I think we should contemplate dropping colly, as he usually then comes up with a big ton.

I agree with the post above. Colly will've read the press and know he is under pressure. I think he will play in Melbourne and pull something out the bag. If he fails again and we go into the last test 2 v 1 down he will be dropped for the decider, no doubt.

Not sure on the Steven Finn front, not sure any of the reserves can give us more with the ball. It's just whether our batsmen can re-find the form of the 1st and 2nd tests. If so, there is no need to try to extend the batting line up by putting Bresnan or Sharzad in.

I think England will stick with the same 11 from Perth.

I think this is, maybe, a series too far for Collingwood. The only thing that will save him is the fact the Morgan has had very, very little match practice throughout the tour.
I think Finn is at risk to Bresnan but maybe with Anderson having a slight side strain he'll stay in.

Interesting to hear that Shane Watson has called Jimmy "soft". This is the bloke who cried when one of his ex-birds left him AND when he kept getting out in the nineties. Kettle, pot, black.

In what context - the stuff i read referred to night watchman anderson looking desperate to get off strike, doing so, and collingwood getting out last ball of the day, which isn't really what a night watchman is there to do.

If it is in the context of that, i am entirely in agreement, his job was to go out there and 'man up'

He says all the talk is just "bravado" and that he is basically soft and weak. I think, basically, its from the Langer file the other year that called him a pussy.

Bit rich of Watson of all people mind.

And interesting to hear how much the Aussies are defending their "behaviour" as part of the game...funny how its part of the game when they are doing it and winning yet its unsavoury and over the top when we do it and win...

there does seem to a lot of talk about it all , i read an aussie website interviewing siddle (a junior wood chopper) about his spat with prior and did he fancy his chances behind the sheds, he did.

last two test could be fun

The nightwatchman is not sent in to protect the batsman currently at the wicket, he's
sent in to protect the next one due in, surely....?

both i guess

'In the sport of cricket, a nightwatchman is a lower-order batsman who comes in to bat higher up the order than usual near the end of the day's play. This nightwatchman's job is to maintain most of the strike until the close of play (remaining in overnight, hence the name) and so protect other, more capable batsmen from being out cheaply in what may be a period of tiredness or in poor light;

Ideally the nightwatchman should be on strike when the final over of the day commences, and should stay there. If he's out at that stage he's still done his job as play will close for the day and the over will be completed the following morning. If the senior batsman is on strike when the final over starts and there's an easy single to be had the nightwatchman should be looking to help him take it.

Frankly the whole logic of sending in a tailender to bat in awkward conditions is beyond me. Even if he does the job as expected, you're likely to lose his wicket early the following day, and in the case of the Perth Test it means someone like Ian Bell comes in even lower at 7, with even less chance of building a decent innings.

I believe Steve Waugh, during his tenure as Australia captain, decided they would not use nightwatchmen. If a late wicket fell the next designated batsman would have to go out and do the job he was picked for in the first place, and I would like to see England adopt the same stance.

The history of cricket is littered with nightwatchmen causing more trouble than they are worth. I remember a county match in which Surrey were 30/0 late in the day and a wicket fell. A nightwatchman went in and got out; a second nightwatchman went in and also got out. Finally the original number 3 went in at 5 and they ended the day on 31/3.

My favourite innings by a nightwatchman came from Robin Marlar for Sussex. He was out stumped second ball for 6.

There did seem to be a phase a few years back when night watchmen often hung around the following day making 20's and 30's and driving the bowlers mad.
It dosen't seem to happen so much these days.

Its one of my hobby horses that, because test players play so little county cricket, tailenders do not get enough batting practice in match situations. Some of them are quite adept at coming in having a slog and we've seen a few times recently when England's last pair have hung on for a few overs to save tests. But most tailenders are fairly hopeless when it comes to taking singles to manipulate the strike. During the 2006/07 series Duncan Fletcher commented on how much time they spent in the nets, but thats only going to help with blocking and slogging, it doesn't prepare them for match situations.