The first half of this article really smacks of an “I told you so”.

But the second half speaks much more to the heart of the matter. The admission of cheating in this match casts a long shadow back over the teams previous actions. While it is pure speculation to suggest that the ball tampering has been going on for some time, their actions have opened them up to this line of questioning.

I don’t think what you’ve sited is evidence that cheating has been going on for some time. But I think it is evidence of a rotten culture that has permeated the team and made cheating possible.

I didn’t get a lot of joy out if the ashes this time around. Watching Smith and Bancroft giggle like schoolboys about the headbutt incident was childish. Warners pressures comments about hating the English. The constant sledging. The incidents in India you sighted.

This teams culture has stunk for some time. Probably enabled by Australian supporters and their turning a blind eye while the team is winning. It created a feedback loop that made the team feel they have to win at all costs.

We’re all to blame. But I think that the fans have shown what they want from their team now and it’s time for the team to follow suit.

Cricket Australia have a pretty careful line to tread here in terms of due process. There can’t be a knee jerk reaction, as it will likely lead to legal action, especially if you are firing a player in question. I’m sure contracts will have to be examined and a process followed if dismissal is the answer.

But I just don’t trust them to do it. I mean, look at England. Ben Stokes is playing in a Test match right now with charges still hanging over his head. Time served was deemed punishment enough for him. Cricket Australia are going to go through a process, decide that Smith is the best batsman in the world and that he should take whatever punishment the ICC hand out and then move on as normal.

Smith has admitted to orchestrating this thing. There needs to be an investigation to ascertain which other players where involved and whether coaching staff are also involved. What Sutherland should of said is that Smith is obviously going to be subject to disciplinary action and an investigation will determine other players fates too. But he just obfuscated by saying they will look into it. He’s trying to take the heat out of an issue that has fired up every Australian supporter.

Circket Australia has long been a boys club and I just can’t see them making a tough call on this. I can’t see them firing the worlds best batsman while in the middle of negotiating the TV rights. There will be some hand wringing, some apologies and then business as usual. If that’s the outcome, I’m done with Australian Cricket.

I really feel for Warner when people write like this. Throughout the ashes articles were written about him not showing up and letting the side down, especially leading into the boxing day test, despite the fact he was averaging 48 opening the batting at the time and would go on to average 63. But the fact that he didn’t strike at 70+ meant everyone was penning articles about how he was cheating us of some spectacle. He may have finished the ashes with a strike rate of 52, but that was still the second highest amongst amongst top 6 batsman across the series.

I’ll admit he had a pretty poor ODI series. So did Smith. But the idea that Warner has changed his game and is now some scratchy accumulator is just farcical. Warner has always played with controlled aggression. His debut century that you mentioned? He carried his bat in that innings. When the runs are there to be had (like his T20i debut, or his second century versus India) he will go after them. These are the innings that stick in most people minds. But when he has to pull his head in against good bowling, like he did in Bangladesh, he can do that too. Anyone who thinks that this is a different David Warner has been listening to too much channel 9 commentary.

Most of these selection ‘shocks’ are logical when you stop and think about them.

Holland over agar: agar was in the Sydney squad as the possible second spinner. Holland is going as injury cover for Lyon. We won’t play two spinners in South Africa. The current test has no specialist spinners playing. Holland can step up if we only play a single spinner, but agar is viewed as a second spinner only.

Richardson over Sayers: with bird in the squad, there is no need to take Sayers. Richardson will be injury cover, but if the injury is to Cummins or Starc, he may leapfrog bird.

Maxwell’s non selection: look, he obviously doesn’t gel with the rest of the players. That’s to be expected when you tell the media your upset you bat lower than your state captain. Also, he barely bowls, or Smith isn’t confident bowling him. So as a batsman only, surely you pick Lynn. If you need someone who can bowl too, then marsh is their pick.

I’m not going to relitigate Khawaja in India, suffice to say we very narrowly lost that series without him in the side. The selections of Tim Paine and the marsh brothers were all vindicated during the ashes and Bancroft was at least justified. Cameron white has only played 2 of the ODIs and while he hasn’t set the world on fire, neither have Smith or Warner.

