Australian captain Tim Paine and coach Justin Langer look ahead to one of the most anticipated trial matches in Australian cricket history when two Australian teams go head to head to secure their spot in the first Test against England on August 1.
It looks like they will be able to complete two games in the four days. On the bright side its better that they get skittled now than in the test match. So far we don't learn anything except that our batting is poor.
And then he gets the important one. Good for him, 41 also good for Marnus. I assume they’re tough batting conditions with a scorecard like this one, given that Paine chose to bowl. Getting through 80 balls is a good sign.
Without trawling through every Test since 2001 and going on memory only, I can’t recall too many instances other than the 1st Test in Cardiff in 2009 when Hauritz couldn’t remove Panesar after we got three first innings tons, or of course not getting KP and co out at the Oval in 2005, when not getting wickets cost us. It’s more been along the lines of Trent Bridge in 2015, getting skittled. I really think our prospects are lie with our middle order holding up. We’ll get the wickets. I don’t see Marnus’ bowling as the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, let’s say. I say this just as Haddin’s XI sink to 4/33. The Poms will be loving this.
If not badmanners, then we’re in trouble. But if we conclude that we don’t, do we pick a player because he can bowl some handy leg spin, when we already have a strong attack? I say this when Marnus is looking like the Rock of Gibraltar compared to the rest of Haddin’s XI on 3 for 22. But my point is the same. If we’re choosing from among Patterson, Wade, Burns, Bancroft, Handscomb, Carey and Labuschagne, I don’t think it’s a bowl off.
We've had some Tests over this period where we have put big totals up, but for the most part our team scores have been around the 225 to 275 mark, certainly the last 3 series. Overall we just don't score heavily in England.
Many of the Tests when we have lost, we have lost big, 150 to 400+ on many occasions. Not sure a single batsman would make a difference in those circumstances, but a couple or three wickets may have ended some ENG partnerships before they got big.
Jero you make good points, but do we have any batsmen capable of the job? I think we can expect Smith to be good but I feel it's a matter of the rest of the batting to scrape together whatever they can and the responsibility falls on the bowlers to put it in the right areas to trouble a shakey English line up. If they work Smith out were in big trouble.
I just hope that it's not overlooked that the last time Australia won in England we had no less than Damien Martyn batting at 6. We lost in 2005 with no less than Katich at 6. Again in 2009 with Marcus North in the slot, and in 2011 with variously Phil Hughes, Smith, Warner and Watson at 6. In 2015 with Watson, Mitch Marsh (3 Tests) and Voges there. While you could argue that some of these were significantly better than others, with the exception of Marsh and Watson we've slotted in specialist batsmen of genuine substance there. And kept losing. I don't think we ever lose series in England for lack of wickets. We lose because we get bowled out. So for any suggestion that Labuschagne or Mitch are in the frame because they can contribute some overs I would say to simply stop right there. It's got to be our best available batsman for number 6, full stop. If Labuschagne is the best batsman we have for 6, then his overs are a bonus. If not, his bowling doesn't even come into it one iota.
Simoc
Guest
It looks like they will be able to complete two games in the four days. On the bright side its better that they get skittled now than in the test match. So far we don't learn anything except that our batting is poor.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
All out 105. Neser 4/18. Bird 3/28. 43 overs!
Jero
Roar Rookie
And then he gets the important one. Good for him, 41 also good for Marnus. I assume they’re tough batting conditions with a scorecard like this one, given that Paine chose to bowl. Getting through 80 balls is a good sign.
Jules
Roar Rookie
The irony of this is that the only bowler from the Hick XII who looks a chance of getting picked, Patto, is wicketless for the moment.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Yep, definitely more questions than answers at this juncture. Maybe Steven Bradbury will earn his first Test cap.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Without trawling through every Test since 2001 and going on memory only, I can’t recall too many instances other than the 1st Test in Cardiff in 2009 when Hauritz couldn’t remove Panesar after we got three first innings tons, or of course not getting KP and co out at the Oval in 2005, when not getting wickets cost us. It’s more been along the lines of Trent Bridge in 2015, getting skittled. I really think our prospects are lie with our middle order holding up. We’ll get the wickets. I don’t see Marnus’ bowling as the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, let’s say. I say this just as Haddin’s XI sink to 4/33. The Poms will be loving this.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Oh dear...this could be all over before lunch.....
Jero
Roar Rookie
If not badmanners, then we’re in trouble. But if we conclude that we don’t, do we pick a player because he can bowl some handy leg spin, when we already have a strong attack? I say this when Marnus is looking like the Rock of Gibraltar compared to the rest of Haddin’s XI on 3 for 22. But my point is the same. If we’re choosing from among Patterson, Wade, Burns, Bancroft, Handscomb, Carey and Labuschagne, I don’t think it’s a bowl off.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
We've had some Tests over this period where we have put big totals up, but for the most part our team scores have been around the 225 to 275 mark, certainly the last 3 series. Overall we just don't score heavily in England. Many of the Tests when we have lost, we have lost big, 150 to 400+ on many occasions. Not sure a single batsman would make a difference in those circumstances, but a couple or three wickets may have ended some ENG partnerships before they got big.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
mmm...but you could also argue that there have been Tests we lost because we couldn't take enough wickets or get the breakthroughs when needed.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Jero you make good points, but do we have any batsmen capable of the job? I think we can expect Smith to be good but I feel it's a matter of the rest of the batting to scrape together whatever they can and the responsibility falls on the bowlers to put it in the right areas to trouble a shakey English line up. If they work Smith out were in big trouble.
Jero
Roar Rookie
I just hope that it's not overlooked that the last time Australia won in England we had no less than Damien Martyn batting at 6. We lost in 2005 with no less than Katich at 6. Again in 2009 with Marcus North in the slot, and in 2011 with variously Phil Hughes, Smith, Warner and Watson at 6. In 2015 with Watson, Mitch Marsh (3 Tests) and Voges there. While you could argue that some of these were significantly better than others, with the exception of Marsh and Watson we've slotted in specialist batsmen of genuine substance there. And kept losing. I don't think we ever lose series in England for lack of wickets. We lose because we get bowled out. So for any suggestion that Labuschagne or Mitch are in the frame because they can contribute some overs I would say to simply stop right there. It's got to be our best available batsman for number 6, full stop. If Labuschagne is the best batsman we have for 6, then his overs are a bonus. If not, his bowling doesn't even come into it one iota.
Tom
Guest
I'd consider it more important if the slackers were actually streaming it
Jeff
Roar Rookie
It will be a fascinating four days and looks like rain free too. Quite cut-throat for a few players in terms of 2 shots at it.
Neel
Roar Guru
Of course it is important. A lot of aspects can be determined from this game.