RugbyRebels

Well at least it's not going to be an innings defeat.

Gotta look for the positives.

Now watch the Aussies put on a quick 200 without loss, declare and bowl us out with a day to spare.

#positives

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

We can win this!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Pi55 poor. Psyched out I think.

Steve Smith you jammy bar steward.

Twice over.

Poor effort from the top 6 with the bat. never a good sign when your No 9 top scores. Good comeback by the bowlers in the final session when we see what happens when the ball moves a fraction. Amazed the Aussies didnt enforce the f/o in such bowler friendly conditions.

The Aussies have dropped a massive bollock here. I think they wanted to prove just how fragile we are with the bat by sauntering in, building a score with minimal loss, declaring again and then bowling us out with a day and a bit to spare.

The ball is doing plenty so if they had enforced the follow on, we'd be close to utter humiliation right now.

Either Smith's ego got the better of him in terms of wanting to prove a point or he just lacked the killer instinct to damage us with an innings defeat.

As it stands, it gives us a very, very faint whiff of a chance to get a result of some sort. It's very unlikely though as we keep collapsing and seem devoid of playing with patience. If we have any ambition of getting a draw, it's going to require players digging in for hours and refusing to take any risks.

Starc’s post match interview made it very clear that choosing to bat was all Smith’s fault, sorry, idea.

Alex Hales declared available for selection. Coincidence?

at least we are finally making a game of this, er, game. If Root can get a big ton, there is a chance. Need to score quickly early doors.


Good fightback, well done Jimmy and Woakes- good comeback from Woakes.

A bit of pride restored. We've had 2 pretty good days and are at least in the game.
Its all down to Root. If he stays in and makes a big ton we've a chance. Aussies still favourites, though.

Need to win this in the first two sessions. Too passive and its all over, I can't see England and Wales holding onto enough wickets if it goes to another night session.

Ffs

Mellsblue wrote:Ffs

desperate really. 6 wickets for c 60 runs. Not only do we have half the team not of test standard, plus a couple of gun players underperforming, we are also buggered psychologically.

Get Hales in to biff em about early doors, move Bairstow up to 5, get Buttler in to keep and bat 7, and if Stokes is cleared then straight in at 6. That still leaves an issue at 3rd seamer imo, tho Woakes had a decent bowl, and Moeen as spinner to worry about. Oh and 3

Post Cook (and he needs to get his act together), Jimmy (can't be long) and Broad (ditto), cupboard looks bare.

Banquo wrote:gun players

Things are bad enough without you talking like Woodward.

Cook really needs to step up now. If the rest of the tour is a personal failure then the only thing keeping him in the team is the inexperience of the rest of the top 6. If Stoneman keeps playing as he has then even that might be moot.

Stoneman is in for the long term, barring he’s form falling off a cliff, and I like the look of David Milan, even if he can’t spell his own name. Vince looks more of a worry, his flaw outside off stump will be ruthlessly exposed at test level.

No idea about the bowling department, other than Anderson is worth his weight in gold and we do seem to have some young spinners coming through. I really wish Wood would stay fit. I like both his bowling and his attitude.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:gun players

Things are bad enough without you talking like Woodward.

Cook really needs to step up now. If the rest of the tour is a personal failure then the only thing keeping him in the team is the inexperience of the rest of the top 6. If Stoneman keeps playing as he has then even that might be moot.

Stoneman is in for the long term, barring he’s form falling off a cliff, and I like the look of David Milan, even if he can’t spell his own name. Vince looks more of a worry, his flaw outside off stump will be ruthlessly exposed at test level.

No idea about the bowling department, other than Anderson is worth his weight in gold and we do seem to have some young spinners coming through. I really wish Wood would stay fit. I like both his bowling and his attitude.

why is Stoneman there for the long term? Both he and Malan (averaging 25 in 7 tests) are over 30, and frankly neither are exactly convincing. With Vince, its not scaring anyone.

The gloom pre-tour was spot on, and this is against an aussie side with similar issues in the top 6; we are making them look good.

What a letdown after clawing our way back into the game. That was a dismal capitulation against a side we should be going toe to toe with.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:gun players

Things are bad enough without you talking like Woodward.

Cook really needs to step up now. If the rest of the tour is a personal failure then the only thing keeping him in the team is the inexperience of the rest of the top 6. If Stoneman keeps playing as he has then even that might be moot.

Stoneman is in for the long term, barring he’s form falling off a cliff, and I like the look of David Milan, even if he can’t spell his own name. Vince looks more of a worry, his flaw outside off stump will be ruthlessly exposed at test level.

No idea about the bowling department, other than Anderson is worth his weight in gold and we do seem to have some young spinners coming through. I really wish Wood would stay fit. I like both his bowling and his attitude.

why is Stoneman there for the long term? Both he and Malan (averaging 25 in 7 tests) are over 30, and frankly neither are exactly convincing. With Vince, its not scaring anyone.

The gloom pre-tour was spot on, and this is against an aussie side with similar issues in the top 6; we are making them look good.

Vince scares me. I just think Stoneman looks like he will make it as a test player, and by long term I mean the next 2-3 years rather than the cull that will surely follow this series. Malan I’m not so sold on, I just like some things I see. I think it’s unfair to pick on an average after seven tests unless there is a/some glaring technical flaws.
The main point is whether there is anyone better to replace them......

