After Jofra Archer’s dynamic display, Australia should resist the urge to fight fire with fire and instead play the same steady attack in the third Test at Headingley – a ground which historically rewards accuracy over raw pace.
Archer’s roughing up of the visiting batsmen could prompt Australia to try to return the favour by dropping one of the precise pair of Josh Hazlewood and Peter Siddle for an intimidating quick like James Pattinson or Mitchell Starc.
Headingley, though, has tended to be a traditional seaming English pitch, the kind on which it is more valuable to consistently hit good areas than bowl at startling speed. It had not been a high-scoring ground in recent times.
In the past decade, during which there have been nine Tests there, teams have been bowled out for paltry totals like 88, 91, 102, 119, 134, 174 and 174.
Of course, any decision on the balance of Australia’s attack should not be made until the tourists have got a good look at the surface.
If it appears flatter than usual, then either of Pattinson or Starc would be worthy replacements for Siddle, the Aussie quick who is least effective on sleepy decks.
Should it appear to be a moist pitch, however, then Siddle is exactly the style of bowler suited to the conditions.
Peter Siddle (Photo by Francois Nel/Getty Images)
With just five wickets at 36 across the first two Tests, Siddle’s figures do not look great. Context is key, though. He has been badly let down by his teammates, who have turfed five catches off his bowling.
A reasonable amount of luck could have seen Siddle’s figures be eight wickets at 23. His ability to choke the run rate and also to bowl long spells is valuable.
The Victorian was expensive in his final three overs at Lord’s as England slogged to a declaration, but prior to that he had conceded a miserly 2.46 runs per over across his 64 overs in this series.
Against a stronger batting lineup, Australia might need the extra pace and bounce of Starc or Pattinson. But this England batting unit is a mess. A limited-overs mentality, exemplified by a lack of patience, is hindering the likes of Jason Roy, Jos Buttler, Jonny Bairstow and Joe Denly, while skipper Joe Root is in a deep form trough.
The English are consistently giving away their wickets. The best way to exploit that is not to try to blow them away with pace but instead to hit good areas monotonously. That would be a particularly sensible strategy should the Headingley pitch turn out to be moist.
Equally important for Australia will be getting the correct balance in their batting lineup.
Champion batsman Steve Smith hopes to be fit but there must be a high likelihood he won’t be, after being concussed just four days ago.
Should he not be available, his obvious replacement is Marnus Labuschagne. The 25-year-old did a terrific job as the concussion substitute for Smith in the second innings at Lord’s, making a gutsy and skilful 59 to help Australia earn a draw.
Marnus Labuschagne (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
If Smith is allowed to play, then Usman Khawaja should move up to replace Cameron Bancroft as opener, with Labuschagne batting at first drop.
Smith’s absence would make things much less clear.
The only reserve batting options in the squad are opener Marcus Harris and all-rounder Mitch Marsh. The latter should be nowhere the side.
Harris would be worth considering if Smith is ruled out. The left-hander was unlucky to be overlooked for the first Test in favour of Bancroft, who has floundered.
There is cause for concern, though, about Harris’ ability to deal with Archer’s terrifying bouncers. The Victorian struggled against the short ball last summer, hit on the helmet and upper body repeatedly by the Indian quicks. None of those Indians has a bouncer anywhere near as vicious and difficult to read as that possessed by Archer. That’s a real worry.
Harris, though, has earned a second chance at Test cricket after dominating the Sheffield Shield last summer and making a solid start to his international career.
So much of this, of course, depends on Smith’s health. Not the bowling attack, though – Australia have no excuse for not getting that mix right.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Aha, Wade has made a hundred in this series. So, drop Paine and Cummins as Captain?
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Wade very much on aussie pitches just not convinced in england last two test matches hasn't looked like it . In any event right now I'm lived with paine again. His drs referrals are so poor, he's just cost us the test match and possibly the ashes with that frivolous referral which pitched down leg and we needed it last over . Carey for me right now
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yep, the above was just covering the quicks.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
lol! The only thing you've got right is that I've definitely "learned something" from your efforts...
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
There's nothing I can learn from you except about being immature, narky and ill-mannered. If you had bothered to read all my post you would have noticed that it corrected the errors in yours and you may have learned something.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
I understand your reasoning and you're right once the decision is made to review the result is clear cut. I just reckon the decision to review is where the variables are. Is the Captain as certain as the bowler, who often thinks everything is out, as he should, otherwise why did he appeal? Is that uncertainty by the captain tainted by a poor recent review, is he talked out of it by the body language of the batsman, keeper or short leg? To me, not as clear cut as dropping a catch.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I suppose I look at it this way: the decision to review rests solely on the fielding side. It puts the potential for a wicket entirely in their hands. Once they refer, there's nothing else to happen - it's either out or it's not. A decision to put a fielder in a particular position has too many variables involved. Putting them there doesn't suddenly mean you'll get a wicket. The batsman might play the ball differently knowing there's a fielder there, the bowler might bowl differently because there are gaps elsewhere. The batsman might even get a single to the space where that fielder was moved from and not be on strike. Warner given out and not reviewing was definitely a missed chance to stay *in*.
