Hot to Trott

I was at the Oval last summer when Jonathan Trott played his first innings. As he emerged from the pavilion, wearing a pair of wide, discoloured pads that looked as though he’d just fished them out of the team kitbag, the reaction of those around me was as if he had won a competition to bat for England in a test match. Many, I suspect, would have favoured the media campaign to restore Mark Ramprakash or even Marcus Trescothick to the side – when I explained to my neighbour that Trott was averaging over eighty in first class cricket that season he looked at me incredulously and went on to greet the shot with which he got off the mark with patronising applause that suggested that this couldn’t possibly last for long.

Of course, we now know what happened next. Trott’s assured maiden innings, full of trademark clips to leg and drives through the offside, was brought to a premature end by a remarkable piece of fielding by Simon Katich, but he made up for it with a match winning hundred in the second innings while his mother bawled in the stands.

A torrid tour to the land of his upbringing followed, commentators and opponents fixating on his between ball idiosyncrasies, and his place was under pressure at the start of the summer, but with three hundreds in seven tests since then and an average of just under sixty he is here to stay. His arrival has also had the happy by-product of enabling Ian Bell to drop back down to his favoured position of number six, a move which is greatly to the benefit of England.

I’ve seen him bat in the flesh twice since that auspicious start. On the first occasion he made 226 against Bangladesh and on the second he made 184 in the astonishing eighth wicket stand of 332 with Stuart Broad. Looking back at both innings they were characterised by secure footwork, lovely timing and a strong sense that he knew his game inside out. On the second morning at Lord’s, with all of the other batsmen discomfited by the moving ball, he looked utterly untroubled, calmly knocking the ball into his favourite scoring areas and leaving anything that looked remotely threatening.

He also now has the habit of delivering sizeable scores – on the occasions that he has passed seventy in tests he averages 221.33, which is remarkable. Three of his four test hundreds have resulted in England wins, while the fourth was part of a score of 517-1 that came after England were over two hundred behind on first innings. He has the happy knack of scoring runs when they matter, not simply when they are available, which is immeasurably important to England’s cause.

The elephant in the room, of course, is his nationality. Born and raised in South Africa, with an English cricket coach for a father, his selection for England has raised hackles in many quarters. Such gripes are irrelevant, however, for the eligibility rules are the same for all countries and have been exploited by pretty much everyone at some point or another. As with Kevin Pietersen, we should also consider the importance that county cricket has played in his development, particularly in his ability to play the moving ball. The only two questions that any selector should ask are ‘is he eligible?’ and ‘is he good enough?’. Luckily for England, the answer to both these questions is yes.

Blimey - Day Five at Brisbane

I’ve been watching test cricket for over thirty years. In that time, I’ve maintained a level of optimism that is suggestive of mental illness, but I’ve also had my share of ‘I was there’ moments, from Gooch’s triple century against India to Trott and Broad’s partnership against Pakistan. None of this, however, prepared me for waking up in the small hours of the morning and finding that England were declaring on 517-1.

Yes, it was a flat pitch and, yes, Australia’s heads dropped alarmingly, but even so it feels like a misprint. England aren’t the first side in test history to score over five hundred for the loss of just one wicket, but to do so in the first test of an Ashes series in Brisbane almost defies description. They were helped by some negative field settings early on, especially when Cook edged through a vacant third slip for four, by some pretty poor catching and fielding and by bowling that the Sydney Daily Telegraph described as ‘Shoddyline’, but nothing should detract from Alastair Cook’s performance in particular. Before the series started he was most people’s favourite for the axe, now he has over three hundred runs for once out and a record score at the Gabba. As for Trott, these things are becoming commonplace: this is the second consecutive test in which he has shared in a partnership of more than three hundred.

Momentum is an overrated concept, as the 2009 series told us, but there is no doubt which team will be happier as they travel to Adelaide. Mitchell Johnson, who averages almost forty with the ball and ten with the bat in a forgettable 2010, must surely be on his way out, but there will also be concerns about Hilfenhaus, who will surely improve, and Doherty, who may not. Having finished this test on the back foot after posting a first innings lead of over two hundred, Adelaide now takes on a psychological significance for Australia, especially as a defeat would mean that they would have to win two out of the last three tests. Dealing with pressure hasn’t always been their strength of late – we will find out a great deal about their character over the next few days.

