The second day's play of the third test was a disastrous day for England as Australia took a commanding lead of 343, then took 5 wickets to leave England in tatters.
As far as the Australian team is concerned Clarke again looked in sublime touch as he played very late to counter the swing of Anderson, and played some delightful cover drives and flick shots. North was also very good as he made sure that Australia would take a lead of 343.
England needed a good start in the second innings, but Johnson had other ideas as he got 3 vital wickets to leave England in tatters. He got it to swing late into the batsman, and occasionally got it to hold its line to leave the batsman at pace, which is more than good enough to trouble most of the batsmen. At his best Johnson is not an easy proposition to handle as he has got the ability to swing back into the batsman, and can get awkward bounce. The ball with which he got Colly out was a good example as he got it to swing late into Colly, and he was plumb in front. As far as others were concerned Bell won't be happy with the way he got, and question marks on his ability to perform under pressure against even decent teams remain. He won't face Bangladesh's or the Pakistan's attack made up of Nazir, Afridi, Sami and Gul everytime, and bowlers know that with Bell if they bowl back of a length just outside the off stump he would edge one and get out tamely. Bopara was a bit unlucky as he could have got an edge to it though he was adjudged lbw by Rauf, but he has had a disappointing series till now, and his footwork looks suspect. A player can't blame anyone, but himself if he continues to play across the line to straight balls. He has been given 4 tests to perform and has failed. It is all about taking your chance!
The only encouraging sign could be Broad's 5 for, but one good performance doesn't make him a good bowler as he has to continue to do that to convince his doubters.
Overall it has been an disastrous test match for England, and it looks for sure it would be 1-1 going into the match at Oval.
10 comments:
SB made us eat our words eh? Good show by him.
Curiously GB, it was around the point of the second English collapse that I switched off and turned in for the night.
I'll take in the highlights of what I missed.
From your description, it is safe to assume that overall, Australian bowlers understood and used the conditions better than English bowlers. Agreed Anderson was hurt...but he was before the match according to the commentators. That is a costly judgement thus far in this match.
Couls have played Sidebottom in this one instead.
Usually when you criticise a player he does well.
So going by that maybe Bell and Bopara would do well at Oval!
From the time I started to see Australia play at Headingley in 93 Australians have been masters of bowling the right length at Headingley. Reiffel was superb in the 90's at Headingley and the tradition has been continued.
The only time I recall them failing at Headingley was in the 99 world cup against Pakistan when they bowled short and got smashed.
I reckon Siders is the perfect bowler for a track like Headingley.
The problem is the player in the reserve is Trott.
He has scored lots of runs in CC though one can say it has come on a good batting surface like Edgbaston but he is almost like a poor man's Collingwood!
It is fine having one player like Colly but a poorer version of him? well doubt so.
There cannot be a specific answer to the question that why England collapsed in Hedingley?.It's depends upon their strategy,environment in dressing room,quality of players playing,this also might be a reason that England took Australia lightly.
A middle order of Bopara, Bell and Colly won't scare too many opponents for sure.
I respect Colly for his fighting spirit but even he isn't someone the opposition would fear. Bell and Bopara? well less said the better.
Well....the middle order is really letting them down, Bopara seems like a shadow of the man who played against the Windies, Bell....what can I say, goes back to the same old ways again, Collingwood...what happened to him...? Normally a reliable hand at the time of crisis....Bring Michael Vaughan back at 3......:)
Vaughan? as we know has retired and when I saw him the last time in a domestic game he looked a pale shadow of the batsman he was.
If the selectors want to take risks they should have Stephen Moore at 3 as his technique is well suited for playing in the top order and looks to me mentally tough. I do know that Moore hasn't been in good form in CC this season but him or Denly at 3 is worth a gamble and pick Shah at 5.
Shah at number 3 is no good but on a true surface like Oval it can suit him and if he gets going on a true surface like at Oval he can put the opposition under real pressure.
The selectors likely though would pick Trott for Bopara.
Horton the opener from Lancashire always looks like a very good accumulator and if needed can play at 3 but again his form hasn't been good this season.
Rob Key never looked like test class to me.
Patel is a middle order batsman but he too isn't in good form and the selectors don't think he is fit though the same criteria wasn't applied to Key for the T/20 world cup.
Morgan still doesn't look test class and players like Northeast are just too young.
Lets just hope that atleast at the Oval the English can stage a fight back.....
Yeah one can only hope for the best.
Post a Comment