There’s not a whole lot of time to celebrate our first Test victory, with the second Ashes Test getting underway at Lord’s in under a week.
While Australia will likely remember the first Test victory fondly for a long time, it wasn’t a perfect performance by any stretch – will changes be needed for the second game?
That’s not even mentioning the sweeping changes England may be forced to make following their bitterly disappointing effort.
What changes should both sides be looking to make ahead of the second Test at Lord’s?
We got Roar cricket expert David Schout on the Game of Codes podcast to analyse what selection changes both countries might have in store for the pivotal encounter on Wednesday night.
Listen to the discussion:
Do Australia look to swap out James Pattinson or Peter Siddle for a more established option in Mitchell Starc or Josh Hazlewood? Does the Lord’s pitch benefit them, or should the victorious first Test quartet get the nod regardless?
Do England have the reserves capable of mending their middle-order woes? Was Edgbaston the last we’ll see of Moeen Ali in an Ashes series?
Visit our Game of Codes hub to catch the full episode and be sure to subscribe and review on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or wherever else you’re listening.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
So am I Enjoy the victory You don’t know when the next one will be
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
I'm looking at the reality of the situation.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
The favourable conditions Wade encountered may not have been so if he faced Lyons, Pattinson, Siddle and Cummins. Ali was awful, Woakes is innocuous when it doesn’t swing and they bowled Broad and Stokes into the ground as a consequence. For all the vagaries of a test match, England were outplayed. Allocate points to each individual and see how many Englishmen make a combined side. 2?
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
Yeah, we can’t gloss over that piece of bad luck. It had to have an effect. That said, our dominance grew as the match progressed so I reckon the English team will be pretty flat right now
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
No. Your just searching for negatives. Without Burns first innings England would’ve been absolutely belted. Nothing is never as good as it seems, and nothing is ever bad as it seems.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
That comment shows you're missing the point.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
So many saying : “Without Smith”, what could have been? etc, etc. The fact is though, it was WITH Smith. A vital member of the team & the major reason they won. It’s what great batsmen do. A little like saying that if not for Bradman, Australia would’ve struggled in that era. Obviously.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
I'm with you Pete.. Without Smith's contribution we are unlikely to win. Wade scored well with the freedom given by Smith's platform. So, yes, can't get carried away. And if we didn't win, there would be two batsmen and at least pone bowler looking over their shoulder. Doesn't devalue other good contributions, it just is what it is.
Michael
Roar Rookie
Hazelwood was bowling beautifully in the tour match. 3-11 off 9 overs. He should be straight in. He has the best average of the non-Cummins seamers
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Head worked the hardest. Two really valuable innings. Lyon and Wade great but in very favourable conditions. Cummins great but I’m sure Anderson would have been his equal. There were good contributions from English players as well, just no one in the league of Smith and we didn’t have our best bowler missing for the entire test.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
I hear what you’re saying but you can’t devalue the contribution of Lyon, Cummins, Head, and Wade.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Sorry Viv just started with a simple comment that Smith and Anderson were the difference in this test.
VivGilchrist
Roar Rookie
Wow, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed Pete?
PeteB
Roar Rookie
11 players against ten ? If we had of lost Cummins after 4 overs I’m sure that would have made a huge difference to the result. Smith saved us in the first innings. I’ve seen too many English series go sour as far back as 1981 to start counting chickens after only one test.
Paul
Roar Guru
Pete, I was under the impression that the 4 guys who were left in the England attack were Test quality, so I assume the loss of one bowler shouldn't have made that big a difference? I'm also not sure why someone or a few guys can't step up in the side and make more centuries as the tour progresses. I certainly expect a repeat of the solid batting I saw from Australia over the next 4 Tests.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
So what exactly is ridiculous about my post ? Smith and Anderson were the difference in Test 1. There’s no guarantees that will carry through in the next four tests.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Explain where I indicated Australia would win 5-nil?
PeteB
Roar Rookie
So your suggesting the result of this Ashes series is a foregone conclusion ? Australia 5-nil ?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Ridiculous assessment Pete B. For all the reasons outlined by the previous posters above. When we can find some time, shall we sit down with scoresheets from 60%+ of Ashes Tests since the 1940s, rule a line through the best performing players (or notable absentees/non-performers from the opposition) and then debate whether there would have been a different winner of the match without those performances? That is Test cricket. Different players step up up at different moments to provide the difference.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Let’s not kid ourselves. Smith got us out of a deep dark hole and England were missing their main strike bowler for the whole match. There’s still four tests to go and based on history we fade away quickly when the ball starts swinging particularly in the 3rd and 4th tests.