The Cook, Strauss and Lazarus Show - Day Four at Brisbane

Even though I am a Newcastle United supporter, my default setting as a sports fan is optimistic. I suspect that this is a consequence of being brought up by the most pessimistic supporter in the world, but this is neither the time nor the place for psychological analysis.

In spite of this naturally postive outlook I was expecting to get up this morning and, at best, see Australia on the verge of vistory. In my bleaker moments I had visions of coming downstairs in the early hours of the morning and seeing the words ‘Sky Sports Replay’ in the top corner of a screen showing England 108-8.
To continue the theme, when I did switch the telly on only the bottom half of the score was showing due to the ever so helpful bar showing me which channel I was on, so my initial reaction was that England were seven down. It was a little early for vistory jigs, but when the screen cleared I must confess to a moment of joy when I saw that England were 270-1.

Alastair Cook, whose place before the tour was a matter of great speculation, batted superbly. His balance was right and he was ruthless on anything short and off line, of which there was a considerable amount. Strauss, in truth, was less assured, getting away with a number of edges and a horrible dropped catch by Mitchell Johnson, but his century was a triumph of character and he deserves all of the plaudits that will be coming his way. I wrote before the series about England’s strength of character and this was ample evidence, with Jonathan Trott also digging in effectively. England will need to bat well again tomorrow, but their efforts today have laid the foundations for a creditable draw.

Australia were looking short of ideas by the time the light closed in. The 7-2 field for Hilfenhaus looked ill-advised and Mitchell Johnson, a few hostile deliveries aside, is doing little to change the opinions of England supporters. If England do emerge with a draw tomorrow then the soul seaching will be Australia’s.

Haddin a Ball - Day Three at Brisbane

There are eighteen people in our Ashes competion. Eighteen people with six selections each. And none of them have selected Mike Hussey.

Hussey’s innings has shown the fine margins between success and failure in cricket. Had his first ball edge flown six inches further the knives would have been out and his career hanging by a thread. Had the umpiring, and the UDRS, been less kind then he would have saved his place but the doubts would still be lingering. As it is, he can look forward to the rest of the series at the very least.

Much will be made of the twin LBW decisions that shaped his innings, but this would be a little unfair – it is one things to be given a life but quite another to take full advantage. At his best, no-one picks the length of spinners better and he was quick to rock back and pull Graeme Swann whenever the opportunity presented itself. As with any Hussey innings it didn’t really impose itself on the memory as might have been the case with other, more flamboyant, players, but it was a magnificent knock and surely no-one would have begrudged him his double century.

Yesterday I observed how intelligently Brad Haddin had batted when Australia were in trouble, and this continued through a dificult first hour. Once he had settled, however, his range of stroke impressed and, although his wicket keeping still leaves a lot to be desired, it was easy to see why the selectors had reverted to him at the expense of Tim Paine.

As for England, they will have days when they bowl worse than that and bowl sides out. Anderson’s figures, in particular, were scant reward for some fine spells and Finn, although six wickets may have flattered him, is a terrific prospect. In recent years a score of 481 for Australia would have been an indication of complete dominance but on this occasion it is considerably easier for England fans to be optimistic.

That said, it is difficult to see England saving this game now. The batting has been brittle for a while and batting for a day and a half, which is what is required, seems unlikely. That said, it was very important that Strauss and Cook made it through the final session without being parted and they have, at least, managed that. If England do escape with a draw then the parallels to Cardiff may give them heart.

Unfussy Hussey - Day Two at Brisbane

Yesterday it was Peter Siddle, today it is Mike Hussey. Tomorrow, who knows? Mitchell Johnson? Marcus North? Stranger things have happened…

This was another intriguing day of cricket although with the run rate at 2.75 runs per over Lalith Modi may not agree. It was slightly odd watching Sky’s round-up this morning, for it created the illusion of an orgy of Australian boundaries when, in fact, England bowled with discipline and Australia batted pretty sensibly.

