It didn’t play that badly in the morning session either.
It was poor shot selection against good bowling that brought the wickets.
Great day.
I picked up a screw in my tyre sidewall yesterday and had to scrabble around to get it fixed otherwise the Brussels trip wasn’t happening. All fixed now and it is the Aussies who are seriously deflated instead.
I’d say our bowling was steady rather than spectacular, Swann held his end well and let the big boys do their thing. Once again I reckon the constant pressure from steady and stingy bowling combined with quality fielding has done the trick.
Cook for another century? I was surprised to see a six on his scorecard so early, overconfidence perhaps? (though is it possible to be overconfident with his recent record?)
Yes the worst thing is that you guys didn’t bowl as well as in the two previous Tests. Most of the Aussie batsmen just pissed their wickets away. Hughes played around a straight one, Ponting and Clarke played get out shots to balls they could have just left. Tremlett was the pick and Strauss should have got Swann on to the tail earlier because he is awesome. He bowled his first spell from the wrong end.
Cook’s 6 was a shot played by a very smart player in great touch. Short and wide of off stump he just deliberately slashed it way, way over the slips cordon down to third man. Another hundred would be no surprise although on the faster wicket he is getting very squared up by all the straighter balls. I’d be attacking him around middle and off and keeping the ball right up to him.
If I am being very critical, letting the Aussies out from 69-5 and not getting them for sub-200 is a bit disappointing, even though quite a few of the wickets were ordinary shots (interesting that Hussey looked so good - he is a Western Australian isn’t he, so is probably more used to the conditions than most).
Still, if you offered us a deficit of only 239 at the end of Day 1, having bowled Australia out and being no wickets down at the close, I think pretty much every Englishman would have taken that and not worried overly about how we got to be in that position.
Tomorrow is a very big day - if England can have a lead of 50 by the close and still have middle order bats to come in, then it will be very tough for the Aussies from there. Australia has to get in amongst England early - from there, I have seen enough England collapses to start getting worried (also, even under Andy Flower, England always has at least one utter shambles of a performance in every series - it might only last a day, it might be the whole game - but until the series is secure, I’m not going to be watching the games all that easily, worried that we could still mess it up).
Novelty Bubble - Cook’s 6 is only something like his 6th in Tests (or something similar).
The general view seems to be that once the new lost it’s sting, the wicket looks good for batting.
I suspect that is why it was harder for us to push our advantage home. Nevertheless, at least we were patient and kept the rate down.
Hopefully that stint by England at the end of the day has gone some way to calming down the ball and a true wicket is still there to bat on tomorrow.
I think Cook will play himself in again and the fast outfields may well lead to speedy scoring.
With cool heads prevailing I’d suggest adding 350 tomorrow is possible. I don’t see the aussie bowlers tying us up as much as we did to them.
However, I share Cumbrian’s awareness of potential doom. Remember Boycott’s mantra “add two wickets to that” He is right of course and the morning session will be pivotal.
Good fight back from the convicts. I don’t think it is enough, as I cannot see them taking 20 wickets, especially without a spinner on the last day.
Probably famous last words, but we will see. Another huge England innings should totally break the hearts of the Aussie bowlers.
Well Mitchell Johnson is turning the tables on England–three wickets on some threatening bowling, including Pietersen for 0. Why was he out of the side for Adelaide, again?
Mitchell Johnson’s batting form is usually a good gauge of his bowling and it looks to be the case again. Top scorer in the first innings and he’s just taken 3 for 4 in two overs. Both the century makers from Adelaide are gone.
Two years ago here against South Africa he took eight wickets in the first innings. He might need to do something like that again given Australia’s batting problems.
Johnson strikes again, 98/5. All five wickets so far have been taken by the two bowlers not in the side at Adelaide…
Johnson has long been a preposterously talented cricketer. Against South Africa in the past two series he could near walk on water. Graeme Smith would still be having nightmares about him. Conversely, in England in 2009 he was a pie chucker.
The problem is that he’s risen so fast that he hasn’t had the time to really understand his craft. It’s all instinctive and confidence. If it isn’t working, as it wasn’t in Brisbane (and in the lead-up games) he struggles to make the necessary small corrections.
When his slinging action is working he’s bowling left arm inswing at high 140ks, keeping the seam up and the high arm action gets bounce, he’s sublime. Which is why he’s been perservered with whenever he’s lost form/confidence previously.
When he slings the ball down with a scrambled seam and low arm action, and the speed drops to mid 130s, it’s distinctly average.
Not quite:
Strauss c Haddin, b Harris, 52
Harris came in for Hilfenhaus in Adelaide
Wowsers!