Didn't see a collapse happening. Thought we had suddenly become good.

Oh well, we made a go of it yesterday. 1 day out of 5 is not to be sniffed at.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:Didn't see a collapse happening. Thought we had suddenly become good.

Oh well, we made a go of it yesterday. 1 day out of 5 is not to be sniffed at.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

we lose the crucial sessions badly seems to be the issue. In both the last two tests we've collapsed in that key session.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Things are bad enough without you talking like Woodward.

Cook really needs to step up now. If the rest of the tour is a personal failure then the only thing keeping him in the team is the inexperience of the rest of the top 6. If Stoneman keeps playing as he has then even that might be moot.

Stoneman is in for the long term, barring he’s form falling off a cliff, and I like the look of David Milan, even if he can’t spell his own name. Vince looks more of a worry, his flaw outside off stump will be ruthlessly exposed at test level.

No idea about the bowling department, other than Anderson is worth his weight in gold and we do seem to have some young spinners coming through. I really wish Wood would stay fit. I like both his bowling and his attitude.

why is Stoneman there for the long term? Both he and Malan (averaging 25 in 7 tests) are over 30, and frankly neither are exactly convincing. With Vince, its not scaring anyone.

The gloom pre-tour was spot on, and this is against an aussie side with similar issues in the top 6; we are making them look good.

Vince scares me. I just think Stoneman looks like he will make it as a test player, and by long term I mean the next 2-3 years rather than the cull that will surely follow this series. Malan I’m not so sold on, I just like some things I see. I think it’s unfair to pick on an average after seven tests unless there is a/some glaring technical flaws.
The main point is whether there is anyone better to replace them......

well I gave you all that before, bar Vince

But we agree about the bareness of the cupboard- and I don't think it unfair to look at a players average after 5-7 tests tbh...this isn't the West Indies attack of the 80's they have been facing.

Banquo wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:Didn't see a collapse happening. Thought we had suddenly become good.

Oh well, we made a go of it yesterday. 1 day out of 5 is not to be sniffed at.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

we lose the crucial sessions badly seems to be the issue. In both the last two tests we've collapsed in that key session.

Yep. You won’t win every session but those you lose you can’t lose so horribly.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: why is Stoneman there for the long term? Both he and Malan (averaging 25 in 7 tests) are over 30, and frankly neither are exactly convincing. With Vince, its not scaring anyone.

The gloom pre-tour was spot on, and this is against an aussie side with similar issues in the top 6; we are making them look good.

Vince scares me. I just think Stoneman looks like he will make it as a test player, and by long term I mean the next 2-3 years rather than the cull that will surely follow this series. Malan I’m not so sold on, I just like some things I see. I think it’s unfair to pick on an average after seven tests unless there is a/some glaring technical flaws.
The main point is whether there is anyone better to replace them......

well I gave you all that before, bar Vince

But we agree about the bareness of the cupboard- and I don't think it unfair to look at a players average after 5-7 tests tbh...this isn't the West Indies attack of the 80's they have been facing.

It’s also not the Aussie batting lineup of the late 90’s they’ve come in to. The new boys certainly wont trouble the late 40’s with their average regardless of the situation, but when Cook and Root are failing it’s a dificult environment to easy yourself in to.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Vince scares me. I just think Stoneman looks like he will make it as a test player, and by long term I mean the next 2-3 years rather than the cull that will surely follow this series. Malan I’m not so sold on, I just like some things I see. I think it’s unfair to pick on an average after seven tests unless there is a/some glaring technical flaws.
The main point is whether there is anyone better to replace them......

well I gave you all that before, bar Vince

But we agree about the bareness of the cupboard- and I don't think it unfair to look at a players average after 5-7 tests tbh...this isn't the West Indies attack of the 80's they have been facing.

It’s also not the Aussie batting lineup of the late 90’s they’ve come in to. The new boys certainly wont trouble the late 40’s with their average regardless of the situation, but when Cook and Root are failing it’s a dificult environment to easy yourself in to.

not a great analogy, but take your point; my point is that there are a couple of alternatives which have not been looked at which look more productive...the key one being Bairstow as a batsman higher up. Obviously Stokes being awol is a tricky problem, the daft get.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: well I gave you all that before, bar Vince

But we agree about the bareness of the cupboard- and I don't think it unfair to look at a players average after 5-7 tests tbh...this isn't the West Indies attack of the 80's they have been facing.

It’s also not the Aussie batting lineup of the late 90’s they’ve come in to. The new boys certainly wont trouble the late 40’s with their average regardless of the situation, but when Cook and Root are failing it’s a dificult environment to easy yourself in to.

not a great analogy, but take your point; my point is that there are a couple of alternatives which have not been looked at which look more productive...the key one being Bairstow as a batsman higher up. Obviously Stokes being awol is a tricky problem, the daft get.

I agree on Bairstow and I’d have Buttler on a decent amount of caps by now in the hope he’d crack batting in test cricket, as you also suggested above. Stokes really has effed up. It’s like losing three players in one with his ability with bat, ball and in the field.