A glance down the figures on the scorecard might suggest things are sitting in a postcode that's comfortably adjacent to Hunky Dory at 6 for 342, a lead of 48 with four wickets in hand, but when you glance at the names, the methods of dismissal and the bowling figures things aren't quite so rosy.
And while we're looking for answers to questions we keep on getting handed new questions.
One of them came in the form of Watto's request for his old slot at the top of the innings back. The full story's here and suggests he's reconsidering his future as an all-rounder though he still seems to be keen to bowl in the shorter formats. This, mind you, in a story that also points out he broke down in Melbourne after bowling 47 overs in Hobart.
That, of course, came in the wake of the Hilfenhaus injury, and represented more than you might have asked him to bowl under different circumstances, though one also notes twenty in the first innings with the broken down Hilfie on 12.2, Starc 24 and Siddle 25 and a bit. Hmmm, hmmm and hmmm again.
Bowling Watto is an important part of an attack if he's there and fit. Assuming he isn't bowling and someone breaks down, what then? Just this once, Watto?
In any case, whether he bowls or not, while he's looking for the old opening spot back, Hughes, it seems (at least on the basis of this story is determined to make the number three spot his own, which would look good for Watto (there's one rival out of the way).
The problem, however, at least from where I'm sitting, lies in run outs.
Watto and Katich had their moments, Watto and Warner the same, and now, of course, we've Warner and Cowan and the run outs keep coming.
Cowan blew a big chance to settle his spot (and undermine the Watto to open argument) by getting himself run out yesterday, and the Hussey run out on Clarke's call suggested it's an area that needs work, but, seriously, against this attack on this deck someone out of Warner, Hughes and Clarke should have gone on to the ton. On yesterday's evidence Johnson isn't a Seven, and we'll probably get further confirmation in the second innings, which is where I'm directing the crystal ball at the moment.
Forty-eight runs on with four wickets in hand, it's obviously a question of how many more, and how long we last. Wade has had his moments along the way to 47 not, and you'd reckon we need a first innings lead of around 150 to avoid what looks like being a rather tricky little equation batting last.
Go into the change of innings a hundred on and you're looking at bowling Sri Lanka out for less than 250, which might be quite doable but would leave us chasing 150 on a deck that's starting to do something for Herath and Dilshan. At this point, after 88 overs we've had 47 from the seamers, who've managed 1/210, while Dilshan's 19 overs of offies have delivered 1/58 while Herath has returned 2/69 off 22.
The seamers, in other words, aren't breaking through, and are going at four an over, while the tweakers are getting wickets (two of 'em caught behind, Clarke caught in the deep) at around three an over. Chase 150 in that last dig and you're looking at batting around fifty overs, which will almost certainly go overwhelmingly to the spinners.
Could be very tricky, that one, and it becomes trickier with each increment in the ask.
If we can manage a lead of 150, the notional bowl them out for less than figure runs up to 300.
I think, in other words, that chasing 150 batting last is going to be tricky. Maybe not impossible, but definitely tricky.
So it's down to how well Wade can bat with the tail this morning, and how long the whole operation can last once we've got past lunch, if, indeed, we get that far. I'll also be interested to see how we bowl the second time around, partly because I suspect we're looking at a track that's moving towards what we're likely to encounter in India…
No comments:
Post a Comment