creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Bruce Rioja]

Oooooh bastard hope. Great effort today but fully expecting us to be bowled out in the first session in the morning now

My thoughts exactly

[Worthy4England]

Painful. But at the same time "beautiful"

[jimbo]

Read a lot of counter-intuitive/interesting things today.

Firstly apparently height of release point has been more important than outright pace in Australia. So good that our only really quick bowler likely to play much had the lowest release point.

And apparently despite predictions the pink ball swings less than the red. So good that Jimmy has been rested for the day-nighter (though sounds like he had a knock anyway).

And apparently the Gabba is as close to the Oval as you get in Australia, and Pope averages 99 at the Oval (this may have been straw clutching )

With Archer I think this would have been close. Without, given we have one really quick bowler and he's skiddy and made of glass, I just don't think we've got the attack to consistently take 20 wickets. I'm not sure they're great shakes with the bat either (Smith, Labuschagne, Warner then..) but their attack is world class.

Not hopeful. But you never know. Wonder what Glenn has predicted.

Have you read Nathan Leaman and Ben Jones’ book Pru? I’m halfway through at the moment. Really good deep dive into statistical analysis and some interesting conclusions. The height of release fact is the sort of thing they’d cover, though 8 years ago we had the tall tour where we went with Tremlett and Boyd Rankin and that didn’t end well!

Hitting Against The Spin? Hadn't heard of it but have now added to my list. Cheers!

I read a great chapter this morning about the toss actually, relevant to the discussions above. Essentially the received wisdom of batting first on ‘good’ high scoring pitches is actually counter intuitive and your chance of winning is higher batting second.

[Worthy4England]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

[jimbo]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

In the 1000 tests preceding 2010, more tests were won by the side who lost the toss than the side that won the toss suggesting teams historically haven’t been too good at making the best decision about what to do.

[Worthy4England]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

In the 1000 tests preceding 2010, more tests were won by the side who lost the toss than the side that won the toss suggesting teams historically haven’t been too good at making the best decision about what to do.

Well if they've gone with the 99% bat first that Insano was suggesting, I can see why that might be!

[BWFC_Insane]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

In the 1000 tests preceding 2010, more tests were won by the side who lost the toss than the side that won the toss suggesting teams historically haven’t been too good at making the best decision about what to do.

Well if they've gone with the 99% bat first that Insano was suggesting, I can see why that might be!

Like I say I didn't see the conditions or pitch and I'm happy with the judgement that Root got it wrong. It sounds like it.

But the thing in Australia is that normally even if the pitch is a bit green and there is some muggy cloudy conditions to exploit you don't get that long - so a side needs to see out a session without too much damage. And of they do its psychological then for both bowling and when you get to bat. Because your bowlers know they missed an opportunity and perhaps chase wickets on day 1 in the afternoon and your batters go in with say 300 on the board under the pressure of that.

I don't think in reality it matters much because England don't have an attack or a batting line up either way to really make the inroads necessary whether first or second. I think conditions in England with a ball that moves for longer, stays harder longer and basically can easily be a nightmare for two good sessions at least if its a green pitch and a bit cloudy - then sure its a totally different ball game.

Putting them in first sounds like the right thing to do but whether in that first session we'd have knocked enough over or not is key to the whole thing and I'm not convinced we have the attack in their conditions to be confident of doing that even with some decent conditions.

[Bruce Rioja]

Looking at the Brisbane weather, tomorrow/tonight is bright sunshine, with cloudy, potentially wet weather for tomorrow night/Sunday.

So it looks like the conditions actually favour us for the coming sessions (collapse not withstanding)

[Worthy4England]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

In the 1000 tests preceding 2010, more tests were won by the side who lost the toss than the side that won the toss suggesting teams historically haven’t been too good at making the best decision about what to do.

Well if they've gone with the 99% bat first that Insano was suggesting, I can see why that might be!

Like I say I didn't see the conditions or pitch and I'm happy with the judgement that Root got it wrong. It sounds like it.

But the thing in Australia is that normally even if the pitch is a bit green and there is some muggy cloudy conditions to exploit you don't get that long - so a side needs to see out a session without too much damage. And of they do its psychological then for both bowling and when you get to bat. Because your bowlers know they missed an opportunity and perhaps chase wickets on day 1 in the afternoon and your batters go in with say 300 on the board under the pressure of that.

I don't think in reality it matters much because England don't have an attack or a batting line up either way to really make the inroads necessary whether first or second. I think conditions in England with a ball that moves for longer, stays harder longer and basically can easily be a nightmare for two good sessions at least if its a green pitch and a bit cloudy - then sure its a totally different ball game.

Putting them in first sounds like the right thing to do but whether in that first session we'd have knocked enough over or not is key to the whole thing and I'm not convinced we have the attack in their conditions to be confident of doing that even with some decent conditions.