Raimond
Roar Guru
7 hundreds in 99 innings, seems highly unlikely to me
IAP
Guest
As Ben Stokes would say, that'd be choice, bro.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
There's no arguing with a ball that hits a fielder in the chest or bounces out of his hands as being a missed chance. I consider not reviewing a decision is as much of a missed chance as an edge going through a vacant fourth slip. Do you, don't you? Warner given out in 1st Test, didn't review. Missed chance?
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Mate, come on! Wade has been rewarded for 18 months or so of run production in Australian domestic cricket which was the criteria set out by selectors for consideration. He produced runs, he deserved his selection and he made a hundred. Every batsman in history has had luck and sometimes lots of it in any innings, but battling through that time in a big innings when you lose timing or concentration or just get a good ball, but survive is part of a century. Some centuries are ugly, but a Test century, in the current series, is worth a whole season of county runs. I keep shaking my head at fans believing an innings or a game is a long time in history and players need to be dropped every other game, because a bloke not playing is the better option. Wade’s earned his spot and deserves a decent shot at building a solid middle order with Head. Not to mention he’s one of only 4 players from both sides who’ve made a century in a series of low team scores. That deserves more respect from fans.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Fair point. If I'm being honest I though Patto would never play tests again!
JamesH
Roar Guru
Of course not reviewing a decision that would have been overturned is a missed chance. They had a chance to have the batsman dismissed and they didn't take it. The difference is that Lyon has to wear some of the blame for a non-review, given that he has the best seat in the house to judge the decision. Dropped catches, on the other hand, aren't his fault. I agree that Paine's field settings to Lyon - particularly in the first session on day 5 - were strangely conservative by his standards. It was as if they'd decided to stem runs first and go for the win second.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Repeatedly saying I'm clutching at straws doesn't make it so. And creating opportunities for wickets is the very definition of 'effective' for a bowler.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"The Pom’s only changed the rules AFTER they won the series and the Ashes." Possibly *well* after. I think the 'No more than 2 fielders behind square leg' Law wasn't actually introduced until the 1950s.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Aside from that... Given that Team Oz appears to believe that Pattinson requires a long R & R break after a Test, then if he doesn't play in T3 that'll mean that our best quick from T1 will only play 2/5 Tests.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Another thing on The Emergence of Archer (TEoA): It may, in a way, be a good thing for Oz. For some time Oz have been strutting about the world stage, poking people in the chest saying; "We've got the best fast attack in the world!". Well now, with TEoA, we clearly haven't and certain bowlers who have possibly let all this propaganda go to their heads, will now have to fully focus on their bowling to try and get some of that limelight back. Not to mention sponsors...
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"bit like haddin for oz in johnno’s series in oz?" I'll never forget or forgive MA Taylors' first comment to MJ seconds after MJ was announced as MotS. "But what about Brad Haddin hey?"
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"I had a logical and well constructed answer. But you totally lost me on the 'But let’s ignore that hey.'" That's an unusual method you have of drafting a reply. Composing "a logical and well constructed [sic] answer" before you've finished reading the post you're responding to. Possibly even a 'unique' method. Anyway, I hope that you've learned to add some fact to your future fanboi fictions. You know, make them well-constructed...
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I agree with pattinson in and id almost always say siddle up north as accuracy counts at headingly and manchester except I just wonder if they need to rest siddle now and messed up not starting starc at lords in 3.5 days alongside laba (starc needs five bowlers given his short spells) - need to make some bold calls with each ground but the selectors tend to stay put in england and it can cost australia . Outside of Australia totally understand consistency. In england the pitches are very different , particularly between london and northern grounds . We have the luxury of rotating bowlers with this squad but think they missed a beat at lords not resting siddle for headingly. Pattinson in for me too. Hazelwood if he's not feeling injuries he's in. He was superb first innings. I was ringside and they could not handle him in first innings. Was good batting conditions early day 5 for the english unfortunately with sun out and lyon getting nothing out of pitch which I expected in 3.5 days on day 1 morning , almost would have rested lyon when the rain came in as we all knew day 1 was a wipe out . Selectors won't make the big calls for me at times