West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Trinidad

Frank Worrell Trophy
April 15-19, Queen's Park Oval, Port-of-Spain
Start time: 1000 AST, 1500 GMT, 0000 EST

West Indies:
1 Adrian Barath, 2 Kraigg Brathwaite, 3 Kieran Powell, 4 Darren Bravo, 5 Shivnarine Chanderpaul, 6 Narsingh Deonarine,
7 Carlton Baugh†, 8 Darren Sammy*, 9 Shane Shillingford, 10 Kemar Roach, 11 Fidel Edwards.

Australia:
1 Ed Cowan, 2 David Warner, 3 Shane Watson, 4 Ricky Ponting, 5 Michael Clarke*, 6 Michael Hussey,
7 Matthew Wade†, 8 James Pattinson, 9 Ben Hilfenhaus, 10 Nathan Lyon, 11 Michael Beer.

Both teams are considering a twin spin attack.

In the West Indies case, Shane Shillingford may be in for Fidel Edwards and join Bishoo and Deonarine as another right arm offie.

Australia are toying with the idea of playing Michael Beer, however, I think they'll stick with their 3 in-form quicks.

The Port-of-Spain pitch has been very dry in the days leading up to this match (hence the talk of assistance for spinners) but unfortunately, rain is expected to affect every day of this Test.

I think it would be a mistake for either side to include two spinners unless the pitch is going to offer extreme turn. WI's attack would look very pace light with just Roach and Sammy bowling seam-up, whilst Australia's strength is in the pacemen. I guess Australia might bring in Beer for Lyon though, or give Lyon one more go?

I see Lance Gibbs has had something to say about Lyon's action... reckons he needs more zing in his delivery and to bend his back more.

I think that's a very good point he makes. More venom required.

So I reckon they'll keep the 'Beer' in the cooler and stay with the same line-up as in Barbados. Also with the expected rain I reckon both team's pace attacks will find some life in this pitch.

News from cricinfo is Australia have won the toss and will bat first. Probably a good toss to win if reports of a dry crumbling pitch are anything to go by?

Shillingford in for Bishoo for the West Indies which is a bit knee-jerky to me, I've been impressed with Bishoo in the whole, and what does Shillingford do which Deonarine can't?

Australia have picked 2 spinners which surprises me. Pattinson is back in as well, Siddle and Harris miss out.

Teams are in, Aus have dropped Harris ( ), who was man of the match is the first Test, and Siddle for Beer and Pattinson. I am assuming Harris must be stiff/injured after the first game as he does have a history of struggling for fitness, if not I can't see why he has been dropped.

What a bizarre start. Last over of Edwards first over went between Warner's bat and pad, and Baugh "caught it" and the appeal went up and umpire Erasmus raised his finger. But Sammy from first slip immediately said "no, that hasn't carried" and the decision was reversed but in turns out the ball didn't hit the bat, but it hit the pad and if the decision had remained as out and Warner had reviewed it the LBW would have remained out. Utterly bizarre.

Yeah Mike, strange decisions from both sides. Also Powell has replaced the injured Kirk Edwards (left knee).

Pattinson in for Siddle who has a stiff back. Beer is in for Harris.

Warner survives an appeal from Fidel Edwards. I thought the umpire raised the finger for caught behind - which didn't carry...but was he lbw? Appeal withdrawn. Very unusual start to this match.

Ah some controversy, excellent! Erasmus gives Warner out presumably caught. Sammy indicates the ball didn't carry (which it didn't, comfortably) but Warner was very close to LBW (and would have been "umpire's call" on review). It seems perfectly sensible to me in that Erasmus thought the LBW was not out (because he thought Warner had hit it, which he didn't). The question is whether he thought the LBW was out on "ball hitting stumps", in which case would a review have given Warner out?

So many questions...

I can't remember seeing an Australian side with only 2 quicks. Watson will have to bowl a lot more obviously... and Hussey, Clarke and Warner will have to chip in when Lyon and Beer need a rest. 8 bowlers...?!

It's clear everyone thought he'd hit it! It must have sounded very woody or something, because it looked like it was miles away from the bat on replay!

3 slip fielders chasing the ball to the boundary.

Well, I never...

Linebreaker wrote:I can't remember seeing an Australian side with only 2 quicks. Watson will have to bowl a lot more obviously... and Hussey, Clarke and Warner will have to chip in when Lyon and Beer need a rest. 8 bowlers...?!