I do find these what-if scenarios a little pointless. Obviously you change any variable and the entire series takes a different turn. It’s like all the speculation as to how Stokes would have done.
If Smith didn’t play, we could have been talking about the glorious summer that Maxwell had.
I actually think that the Australian team could do ok without Smith. But I’m in no hurry to find out whether that’s true or not.

Mills is playing for the Hobart hurricanes, having given up first class cricket to concentrate on T20 due to a back injury that won’t let him bowl long spells.

The marsh brothers success makes you wonder if there’s a third marsh brother waiting in the wings. That bowls underarm.

Poor Joe Root – ill a asleep in the dressing room. He’s going to wake up thinking he had a nightmare that they lost the ashes… Someone is going to have to break it to him gently.

It took years and multiple operations to recover from a broken finger. After lengthy layoff, he was so worried about being hit in the hand again, it massively affected his batting. He had to remodel his batting as he has to hold the bat differently. It took a long time, plus a few other technique changes to come good.

The difference between 3-1 and 4-0 is the scrutiny it brings to the team. If we lost this match without Starc, there will be a lot of fingers pointed at Bancroft, Khawaja, whichever marsh brother doesn’t fire this match and Bird if he played ahead of Starc. The south Africa tour squad will be in the planning stages, and if we win this match, everyone in the side will likely make the trip, where as if we lose it the above spots will be in jeopardy. Starc is trying to be a good team man, because the team is strong with him in it.
Also, it’s an ashes test. If we were two up playing Pakistan or the West Indies, I doubt he would have rushed back.

Khawaja is a beautiful batsman to watch. When he’s motoring, he makes it look so easy, like he has all the time in the world. So when he finds ways to get out, he’s always going to come under criticism.
Shaun Marsh has had many chances, but he’s frequently left out due to injury. Khawaja has been left out four or five times now, but it’s generally because he hasn’t shown enough to warrant a place in the side.
Look, I know I’ll never win an argument here about his being left out of the india matches.everyone talks about it destroying his confidence. Well, he has to get past that. It’s no excuse for poor performance when he is selected. You’re completely right that it’s the mindset that needs to improve if he wants to conquer the world.
At the end of the day, he might not be setting the world on fire, but I don’t know who would replace him, bar Smith moving up to number 3. But that means reshuffling a middle order that is working quite well. If he can average 43 at number 3, I’d actually take that right now.

Where’s Jimmy to whinge about the quality of the pitch? No doubt he would say it’s still terrible, his quality just transcended it.

Good on England for hauling this match back in. Thry have had good days in this series so far, the scoreline doesn’t really do justice to the moments they’ve shown. They now need to back it up and bat Australia out of the game, which means batting through the day today and putting a sizeable total on the board. Let’s not forget they are still 130 behind and prone to collapses.

It’s actually good for Australia to have days like this. This side is not the finished article. There’s mitigating factors – Cummins is quite ill, and cook and root have played well, but I think a bit of adversity, like losing a boxing day test, would do well for their future growth.

Really hard to read form lines on this pitch. Warner made it look a breeze, but Bancroft and Khawaja both struggled. Marsh looked like he was struggling at the start as always, but worked it out. Smith looked to be struggling, having to bat much differently due to his hand, but looks like he’s got the pure will power to not get out.

That’s a nice bit of revisionism in the last 5 matches at the mcg, but England won in 2010, not Australia.

England is fielding a debutant in Curran, it will be interesting to see how he goes in front of 90000 screaming fans. That said, he’s the fourth seamer, so at least one of the other 3 needs to be having a shocker for his performance to matter. Broad hasn’t showed up in this series, but the chance of one of those freak spells of his will keep him in the side.

Again, Warner is doing fine. He’s averaging 49 this series, which is one better than his average. What he’s doing is playing the match situation. He’s looking a bit tentative because he’s is up against a very good bowling attack. I’d love to see him demolish the England attack, but so far in this series, he hasn’t had the opportunity to score one of those second innings rapid fire centuries when we are a long way ahead. Everyone who is saying he is in his shell mustn’t have followed the Bangladesh series where he scored a very fine patient century to set up an Australian win.

