England cricket 2019 (10 Viewers)

Paul Anthony said:

I think as he's retired hurt, they can bring him back if he's up to it later to complete his innings, if the umpire agrees. I'm not too sure what would happen if he can't resume or isn't allowed to.

Click to expand...

If he can't resume then you only need 9 wickets, instead of 10 to complete the innings and get the whole team out.

You can only replace a fielder, not a batsman and if someone does replace someone in the fielding team, they are not allowed to bowl.

Otis said:

If he can't resume then you only need 9 wickets, instead of 10 to complete the innings and get the whole team out.

You can only replace a fielder, not a batsman and if someone does replace someone in the fielding team, they are not allowed to bowl.

Click to expand...

Thanks Otis. I thought that might be the case, but I couldn't say for certain.

It will be interesting to see how the Smith vs Archer situation develops. A bit of pace might give us a chance against him, obviously without Anderson we didn't have that option in the first test.

Otis said:

If he can't resume then you only need 9 wickets, instead of 10 to complete the innings and get the whole team out.

You can only replace a fielder, not a batsman and if someone does replace someone in the fielding team, they are not allowed to bowl.

Click to expand...

Apparently you ARE now allowed to replace a batsmen for things like concussion.

But as Smith came back out to bat 1st innings I'm assuming they now can't invoke that.

If we can get a 200 run lead it could be interesting tomorrow.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Apparently you ARE now allowed to replace a batsmen for things like concussion.

But as Smith came back out to bat 1st innings I'm assuming they now can't invoke that.

Click to expand...

Are you? I didn't know that. Is that a updated rule? Always used to be that you had to carry on with just 10 players.

When I say 'updated', I obviously mean within the last 40 years.

Good to see Archer giving Smith a good working over, I hope they keep bumping him even Bradman couldn’t cope with bodyline for a while and this maybe his Achilles heel

Shows how clueless Root is as captain with this stuff. This is a duel between two poor Test sides, both blessed with a few decent pace bowlers and one with a world class in-form batsman

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Shows how clueless Root is as captain with this stuff. This is a duel between two poor Test sides, both blessed with a few decent pace bowlers and one with a world class in-form batsman

Click to expand...

He has no idea as a captain as it’s about the first time he has been one.

Looks like an hour or two delay for rain this morning. Probably kills any chance of a result unless the England collapse is more spectacular than usual.

Well at least it won't be 5-0.

Otis said:

Well at least it won't be 5-0.

Click to expand...

It won’t be anyway. Archer caused carnage with his pace and ability to deliver pace for the whole day.

Grendel said:

It won’t be anyway. Archer caused carnage with his pace and ability to deliver pace for the whole day.

Click to expand...

He has certainly given us a new dimension for sure.

Cricket Australia statement in full: "Steve Smith has been closely monitored by medical staff overnight. He slept well but woke up with a bit of a headache and feeling of grogginess. He reported his left arm is much better.

"As part of the Cricket Australia concussion protocol, repeat testing was performed this morning and demonstrated some deterioration, which is consistent with the emergence of the symptoms he was reporting.

"On that basis, he has been withdrawn from the match. The Australian team will lodge an application for the concussion substitute with the match referee.

"In terms of his availability for the next Test, it will be considered over the coming days but the short turnaround is not in his favour. He will be assessed on an ongoing basis and will have a precautionary scan on his neck on Sunday.

"Cricket Australia statistics show that 30 per cent of concussions in Australian cricket are delayed. It is not uncommon for players to pass their tests and feel well on the day of an injury and then display symptoms 24 - 48 hours later."

Click to expand...

Concussion can clear up in days or go on for months so there's every chance Smith will now be missing for one or more matches. Certainly not the way you'd want to solve the Smith problem but if he is out for at least one match England need to take advantage.

chiefdave said:

Concussion can clear up in days or go on for months so there's every chance Smith will now be missing for one or more matches. Certainly not the way you'd want to solve the Smith problem but if he is out for at least one match England need to take advantage.

Click to expand...

