Nasher

That's how I felt too. He looked in good nick - but he also got out to a poor shot. Good building blocks to a form reversal, though he's not off the hook yet. I really want Clarke to come good though so I'm not at all disappointed that he's being given a lot of time. WYL will be happy that Clarke put in the request to play some club cricket to find form, but was told no by CA. It shows that it's not a terrible idea - but I still agree with keeping him in the side. Speaking of bad shots, how about how Haddin got out? I nearly threw up.

I wondered that too (didn't see any comments if there were any). Thought if there was one thing anyone may've learned from this summer, is to write off Mike Hussey at one's own peril!

It's been a pretty interesting ODI series so far. In every game, at least one batsman has stood up, as has at least one bowler. In this form of the game you probably only really need one bloke to stand up, so as long as this keeps happening then we're still a chance to continue winning. It's nice to see some winning cricket anyway, after the dreadfully depressing Ashes series. Brett Lee is an interesting proposition at this stage of his career. He's bowling at around 140kph - I always thought during the peak of his career that if he stopped being able to bowl at 155kph he'd be next to useless, but it looks as if he's still capable of being a good enough bowler even without the speed. Good for him - I thought he was finished.

+1 for the "measuring a keeper's performance entirely on catches is crazy" team. Next we'll be measuring Jack Watts' performance this year solely by the number of marks he has taken.

Absolutely agree with everything else AoB has said. Especially regarding the phantom NSW bias, but you all already knew that

Watson's amazing ability to inexplicably get out when he's in good form is frustrating and his running between wickets is a worry. Really though, he's the least of our worries at the moment. He, Hussey, Haddin and perhaps Siddle are the only players whose spots in this side are safe at the moment.

The selectors have been perfectly clear that Smith is in the side for his potential as a batsman, that's why placing him at 8 defies logic. I'm not sure how this couldn't be clear actually. He's batting at six, didn't bowl a ball in Perth and bowled 18 overs when the quicks all bowled more than 25 in this test. A specialist spinner would've bowled a shirtload of overs today I'd have thought.

You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you were there, in person, to witness one of the most humiliating Ashes loses of all time. Awesome!

Rain? Four days of heavy rain? Please?

Hayden.

You'd bet your house on Watson making a 50 and not going on with it. Still, i'll happily settle for an opener that consistently scores 50s, which Watson clearly does. Have I mentioned that I love Mike Hussey?

Mitch switched on with the bat. Could this mean he's also going to be switched on with the ball? Let's bloody well hope so, because otherwise there's no reason to keep watching/following this Test. Also, I love Mike Hussey. Wish he'd gone on though.

I don't quite follow why you've got it in for Hilfenhaus but can't understand why Siddle is in the gun. I think your judgement has been clouded by one handy innings and a Victorian bias. In my eyes, both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are pie chuckers (at the moment, anyway) and both will get raped and pillaged by the pommy bats. It doesn't really matter which one you pick. Either way, it is all a bit ho-hum. Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson - who cares, can't see any combination of those blokes taking 20 wickets, especially when coupled with Harris and the obscure Beer.

That sounds like it might be worth keeping an eye on. Cripes, I'm dreading this next Ashes Test. Reminds me of the feeling of seeing Geelong coming up on the draw circa 2008; where not watching doesn't feel right, so all you can do is brace yourself because you know it's going to hurt. Urgh.

Yeah, there was a Dean Jones written article in The Age yesterday about the same era, saying the same thing.

AoB's post made me rethink my position too. If you take it for a given that these Ashes are gone, then he's absolutely spot on: cut our losses and start formulating a side ready to get the bloody things back next time. With a moment of quiet reflection, I agree that that's what's in order. I don't think our current side is in any condition to salvage these ones. The Poms batsmen and Anderson are just too red hot and this is the worst Australian Test side I've ever seen (too young to remember the early-mid 80s). I'm not normally a fan of flying the white flag (and I can hear WYL turning in his UFO as he hurtles towards this thread), but I think one has to recognise when one is in a completely hopeless situation and act accordingly. I guess the sticking point is whether or not you believe these Ashes are already lost or not.

Speaking of Chappelli and Greig: I watched a game of cricket from 1984 (I was born in late '83) on Fox a few days ago, and the first thing I observed that the commentary team was Chappell, Greig, Lawry and Benaud. Commenting on the Cricket is clearly not a gig one relinquishes readily. I've spent my whole life listening to the same commentary team. Anyway, not much to do with this Test, but it is the general cricket thread!

I don't know that I can be bothered writing a thesis on this like everyone else, because I think the selections speak for themselves. I probably would've selected David Hussey instead of Smith and I know nothing about this Beer bloke, but really, none of this impacts on the main point: We are going to get completely rogered in this Test. I don't think any other combinations of average players would change that.

If I were an English selector I wouldn't care about that. Since the first innings of the first Test, the Australians have shown that, they are completely incapable of getting anywhere near the English tail. I'd be backing the batsmen in and just picking the next best bowler.

Isn't it obvious 45? He's supposed tolead the side from the sidelines.

Ryan Harris is currently the best bowler in the country.

Heard a rumour that Hilfenhaus's omission from the side is considered permanent. The rumour goes that Greg Chappell believes Hilfenhaus has had an extended run in the side, and has proven that he is unable to take enough wickets at Test level, and therefore will not be considered for future Tests. Source is only of moderate credibility, so take this with all appropriate grains of salt.

Not real good apparently, gone for 2. Three wickets for two runs. Won't make double figures at this rate.

Katich out without facing a ball, Ponting out for a golden duck. Cracking start that

I didn't see the play today, but the stats don't support your assertion on Hilfenhaus bowling rubbish (most economical of the full time bowlers). Can I get a second opinion? Rhino, HT? On Johnson, what you're describing is pretty much how he's always bowled. I've always found it incredible with the number of wickets he gets with a nothing ball a foot outside off. His biggest weapon has always been deceit by pace rather than consistent line and length. Against real quality opposition, if he's not at his 100% best then I think he's always going to look dreadful.