It was all going swimmingly until the WAGS went out there and Anderson was allowed home to see his kid.

Time they got their priorities right.

I felt there was a strong case for starting the series with Tremlett instead of Finn, but maybe that's just my Surrey bias. That stack of late order wickets in the first inningss of the series cemented Finn's place, but despite continuing to pick up wickets it must put a lot of pressure on the other bowlers when he's going for nearly six an over, as is the case at Perth so far. Bresnan would possibly be the opposite; capable of bowling long accurate spells for under three an over without taking many wickets, but that would put more pressure on the batsmen to take risks and force the pace against the other three. I like the look of Shahzad from what little I've seen of him, so he could be a good option too. I'm sure Finn will come good in time, but this series may be a bit too soon for him.

We're near enough 200 behind now and have to take seven wickets. A really good first session tomorrow could yet give us a fighting chance.

Agree about Bresnan, might not be an out aan out wicket taker but can keep it tight with Swann at the other end and allow Anderson and Tremlett to rest whilst keeping the pressure on.

If we can bowl them out for 250 or less then we have a shot if we bat well.

I'm not sure our WAGs can be held responsible for Mitchell Johnson rediscovering his mojo!

Out of interest, did anyone see Johnson's three lbw decisions to remove Trott, Pietersen & Collingwood? I haven't seen them myself but it's hard to believe someone bowling fast left arm over can dismiss three right handed batsmen in this manner in the space of a few balls. Were they all kosher decisions?

Also, it looks like Bell was out throwing the bat as he began to run out of partners, as was the case in the first innings at Brisbane. Should he be swapping places with Collingwood and batting at five? He's the more gifted batsman and the more likely to produce a matchwinning century.

that was very dubious...which part of bat/ glove hit the ball? it showed it on the eplay and it didnt show any signs????some you win and some you lose... the english seem to be getting the rub of the green

not seen them, but same thing struck me when i looked at the card

the Bell - Colly swap seems sensible, he's looked superb.

This one's far from over, but neither is the Ashes as some of our more arrogant fans were beginning to suggest. You'd think they'd know better by now.

All the lbw's were plum, no issues there. I would definately play Bell at 5 and drop Collingwood to 6.

LBW is quite a common dismissal for left arm over when the ball swings because it straightens. The only issue is that they don't pitch outside leg. If its swinging in then a full pitch ball pitching leg or middle and leg will get the batsman playing outside it and trapped in front of middle and off. Wasim Akram and Bruce Reid used to do it all the time, and John Lever in the 1980s. I remember thinking Mark Ilott had a lot of potential as well at one point but he always seemed to be injured.

I guess you're right. It's easy to visualise Wasim Akram or John Lever bowling like that, it was the notion of Johnson bowling with accuracy and consistency that made me sceptical.

Your mention of Mark Ilott prompted me to look him up on cricinfo.com. He made his debut at Trent Bridge against Australia in 1993, a match in which Martin McCague, Mark Lathwell and Graham Thorpe also made their debuts. (The match finished as a draw, as we discovered one new talent while the other three pretty much sank without trace.) The thought of four players making their debut in the same Test for England seems insane these days, but the Aussie selection policy for the current series hasn't been a million miles away from that of England in the early nineties.