Hussey, of course, stole the show, using more of the energetic approach that he adopts in one day cricket than has been the case in his test outings of late. Having survived his first ball he played exceptionally well, punishing anything loose, running well between the wickets and showing good judgement when leaving the ball. England will hope that this is his one major contribution of the series. Brad Haddin also deserves credit for eschewing his natural attacking game and playing the conditions rather than some imaginary game in his head. Their partnership has already tilted the game back towards Australia – if they can see off the new ball in the morning then they could set a platform for victory.

In amongst all of this, England bowled pretty well after a dicey start. Anderson, in particular, is a different beast from that which toured four years ago, and Finn settled into a good length after a while. Graeme Swann will be disappointed, but he is good enough to come again and recovered from his initial shellacking to return economical figures. As a group, they certainly showed enough to suggest that this series will be very competitive, especially if Michael Clarke continues his current run of form.

It’s easy to imagine Clarke regaining his form, assuming that his back holds out (and how many people believed Justin Langer’s assertion that he is 100% fit?), but it is less easy to imagine Marcus North still being part of this team come Sydney. His bowling is useful and he seems like a good bloke, but after yet another single figures score his place must surely be on the line.

It’s an important first session tomorrow morning. If England can get off to a flyer with the new ball and restrict Australia to around 300 then it will be game on, but if Australia can get a decent lead then they will be firm favourites. Bring it on.

Siddle's Swingers - Day One at Brisbane

In the day or so leading up to the test there had been much talk of the questionable wisdom of the selection of Peter Siddle over Doug Bollinger. Correspondents to the cricinfo comments section, not usually the most balanced group it must be said, were of the opinion that this selection betrayed the inner turmoil of the Australians (although not always expressed quite like that), with some suggesting that Australia might as well hand over the urn now. I wouldn’t have gone that far but am quite relieved that I never got round to writing the blog post that I had planned, since I would have got it horribly wrong.

Don’t misunderstand me – I admire Siddle as a bowler. He bowled pretty well in England last year, particularly at Headingley, and I like his attitude, but I would have seriously questioned the wisdom a) of omitting Doug Bollinger and b) replacing him with a man who has hardly played for getting for a year because of injury. Just shows how much I know.

Until Siddle produced his mid-afternoon burst, England had been progressing reasonably serenely. Strauss will be disappointed at how he got out and both Pietersen and Trott will feel that they had done the hard work but failed to deliver, but Alastair Cook and Ian Bell were progressing fairly easily and a decent score looked on the cards. Up to that point, the Australian seamers had looked pretty toothless, but Siddle got his length right, moved the ball just enough and swung the game Australia’s way.

Having written the other day that England were good at toughing things out it is, perhaps, inevitable that I would be proven wrong, although only Matt Prior should be really disappointed with his dismissal, a wafty drive at a good ball. In the event, a shell shocked England did pretty well to reach 260, a below par but not catastrophic score, thanks to some more fine batting from Ian Bell.

England will be disappointed that none of the batsmen who got starts went on to make big scores, an all too familiar failing of late. Bell can be exonerated since he was trying, selflessly, to score runs with the tail, but the others should be looking to put things right in the second innings. As for Australia, Siddle bowled beautifully, but Hilfenhaus was no more than steady and Johnson was, once again, an expensive mess. He seems undroppable, but surely he must be looking over his shoulder at Doug Bollinger. Xavier Doherty had a tidy debut, picking up two late wickets, but did little to suggest that he will have much of a bearing on the series.

England need a big day tomorrow. They’re capable of it, but will Australia let them?

It's good to start well, but let's not get fixated

I notice that Andrew Strauss has, very sensibly, been playing down the importance of the first session tonight. The obsession with the start of the series seems to be the legacy of Steve Harmison’s extraordinary wide in Brisbane four years ago, a moment that I saw described this week as ‘breaking the world record for the most people shouting “Oh for fuck’s sake” simultaneously’, but it doesn’t really reflect the reality of test cricket. England lost the test at Brisbane in 2006 because they were playing a better team that was better lead and better prepared, not because of Harmison’s wide. If we want to look at a session of play that truly defined that series it came on the fifth day at Adelaide when England, having played some excellent cricket, first stagnated and then fell to pieces.

