We go to Lords for the second test starting 14 August. Back the same team or make changes. England will be forced into at least one change with Jimmy Anderson ruled out but could see them making up to 4 changes. 

Never ever change a winning team unless injuries force you to. The only failures were the openers but I would give another opportunity. I would hate for the selectors to make a change and we lose, we've been doing too much of that lately.

The performances of Smith and Lyon were 10/10
Head and Cummins were 8/10
Wade, Pattinson and Siddle with both bat and ball were 7/10
Khawaja and Paine were 5/10
Bancroft and Warner were 2/10, easily covered by the good performances of the others

For England
Burns, Broad, Woakes and Stokes 8/10
Root 7/10
Roy and Denly 5/10
Bairstow 4/10
Butler and Ali 2/10
Anderson DNF
So Ali won't be dropped, Denly 50/50, Buttler gone, Anderson out, without Anderson Australia's batsmen got on top of England, so him being out really hurts England.

I'd go the same team although I'd consider alternating patterson/starc from match to match

Go the same team, go 2 nil up, for the 3rd test, rest Cummins, Pattinson, bring in Hazlewood, Neser, Siddle, bore the hell out of them, bowling wide of off scoring 2 runs per over, it'll take them 2 days to score 400, we don't have to get them out.... draw the test retain the Ashes. Release Starc Pattinson, Cummins against tiring England players to take the series 4-0 in the final 2 tests. I'd like to see that.

Gday MR,
jaszyjim - We should not loose sight that England was 1 bowler down for basically the whole test.
How much difference would this had made to the result & should this be factored in for the 2nd test.
If we had lost 1 of our 3 pace men at an early stage, it would be curtains with our current tine up.
Do we drop Bancroft, promote below up 1 place & bring in Labuschagne or M. Marsh?
to bat at 6?

Left armers have a great record at Lords which makes me tempted to play Starc over Pattinson for this test. 

I cant see any reason to bring in Marsh or Labuschagne. Firstly because I dont believe in dropping a player after one poor game and rewriting the order. Secondly the batting is too weak as it to weaken it with an allrounder.

A major problem for England with Anderson going down is that Ali couldnt keep it tight. If you go a bowler down you ideally want a spinner holding up an end. Lyon can do that and attack as well allowing two fit seamers to rotate at the other end and then a few overs from Head and Smith where needed. Ali went at over four meaning that they had to bowl so many overs with Root and Denly (who both did well Denly was especially unlucky not to get a wicket). Additionally Siddle is known as a high stamina bowler capable of bowling a consistent line and length over lots of overs. 

What type of pitch do the well informed members of the Cricket Forum think the Poms will prepare to give them the bedt chance of a win or draw???...

Well they coc ked up preparing the right kind of pitch for the W Cup final at Lord’s so I’m not holding my breath.

Olly Stone has hurt his back again so that’s Jimmy, Olly & Woody out and we’re only up to Test number two.
Leach has to come in for Moeen, Smith has a much worse record against good left arm spin.

leech for moen is a good change. I guess joffra replaces anderson?

Indeed. Sam Curran with his left arm (pies included) variation is waiting in the wings.
Also bats - likely to get more runs than Denly.
What a mess, England. Get it sorted!

still a tough team, especially at home! We have a chance though

Good to  see you posting, Dman.

I was going to  welcome you to the cricket forum, but you've  already accrued 2 300  posts elsewhere on Inside Sport.

To answer your question, they don't want to serve up spin friendly wickets, because of the potent Lyon. Having said this, both Denly and Smith also extracted prodigious turn at Edgbaston, as well as Lyon.

The Edgbaston victory has to be put in context. Anderson bowled only 4 overs, taking 2 wickets (I think), before  he was injured. It would have been very difficult for Australia to have won at Edgbaston if he had stayed fit.

Exactly my thoughts, JJ.

I had to go to bed early on the last night of the Edgbaston Test. I taped the last session  of play where the last three wickets fell.

Grazor saw Paatto and thought he bowled poorly. In the context of the entire game, I thought Patto bowled very well in the second innings until an awful  last over, where he was hammered out of the attack by bowling loose balls.

I thought he had a few wickets originally given out by dodgy umpires that England won on replay. I'm undecided as to whether Starc should  replace him or not?



Siddle bowled superbly with unerringly accurate line and length in Birmingham. He also gives the Dukes a bit of a wobble. In Aus with the Kookaburra, he looked like a has been in the last Shield season.

I'm not sure if he will bowl as well at Lords? If he bowls as well as at Edgbaston, he kept so much pressure on the batters. I'm not sure how many wickets he got, but he had many close calls for wickets and beat the bat a lot. Siddle was also very economical. He also has vast experience, like Wade. This probably stabilises the team.

England are a tough side.

I think if Anderson had stayed fit they could have conceivably won.

There is a tour game on fellers. CA will be loathe to change a winning side but a good showing here and they are in the picture for the third Test. Head continued his good form .. tonning up. Khawaja 50, Bancroft got a start. for 35. 5d-266. At stumps Aussies in control 3-31.. Hazlewood 2-2.. Starc again leaking runs but took the other wicket. Seems CA is keeping Haze in the opening role.