Australia 268 & 64/3
England 187 all out (Johnson 6-38, Bell 53, Straus 52)
Australia lead by 145 runs with 7 wickets remaining with an hours play remaining on day 2!
Bit of a suprise, but not a complete shock. I thought the bounce would catch out some of our batsmen, but was hoping that we had enough batsmen in form to cover, especially with the Australian attack looking a bit jaded. Was quietly thinking it might be a good opportunity for Ian Bell to score his first Ashes century. In previous Perth tests, we’ve tended to implode in the first innings and done better in the second after getting a look at the conditions.
Haven’t read any match reports this morning. Was it top class bowling, did our batsmen try to play the wrong shots, or was it a bit of both?
Not out of the game yet, but the lead is already at 180 with 7 left, and that’s starting to look like a mountain. 1-1 with two to play puts a completely different complexion on the series. Objectively, an Ashes series should be a proper contest, but for once I’d have been satisfied with a push-over…
You’d have to give the nod to the bowling.
The key spell was Johnson’s 9 overs taking 4 for 20.
Cook’s dismissal was a good delivery to a well set, in form batsman: he didn’t quite gett enough over a ball he probably had to play and giving a low catch in the gully.
Trott, Pietersen and Collingwood all went LBW and were well beaten by good deliveries. Classic late inswingers from a LH bowler to RH bats, pitching just outside off and straightening to take middle.
There was a stage when Siddle and Harris were bowling around the wicket and short at Prior which I thought was very ordinary, though eventually he played one on from Siddle.
bugger…that is all
Sounds like Johnson deserves all the plaudits for ripping England’s middle order with that spell. Shame no-one could stick with Bell. In this form, he should be batting above Collingwood.
Really does illustrate how much cricket is a confidence game. Cook and Hussey have gone from liability to world-class, and now Johnson has done the same. Also shows how much tripe many cricket writers come out with, with the need to constantly sell stories. The decision to drop Johnson and focus on net practise was widely derided, but it’s certainly done the trick.
Today could have gone better. Well bowled by Johnson though, all except the wicket of Anderson were good deliveries (and he did what was required to get the tailender who just hung his bat out).
From here, you’d think Australia should win. That said, high totals have been chased with success at Perth before, so it is critical that the England bowlers don’t let their heads drop and try to limit the arrears to something manageable.
Re: Collingwood - I, quietly, am an advocate of getting Morgan into the side. We’d lose a great slip fielder but I think Morgan is more talented with the bat and is a more than capable fielder elsewhere. We definitely needed a classic Tavare like innings from Collingwood today and we didn’t get it. According to Statsguru, he has managed an average of only 31 in 2010 - this should be enough to get him dropped.
I’m not seeing the logic here. Morgan only has an average of 32 from his six tests. Collingwood is a proven test player, while Morgan didn’t look too clever against Amir and Asif last summer. He did score a good century at Trent Bridge, but he barely faced Pakistan’s best bowlers in that innings. He’s been excellent in limited overs cricket, and hopefully he’ll get another run in the side at some point, but it would be a panic move to bring him in now.
If scoring 31 over a year merits dropping, then an awful lot of good test players would be dropped. By nature, averages fluctuate. I’m not convinced Collingwood is in bad form. He’s been out cheaply twice, but that can happen to any player. He didn’t give his wicket away today, he got a rapid inswinger. The same delivery did for Pietersen and Trott. In his only other innings, Collingwood made a brisk 42. If he’d bothered to review that decision he’d have been given not out.
Your points are well made.
However, Collingwood’s year average is shored up by a massive 145 against Bangladesh. He is manifestly not in good form - his Test average over the English summer is 19.
Sure averages fluctuate, but at what point do you say enough is enough? The same delivery might well have done for Pietersen and Trott - but they have contributed with the bat. Collingwood has not - brisk 42’s when we’re already well on top are not contributions; this was/is the knock against Bell.
People are talking about Ponting being under threat - not just captaincy but dropping altogether because he is not contributing with the bat. The same should apply to Collingwood in my opinion - it’s only being masked because England have performed well despite Collingwood not cashing in, whereas Ponting is not scoring in a side that has struggled to put up big totals. Your mileage may well vary and that is fair enough.
Sure it was a contribution - he came in and kept the scoreboard moving at 4 an over, which was exactly what the team needed at that point. It wasn’t a pressured situation, but he did what was needed. 2 failures out of 3 innings really doesn’t mean a lot.
Fair point about Collingwood making most of his runs against Bangladesh last summer. However, he has made some runs in the tour matches, while Morgan failed in his only innings. Throwing in Morgan without any match practise would be a terrible idea, it would just be setting him up for failure. Realistically, England just aren’t going to pick him unless someone gets injured. If it gets to the end of the tour and Collingwood still hasn’t contributed they might look at his place then.