The 5th Investec Ashes Test, England v Australia, The Oval 21-25.08.13

[Pavilionaire]

Twenty off that Kerrigan over, so 2-0-28-0. Worst couple of debut overs in test match history?

I'm REALLY pissed off that the selectors have taken the risk of this double bowler debut. The only upside is that they get a bit of experience - neither bowler is going to win the match for us. The downsides:

1. One or both get carted.
2. Haemorraghing runs and no pressure, so massive pressure on Swann, Anderson and Broad to come up with something at the end of a long series.
3. Australia win the match big, shifting the dynamic completely going into the series Down Under.

Fine, if you want to give someone a debut then play 5 proper bowlers in case the debut boy bottles, but this is looking like we've effectively got 3 bowlers now. Pray God none of the three picks up an injury. Watson must think it's Christmas.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

i wouldnt of played him end of

Name another spinner?

He's got a very good first class average. 164 wickets @ 26.5

 

[Sam-]

This Kerrigan over is like when you bring on a 14 year old in a village match to bowl against the opposition's slogger.

Amen. Cricket is a brutal game at times.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Anderson / Broad / Swann 20-6-44-1
Woakes / Kerrigan 7-1-58-0

Question - had Monty not had his meltdown would he have played in this test?

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Name another spinner?

He's got a very good first class average. 164 wickets @ 26.5

Big step up from County Cricket. Throw in a big dose of nerves and you end up with 2-0-28-0.

 

[Titanic]

First hour... 37-1 (14 overs)

England will be pretty happy... but all to play for in the next hour...

Well, after an even first hour, the second has gone to Australia in spectacular fashion - with brutal treatment of debutants Woakes (5-1-30-0) and Kerrigan (2-0-28-0)

Lunch Day 1: Australia 112-1 (29 overs)

Rogers 21* (87 balls) Watson 80* (77 balls)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Big step up from County Cricket. Throw in a big dose of nerves and you end up with 2-0-28-0.

True, but he's not 'crap'. But I guess we can interpret BrightonMark saying crap as 'perhaps not the best time to throw him on to bowl when Watson is bashing it about'.

 

[brightonmark1234]

Name another spinner?

He's got a very good first class average. 164 wickets @ 26.5

didnt think we needed to play another spinner

 

[brightonmark1234]

True, but he's not 'crap'. But I guess we can interpret BrightonMark saying crap as 'perhaps not the best time to throw him on to bowl when Watson is bashing it about'.

i don't think he is ready for test match cricket and hes bowling far too short

 

[fleet]

I am happy with picking the second spinner, but Tremlett instead of Woakes for me. We could then not expose the debutant too much in the first innings, and let him make an impact when the pitch is a bit more suitable for him. Two changes makes it very hard to see how we get through the first innings - mind if we had won the toss it could have been so different.

 

[brightonmark1234]

okay sorry everyone

 

[spring hall convert]

i don't think he is ready for test match cricket and hes bowling far too short

It's nerves, I'm very guilty of doing the same thin if I'm nervy, I want to get through my action to quickly and drag it short. Watson was especially brutal, fair play to the Aussies they got after both debutants, just the right thing to do.

I agree that Woakes doesn't have the pace to be a top class test bowler. However, if he could average 35 with bat and ball I think we'd be happy with a player like that. He'a a similar pace to Watson isn't he?

 

[Bold Seagull]

The debutants have bowled just 7 overs between them on a flat track with an attacking batsman making a point.

Now I'm usually the one to do the moaning, but it seems a bit of a knee jerk reaction to start saying they are not good enough, 5 and 2 overs in respectively!

Woakes was clearly favoured ahead of Tremlett as he can bat, and with the dropping of a batsman, that made sense, as does playing 2 spinners on this surface.

I also think Cook has set the right fields, and made good bowling changes, although perhaps went to spinners a both ends a little to early.

Long way to go in this match yet, hopefully this ball will do what the last one did at 40 overs old!!!

 

[Uncle Buck]

It's nerves, I'm very guilty of doing the same thin if I'm nervy, I want to get through my action to quickly and drag it short. Watson was especially brutal, fair play to the Aussies they got after both debutants, just the right thing to do.

I agree that Woakes doesn't have the pace to be a top class test bowler. However, if he could average 35 with bat and ball I think we'd be happy with a player like that. He'a a similar pace to Watson isn't he?

Watching a bit of it this morning, Woakes pace is not the problem. It was his line and lack of variation.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Watching a bit of it this morning, Woakes pace is not the problem. It was his line and lack of variation.

His first 2 overs were fine, he was then subjected to Watson really going for it. Tough circumstances on debut. Test cricket is tough, but both debutants were exposed there right when Watson was in full flow.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Watson has impressive control when bowling though, which is clearly where the value in picking him as part of your attack lies. Woakes is just a one-day bowler being asked to step up, I imagine he'll always go for runs. His style isn't troubling anyone at 75-80mph. I would also seriously question where he'll average anywhere near 35 batting in Test matches too, but I haven't seen as much of his batting so I'll wait to judge that.

Woakes was bowling at 85mph, the same as Broad and Anderson.

The problem was the line and lack of variety.

 

[spring hall convert]

Watson has impressive control when bowling though, which is clearly where the value in picking him as part of your attack lies. Woakes is just a one-day bowler being asked to step up, I imagine he'll always go for runs. His style isn't troubling anyone at 75-80mph. I would also seriously question where he'll average anywhere near 35 batting in Test matches too, but I haven't seen as much of his batting so I'll wait to judge that.

We'll see I guess, the point I'm making is there is a role for a lower paced control bowler who contributes effectively with the bat. Woakes may not be the man, again, perhaps he was nervy this morning. There have been some poor debutants in Test match cricket that have gone on to great things ask Gooch & Warne.

 

[Paddy B]

Woakes is the ridiculous selection here, not Kerrigan. Woakes will never be a Test player because neither his batting nor his bowling are good enough. Kerrigan has been a bit unlucky because he's been thrown to the lions on the first morning of a Test match against Watson who was already smashing it about. Sure, his bowling has been too short and too slow, but he will learn. I have far more patience with a spinner learning his craft than I do a mediocre batsman/80 mph bowler plodding through.

Long term Kerrigan has a far greater chance of being part of the England set up than Woakes but, whatever they (Cook/Flower) say this selection we have ended up with is based upon a long sequence of events as follows:-

"oh shit Monty has imploded we don't have another spinner for the winter"
"Who is the next best?"
"Kerrigan is bowling well"
"But he cant make his debut at Sydney, he will be under huge pressure"
"Ok lets pick him for the Oval then, that will spin on the last couple of days"
"What and drop Swann?"
"No, your right, I know lets play two spinners, after all we are 3-0 up"
"Ok, but wont that but too much pressure on Anderson, Broad & Swann, particularly if we lose the toss?"
"True, what we need is an seaming all rounder, what are the options?
"um... ah"
"Woakes has got decent averages"
"Brilliant lets throw him in then, can be worse at 6 than Bairstow"