And if he is back get archer to bang the balk at his head again and again

Pace against Smith was likely to be the one thing to trouble him, and about the only thing we didn't have to offer in that first test. If he is out for a period of time, then there is a fragility to the rest of the AUS batting line up to give us a bit of a chance. Having that option to turn to pace bowling certainly gives us something else. Obviously, would help if our top order had a few players in it who could play proper test cricket.

Regarding Smith, though. If it's a concussion, I'm a bit surprised they let him go back out to bat last night. He didn't seem altogether with it once he came back either.

Archer is absolutely lethal. 2 wickets, and another helmet shot. Think he's answered the questions about how he can handle bowling in test matches.

England may not win the game but there is a momentum swing here.

Fantastic bowling from Archer. I've not seen this kind of intent from an English bowler since I don't know when. We've probably got too much to do to win from here but we have certainly had the better of this match and hopefully it's the start of the momentum shifting back our way.

Otis said:

Are you? I didn't know that. Is that a updated rule? Always used to be that you had to carry on with just 10 players.

Click to expand...

This is the first time it's been used as far as I know. I think it was brought in so that players/teams didn't try to carry on when they shouldn't.

Paul Anthony said:

Pace against Smith was likely to be the one thing to trouble him, and about the only thing we didn't have to offer in that first test. If he is out for a period of time, then there is a fragility to the rest of the AUS batting line up to give us a bit of a chance. Having that option to turn to pace bowling certainly gives us something else. Obviously, would help if our top order had a few players in it who could play proper test cricket.

Regarding Smith, though. If it's a concussion, I'm a bit surprised they let him go back out to bat last night. He didn't seem altogether with it once he came back either.

Click to expand...

Apparently he got a headache last night and deteriorated overnight. Given where the ball hit him and how fast, with the Phil Hughes tragedy in a way it's a relief it wasn't much worse. But when he came back out he didn't seem to be acting in his 'normal' manner.

With Smith, giving how much he fidgets and walks about I think what we should be focusing on is disrupting that rhythm. Get the bowler back on his mark and ready to bowl ASAP. Batsmen is supposed to be ready whenever the bowler is ready to bowl - it's a gentlemen's thing that bowlers wait, same as them not knocking the bails off if the non-striker leaves the crease during the bowling action.

Other than that it doesn't seem to matter too much what we bowl at him or how - he can deal with it. He did get intimidated by Archer pace, but it wasn't until he actually got hit on the arm he truly looked uncomfortable and I imagine he was in quite a bit of pain. And he was still staying in and scoring a few runs.

Grendel said:

It won’t be anyway. Archer caused carnage with his pace and ability to deliver pace for the whole day.

Click to expand...

Imagine if we'd played him instead of an unfit Anderson at Edgbaston? I think we'd have had a really good chance of winning that test.

Decision to play Anderson first test may well cost us the Ashes.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Imagine if we'd played him instead of an unfit Anderson at Edgbaston? I think we'd have had a really good chance of winning that test.

Decision to play Anderson first test may well cost us the Ashes.

Click to expand...

Don't think Anderson instructed the lads to bat like retards

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Imagine if we'd played him instead of an unfit Anderson at Edgbaston? I think we'd have had a really good chance of winning that test.

Decision to play Anderson first test may well cost us the Ashes.

Click to expand...

I think the issue was Archer's fitness was something of an unknown (hence why he played in a second team game in between tests). Obviously, in hindsight, it would have been right if Archer had played. I'm not sure it would have won us the test though, our batting order seemed determined not to win that one, but it might have given us a better chance at the draw.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

Don't think Anderson instructed the lads to bat like retards

Click to expand...

No, but if we'd have been bowling with a full compliment of bowlers then they'd have been fresher and it's less likely that Aus could have taken advantage of that 2nd innings. Apart from Smith they've batted extremely poorly too and their openers are as bad, if not worse, than ours so far.

Paul Anthony said:

I think the issue was Archer's fitness was something of an unknown (hence why he played in a second team game in between tests). Obviously, in hindsight, it would have been right if Archer had played. I'm not sure it would have won us the test though, our batting order seemed determined not to win that one, but it might have given us a better chance at the draw.

Click to expand...