A few times Warne and MacGill (fairly sure at the SCG in the early 00s against South Africa), with McGrath and either Gillespie or Lee.
In India in THAT series they played 2 spinners in the final test at least.
98-99 ashes at the SCG only McGrath as a genuine seamer (Miller bowled some seam-up with the new ball but quickly switched to off-spin).

Obviously it hasn't happened since Warne retired.

Watching the match after a horror session at the nets.

The previous Roach over was a gem. Warner looked unsettled on his offside. Warner needs to learn the art of the leave. Sammy is struggling to find his length.

I wonder how Hilfenhaus will find this pitch because in the first test he got the ball swinging into middle stump and was all over the WI batsmen.

Mike Selig wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:I can't remember seeing an Australian side with only 2 quicks. Watson will have to bowl a lot more obviously... and Hussey, Clarke and Warner will have to chip in when Lyon and Beer need a rest. 8 bowlers...?!

A few times Warne and MacGill (fairly sure at the SCG in the early 00s against South Africa), with McGrath and either Gillespie or Lee.
In India in THAT series they played 2 spinners in the final test at least.
98-99 ashes at the SCG only McGrath as a genuine seamer (Miller bowled some seam-up with the new ball but quickly switched to off-spin).

Obviously it hasn't happened since Warne retired.

Yes in 2002 when we had Warne, McGill, McGrath, Lee/Gillespie. The gulf in experience and class compared to this line-up is clearly evident though. Back then we had a very tight unit. I think it's a brave move in this situation - just that our current side is a great deal weaker.

I'm still not convinced with Ed Cowan as a Test opener. Also Watson is not a classic No.3 or opener for that matter. I know he was placed up the order after the big retirements and he has only scored 2 centuries. How he's batting above Ponting and Clarke is a still a bit of a mystery to me.

Watson can dominate a bowling attack, but also has a sound technique. I like him better in the top order than at no 6 where he struggled to score.

anyway good first hour for Australia although the score flatters them somewhat. Too many loose balls from the West Indies

He struggles to score at 3 though doesn't he?
He's passed 50 eighteen times and only scored 2 centuries. Also, let's not forget the 8 run-outs in 33 Tests. I'd put him at 6... or maybe even 7.

Linebreaker wrote:He struggles to score at 3 though doesn't he?

Bit harsh? I thought the last test was the first time he's batted there (in tests anyway) and he did pretty well.

In contrast his record at 6 is distinctly ordinary.

He's been one of Australia's better players since coming back into the side in 2009, I understand the criticism about not converting enough starts (so maybe he should open? And Warner at 3) but I do think he gets a lot of criticism given his record.

Warner goes, edging Shillingford to slip. Plenty of turn already, but you have to say that was an ill-judged shot from Warner given the previous 2 deliveries. Nicely bowled and good breakthrough by the West Indies.

If you look a the recent great No.3's like Dravid, Ponting, Sanga, Khan, Amla and even Trott... they all have one thing in common besides a sound technique. Reliabilty, stability, selflessness and the ability to score BIG runs.

Watson does not fit into that category I'm afraid - whether you think it's harsh or not Mike.

I don't think it's harsh, just wrong.

So do I.

Let's see how he goes today then shall we? I hope he gets more than 62 this time.

That is, I don't think any but two of those quoted are great number 3s. And I don't think both possessed stability and selflessness. And I don't think Australia need a great number 3 right now, but a reliable one. Watson is that, more than anyone else they've got hanging around probably.

Just compare their averages Mike. He should be batting below Hussey.

My main issue with Watson (and indeed Cowan) is that he doesn't rotate the strike enough, so can allow the bowlers to settle into a rythm. As is happening now.

Linebreaker wrote:Just compare their averages Mike. He should be batting below Hussey.

Completely different roles. Atherton averaged less than Thorpe, I don't recall anyone suggesting he should be batting lower...

Watson's average as an opener is about 45 isn't it anyway? That's pretty good if you ask me.

Yeah, that's very true. They're struggling with this attack and never look completely comfortable at the crease. Maybe it's the modern way but give me a classic No. 3 any day. We've been spoilt in the past, I know.

More like 38 isn't it? Very poor for an Australian No.3.

Well if Ponting was at his best still... but he isn't. I thought Marsh would make the number 3 slot his own, but he had that horrid series against India. Khawaja has the class, but not the temparament yet. Not convinced Forrest is the answer either.