I saw Paine make some keeping mistakes, not taking some easier balls off pace bowlers and maybe conceding a few hard byes on a challenging  pitch for keepers.

Having said this, in the taped session I took, his keeping was superb, particularly to Lyon in the closing stages of the First Test.

Let us hope Haze produces his best form.

Curran could replace Stokes or Woakes, but they're not the big problems.

Leach for Ali I'd do for sure. Archer for Anderson. I think we all see those changes. But I'd go further. Foakes for Bairstow. And personally, I'd go TRJ for Broad.

Bayliss says Bairstow is staying. Curran bats too and we have plenty of lefties..so yes replace Stokes for mine. He took off the pressure at crucial times and his red ball batting has dropped off..unlike Woakes. Not a whisper about TRJ from Bayliss so Broad also stays. 

Joe Root criticised the bowler-friendly nature of the Edgbaston pitch but former skipper Nasser Hussain says England will need a green bowler-friendly pitch conducive to seam and swing bowling if they are the level the series.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/114805736/ashes-2019-jofra-archer-poised-to-add-fire-to-englands-bowling-attack



But why? Hadlee dropped pace and became a better bowler. McGrath dropped pace and became a better bowler. Curtley slowed down and still took a ton of wickets. Medium pacers like Abbas and Philander are knocking people over for barely 20 runs a pop (Abbas is actually averaging under 19!).

I get the thrill of fast bowlers. I really enjoy watching Fergo and Milne break 150kms. But surely its results that matter more than the pace of the delivery. Now I get that England without Tremlett had their attack destroyed on Australian roads, and that has led to this situation where England is desperate for pace now, but pace, especially in England is not the be all and end all.

Pace has its place, but I'd take Stu Clarke, McGrath, Abbas or Philander over Brett Lee. And over Mitch Johnson too.

Archer, is a good bowler not simply due to pace, but cos he hits the target of where he wants to bowl more than the rest of players do. The only bowlers I know trying to maintain pace playing right now are Bumrah and Starc. But Bumrah is still accurate first and foremost.

Rabada, nor Pat Cummins, are rarely actually winding it up to max velocity all that often. They worry more about accuracy than pace. Despite both of them being capable of 150km/h - they actually bowl most balls these days in the 130's.

Stokes was just reappoiinted VC. He won't be dropped anytime soon. If Curran comes in, its for Woakes. 

Bayliss is on a pace crusade, TRJ played before the tour of Australia 2 years ago, Bayliss seems to be only following speed merchants right now. Error of thought in my opinion.

That is the Aussie in Bayliss. All Aussies love pace. He played on decks that provided pace. He was a very good bat from memory.

 I liked Cummin's heat and aggression in the last innings. He carried out the plan to ruffle the feathers of the openers and did it to perfection. His three wickets were as a result of accuracy and  sheer speed. Must have been pushing 150ks. As you say he has the ability to cut his pace and revert to line and length when the state of play warrants it. Cummins is a talented well rounded bowler.. reason he is currently ranked #1.

I recall Tremlett.. tall and fastish. Derived steepling bounce from a good length. I expect Archer will be suited to at least two Aussie decks

Cummins keeps the batsmen guessing. He bowls a lot of shortish back of a length stuff on off which noone is prepared to cut. But his fastest ball listed for that innings on cricinfo is 89mph which is 143. He was bowling a lot at 137 too. I think 140 clicks is fast myself. 145-150+ is express in my view.

He was built like a pro wrestler or body builder. Absolutely huge man. Was never going to have a long career built like a tank and being a fast bowler. Retired from domestic at 32. Body wasn't upto it. He simply had far too much muscle. Should have been a spin bowler if he wanted a long career...

A new face on here. hello. 

Former England test skippers Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan have both called for a deck with some grass to provide seam and swing for their bowlers. They reckon the hard flat Edgbaston decked played into the hands of our quicker bowlers. Also that a benign deck played into the hands of Steve Smith. Hello Michael and Nas we have some quality seamers and one or two blokes that can swing the Dukes too. Seems Smith can play on any surface as he showed in the first innings when there was still some live in that deck.

They want to spice it up. SA did this to SL and lost, though. I would play on a greenie myself, but the questions England need to find answers to is why are they with 18 counties, futher pro leagues, and a structure that identifies talent from just starting high school, completely and utterly unable to produce more high caliber batsmen. What makes this more obvious, is that Trott and KP were actually groomed and developed in South Africa to U19 levels.

I certainly don't blame t20 for this. There is something wrong with the English infrastructure if they have this money, and cannot produce better batsmen than what they are serving up at present. Their test batting is absolutely dire. Simply dire. I said it on a different forum, England has been rolled for under 100, no less than 3 times recently. And its not as though the NZ, WI and Irish attacks are lauded as the best in the world. Not to mention, Jason Holder scored a double century when the WI rolled them. 

And I am absolutely clueless as to what England can or should do to remedy the situation bar swapping Bairstow with Foakes. I have absolutely no idea who they should try. They've tried so many lately. And given them long runs of opportunities. The batting is woeful.