Englands vastly superior batting...

MMmm...I think it all fell over in the first innings.
Broad et al done a good job in taking 10 wickets for 260 odd runs in the 1st inninhs, and England were on top at this stage.

After that 1st innings collapse..heads dropped.

After Australia built up a lead of 200, with 8 wickets in hand..I think England were mentally beaten.

I think ENgland need that the batting to stand up, to give the bowlers something to bowl at, and vice versa. They feed off each other, When one falls, the other follows suit

drbantam, whoever wins the toss has a massive advantage. Perhaps this is even more important than the relative strength of the teams.

(When the teams are relatively evenly matched)

Outcomes in Adelaide:
2010- Eng
2006 - Aus
2002 - Aus
1998 - Aus
1994 - Eng

Here is 2010 scorecard:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=2001

Cook and KP must have good memories. Bell sounded well too.

Where are you dr? England's superior batting might chase 600-odd runs in 5 sessions..

Worse team selection for many a year! Stokes is not in the same league as Ballance at Batting and Monty cannot bat or field! Yet 2 of our biggest let downs last test was batting and fielding!

The last England batsman to average 50+ was Ken Barrington, who retired in 1968.

There was a point when KP hit 50 average, but has been falling since.

Sometime ago, Cook gave us hope that he might finish with 50+ average. Some even suggested that he might surpass Tendulkar's aggregate. Not happening.

Another 280-odd runs needed to win this test match drbantam. Perhaps, England's superior batting would finish it off before tea.

Ha ha ha ha....3-0