Who is the best available opener after Khawaja? Probably Bancroft. Labuschagne maybe, but if you do that you end up moving up Smith and Head to positions they may be less comfortable in. Head as an opener would be a massive gamble, and moves him from where he’s been one of the 2 consistently successful batters. Green as an opener seems an equal hail mary based on nothing much. Bancroft would have to be a better bet. How then to get Green, if fit, into the side? Subject to how the wicket appears, does Murphy add enough more than Head as a bowler? If the conclusion based on the pitch is “no” (and I fully acknowledge the no specialist spinner approach is one that has usually not worked – but here England have not been batting for long periods, so one role of a spinner – tying up an end and allowing the pace bowlers to rest – has been a bit redundant and may be again if the pitch at Old Trafford is anything like Headingley) Green for Murphy, and then you get to also put in Hazlewood for Boland who for whatever reason hasn’t posed much threat. Yes, the bowling is a bit same-y, and Green is always a bit of an injury risk, but you have more of the bowling that is effective on the type of pitch produced at Headingley, and more batting (which arguably has been the real problem).

It’s more a matter of spinners not getting to bowl isn’t it? You’re not wrong that if one or both of Jonassen and Wareham aren’t going to be trusted to bowl, you might as well pick someone else for their batting. Puzzling why Jonassen didn’t bowl more than one over (unless injured) after taking 3-25 in the first game.

Ponting was run out by Pratt wasn’t he? Constantly on the field while the pace bowlers took turns to rest (and clean the murray mints off their fingers!).

Incidentally, Dean Jones v WI got mentioned. That is possibly the one where there is most clearly a right to complain, given it resulted from complete ignorance of the law by the umpire. Admittedly, someone on the Australian side should have been able to explain to the umpire why they were wrong and get the correct decision made.

Given Lamb(?) was completely off the ground when Phillips’ shot hit him, hard to see that it wasn’t a fair catch to Gower. It’s not like it may or may not have Lamb’s foot while that foot was on the ground.

On paper that was a very strong England batting line up, and on paper a pretty average attack, except that Phil Newport was regarded as a real threat on the anticipated green pitch at Headingley. Just goes to show that sometimes paper gets it right, and sometimes it gets it wrong. I remember being delighted that England hadn’t held out on the final day, given how easy batting seemed to have been up until then. A real almost Bazballian lack of application. Of course, what we didn’t know then was that the whole rebel tour cloud was hanging over the English. Interesting that it was one of the very few matches I can think of where Australia went in without a specialist spinner and ended up winning (Greg Campbell taking the spot Trevor Hohns filled for the rest of the series).

I read the laws on dead ball, stumping and run out last night on the internet, and was shocked to see that the the phrase “gaining an advantage” wasn’t there – not even the word “advantage”, or any form of the verb “gain”. Obviously it must have been an outdated set of the laws, although it claimed to be the 2023 version. How can that be allowed to happen?

Head you mean. I congratulate you on your certainty as to Bairstow’s intent. My “or was he lying” question was flippant and I have nothing against Bairstow – he may indeed have been having a lend of Head. Or not.

Barb, first off let me say that I was and am not in any way having a go at you in making the response to your comment that I did. You are not the only person who has made a similar comment to the one you did on the Roar in the past few days – you received my reply only because I hadn’t got around to making the point that I attempted to make in my reply (ie that I don’t think Stokes can fairly be criticised for that event and I don’t think that the 2 events can be compared). I don’t recall other times the ball came off Stokes’ bat while he was running so can’t comment on them beyond saying that the same thing will happen to anyone who bats long enough. Stokes was lucky that his (or one of his) was in a WC final and resulted in crucial extra runs – equally you could say that he was a bit unlucky that it was in a WC final and resulted in crucial extra runs and so gets remembered. The obstructing the field dismissal – I’d forgotten about that and can only (on a quick search) find a short clip of the actual throwing of the hand in front of the ball bit, without any of the subsequent reactions. Seeing the clip I remember the incident and remember thinking even though it may not have been a deliberate attempt to obstruct the throw, it was pretty clearly out. I won’t comment on whether any of the reactions may have contravened the “spirit of cricket” (or any of the laws). I think he probably thought it was accidental and I don’t think I would have expected him to walk. Incidentally I’ve never minded that Stuart Broad didn’t walk back in 2011 (it is interesting that it seldom gets mentioned that that was against Ashton Agar – another wicket to him them may have got him another test and who knows whether that would have changed his career) and leave it to others to decide whether that disentitled him to open his mouth thereafter. To me it limits what he can comment on but doesn’t prevent him from saying anything.