Part of the reason history doesn't help us here, is what you're describing above. We put them in, might have been them on 140...then again we could've shelled our obligatory 6 catches and they ended up on a respectable 300-400...But that wouldn't mean it was the wrong decision, because if you held your 6 sharp chances, you've worked advantage by getting a team out on a 300+ wicket for half of that...

[BWFC_Insane]

I dunno who received the wisdom of batting first - it escaped me completely. I think you make a decision based on what's in front of you, alongside any wisdom you might have received.

In the 1000 tests preceding 2010, more tests were won by the side who lost the toss than the side that won the toss suggesting teams historically haven’t been too good at making the best decision about what to do.

Well if they've gone with the 99% bat first that Insano was suggesting, I can see why that might be!

Like I say I didn't see the conditions or pitch and I'm happy with the judgement that Root got it wrong. It sounds like it.

But the thing in Australia is that normally even if the pitch is a bit green and there is some muggy cloudy conditions to exploit you don't get that long - so a side needs to see out a session without too much damage. And of they do its psychological then for both bowling and when you get to bat. Because your bowlers know they missed an opportunity and perhaps chase wickets on day 1 in the afternoon and your batters go in with say 300 on the board under the pressure of that.

I don't think in reality it matters much because England don't have an attack or a batting line up either way to really make the inroads necessary whether first or second. I think conditions in England with a ball that moves for longer, stays harder longer and basically can easily be a nightmare for two good sessions at least if its a green pitch and a bit cloudy - then sure its a totally different ball game.

Putting them in first sounds like the right thing to do but whether in that first session we'd have knocked enough over or not is key to the whole thing and I'm not convinced we have the attack in their conditions to be confident of doing that even with some decent conditions.

Part of the reason history doesn't help us here, is what you're describing above. We put them in, might have been them on 140...then again we could've shelled our obligatory 6 catches and they ended up on a respectable 300-400...But that wouldn't mean it was the wrong decision, because if you held your 6 sharp chances, you've worked advantage by getting a team out on a 300+ wicket for half of that...

Well indeed whatever you do relies on execution of it. I guess my point is that if England and Australia were evenly matched - the gamble of putting the opponents in first is you are saying we'll bag 4 in the first session. Because short of that you then have the psychological problem of a score building and your batsmen feeling the pressure of that. Its not equal to say the decision at Lords on day one in cloudy conditions in May where the likelihood is that you have most of the day in your favour as a bowler.

Equally the Australian attack are more suited to plugging away on their pitches after the initial burst and so the equation is just different I think.

[nicholaldo]

I'm just catching up on yesterday's highlights and I'm very amused by Haseeb Hameed batting in a thick woolly jumper as the temperature ticks just above thirty degrees celsius.

[Worthy4England]

I'm just catching up on yesterday's highlights and I'm very amused by Haseeb Hameed batting in a thick woolly jumper as the temperature ticks just above thirty degrees celsius.

Maybe he was bought up in a really warm part of Bolton I've not found yet!

[TANGODANCER]

I'm just catching up on yesterday's highlights and I'm very amused by Haseeb Hameed batting in a thick woolly jumper as the temperature ticks just above thirty degrees celsius.

Maybe he was bought up in a really warm part of Bolton I've not found yet!

Forecast says 4 degrees tonight in Bolton and that sure ain't tropical...

[Worthy4England]

Well indeed whatever you do relies on execution of it. I guess my point is that if England and Australia were evenly matched - the gamble of putting the opponents in first is you are saying we'll bag 4 in the first session. Because short of that you then have the psychological problem of a score building and your batsmen feeling the pressure of that. Its not equal to say the decision at Lords on day one in cloudy conditions in May where the likelihood is that you have most of the day in your favour as a bowler.

Equally the Australian attack are more suited to plugging away on their pitches after the initial burst and so the equation is just different I think.

Even if you bat first there's pressure, because you mentally set a target, you give the opposition 300-350 (or whatever the concensus is), without them actually having to score it. Often you make it a larger number than is likely "to be on the safe side"...you don't watch the first two batsmen back in the hut with 20 on the board and say "must be a par-100 wicket"

[TANGODANCER]

Not wishing to tempt providence, but we seemed to have escaped one of ours losing a wicket in the last over before stumps.

[Prufrock]

That's more like it.

[Worthy4England]

That's more like it.

Oh dear, I think TD tempted fate. I guess there's a wonderful opportunity for Pope, Stokes and Buttler here...this is your time to shine!

[nicholaldo]

That's a rank bad dismissal. As Alistair Cook said, it's probably seventh stump line.

[nicholaldo]

And with that, I'm off to bed.

[Prufrock]

Lord above that's even worse. What the feck is that Ollie Pope?!