after making an 84, to go with his (superb) 81* at Trent Bridge? Can we drop Khawaja for only making 40, despite being better than Smith and Hughes at Lord's? Can we drop Watson despite not giving him a chance at Hove? Warner's 193 now also looks just OK given the South Africans' batting. You'd expect Warner to get back in, which means someone has to go. I think it should be Watson but surely he can't be dropped without getting a chance at Hove, so if it's not him, I'd pick Hughes, even though this 84 is good. Khawaja looked maybe like he was getting comfortable at number 3. If Lyon bowls well, don't be surprised if Agar gets 'rested' or something along those lines (I maintain he never should have been picked). Bird and Starc have Pattinson's spot to play for, too (maybe they'll both play if Harris isn't fit).

There was an article in the paper today about Simon Katich, the forgotten man. Should never have been dropped when he was. He's currently in good form in English County cricket and has said he has not retired from international cricket. We could do a lot worse.

It's actually worrying. We have one Test quality batsman in the entire country (Clarke). There are 0 players not in this squad who are threatening to become a Test player, whilst the current side is made up of barely first class talent.

He's a one-dimensional fail of a Test player. Another useless, standard Watson innings. 20 off 23, out LBW. Get him out.

That catch that was turned down by the third umpire was disgraceful. Far too many poor umpiring decisions for what is supposed to be the most important Test series of the year. Doesn't make much difference to our ineptitude, though. The pitch is a road, but the bowling wasn't very good. Pattinson's having an absolute shocker, might not hold his spot for the next match. Agar's also not good enough. His 98 makes it hard to drop him, but his bowling isn't close to Test quality. Again, that 98 makes this sound unfair, but he shouldn't have been picked in the first place.

I think that's the damning point - I don't think England are playing that well at all. Cook and Pietersen are struggling, Trott's had two ducks already, Root's not firing like he was going into the series, and Prior's struggling too. All they've had with the bat is Bell (outstanding so far) and helpful but not huge contributions from others (e.g. Trott, Broad in the first Test, Bairstow in the second). Bowling-wise, Anderson obviously has stood out, but even though Swann took a 5-for, he didn't really bowl as well has he has in the past. We are just awful. Our shot selection essentially killed off our whole innings (Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Hughes, Smith, Haddin all got out to poor shots, and Clarke didn't deal well with the bouncer-yorker combo).

This article sums it up well, I think. Well you've pretty much thrown out the entire side. A bit OTT, maybe? The players who, IMO, need to be replaced are Watson, Khawaja, Hughes and Smith. Problem is, we don't have enough batsmen in Australia to fill four spots at once. Warner shouldn't play Test cricket again (not because of behaviour, but because he's simply not good enough). Cowan probably isn't good enough. Shaun Marsh I still rate, but he can't make the Australia A side at the moment. Maxwell and Henriques are those classic players Australia's been attempting to find for a while now - all-rounders who aren't good enough at either trade. Doolan made a 50 in the Australia A side and has made some runs, but he seems a limited batsman and hasn't done a whole lot to warrant selection. Matthew Wade could be a left-field selection, as a batsman only. His batting is better than the four I mentioned above. Probably not the best move, but we're that short on batsmen it's not completely out of the question.

I'm done with Shane Watson. That review was 100% selfish, nothing else. He's a petulant boy who wants to be everything; he wants to open the batting, he wants to open the bowling, he wants to field at first slip, he wants to be captain, he wants to be everything. We will go nowhere while he keeps opening the batting - you need more from your number 1 than 30s and 40s and 50s with no prospect of 100s and a constant worry of being out LBW, a flaw he's not been able to fix in 6 years. Khawaja is terrible. The fact he's getting a game speaks volumes of our complete lack of batting depth. Smith and Hughes will occasionally give a good knock, but generally lack the technique to be consistent. Rogers and Clarke are our only two Test-quality batsmen, with Clarke out of form and Rogers copping some really rough LBW decisions and good bowling. Major, major struggle street.

We shouldn't be dropping any of our bowlers, I don't think. If we do, Starc is the one to go, but I'm not sure dropping him after one game is going to help much. Apparently, yes. Pretty disgraceful, really.

I think he hit it, but the evidence was inconclusive. The hot spot potentially only showed up after the ball passed the bat (it was inconclusive FFS!). The sound was there, sure, and probably was bat hitting ball, but with no deflection, it only gets to the likelihood, not the conclusiveness, of Dar making an error. In the end, Erasmus should have told Dar that the evidence was inconclusive, and Dar should have stuck to his original not-out call. The end result may have been the right one, but it wasn't produced for the right reasons. All in all, a sad way to end a great Test which unfortunately has been marred by poor umpiring and the DRS. As for changes, Cowan was ill apparently, so give him another Test before making the switch. Harris/Bird would be handy, but who gets dropped? Starc to me was the worst of the three bowlers. I'd leave them be, though. And, Clarke needs to learn to stop using referrals on 50-50 LBW decisions.

I've been away for the weekend so I've just caught up on the past few days' happenings. The Broad decision is a disgrace from most parties. Firstly, Dar should have paid it out. I struggle to think of what he must have thought happened - off Haddin's gloves? I don't get it. Second, Clarke will hopefully have learnt his lesson - stop reviewing marginal LBW decisions and retain the reviews for the howlers. The referral of the LBW call going down leg was pathetic. Finally, Broad. It happens all the time, batsmen choosing not to walk when they're clearly out and waiting for the umpire. But I've never seen someone edge the ball to slip and pretend it didn't happen. When it's to the keeper and it's a straight line and/or a faint edge, I can understand a player using the doubt to hide. But there was no doubt with that. We've been pretty good in this Test, except for all four evening sessions. After tea on Day 1 we lost 4 wickets. After tea on Day 2 we let Cook and Pietersen cruise. After tea on Day 3 we let Bell and Broad cruise. After tea on Day 4 we lost 4 wickets. It's killing us. This Test is still winnable, but we need Haddin to be mature and play the guiding knock that Hughes played in the first innings. All of Agar, Siddle, Pattinson and Starc can bat. A useful 10-30 runs from each, maybe with one pushing closer to 50, and with Haddin batting through at the other end, and we're not out of it. Still plenty of problems, though. Cowan's not good enough, neither Smith nor Hughes have the techniques to be consistently good players, Watson's horrendously over-rated (he averages 35, two centuries ever and hasn't hit one for 3 years), and Clarke's out of form and injured. It's not a great batting line-up.

This is incredulous.

The news continues to indicate that Warner's going to play the first Test - e.g. http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/648105.html Disgraceful, if true.

Watson is going to open, says Lehmann: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/645441.html. He's opened in the tour match with Cowan, who made 3. Currently Watson's on 72. Watson opening means, you'd think, one of Cowan and Rogers will shift down the order, probably to 3. Cowan's opened in this match with Watson, so maybe it will be Rogers to bat at 3? Amazing innings for Somerset. 2/304, then 3/310. Then 9/310. They lost 6/0. Six wickets. For. Zero. Runs. Amazing. Pattinson and Starc took 4 each, Siddle couldn't get one. With Watson, Cowan, Rogers and Clarke the presumed top 4, Haddin and the bowlers from 7-11, we now have Hughes, Khawaja, Faulkner and maybe Steve Smith battling for the last two spots. I'll ignore Smith because he didn't make the tour match, so it's Hughes, Khawaja and Faulkner for those middle two. You'd assume that Watson opening means he can't bowl too much, so maybe we'll lean towards Faulkner for a fifth bowler. He sure as heck better make some runs though.