It’s also instructive to look at 2005 and 2009. Much has been made of Harmison hitting Justin Langer in the first over at Lord’s, and it was a spectacular moment, but it glosses over the fact that England lost that test by 239 runs. The one test in that series where the first session was important was at Edgbaston where England, mysteriously put in and buoyed by the non-appearance of Glenn McGrath, swung the momentum back their way with a whole range of aggressive strokes. In the other tests, though, the first session was simply an introduction to the rest of the test.

In 2009, England’s capitulation on the first morning at Headingley set the game up for Australia it is true, but the two Australian defeats had their roots in other events. It’s certainly true that Mitchell Johnson’s execrable opening overs got England off to a flyer at Lord’s, but it was the spectaular Australian collapse on the second afternoon that really put them in charge. Likewise, the first day at the Oval ended honours even – in this case it was the session after lunch on the second day that made the difference.

I could go on, but I shall spare you. The real point is this: we’re all keyed up about the start of the Ashes but the events of tonight, regardless of what they are, will not determine the destination of the urn. Cricket, I’m pleased to say, is rather more complicated than that.

A trip down memory lane

There are a number of different types of cricket fan, from the casual to the obsessive. Regrettably for the sake of my interpersonal relationships I fall firmly into the latter category. My shelves are full of copies of Wisden and other cricket books and cricinfo is my home page. Trev and I have recently exchanged emails about, among other things, the 1965 Eton v Harrow match and favourite articles in the 1963 Wisden. I am truly beyond help.

There are times, however, when geekiness has its virtue, and this is one of them (which should serve as a warning for anyone sane to stop reading immediately). In between communications about arcane aspects of 1960s cricket, we’ve also been comparing notes about great Ashes tests from the past, with a view to including a few facts with the score updates for our competition. Then I decided to start a blog.

These, then, are some of the great moments of the Gabba’s history.

Eddie Paynter rises from his sickbed, 1932/3

In 1928/9 England had played at the Exhibition Ground, so this was their first appearance at the new Woollongabba ground. Unlike today, this was the fourth test in the series, following on from the notorious Adelaide test where, apparently, only one side were playing cricket (clue: they were wearing green hats and they lost).

In the first innings, Australia, in the face of bodyline, had mustered a respectable 340. In reply, England were teetering at 216-6 when Eddie Paynter, who had been taken ill with tonsilitis, literally rose from his hospital bed to save the day. Wearing a panama hat that wouldn’t have looked out of place in the Lord’s pavilion and, allegedly, fortified by sips of champagne, he batted through to stumps and then returned to hospital. Regrettably, the reaction of the nursing staff isn’t recorded. The following morning he batted on, eventually succumbing for 83, and secured a small first innings lead which proved to be vital. Australia were rolled for 175 and England cruised to a six wicket victory, Paynter appropriately finishing the game with a six.

Declaring on 32, 1950/1

In the days before covered pitches (when, obviously, men were men etc.), Brisbane was notorious for its sticky wickets. When the tropical storms rolled in the pitches became almost umplayable.

The most extreme, nay bizarre, example of this came in the first test of the 1950/1 series. Australia had mustered 228 in the first innings before the rain came and the pitch became a little testing.

The second day was washed out and the third day was a rest day, so England resumed some time later and, on another rain interrupted day, raced along to 30-6. The next morning they got as far as 68-7 and then declared.

If that wasn’t bizarre enough, the Australian innings then lasted a grand total of 13.5 eight ball overs before Lindsay Hassett, determined to make England bat again when conditions were tough, declared on the mind boggling score of 32-7.

