Cricket 36: Ashes to Ashes, Warner to Dust...

[The Winged Shadow]

The Aussie top three has been pretty awful. I feel that Warner will come good eventually, but a part of me think it's just my bias based on his previous track record rather that where he is at now. It could very well be the start of his final dip (from test anyway) because at no point was he convincing. None the less, in my mind, the likelihood of him turning things around is higher than a newbie coming in and standing up to the likes of Archer and Anderson.

Bancroft have been fairly average as well but he has a bit of grit about him which is suited to test cricket. He atleast seems to show a bit of fight before getting knocked over. Not sure what other options Aussies have, but I am guessing it would be either Harris or Burns. Neither are banging down the door though. Burns is more likely as he is a righty (and Langer does seem to be obsessed with the whole left right combo bullshit).

Khawaja dissapoints me the most. I think Australia has shown him enough patience but he never became someone the team can rely on. But its hard to drop someone averaging 40s when the rest of the team is so inexperienced and aren't necessarily better.

I think Marnus is a shoe in after that effort. 

England definitely in the driving seat now, despite being 1 down. Crazy series!

[Jeor]

Warner and Khawaja should be safe at least for the near future. Both of them have decent track records and dropping guys who have Test averages in the 40s is not something you can do lightly (considering England only have Joe Root who averages above 40).

Wade scored his century and Head has looked good in a few innings, so they should be sorted at 5 and 6. If he weren't captain, I think Tim Paine would actually come under pressure as he hasn't scored and his worth as a batsman has been shown to be pretty negligible so far this series. Getting an extra specialist batsman in the side and handing Wade the gloves at No. 7 would definitely strengthen Australia's batting lineup, but they're not going to do that.

Bancroft is on thin ice the most, I think. He has looked to tough it out most innings, but he does seem to have a very limited array of scoring shots. His defensive technique is also a bit suspect (his bat rarely comes down straight, it comes across his body) which is a distinct liability in English conditions with the moving ball. That being said, he did seem to weather Archer reasonably well and he'll probably stick around for another match.

England will definitely be feeling revitalised after this match. They haven't sorted out their top order, but their bowling attack has been given a huge boost by Archer (and Leach) and Australia's batting doesn't seem to have any answers to it. They have also shown that the depth in their batting (Stokes/Bairstow) is capable of building decent totals. With Smith likely out of the equation for the next Test, the fortunes of the two teams are definitely diverging at this point.

[Jeor]

Here's another thought - if Smith is declared fit (probably unlikely), do the selectors still try and find a way to insert Labuschagne into the side?

He's not really a top 3 batsman or opener, though, so he wouldn't be a straight swap with Bancroft or Khawaja.

And it would seem harsh to drop Wade or Head, given both have contributed some scores.

[Paxter]

Some of the media coverage of the Archer v Smith duel in Australia makes my blood boil. Of course it was going to happen, but where was that same sympathy for Trott back in the 13-14 Ashes? No one in Oz was bagging out Mitch Johnson in that series...

[The Winged Shadow]

12 hours ago, Paxter said:

Some of the media coverage of the Archer v Smith duel in Australia makes my blood boil. Of course it was going to happen, but where was that same sympathy for Trott back in the 13-14 Ashes? No one in Oz was bagging out Mitch Johnson in that series...

Really? I have only CH9 but everyone lauded that duel. Overall the coverage of that Archer spell v Smith has been pretty good I thought. Everyone is praising Archer (through gritted teeth of course!) and Smith (naturally!). They are however making a stink about the fact that he got booed when he got out, which I think is super hypocritical as I think Aussies fans would be just as bad if not worse if this happened here at Aus and it was an England top player (Root, Stokes, Broad specially).

I think they are sneakily trying to get back on the high horse 

[Jeor]

Smith is out of the Third Test, which is not too much of a surprise really. Glad that medical advice prevails over what would have been Smith and the team's desperation to have him in.

Labuschagne I'm sure will get the call up now, but the batting order is very fragile without Smith. The others are really going to have to step up.

Memories of 2005 when McGrath got injured with the series in the balance!

[ljkeane]

5 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Smith is out of the Third Test, which is not too much of a surprise really. Glad that medical advice prevails over what would have been Smith and the team's desperation to have him in.

Absolutely the right decision. Leaving aside the potential long term issues with concussion this isn't like most other injuries you're likely to get in cricket were the worst you're going to do is re break a broken bone or tear a muscle again, people can die if they get two concussions in quick succession.

