I’ve got to admit it. I haven’t got a clue how to preview this match. We don’t know what the pitch will be like. Reports vary from ‘as fast as Kevin Pietersen in a Lamborghini’ to ‘as slow as an Australian selector’s brain’ – talking of which, we don’t have a clue what the Australian team is going to be either.
Recent reports suggest it’s going to be a straight fight between Peter Siddle and Michael Beer for the sixth bowling spot (I’m counting Watson and Steve Smith as genuine all-rounders). Talk about bizarre. Even the rubbish England teams of the 1990s didn’t need that many bowlers.
There’s even a rumour that Steve Smith is going to bat six – which kind of contradicts everything we’ve read in the English papers since Adelaide. If he does, it would be a bit of a risk. Smith averages 43 in first class cricket, but he hasn’t played many matches.
During Smith’s spell at Worcestershire last season, he was considered to be a bowler who batted a bit. Now he’s going to bat six in a test match, despite the fact he’s only scored four hundreds in his career. Wierd or desperate? You decide.
The thing that really worries us though is this bloody pitch. Ponting is going to decide on his final XI at the last minute because nobody has a clue what will happen. It wasn’t long ago that Australia totally misread conditions in a match against India – apparently the surfaced looked fast and bouncy at the toss, but played lower and slower than a Delhi dust bowl when play got underway. Even Western Australia have reportedly been flummoxed several times this year.
From an England point of view, it could be a good toss to lose. The problem is, the wicket is expected to crack later in the game and become a minefield. Should Strauss bat if we the toss? Heaven knows. Any decision is complicated by the fact that the pitch is currently tinged with green.
It could be my usual neurosis kicking in, but I’m suddenly feeling a bit nervous about this match. It’s probably a fear of the unknown – and the knowledge that a crucial toss can change the momentum of a series. England’s record of batting brilliantly one match, and then imploding like an Icelandic bank the next, just adds to my sense of dread.
My final uncertainty is a more practical one. A 02.30GMT start time is tricky. Should I stay up late to watch the first session, or get up early and watch the last? I think I might just hide under the duvet for the next five days.
James Morgan
What interests me is that absolutely no-one seems to be considering a draw as a possible outcome. Granted historically the odds are against, but it might be interesting to consider the psychological implications. England would presumably be relatively happy with a draw – given that they are probably uncertain how to win at the WACA. Australia would presumably be less so – as one of their best chances to get back into the series would have gone.
The Australian press and Cricinfo seem to be under the impression the Siddle will lose out to Harris, and Beer will play.
I prefer Beer to Hifenhaus, because Hilf is just the sort of bowler who causes English batsmen problems, rather like Stuart Clarke. Shame if Siddle loses out because, in two series against England, he’s looked totally innocuous except in one spell.
I suspect Beer will spend most of his time sledging, look rubbish, then get dropped.
Oh, and I agree it’s probably a good toss to lose. I have a suspicion that, like in 2005, Ponting might signal he’s lost his nerve and put England in to bat. Hopefully he get’s punished for it.
From an England point of view, i am really worried. The last test was almost too good and I cant believe Austrlia will be that bad again. I would be surprised if Australia played Beer, Watson and Smith as well as 3 quicks as it would give the team a strange balance.
Yep, difficult to call this one. What’s certain is that Australia will be massively fired up regardless of who makes the final XI, and any English complacency will be punished.
I hope England go for Shahzad over Tremlett – Shahzad’s pace and ability to reverse it takes the pitch out of the equation.
To much analysing going on from everyone. The side that plays the best cricket at the WACA wins – oh and history says that is Australia, which is not much surprise. Tom Fordyce’s excellent blog on the BBC website also explains why it tends to suit them better.
But things have changed. England have been doing the basics better than Australia. If that continues, what can go wrong…
On the toss. You’ve thought about bowling, now bat.