England held Hutton back for when the conditions were easier, but his masterful 62 not out was in vain as England were bowled out for 122 for a  seventy run defeat. In amongst all the fun, Jack Iverson, possibly the most unusual bowler in test history, made his debut. On the final day there were  192 runs, eighteen wickets and, astonishingly, two declarations.

If you’re an England captain whose name begins with H, don’t win the toss and field, 1954/5, 2002/3

The similarities between Nasser Hussain and Len Hutton aren’t immediately apparent, but the one thing that they do have in common is making disastrous decisions at the toss at Brisbane.

In 1954 England and Australia were well matched, At Brisbane for the first test Hutton called correctly and put Australia in to bat. At the end of the first day things were looking bad with Australia on 208-2. By then end of the second day the wheels had come off, with Australia on 503-6. By the time Australia had declared and England had been bowled out for 190 the wheels weren’t just off but they had disappeared down the road towards the Gold Coast. Australia won by an innings and seventy runs.

In 2002/3, Nasser Hussain also won the toss and, with his opening batsman reaching for their pads and rehearsing strokes in the mirror, decided to field. Before long they had lost Simon Jones to a series ending injury and by the end of the first day Australia were 364-2 and Matthew Hayden was on his way to two centuries in the match. England ended up humilaited, beaten by 384 runs.

There is one key difference between Hutton and Hussain, of course, Hutton’s side roared back to win the series, whereas by the time Hussain’s side won at Sydney the Ashes were long gone.

The worst prediction in history, 1978/9

It seems rather unfair to include anything from 1978/9 given that Australia had been ravaged by defections to World Series Cricket, but I couldn’t resist this. At a press conference in the build up to the test the Australian captain, Graham Yallop, was asked for his series prediction. Tongue, presumably, in cheek, he went for a 6-0 Australian win.

On the first morning, having won the toss and batted, his side were 26-6. They rallied in the second innings, with Yallop and Kim Hughes both making hundreds, but lost the series 5-1.

Botham’s last hurrah, 1986/7

The England side had been written off before the Brisbane test in 1986, the famous ‘can’t bat, can’t bowl, can’t field’ comment ringing in their ears. After a mini-collapse had left them 198-4, Ian Botham strode, bare-headed, to the wicket and smashed his last test century, taking particular toll on a young Merv Hughes. Shell-shocked, Australia had to follow on and slumped to a seven wicket defeat. The wind in their sails, England went on to take the series 2-1.

The virtue of defence?

In his autobiography, Nasser Hussain makes an interesting point about the change in batsmen’s mindset over the course of his career. His observation is that when he started out, batsmen were encouraged to defend as their default setting, only looking to attack when the ball was there for it. By the end of his career, however, batsmen were looking to attack first and only defend if they absolutely had to.

This is great for the spectator. In spite of what Jonathan Agnew et al would have you believe, over rates have been pretty poor for the last thirty-five years or so, but the increase in scoring rates has rejuvenated cricket as a spectacle. In 1986, Wisden’s correspondent marvelled at the fact that ‘England’s overall run rate of 60.67 runs per 100 balls received (3.64 runs per over) was the fastest ever by either side in England – Australia tests’, but such rates are now standard. What he would have made of the 2005 Edgbaston test, where 1,176 runs were scored without any innings lasting long enough for the second new ball to be available, is anyone’s guess.

While it has been good for the spectator, however, it hasn’t always been good for the batting side, perversely. Modern batting sides, so used to attack, struggle disproportionately when conditions are in the bowlers' favour. In 2009 at Lord’s, five Australian batsmen were out hooking and pulling on a lively wicket in less than perfect light. At the Oval, in amongst the devastation of Stuart Broad’s spell, Brad Haddin, with his team six down and folding like a pack of cards, was out trying to drive a swinging yorker. The most spectacular collapse of the series, England’s on the first mornng at Headingley, certainly wasn’t helped by what might politely be described as some over-ambitious batting.