This a fair point. But the thing about Anderson playing is still true IMO. Even if we'd still rested Archer and played Curran instead it would've meant we'd have been playing with a full set of bowlers.

Interesting to get the view from the Aussie side, used to like reading The Roar articles when I was out there.

England second Ashes Test player ratings: Archer flips series as Stokes finds form


Lord’s hosted more rain than anyone would have liked, but a draw might have been the fair result from the second Ashes Test. England now find themselves down one-nothing in the series and with the weight of the world on their shoulders.

While both sides were behind in the match at various points, we may have seen a series-defining moment when Jofra Archer clocked Steve Smith in the neck with a scary bouncer, the tearaway announcing himself to Test cricket with firey spell after firey spell.

England would feel irritated that they didn’t win the match, but just like the first Test, they didn’t have enough big contributions, and the form of their skipper is a worry.


Rory Burns: 6/10
I can’t work out how Rory Burns gets his runs. He is, however, an old-fashioned Test opener – there’s nothing flashy about him, and he is happy to wear a few on the body and build his innings very slowly.

Burns tends to score a lot of runs off his lengths, and while Australia didn’t bowl all that well to him, scores of 53 with wickets falling around him in the first innings and 29 in the second are passable in a low-scoring Test.


Jason Roy: 1
Even a score of one might be high for Roy, who is really struggling to adapt to Test cricket. He might be one of the best ODI openers in the world, but he returned scores of zero and two in this second Test, looking all at sea against Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood.

Roy is struggling with his technique, and appears to be in two minds about whether to get on the front foot and attack or build into his innings. He now has four abject failures to get his Ashes campaign going.


Joe Root: 3
A tough Test for Root, with a first-ball duck in the second innings and just 14 runs in the first, where he looked a little bit out of sorts.

Australia did bowl exceptionally well during the first half of Day 1, but the debate about whether Root should be at three or four is going to intensify unless the skipper can get a big score to silence the doubters in the third Test.

The balls that got him out were good, but as the number three, and the most important player in the side, he can’t afford to have failures in both digs.


Joe Denly: 5
Denly isn’t the most classy batsman going around, but he did score some important runs this match. While the raw numbers of 30 and 26 won’t make anyone sit up and take notice, he stopped a rot at 2 for 9 in the second innings and batted well with Burns from 2 for 26 in the first.

England’s top order is a major talking point out of the match, and while Denly needs more runs, it was a passable performance.


Ben Stokes: 8
At stumps on Day 4, England had slumped from a position of power to one where they could have easily lost the match if not for some good lower-order partnerships.

Falling 2-0 down in the series would have been almost unrecoverable for the English, so an unbeaten century from Ben Stokes after coming in at 3 for 64 was a monumental effort. Combined with economical bowling in the first innings, he was certainly among the main contenders for man of the match.


Jos Buttler: 5
Buttler could have done more. The timing of his dismissal in the first innings for just 12 was a stinker, and he never really looked like he was going to get going in the second.

In saying that, he toughed it out and hung at the crease with Stokes to ensure England forced themselves into an un-loseable position. 31 from 108 isn’t trademark Buttler, but it was what was required.


Jonny Bairstow: 6
Bairstow’s 52 in the first innings was one of his more important Test innings, given he came in with England in trouble after losing regular wickets. His half-century, and the way he batted with the tail until he was the last man out, was excellent, as was his sharp 30 from 37 balls in the second innings. Also had four catches behind the pegs.


Chris Woakes – 7
For some odd reason, Woakes only bowled three overs in Australia’s second dig. England needed to try everything, and leaving Woakes in the outfield wasn’t the right call. He took three wickets in the first innings, and more importantly, scored 32 vital runs, coming in at 6 for 138. He was involved in a 72-run partnership when England could have simply rolled over and lost their way.


Jofra Archer: 8
While Stokes was given man of the match for his second innings century under all sorts of pressure, Archer must have been second in the running.

The Barbados-born quick made a stunning start to his Test career, and gave England’s attack the point of difference they so badly needed after struggling their way through the first Test.

He finished with five wickets for the match, but it’s his fiery Day 3 spell, when he sconed Steve Smith and hit him a couple of other times, that will be remembered by everyone who saw it.

