titan_uranus

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.

Irony overload. He is not soft. Take off your biased, anti-Toumpas glasses.

I'd offer Scully up as being more disappointing, but the point is still valid. Trengove's not playing very good football at the moment. The fact that we're lauding his ability to achieve 20 disposals three consecutive weeks is, IMO, an indictment on his status. If it's mental, take the captaincy from him (this should be done anyway). If it's injuries, then hopefully with time he'll begin to improve, but right now he's a long way from good enough IMO. He might need to shed a kilo or two to pick up some pace, as I feel his game is being severely impacted by his lack of ability to get to enough contests.

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.

Your other points? They were these: You called me a 'fwit' You said [censored] spills from my mouth You said I believe that players who start well go downhill from there. Of course, that's not what I said, but what do you care? I didn't respond to these points because you didn't deserve a response.

Well I guess that means we agree. The irony in your last sentence is enjoyable, really.

So you're clearly another idiot who subscribes to the 'you don't know what you're talking about if you haven't played AFL before'. One of the only benefits of a world where only AFL players could comment on football would be your absence from it. If you wish to go down the 'he's had a better first year, therefore he's going to be a better player' route, then go for it, but history has shown that the start a player makes to their career doesn't always reflect the career overall. I can cope with a Wines/Toumpas comparison, but not as much with a 'Wines is better than Toumpas' whinge. I'm not judging his status at all, I'm merely pointing out to those who are drooling over him that his form in the last few weeks had tapered, which may (or may not) have led to his being made the substitute (I'd say it was relevant at the least). I'm probably biased, to an extent most on here are, but not in this regard. Clearly if you needed to pick one of the two to play in your side right now you'd pick Wines, but that doesn't mean Wines is going to be the better player, and I'm more than happy to have Toumpas on the list instead of Wines.

Well that shows the commentators don't really know what they're talking about. Wines is a good young player, sure, but creative play-maker he is not, so that comment is baloney. It's also pertinent to note that Wines was the sub yesterday. His game was good, sure, but before Cassisi went down, to state the obvious Wines was considered the 22nd player. The continued Wines v Toumpas stuff is frustrating, especially given Toumpas has shown true development in the space of half a season (both pre- and post-Neeld).

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.

The Australian side playing Somerset right now is this: Cowan Watson Hughes Khawaja Clarke Faulkner Haddin Siddle Pattinson Starc Lyon Before the game Haddin said that Rogers wasn't playing because he's had a lot of time in the middle for Middlesex already, so he's already got his form. What worries me is the inclusion of Faulkner. Not a fan. I think the idea is that we get more from playing Faulkner than we do from playing the weaker of Hughes/Khawaja. I don't like it. I'd hope to see Rogers open, Watson to bat at 6, and Faulkner not to play the first Test. But I'm guessing that, unless Hughes and Khawaja both pile on the runs (that's not going to happen), the weaker of those two will be dropped to make room for Rogers.

It's not a requirement at all. So stop mentioning it. There are plenty on here who don't know what they're talking about, including in their (at times) abhorrent comments on Toumpas, but that is nothing at all to do with whether or not they have played football before.

Another of you knobs with the 'you haven't played football, so shut up' rubbish. None of us have. FFS. Being an ex-AFL footballer is not a requirement to be able to express opinions on football.

If Toumpas doesn't excite you, I don't know what does. Finally we have a young midfielder who is showing marked improvement, is clearly learning from his mistakes, and has skills that the rest of our side dream of.

Also, Fawad Ahmed comes home, Steve Smith is added to the squad (what joy!), and Ashton Agar is going to stick around the squad like he did in India.