In a series which is likely to be decided by which side makes best use of the occasions when the ball is on top, England’s recent record is worth looking at. That morning at Headingley aside, they have a number of players, most notably Jonathan Trott and Paul Collingwood, who are not afraid to grit things out of they have to. The fact that they have lost only three of their last twenty-three tests, in spite of having being outplayed in rather more of them, hints at the kind of mental strength and willingness to adapt to the conditions that should stand them in good stead in this series. Whether or not Australia, fresh from three defeats in their last four tests, share this strength remains to be seen.

It's Competition Time!

A few years ago, my Australian friend Trev who will, I suspect, feature again in these posts, come up with a brilliant idea for a fantasy competition based on the Ashes. Rather than go through the agony of having to pick a whole team, and rather than over-complicate matters by factoring in the number of runs a bowlers concedes or any other such fripperies, the genius of this idea was its simplicity. Everybody picks six players for each test, including at least one from each side. Each player scores one point for each run that he scores, twenty points for each wicket that he takes and fifteen points for each catch or stumping that he completes. It is cricket distilled down to its purest form.

This is curiously addictive. We have a hardcore of fifteen or so participants and it’s reached the point where it’s hard to imagine an Ashes series without it. We do some other series as well (and once, ill advisedly, the Champions’ Trophy) but the Ashes is, quite rightly, the pinnacle.

Trev relocated back to his native Melbourne a couple of years ago and so he is able to give us an antipodean take on proceedings (aided by not having to get up in the middle of the night to watch). We also have Johan in Johannesburg, who can act as a neutral voce. The daily score update is one of the highlights of the day and is almost always followed by a trail of email correspondence which varies from the pithy (my father’s contributions) to the surreal (everybody else’s). At one point in 2009 there was a lengthy side conversation about Ancient Greek.

The striking thing this year is how many people are going for predominantly English line-ups, a marked departure from the past. If they still are when the teams fly into Sydney then England will have one hand on the urn.

As an aside, by my reckoning the highest individual score using this system in a single test was by Graham Gooch against India at Lord’s in 1990 when his scores of 333 and 123, combined with a wicket and two catches, gave him a whopping total of 506 points. No-one came near that in 2009, but Stuart Broad finished top of the form guide.

I’ll post updates sporadically through the series. Let the games begin!

Series Preview Part 3 - The Bowlers

Part three of this rather overlong preview focuses on the most important players in any side, the bowlers.

Dennis Lillee once referred to Mitchell Johnson as a once in a generation bowler. An unkind observer would take this to mean that only once in a generation is a bowler so hyped and then fails to deliver, but that would be a little unfair. When he gets it right, Johnson, as the South Africans found, can be quite a handful, but the flaws in his action and, it would appear, his temperament can play havoc with his consistency. His performance at Lord’s in 2009 is well documented, but his bowling in the first innings at the Oval really encapsulated his problems – having bowled two incredibly hostile overs at Ian Bell he then let the England batsman off the hook by scattering wides and half volleys. He may do better to cut his pace slightly and bowl round the wicket more, especially as he struggles to swing the ball back in to right handers, but the suspicion is that he will simply run up and try to bowl as fast as he can. His batting, too, has declined since the South African series, although he made a first class hundred last week which will have done his confidence the world of good. The biggest enigma in world cricket, Mojo Mitch could be the Man of the Series or he could be out of the side by Melbourne.

Stuart Broad finally seems to be growing up, although he should have been banned in the summer for petulantly throwing the ball at Zulqarnain Haider. Having gone through a batting trough he returned to form in spectacular style with 169 at Lord’s and his bowling continues to improve, although he can be prone to overdoing the short pitched stuff, which would be fatal against this side. If he can get his length right he could be quite a proposition on bouncy Australian pitches and England may well need his lower order runs at some point in the series. When England last won in Australia his father was Man of the Series and he’ll be keen to keep it in the family.

Xavier Doherty is the unknown quantity of the Australian side. At twenty eight it would be reasonable to expect him to have a rather better first class record than he has, but England can’t afford to be complacent against him. On his one day international debut he impressed with a smart run out and three quick wickets, but he looks more Richard Illingworth than Bishen Bedi.