In the spirit of moving on, I’ll now forget Root’s diabolical and vehemently claimed “catch” of Labuschagne at Lord’s in 2019, which he has got far too little grief for over the years.

6 of 8. Bradman only played 4 of the tests after missing the first one (illness I think rather than injury?).

Bairstow didn’t because he didn’t get the opportunity. We don’t know whether he would have done, given the opportunity, but should we not accept his word that he would have done? Or was he lying in saying that?

Ben, I’ve never quite understood what is “wrong” about the mankad. The practice or perhaps attitude used to be that you gave a warning and after that it was fair game. I’m not sure that the warning is regarded as the “done thing” now, possibly because non-strikers attempting to steal an extra step became more frequent in limited overs cricket. The way the law is worded now (and what the bowler has to do) means it needs to be fairly blatant for the batter to be out – reinforcing the “what’s wrong with a mankad” idea.

Would I try a mankad? Only because my attitudes were created long ago, I’d probably give a warning. To be legalistic, I’d probably say to the first bloke that the warning applies to all of you and pass that on to your mates. After that, fair game.

My take on Bairstow-gate (assuming it’s called that now) – Carey caught the ball and immediately threw at the stumps. He didn’t look at what Bairstow was doing, he didn’t see him flick his foot over the line and then wander off. Carey’s actions were 100% legitimate and the ball was clearly still live, meaning Bairstow was out and had only himself to blame. The Starc non-catch? To me pretty clearly not out. Despite what many on here have said, to me it’s always been the case that if you ram the ball into the ground while falling/sliding after initially catching the ball, that’s not out. It’s why you try to get hands under the ball and try to hit the ground with your forearms or the back of your hands and not with the ball.

Barb, to give him his due, Stokes did approach the umpire after that incident and appeared to be asking them to not allow the runs. The accepted practice in that situation is that batters don’t attempt an additional run, but if the ball goes to the fence that option is taken away from them and the laws say it is 4 more runs (one of the reasons I don’t like the peg at the stumps if there’s no chance of a run out). As far as I’m aware, there isn’t really anything Stokes (or the England captain) could have then done to have the runs not counted so spirit of cricket considerations don’t really come in to it. In the Bairstow situation there was something that could have been done by the Australians (withdrawing the appeal – I’m not sure whether that is provided for in the laws, but it’s obviously something that it is accepted can be done). Please note that I am not saying that I think the Australian team should have done that.

Incidentally, I think Head’s comment to the effect that it’s all very well to say afterwards what you would have done, but things are different in the heat of the moment is a very fair one.

I read that as “Australia’s continual whining” and wondered what you were talking about. England’s continual whining could be mentioned by all means, but how can you write a telegram complaining about your own whining? Then I read it properly.

So it’s a do as I say, not as I did situation.

First off, I wonder why it is that Bairstow gets to decide when the ball is already dead, despite Carey having already thrown the ball at the stumps (or being the barest instant away from doing so) when Bairstow left the crease. I also wonder why it is that having been presented with puddings of pitches here, which it is fair to say look a lot like they were prepared to favour the home side, and having before the series heard the home captain saying what sort of pitches they’d asked for, it’s the Australians who are violating the spirit of cricket.

Dutski, with all respect I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you. I feel Ben, no doubt in a misguided attempt to avoid any hint of over-stating the enormity of the situation, has ended up going too far the other way and in a very English kid gloves turn the other cheek it’s only a game let’s let little brother win one sort of way has been far too soft on the Australian team and its so-called leadership. I think this is one occasion when it would have been far better for one of the Roar experts, usually as a group so well liked and respected for their calm, rational, fair-minded and fact-based writing, to have gone with the zeitgeist and comprehensively and righteously vilified the Australians as they deserve.