I’m always very wary when we start calling bowlers all-rounders.
Mitchell Johnson was always handy with the bat, and at one point batted at 7 as an “all-rounder”. He made 14 runs and was dropped for the next match.
Peter Siddle scored a pair of 50s in a match and suddenly he was an all-rounder. They were the only half centuries he ever made.
I totally agree with your point that the manner in which Cummins had made his runs is excellent. He adjusted his approach beautifully to what the match has required. Starc is a handy bat too, but he never looks as solid and he’s not as likely to dig you out of a hole if required, despite having a made a 99 and 9 50s.
Pattinson has by all accounts turned into an excellent batsman too. It’s interesting that some of these bowlers have taken time during injury layoffs to really work on their batting. This includes mitch marsh. It’s probably yet another reason that Australia is keen to get the fast bowling quartet on the park at the same time.

Im not sold on the whitewash being a foregone conclusion. I think part of it will be dictated by the strategy they take with the quicks here. They want to keep this bowling group together for a long time. And they certainly want to take them to South Africa. If Starc is carrying an injury, they will want to rest him. That brings Jackson bird into the team. I really like Jackson bird but he’s not a fearsomely fast left arm quick.
I also think that England are likely to make some changes that could make them a bit more competitive. Overton will be out for Wood, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they drop Woakes for mason crane, if not in Melbourne, then at least for Sydney. Foakes should also come in and take the gloves, with Ali potentially being the one to make way, even though it means they will be down to 4 bowlers then. But even with one less bowler, that attack looks more balanced than 4 right arm fast mediums and a spinner who isn’t bowling at the top of his game. Plus Malan was reasonable as an option to give the other bowlers a rest, as is root.
I’d also be dropping Vince (instead of Ali), although his half century came at just the right time to save his spot, also known as the “Watson Method”.
That still leaves an out of form cook clinging on, but really… They are never going to drop him. Unless he pulls a Swann style retirement mid series, but at the end of the day, who is going to replace him? Someone from the lions squad? Long term I think England are hoping Hameed regains form, but I think cook will see out the series here, and then retire at the end of the home summer.
England : Stoneman, Cook, Vince, Root, Malan, Bairstow, Foakes, wood, broad, Anderson, crane.
Hmm. Actually, now I’ve gone through the process… Maybe the whitewash is in play.

Bowling 12 overs across the 2 innings is exactly what he was brought in to do. Sure it’s not ideal that he was expensive, but his job was to give the 4 main bowlers a break. I completely agree that he isn’t in form with the ball, but when you outscore the batsman you’ve replaced in a single innings and provide a break for the main bowlers, then you’ve done your job.

It’s time for cook to move down the order. A bit like Bairstow moving up a spot and scoring a century, cook just shouldn’t be opening anymore. He’s not blunting the opposition and could be a bit handier coming in once the bowlers are into their second spell. The trouble is that England didnt bring a spare opener, so that means shifting someone up to open.
Root, well. I don’t know what to make of root. If I’m charitable, you would say he’s out of form. But this is the second time he’s under performed in Australia. Let’s not forget that he didn’t make it to Sydney last time they played here, and if he weren’t the captain I’d suggest that it could happen again.
Good take on Anderson. He’s not standing up during the big moments. And broad will probably produce a really good spell in the next test, but it won’t be enough to win them the match.
As well as some of the new players are doing, they’ve still got issues. Overton won’t play the next match. Ali is looking toothless with the ball and it’s affecting his confidence with the bat. Vince. Vince is a bit like Shane Watson. Only scored enough to stop him from getting dropped.

But isn’t he just being respectful of (what I hate to admit) is high quality bowling?

There is this myth that Warner can’t buckle down and play the patient game. His very first test century was one of graft and putting a high price in his wicket. From memory it’s the only time in more than a decade that an Australian opener has carried his bat through the innings.