[Jeor]

Yeah, it was a good call to have him out. It's probably not a bad idea to give his arm time to recover from that injury as well, I bet there's a lot of tenderness there. Much better to aim for the Fourth Test which is September 4, two weeks away when he has had much more time to get well and face some fast bowling again than rushing him back unprepared. If he was going to bat as frenetically as he did when he came back out, it wouldn't do the team much good anyway.

In the meantime we'll get to see what this Australian team is made of, without Smith to bail them out. Some players respond well to that pressure and it might focus the mind to know that the cavalry isn't coming over the nearest hill to save them. Then again, it might just be a task that is beyond their skill levels.

England will be heavy favourites for the Third Test. Headingley isn't a good venue for Australia either, from what I can recall.

 

[Paxter]

The bigger question here (and I think there needs to be some reflection on this from within Australian cricket) is why Smith was permitted to bat again at Lord's. I know it was a crucial time in the match, but you could tell from his dismissal that he was not his usual self. 

I think this next test match will decide the series. If Australia can hold England off without Smith, then they may just be able to continue doing so with him back in the last couple of matches. If Archer and co skittle the tourists at Leeds, then I think England will go on to win the series. 

Just on the venue for the next test...Headingley has been a pretty good ground for Australia historically, they just haven't played many Ashes tests there in recent years. They did lose to Pakistan there in 2010, when Australia got rolled by Asif and Amir. But other than that, Australia's only loss in the modern era was that amazing test match in 2001, when Mark Butcher played one of the all-time great fourth innings knocks (albeit in a dead rubber).

[Jeor]

41 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Just on the venue for the next test...Headingley has been a pretty good ground for Australia historically

Oh, I must have remembered wrongly then. Oops!
 

41 minutes ago, Paxter said:

I think this next test match will decide the series. If Australia can hold England off without Smith, then they may just be able to continue doing so with him back in the last couple of matches. If Archer and co skittle the tourists at Leeds, then I think England will go on to win the series.

I agree with this. A draw in a game without Smith would be counted as a victory for Australia, but it really depends on how they're going to handle England's excellent bowling attack. England's batting is slowly getting itself together again (at least the middle order is) and Lyon had a bad game with the ball, so Cummins et al are really going to have to dig deep too.

England are definitely on the way up and Australia are on the way down, so the Third Test seemingly points to an English victory. But Australia still have enough match-winners in the side (Warner, Cummins, Lyon) and some good potential support (Head/Wade/Hazlewood) that it's not a foregone conclusion. I probably rate it 70-30 in favour of England. Quite a few things will have to go right for Australia, and they can't afford to drop as many catches as they did in the last match.

Apart from Smith's absence, glad there's a quick turnaround too...can't wait to see where this series is headed.

EDIT: Saw some comments from Mark Taylor who is still pretty bullish on Australia. In Taylor's view, Australia are still 1-0 up, if not for Labuschagne's dismissal (potentially dodgy catch from Root) they would have comfortably made it to a reasonably boring draw at Lord's even without Smith in the second innings, if they had fielded better they might have had a decent chance of winning the match, they still have one of the world's best bowling attacks raring to go, and only need one win out of three to secure the Ashes. I don't really agree with the assessment given that England also have made lots of improvements, but the Australian team might still be feeling positive if they take that point of view.

 

[Paxter]

The only reason to be bullish on Australia without Smith is the fact that England are still pretty rubbish. I know I go on about this a lot...but there is a reason why the West Indies beat them this year. The team looks great on paper but they just don't fire often enough to cause consistent problems for opponents. 

No change to the England squad by the way...so we are probably stuck with Denly again. Fuck me dead. 

[The Winged Shadow]

43 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The bigger question here (and I think there needs to be some reflection on this from within Australian cricket) is why Smith was permitted to bat again at Lord's. I know it was a crucial time in the match, but you could tell from his dismissal that he was not his usual self.

I don't agree at all. I think everything went as it should have. He gets injured, gets taken off, gets checked, is cleared, gets back on, gets checked again later, diagnosed with delayed concussion, gets taken off for the rest of the match.

The only way they could've done things differently is if they ignored the doctor's clearance. In which case what is the point of even having a doctor? People get hit in head, take them off, the end. Do you think it was right to keep Marnus in? Without the benefit of hindsight, how do you make that call?

I don't think the team has anything to reflect on regarding the process. However, the doctors and ICC definitely do have to reflect on it. They obviously didn't or can't pick up the delayed concussion and may have to change the process to not allow the player back in the day the incident occurred so they give themselves the time to pick it up.