The team that has really signed on to this approach in recent times has been New Zealand, with Neil Wagner bowling little else. He does it very well it has to be said, although you have to query whether every wide and no ball that could be called is with anyone who is bowling in this way.

I guess the question is he as effective and does he still get that economy rate if called upon to bowl 15 plus overs a day in longer spells, starting around over 15 or 20 and bowling to the batsmen. Maybe so, but it’s more likely that he’s good value if he sticks at a few overs a day and you still need a front line spinner in the team.

While I don’t think Green is the answer to all problems, I would have been pissed off, had I been him, to have bowled one over (doing a good job of roughing up Broad in the process) and then been taken off when I had no.s 10 and 11 to bowl to.

I don’t know that that allows a general downgrading of women’s cricket. In most cricket, more wickets fall to poor shots than to particularly good deliveries. Wicket taking deliveries are often nothing special in themselves – it’s more that they come on top of a spell of tight bowling that has built up pressure and prompts a poor shot, or they come after a delivery that did do a lot or kept low or kicked up and thereby created doubt in the batter’s mind, or they come from a delivery that does something just a little bit different from what other similar deliveries have been doing – and that may be from something subtle the bowler does or from the “natural variation” we hear about and the pressure built up by the bowler in the lead-up. To me the wickets on day 5 were Cross, not a good batter remember, played a not good batter’s shot to a well pitched ball that perhaps straightened a fraction; Jones yorked herself to one with a little more flight and bounce; Ecclestone, mis-judged one that kept a fraction low after Gardner changed her line by going around the wicket; Filer, who looked a more natural 11 than 10 in the batting order, played back when she should have gone forward to one on a teasing line and length; and finally Wyatt played a pretty ugly hoick – but in that situation what was she supposed to do? Of the 8 wickets Gardner took it was only really that of Sciver-Brunt on day 4 where you could really criticise the batter in my opinion.

Brown did bowl (though very little) in the innings but not on the final day – King not bowling may be explained by injury as Dutski pointed out (I assume she was on the field so as to be able to bowl if needed) but Perry and Jonassen also didn’t bowl at all. Maybe Perry isn’t 100% fit to bowl or is being managed and presumably Jonassen will be trusted to bowl more in the limited overs games. Regardless, Healy gets to point at the scoreboard as justifying her use of the bowlers.

And Rossi just as with your Australian curators ending Mitchell Johnston’s career comment above, I was also thinking “what about rope a dope?” when the concept of “going toe to toe” came up. So per England, your opponents are supposed to play the way you want them to and it’s just wrong if they don’t.

I was thinking that too Rossi. You may not have been saying this, but the uber-flat Perth pitch was against NZ, the year after the series against India which began what seemed to now be the norm of flat pitches for series against India.

And how many more wickets might Australia have taken if the conditions had stayed as they were (ie if the rain didn’t come back) when Crawley was dismissed on day 3? Yes England copped a tough 20 minutes or so. But it was no more than that. Most or all of the rest of the problems they had stemmed from risks they decided to take – selecting a spinner who has only been playing T20 – it’s not bad luck when he can’t bowl a lot of overs, it’s to be expected; continuing to pick a pace bowler over 40 – he’s steady but unless the conditions really suit, hasn’t been much more than that for a while, and that’s what happened again; picking Stokes knowing he couldn’t bowl much – perfectly valid to pick him for his other qualities, but you can’t then lament his inability to bowl more; picking a keeper who’s never been a top notch keeper anyway and who hasn’t played much after recovering from a broken leg – hardly a surprise that he’d get a bit ragged; all of the dismissals to expansive shots – if that’s your brand, what do you expect?

Feeling magnanimous after that result, a couple of small points – Robinson wasn’t exactly wrong in saying Australia had 3 number 11s – Lyon is a good one, but that’s still where you’d prefer to see him, and while Boland clearly went well in the second dig, 11 is his spot (and Hazlewood’s). Mind you, just because something is correct doesn’t mean you should say it. Like others, I’m scratching my head at what the automatic preference for Hazlewood in the second test is based on (and concerned how many Starc might go for if the ball isn’t swinging).

The other point – Brook looks a serious talent.

From England’s perspective, if Wood isn’t fit, Chris Woakes to come in for Ali? Foakes to come in for Duckett, with Bairstow to open?