We all remember the swashbuckling innings, but Warner plays those when the situation calls for it. He’s a master of the second innings, foot on the throat century. In this match he was put in with 400 runs to overcome and he played patiently.

In terms of setting the bar, he has a career average of 48 and is averaging 49 in the series. The difference is that there hasnt been a century so far, even though he was well on the way when he chard the runs down in the first test. Adelaide wasn’t a match to attack in, everyone found it tough to make runs. Sure, he missed out yesterday, he was out taking on a bowler who he didn’t respect.

I agree he’s great to watch when in full flow, but I don’t know that there’s been a match situation that has called for that so far. Would we be happy if he had played aggressively every innings, averaged 20 and we had lost the first two tests?

Is the issue that he doesn’t look comfortable at the crease? Shaun Marsh never looks comfortable at the crease, and he’s averaging 101 this series. If Warner looks poor but is still making runs, does it matter? I’m sure we would all love for him to being destroying England, but if he is merely doing his job and helping us over the line, isn’t that enough?

I disagree with the take on Warner. To be sure he is not batting as dynamically as he has in the past, but to say he would be averaging more if he cut loose is pure speculation. Warner had been watchful and doing his job against one of the best opening pairs in the world. As you point out, he’s still averaging 49. The standards that we’ve set for him are perhaps a bit high. It’s really strange, but if he made a century rather than 80 odd not out in Brisbane, everyone would be talking about the cracking series he is having.
There is a narrative writers have crafted about Smith and Warner competing and pacing each other, but at the end of the day, Smith is in a class of his own.

Why Hussey and McGrath? What have they done since retiring that would make them quality selectors?
It’s also nice for you to almost triple the selection panel wages bill, I’m sure that Cricket Australia will be calling to offer you the CFO posting any minute now…

I totally agree. If the reason we need another bowler is because the pitch will be a road that doesn’t offer the bowlers much, then surely it’s easier for a bowler to bat on for a while. In Starc and Cummins, we have two really handy lower order batsman, even Lyon can hold down an end if required.
That being said, in this situation, why not pick Mitch marsh? He’s a more than capable bowler and his batting is a bonus. When bowling at full fitness he can match Hazlewood for pace also.

I agree that Warner hasn’t failed with the bat – he’s only scored 13 runs less than Smith, albeit with one more innings. Bancroft is doing fine too, he’s had to face the bowling when it’s at its most lethal, plus he copped a run out that wasn’t his fault.
To be honest, none of the batting is particularly troubling – despite the scoreline, England has actually bowled pretty well so far. The batsman have had to graft and make ugly runs.
Handscomb is probably going to lose his place to M Marsh for the next match, but I think it will be painted as wanting to get an all-rounder into the side rather than outright dropping him.

I think Moeen will have a better series with the ball than you’re giving him credit for. For a start, he’s a much improved bowler. He picked up all those wickets in English conditions that should have favoured the seamers. Also, Australia will gift him some wickets by trying to go after him. They like to pick a bowler to try and demoralise, especially one they don’t rate, and I think he’s a better bowler than most people give him credit for. I also think that Woakes will be the pick of the English bowlers, for similar reason – they won’t respect him and will look to attack him. Your comments about him could be said of TIm Bresnan also, but he was a real handful in Australia.
If Australia really want to go after someone to demoralise england, they should go after Anderson. For a start, in three tours to australia, he’s only had one good one. He bowled ok in the last tour, but couldn’t should the workload for the whole series. England under Cook had no other strategy than to keep turning to Anderson – if australia can find a way to hit him out of the attack, it will be interesting to see where Root turns.

Regardless of the conditions he was batting on, marsh outscored everyone else in the competition.
While I’ll agree Maxwell is a talented short form player, since the end of the ODI home series in 2016, he’s averaged 23 with the bat and passed 50 twice. He wasn’t in the greatest form in India, so the selectors dropped him.
It’s ironic that marsh has replaced him, givens his own inconsistencies, but it’s hardly a shocker by the selectors.