It was Test cricket at its best, and Archer now will be a permanent fixture in this English side for the rest of the series.


Jack Leach – 7
This was a high-stakes game for Leach, and he did a strong job. Coming in for Moeen Ali, he was economical in the first innings, and then took three wickets on the final day as England searched for victory.

More important, he out-bowled Nathan Lyon, which was always going to be a big part in deciding the match. While England didn’t leave themselves enough time to get the win, Leach may well have bowled them to a one-all series scoreline had there been less rain.


Stuart Broad: 7
Broad had the new ball on a string at the back-end of Day 2 and was rewarded with the wicket of David Warner for the third time.

While he wouldn’t get rid of Warner in the second innings, Broad has now silenced one of Australia’s most dangerous players, and he also took another three wickets in the first innings.

Broad wasn’t as effective in the second dig, but still a good Test for the veteran.

SkyBlueSoul said:

<snip>


Jofra Archer: 8
<snip>

It was Test cricket at its best, and Archer now will be a permanent fixture in this English side for the rest of the series.


<snip>

Click to expand...

Or until he gets injured by a bouncer from Starc in the next Test.

Roy shouldn't be opening in the next game, not seeming to do well with the new ball

SkyBlueDom26 said:

Roy shouldn't be opening in the next game, not seeming to do well with the new ball

Click to expand...

You can’t have three number fives in the team

Terry Gibson's perm said:

You can’t have three number fives in the team

Click to expand...

I know, who else would you have starting though? Burns and Denly?

SkyBlueDom26 said:

I know, who else would you have starting though? Burns and Denly?

Click to expand...

The opening role is a real issue and nobody is doing much in county cricket to get in.

Sibley makes his selection difficult off the back of a duck and the Bears’ CC game finishing the day before the next test, but he seems the obvious long-term choice. Even taking out his 244 earlier in the season he is averaging 46 and sometimes CC players just take to test cricket. Really stuck with no other options than persisting with Roy at the moment.

SkyBlueDom26 said:

I know, who else would you have starting though? Burns and Denly?

Click to expand...

Denly may not be a bad call because although he does seem to get out he does play himslef in before playing a silly shot. So he could take the shine off the ball allowing those after him to take advantage. Although it doesn't solve the No.3 position if they can keep in for the first hour or two Root being at 3 isn't as much a problem as he's still coming in with a slightly older ball like he would at 4.

You could then try Roy further down against a softer ball before getting rid of him completely, along with the other explosive players like Stokes, Buttler and Bairstow.

My proper left-wing thought was what happens if one of Burns or Denly get out really quick and Root ends up facing a pretty new ball, and I was thinking along the lines of night-watchman. Bringing someone in like Woakes or possibly even Leach, who can both bat half decently and the middle lower order has been responsible for getting us out of a pickle more than once recently.

Of course there are times it'd be a disaster and would be criticised by the purists as it seems pretty mad and out of the ordinary but if it protected Root until such time as he'd be coming in when he's most comfortable and more likely to get a big score it may be worth the sacrifice.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:

Denly may not be a bad call because although he does seem to get out he does play himslef in before playing a silly shot. So he could take the shine off the ball allowing those after him to take advantage. Although it doesn't solve the No.3 position if they can keep in for the first hour or two Root being at 3 isn't as much a problem as he's still coming in with a slightly older ball like he would at 4.

You could then try Roy further down against a softer ball before getting rid of him completely, along with the other explosive players like Stokes, Buttler and Bairstow.

My proper left-wing thought was what happens if one of Burns or Denly get out really quick and Root ends up facing a pretty new ball, and I was thinking along the lines of night-watchman. Bringing someone in like Woakes or possibly even Leach, who can both bat half decently and the middle lower order has been responsible for getting us out of a pickle more than once recently.

Of course there are times it'd be a disaster and would be criticised by the purists as it seems pretty mad and out of the ordinary but if it protected Root until such time as he'd be coming in when he's most comfortable and more likely to get a big score it may be worth the sacrifice.

Click to expand...

Root averages over 40 as a number 3

Smith out of third test let’s see how they do now