*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[FBU]

I have been reading Pietersen will not play in the 3rd Test but will be back for the 4th and 5th and that Bell will come back in the side batting at number 5. Also that we will be going in with two spinners again.

Two spinners

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

From what I've seen in the first two tests, these teams are remarkably close in ability.
I've done a little comparrison (which is personal views of course and open to scrutiny).
I've chosen to compare players who are similar, as much as possible, rather than batting order positions, etc. Criteria being ability, current form (tests 1 & 2) and possible contribution from here on. Points out of 5 across the pair.

The captains/top order generals:
Ponting 3 - Strauss 2 .... Form of both very good, slight lean to Ponting on overall ability
score Aus +1

Novice top order batsmen:
Hughes 2.5 - Bopara 2.5 ...... Both look unconvincing and neither providing an advantage over the other
score Aus +1

Solid Openers with experience:
Katich 3 - Cook 2 ....... Slight lean towards Katich
score Aus +2

often maligned strokemaking middle order batsmen:
Clarke 2.5 - Pieterson 2.5 .... Although Clarke in better form, KP always looks dangerous
score Aus +2

Stout middle order batsmen:
Hussey 2 - Collingwood 3 ..... Form a big factor in this comparison
score Aus +1

Batsmen/dodgy keepers:
Haddin 2.5 - Prior 2.5 .......both batting well, both been dire behind the stumps
score Aus +1

Pace spearhead/lower order slugger:
Johnson 1 - Flintoff 4 ..... The biggest discrepency, Johnson's bowling form woeful, Fred menacing
score Eng +2

Swing Kings:
House 2.5 - Anderson 2.5 ... Both good, house better, but Anderson's experience evens it out
score Eng +2

Other Paceman:
Siddle 3 - Broad 2 ... Siddle bowled much better, but little impact with wickets, keeps it closer
score Eng +1

Offspinners:
Hauritz 2.5 - Swann 2.5 .... Similar bowlers, no clear advantage (this has been a win for Oz since pre-ashes predictions)
score Eng +1

The other guy:
A different approach from both teams as to the last member of the team. Aust have reinforced their batting, while england have added depth to their bowling stocks

North 3 - Onions/Panesar 2 .... North has made just the one contribution, while the extra bowler for england has been generally underused or ineffective.
score even (with a error of +/-2)

So it is very even, with choice of "eleventh" man and the form of Freddy v Johnson the x factors at present.

cheers

 

[Prince EWS]

Hasn't Tresco retired though?

Kinda. He retired because he had trouble touring. If they asked him to play three home Ashes Tests I reckon he'd jump at the opportunity, but it's frankly not going to happen for a variety of different reasons.

 

[four_or_six]

Kinda. He retired because he had trouble touring. If they asked him to play three home Ashes Tests I reckon he'd jump at the opportunity, but it's frankly not going to happen for a variety of different reasons.

DWTA, don't think he's interested in the pressure full stop. And if he did okay, everyone would be on his back about touring, and he seemed to hate everyone being on his back about maybe playing for England again.

 

[Prince EWS]

DWTA, don't think he's interested in the pressure full stop. And if he did okay, everyone would be on his back about touring, and he seemed to hate everyone being on his back about maybe playing for England again.

Yeah, this was one of my "variety of different reasons".

If he knew he'd only have to play this series though and that there'd be no pressure to do anything more even if he averaged 140, I really think he'd play.

 

[Richard]

Flattest and deadest track in the country. Something like two results in four years in the Championship.

Yet there's not been a drawn Test in that time. There is absolutely no way Edgbaston is as flat as Taunton or The Oval or probably a couple of others.

 

[Richard]

We haven't gone down in a series very often, and when we have, its been when things have gone seriously awry and comebacks are unlikely. Can't think when the last time it happened would be off the top of my head.

Vs India 03/04: Were 0-1 down before tying the four match series 1-1
Before that, last time we were down, then WON a series
Vs England 1997: Were 0-1 down before winning 3-2 in a 6 match series, and before that
Vs South Africa 1993/94: Were 0-1 down before winning 2-1

For curiosity, how many times since 94 have Aus gone 0-1 down and lost? Twice at least otomh....(SA last down-under summer, Ind 07)

Nah both those series vs SA in 93/94 where drawn 1-1. Check it back dawgy..

Think that might be it. The other series loses (India 02 and England 05) were come from behind affairs for the freakishly lucky fiends involved.

Didn't we lose a test series in Sri Lanka also, the same one where Steve Waugh and Dizzy Gillespie had that horrible collision.

Australia didn't play India in 2002 TBH, it was 2000/01 and 2003/04.

Anyway, since 1989 Australia have gone 1-0 down on these occasions:
West Indies 1991 (five) - lost 2-0
Pakistan 1994/95 (three) - lost 1-0 (amazing they even went 1-0 down, never mind didn't end-up winning 2-1)
England 1997 (six) - won 3-2
India 1997/98 (three) - lost 2-1
Sri Lanka 1999/2000 (three) - lost 1-0 (would've been lost 2-1 but for rain)
India 2003/04 (four) - drew 1-1
India 2008/09 (four) - lost 2-0
South Africa 2008/09 (three) - lost 2-1

So IOW, they've lost the two recent ones where they've gone down, and in the six previous occasions in the previous 18 years they lost four, won one and drew one. One of those losses should've been a win, and they should never have gone down ITFP.

