AUS win toss and elect to bowl.
Denny and Roy look solid enough and put on best opening partnership of the series, albeit a mere 27 before Denny goes hard at a ball he could have left or played with soft hands. Edges to 2nd slip where Smith makes a meal of it but doesn’t panic and eventually holds on.
ENG 107-2 after 33 overs.
We have some batting with application going on. Good stuff.
I don’t understand the decision to bowl. All the stats give the advantage to the team batting first in tests. Sure, there are some circumstances that dictate bucking the conventional wisdom, but none of those circumstances apply today; in fact, The Oval is generally a ground that rewards batting first. Not only that, I’d think that the Aussie quicks might have benefited from an extra day or two of rest before being asked to bowl again.
I agree on all counts (though two of the Aussie quicks have had plenty of rest days). Some chat on cricinfo about it being a strategy to play for the draw. I personally doubt that came into it - I mean, Paine is no Steve Waugh, but surely no Aussie captain worthy of the name would think that way? A better reason would be the general fragility of both sides’ top order. But if England do go on to 300+ (as they really ought to, but I’m not counting any chickens by any means), that just increases the pressure on the Aussie openers.
Am here. On the toss, think Paine got suckered in by the overcast conditions and a little grass on the wicket. Shouldn’t have batted first down here. It’s flat in the County Championship, this also looks like it’s not doing much except for Cummins (because he’s great)
Root has ridden his luck. Burns should have played that shot full bloodedly instead of pulling out halfway through. He’d done ok up until then.
Nope, if that was the thinking why did they drop a batsman for a bowler (Head for Marsh)?
I think they put England in so that they would have an excuse to bat for days to allow Steve Smith to get the 329 he needs for 1,000 runs in the series.
Not sure what the point is of replacing Roy with Curran if he’s just going to do the same thing. Needs to redeem himself with the ball. England in serious danger of failing to make 250 now, 199/6.
Well, you’d have to say that Marsh has just about justified his selection today. 
Cummins, though, has bowled incredibly well. He could just as easily have five or six. In addition to going past the bat on numerous occasions, he had Root dropped twice in consecutive overs, then set up Curran beautifully for an LBW, only to overstep the crease.
Even with the drops and the other missteps, the Aussies would have to be happy to get 6 for under 200 runs. This looks like a 400-run pitch to me.
Very astute from England - making Mitch Marsh look a world beater is teeing us up nicely to win the urn back next time.
His two LBW’s were decent balls, but it’s not like they were unplayable. Bairstow, in particular, should have done much better, and his decision to review was pretty poor.
I am sat almost behind the stumps facing the end that Bairstow was batting when he got out. From 90 yards away it was plumb. Dumb review - as I said to the mate I have sat next to me, he’s either hit it, in which case he should review immediately and he didn’t, or it’s out.
He needs dropping. He averages around 20 since the starts of 2018 and has a glaring flaws that make him susceptible to being bowled through the gate. He’s also aggro as hell and not as good a wk as Foakes. Get him out.
Pretty good last hour for England. 70 runs at about a run a ball. Leach doing a nice job of protecting his wicket while Buttler smacks them around.
I can turn any player into a world beater by saying that player should not be in the side.
Sending the opposition in on a 400 wicket doesm’t seem a great idea. England may still get them.
Yes, but I ain’t for droppin’ da bone on dis. 
The problem with Mitchell Marsh, from my perspective in advertising parlance is that he’s a bait and switch.
Promoted by the cabal that runs cricket in Western Australia as a candidate to solve Australia’s perennial search for a bowling allrounder to follow in the footsteps of Alan Davidson and Richie Benaud.
Note bowling allrounder, somebody capable of bowling first change @ 140k or long spells to rest the frontline and batting #6/7/8 who can periodically turn out a quick half century to set up a win.
To be fair, they are rare diamonds. Since those days England have produced Botham & Stokes. Kiwis had Hadlee, Pakistan had Imran Khan, India had Kapil Dev, South Africa had Kallis, Windies had Sobers.
Much of this can be blamed on the fact that bowling in an Australian summer is bloody hard yakka and the role and expectations make it pretty much a mugs game.
But Marsh was promoted within the Test team from a #7 who bowls and bat a bit (but didn’t take wickets and couldn’t score runs) to batting at #4 and not bowling.
He took 4 wickets with some handy swing bowling yesterday, but only because AUS couldn’t take the catches off Cummins.
He’s supposed to take wickets in the manner he did, just he almost never does.
In 32 Tests/53 innings he’s bowled 462 overs i.e. averages just 8 overs per innings.
His strike rate is a wicket per 71 balls so takes less than one wicket per innings, barely one per Test.
He’s a part time bowler with a sub-par batting average at Test (25.4) and first class (31.6) with just 10 100’s from 172 innings
As the Grade Cricketer would say, he’s a salad or rig based selection.
So basically, unlike Cummins and Hazlewood who are class, Marsh has been made to look good by the England batting line-up? No surprises there.
I posted this to cricinfo yesterday but it didn’t get published - anyone know what Bairstow’s ratio of unsuccessful/successful reviews looks like? My impression is it would be a typical cricket score, e.g. something like 176/5. I backed him early in the series to show up and prove the doubters wrong, and as usual I was way off the mark there. Unless he gets a big score in the second innings, surely he is dropped for Foakes for the next series.
Cumbrian, once the hangover has receded, any more thoughts from the ground?
Possible 11 for the next Test (if all fit), thoughts? I know we have discussed Gary Ballance here before and basically dismissed him from consideration, but I’ve forgotten why - was it flawed technique against top seamers? That’s true of most of England’s options at the moment. I checked his stats and he has a Test average of 37, first-class average of 47 (51 this season), and is only 29. We desperately need someone to fill that hole at 3 who stands a chance of building an innings (i.e. not another strokemaker like Roy/Stokes/Bairstow/Buttler, though Stokes has shown aptitude for patience too, of course). Tell my why not.
Burns
Denly
Ballance
Root
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
Archer
Leach
Broad
Anderson
On reflection, while I think those are England’s 11 best players at their respective positions, that bowling attack looks a little fragile. On a pitch not expected to turn, I’d replace Leach with Curran or Woakes. Or drop Buttler/Foakes in favour of one of those.
From what I’ve read, the other names in consideration would be Pope and Sibley. I’m not seeing a lot of people talking about Malan, but I reckon he’s worth another shot.
Meanwhile, England aren’t hanging about: last two wickets gone for 17. 294 isn’t great, but better than it could have been. But, you know, Steve Smith. Instead of the usual “add two wickets to the score and see how good it looks then” heuristic, against Smith England need to employ the “subtract the 100 Smith is good for from the score” version. Unless we’re bowling the other 10 men out for <200, if not <150, then we’re done here.
Bowling out the other 10 for 200 seems plausible given the form most of them are in, but possibly not on this pitch.
No, you are being unnecessarily harsh. That was as good an exhibition of swing bowling as Archer was of fast bowling at Lords.