[Paxter]

14 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

Really? I have only CH9 but everyone lauded that duel. Overall the coverage of that Archer spell v Smith has been pretty good I thought. Everyone is praising Archer (through gritted teeth of course!) and Smith (naturally!). 

Haha you obviously don't read the Murdoch press. Which is undoubtedly a good thing. 

[The Winged Shadow]

Just now, Paxter said:

Haha you obviously don't read the Murdoch press. Which is undoubtedly a good thing. 

Haha why would anyone do that to themselves?!

[Paxter]

6 minutes ago, The Winged Shadow said:

I don't agree at all. I think everything went as it should have. He gets injured, gets taken off, gets checked, is cleared, gets back on, gets checked again later, diagnosed with delayed concussion, gets taken off for the rest of the match.

The only way they could've done things differently is if they ignored the doctor's clearance. In which case what is the point of even having a doctor? People get hit in head, take them off, the end. Do you think it was right to keep Marnus in? Without the benefit of hindsight, how do you make that call?

I don't think the team has anything to reflect on regarding the process. However, the doctors and ICC definitely do have to reflect on it. They obviously didn't or can't pick up the delayed concussion and may have to change the process to not allow the player back in the day the incident occurred so they give themselves the time to pick it up.

One of the UK's leading charities on this topic thinks otherwise. The argument is that doctors' clearance methods need to be more conservative to reflect the current science. 

ETA: Marnus got hit on the helmet. Smith didn't. Hard to compare those two incidents. 

[The Winged Shadow]

5 minutes ago, Paxter said:

One of the UK's leading charities on this topic thinks otherwise. The argument is that doctors' clearance methods need to be more conservative to reflect the current science. 

ETA: Marnus got hit on the helmet. Smith didn't. Hard to compare those two incidents. 

That doesn't mean Marnus couldn't have been concussed, including showing delayed symptoms.

None the less, can't disagree that the medical process has failed for Smith incident and that ICC/doctors will need to revisit their methodology.

[Paxter]

With all the Ashes excitement we did somewhat miss the result of the Sri Lanka v NZ test. That was a pretty special chase from Karunaratne.

And it was a vital result because Sri Lanka are now on top of the World Test Championship! Poor Australia only got 24 points for the Edgbaston win...while SL pick up a lazy 60 points for winning at home against NZ. (WTF). 

[ljkeane]

2 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

I don't agree at all. I think everything went as it should have. He gets injured, gets taken off, gets checked, is cleared, gets back on, gets checked again later, diagnosed with delayed concussion, gets taken off for the rest of the match.

The only way they could've done things differently is if they ignored the doctor's clearance. In which case what is the point of even having a doctor? People get hit in head, take them off, the end. Do you think it was right to keep Marnus in? Without the benefit of hindsight, how do you make that call?

I don't know, I see what you're saying but the difference with Labuschagne and Smith was Labuschagne bounced straight up and looked ok (not definitive but still better) while Smith hit the deck pretty hard and took a while to get up while looking groggy. One thing they're doing in rugby is having doctors looking at footage of when players picked up an injury to see if they're showing concussion symptoms then even if they're later able to pass the verbal tests. I don't know but I'd suggest that potentially was the case with Smith.

 

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

I don't know, I see what you're saying but the difference with Labuschagne and Smith was Labuschagne bounced straight up and looked ok (not definitive but still better) while Smith hit the deck pretty hard and took a while to get up while looking groggy. One thing they're doing in rugby is having doctors looking at footage of when players picked up an injury to see if they're showing concussion symptoms then even if they're later able to pass the verbal tests. I don't know but I'd suggest that potentially was the case with Smith.

Yeah agreed. You have to wonder how much Smith's return was due to his own desire to help Australia win/score a century versus an objective medical assessment. The latter has to prevail in all circumstances, regardless of the former. That's what Aus have to reflect on, especially as they are supposed to be about "Elite Honesty" these days.

[Paxter]

There is a little bit of speculation around that Woakes or Denly might get dropped in favour of Curran. I'm a big fan of Curran's work, but I don't think he should be displacing Woakes, who has been a solid contributor with both bat and ball. Only Burns and Stokes have more runs than him for England. 

Denly...I am desperate to get him out of the side but I don't think Curran is the right replacement. Curran averages over 30 in his career so far, which is a lot better than Denly, but the runs have not come up the order.

Separately, I am very amused by the calls from some Australian voices to get Starc into the side. Australia doesn't like being "out-gunned" by England on the fast-bowling front. I am confident that Starc will not play under Langer in these conditions, at least while Australia holds a lead in the series.