But IOW, even when they were virtually-unbeatable, if you went ahead you had a good chance. Since they've "come back to the pack", the two occasions someone's gone ahead they've stayed ahead.

 

[Richard]

I have been reading Pietersen will not play in the 3rd Test but will be back for the 4th and 5th and that Bell will come back in the side batting at number 5. Also that we will be going in with two spinners again.

Two spinners

FFS, would you believe it?

This is like 1993 all over again, except Australia don't have Warne and we don't have a plethora of crap batsmen making Tim May look like a superman. Instead we have them making Nathan Hauritz look decent.

Not surprised if Pietersen is out but Shah should play ahead of Bell. Absolutely ridiculous that Bell gets 50-odd Tests and Shah gets 3.

 

[morgieb]

Australia didn't play India in 2002 TBH, it was 2000/01 and 2003/04.

Anyway, since 1989 Australia have gone 1-0 down on these occasions:
West Indies 1991 (five) - lost 2-0
Pakistan 1994/95 (three) - lost 1-0 (amazing they even went 1-0 down, never mind didn't end-up winning 2-1)
England 1997 (six) - won 3-2
India 1997/98 (three) - lost 2-1
Sri Lanka 1999/2000 - lost 1-0 (would've been lost 2-1 but for rain)
India 2003/04 - drew 1-1
India 2008/09 - lost 2-0
South Africa 2008/09 - lost 2-1

So IOW, they've lost the two recent ones where they've gone down, and in the six previous occasions in the previous 18 years they lost four, won one and drew one. One of those losses should've been a win, and they should never have gone down ITFP.

But IOW, even when they were virtually-unbeatable, if you went ahead you had a good chance. Since they've "come back to the pack", the two occasions someone's gone ahead they've stayed ahead.

Should never have gone down 1-0 in the Australia/India series as well, you shouldn't score 556 runs and lose.

 

[Richard]

Nonetheless, losing because you fell to the spell of Ajit Agarkar's life and losing because you allowed Mushtaq Ahmed to partake in a partnership of 50-odd are two rather different things.

 

[morgieb]

And also only scoring 196 during a series which had unusually flat pitches and letting Ajit Agarkar get 6 wickets.

 

[Richard]

Wasn't anything unusual about said flat decks TBH but of that Agarkar spell from what I remember it was more a case of him bowling them out than them gifting wickets, don't remember with absolute clarity though TBH so may be wrong.

 

[Woodster]

Not surprised if Pietersen is out but Shah should play ahead of Bell. Absolutely ridiculous that Bell gets 50-odd Tests and Shah gets 3.

While Shah has not had the fortune of receiving an elongated spell in the Test side, Belly gets my vote to replace KP in the middle order should the big man not make it.

 

[marc71178]

Shah was proven not to be up to the job when he had his chance.

Bell is clearly next in line, hence his selection in squads ahead of Shah.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, completely agree. Particularly for Shane Watson, who has done absolutely nothing at test level. There's a logic to playing five bowlers with Haddin at 6, albeit logic I don't agree with. I'd probably be looking at going unchanged- but if Lee is fit, he comes in for Hauritz.

Hauritz will take 10 wickets in a match at 12 a piece only to have people advocate he be dropped for the next test before this series is out, based on the trends we've seen to date. Tigether with Hilfenhaus, he's been clearly Australia's best bowler to date.

 

[Matt79]

Australia didn't play India in 2002 TBH, it was 2000/01 and 2003/04.

Anyway, since 1989 Australia have gone 1-0 down on these occasions:
West Indies 1991 (five) - lost 2-0
Pakistan 1994/95 (three) - lost 1-0 (amazing they even went 1-0 down, never mind didn't end-up winning 2-1)
England 1997 (six) - won 3-2
India 1997/98 (three) - lost 2-1
Sri Lanka 1999/2000 - lost 1-0 (would've been lost 2-1 but for rain)
India 2003/04 - drew 1-1
India 2008/09 - lost 2-0
South Africa 2008/09 - lost 2-1

So IOW, they've lost the two recent ones where they've gone down, and in the six previous occasions in the previous 18 years they lost four, won one and drew one. One of those losses should've been a win, and they should never have gone down ITFP.

But IOW, even when they were virtually-unbeatable, if you went ahead you had a good chance. Since they've "come back to the pack", the two occasions someone's gone ahead they've stayed ahead.

Iow?

Never claimed to be good at this forensic dissection of statsguru records malarky. Someone asked the question and I'd already shut that tab, so I just spoke off the top of my head.

 

[Richard]

Shah was proven not to be up to the job when he had his chance.

3 Tests proves nothing, especially when there are a couple of run-outs involved.

 

[Richard]

Iow?

In other words.

Never claimed to be good at this forensic dissection of statsguru records malarky. Someone asked the question and I'd already shut that tab, so I just spoke off the top of my head.

Good job there's someone around who can do the job properly then, looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, you're appreciated.

 

[Jamee999]

If I was in charge (as I should be), this would be the team, presuming no KP.

*AJ Strauss
AN Cook
ME Trescothick
PD Collingwood
RS Bopara
+MJ Prior
A Flintoff
G Swann
JM Anderson
SJ Harmison
G Onions

I feel like this may not happen though