Personally I would have Watson opening with Warner and Marsh at 3, if Marsh can get some form back.

Linebreaker wrote:More like 38 isn't it? Very poor for an Australian No.3.

38 overall, but that includes about 20ish when he first came into the side at number 6. I'm fairly sure it's significantly higher as an opener (and indeed as a number 3, if only over one test).

Marsh needs some time out to gather himself again. I still think he will mature better than Watto. Khawaja was dropped prematurely imo. Agree that Forrest is not the answer.

Cowan gone. Forget the review mate... just go.

I think Watson is solid enough to play near the top of the order. I mean christ look at how long Bell was number 3 before benefiting moving down the order.

Not sure why Cowan is referring it. He hasn't edged it.

What a waste of a review that was. I suppose we'll read about it in his next book.

To be fair my first reaction was that he got outside the line. Hawk-eye has a fraction of the ball hitting him in line so he has to go, but somewhat unlucky for me.

Agreed LB.

He didn't get any bat on it and that was the only the issue he could've had. He wasn't convinced. Pure guess and wasted review.

I hope you're right legend but he even doubts whether he should be there himself. He said something along the lines of 'I'll bat wherever they want me' which is not what an opener should be saying. It's not a stable and solid way to go about his business.

I think Watson is good enough to be at the top of the order. Unlike Hughes for example, he doesn't gift his wicket. Even though his average is not high at the number, I think he can occupy the crease and even attack when the time calls for it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Watson is good enough to be at the top of the order. Unlike Hughes for example, he doesn't gift his wicket. Even though his average is not high at the number, I think he can occupy the crease and even attack when the time calls for it.

No, he gifts other batsman's wickets.
I hope Ricky had a serious talk with him after that last debacle.

Linebreaker wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Watson is good enough to be at the top of the order. Unlike Hughes for example, he doesn't gift his wicket. Even though his average is not high at the number, I think he can occupy the crease and even attack when the time calls for it.

No, he gifts other batsman's wickets.
I hope Ricky had a serious talk with him after that last debacle.

He has a long way to beat Owais Shah!

You have to think this is a crucial session already. After a bright start Australia really did get bogged down and of course lost both openers. If West Indies can snap up another couple of wickets they'll be well on top. If on the other hand these two can get a good partnership together Australia can look to build a big first innings.

seriously wasted review that...

crucial little period in the game right now.

So... 132-3, another massive session coming up?

interesting one that, Clarke given out. My first thought was "outside the line of off stump", Clarke reviews. On the initial replay I was suddenly thinking "actually looks like it hit him in line, good decision" and hawk-eye then shows that it in fact DID hit him just outside off stump...

Watson gone for 56. Same old story for Shane, simply cannot convert these good starts into big hundreds. He only has 2 and for a player who I consider to have allot of talent its pretty poor. He has to be able to knock the ball around for one's and two's. he's too preoccupied with hitting fours and then get's bogged down at the strikers end.

Honours even I would say... 5 wickets down is usually below par but you've got to consider that Australia haven't scored all that many runs yet. Of course, WI will need to bat well and missing Kirk Edwards for the thus far very ordinary Kieran Powell could be a big blow.

Only watched the early part of this (very awkward in this time zone) and it seems as soon as I quit wickets fell and the scoring slowed to a crawl...
If West Indies can keep the tail from wagging they will be in the match will they not? Not over enthusiastic about the Australian attack with two rather ordinary spin bowlers. Seems an odd selection but at least they will be bowling last. In the first innings I fancy they might be glad they have Watson as well as the two main pace men.

West Indies will probably still have the same problem they had in the first Test - not quite able to sustain their effort for five days. Can see a collapse in one of their innings...

Sounds like Hussy has a hell of a job to do to get the Aussies into a good position here.

Well a good session for Australia after the early loss of Wade. Roach bowled beautifully without luck, and Baugh missed a very tough stumping chance off Hussey. Pattinson has played and missed a few times, but seems a decent number 8 to me, stands tall and plays the ball. Sammy hasn't caused too many problems.

Hussey has been as good as usual, busy, precise, it's great to watch him build his innings.

59 run stand which will surely frustrate the West Indies, the pitch looks to me like it's not going to get much better so the West Indies' first innings is crucial. If they don't get a lead I think they're in real trouble.