Graeme Swann is the best bowler on either side. A big spinner of the ball, with excellent control and a devastating arm ball, he could be the difference between the two sides. Off spinners have often struggled in Australia in the past, but he will enjoy bowling to the left handers and is experienced enough to remain phlegmatic if things are going against him. Australia will also need to be wary of his extraordinary record of taking wickets in the first overs of spells. Arguably the best number nine in world cricket and a safe pair of hands in the slips, Swann’s performances could be crucial.

Ben Hilfenhaus has emerged over the last couple of years as Australia’s most reliable new ball bowler. Excellent in swinging conditions, he has worked hard on his game to make the most of his ability even when the ball isn’t swinging and he can also generally be relied on to keep control at one end. One anomaly is that he has yet to take five wickets in a test innings – he’ll be looking to rectify that as soon as possible,

The days when no-one knew what was going to happen when James Anderson started a spell are receding. He still has some days when the radar isn’t quite what it might be, but he has developed into a dangerous new bowler who deserves his ranking at number four in the world. Of course, he is more dangerous when the ball is swinging, but, like Hilfenhaus, he has worked hard to make himself more effective in all conditions. Australians expecting him to bowl as he did in 2006/7 will be in for a surprise, and he is also the best fielding fast bowler around and an improved tail ender.

Any England supporter whose only experience of watching Doug Bollinger came this summer shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security. He struggled with his line in England and then missed the India series through injury, but he can be quite a handful on bouncy pitches and never gives anything less than his all.

Steve Finn is England’s wild card, but has made an impressive start to his test career. Tall, with a strong, repeatable action, he can generate good pace and bounce. He’ll need to make sure that he gets his length right and not bowl too short but if he can then he could be a very tricky customer indeed. Unlike Broad and Anderson he isn’t a big swinger of the ball so shouldn’t be disadvantaged at all by the ball or the conditions.

Series Preview Part 2 - The Keepers

Part two of the preview concentrates on the wicket keepers. Neither one would necessarily satisfy the Society for Pure Wicket Keepers, but both reflect the changes to the modern game.

Brad Haddin was a bit lucky to come straight back into the side given Tim Paine's good performances in both England and India, although that argument is now academic with Paine having been injured in a pointless Twenty20 match. At his best, as at Lord’s and Cardiff last year, Haddin is a free flowing batsman, easy on the eye and effective on the scoreboard, but he’s not so good at adjusting his game to more difficult conditions and his keeping can, sometimes, be a bit of a liability. With Paine out of the equation he can be confident of lasting the series providing that he can stay fit, but his long term future must be in question.

I could never have imagined writing this a couple of years, but it is more than likely that Matt Prior will be the more accomplished of the two keepers. Bruce French must take a lot of the credit for transforming Prior from a cymbal playing seal into a confident and composed keeper, but he has also clearly worked hard. He’s still far from blemish free, but he now looks like an international keeper rather than a second XI club player filling in because the regular keeper is stuck in traffic. He had a good summer with the bat and will be keen to add to his three test centuries, while the Australian bowlers will look to exploit the occasional wafty drive outside off stump.

Series Preview Part 1 - The Batsmen

As the clock ticks down and the sense of anticipation increases, it’s time to have a look at the teams in detail. I got a bit carried away writing these, so I’ve broken down it down into three parts, starting with the batsmen.

Openers

The selection of Shane Watson to open the batting at Edgbaston last year was one of the bigger selectorial curve balls of recent times, but he has certainly rewarded the selectors’ faith. In good batting conditions he can be outstanding, playing with fluency and power, but he can be rather firm footed against the moving ball and is bowled and LBW rather a lot of for a test opener. He will also want to improve his conversion rate, but at his best he can be a tricky customer for opposing bowlers. His bowling is improving but, ironically, the conditions that suit his bowling won’t suit his batting and vice versa.

Andrew Strauss should have captained England in 2006/7 but is probably secretly relieved that he didn’t. He didn’t have a great summer with the bat, albeit in testing conditions, but he is bang in form and won the Compton – Miller medal in 2009. His may be the wicket that Australia prize most, and Mitchell Johnson has already targeted him , admittedly rather more affably than Glenn McGrath used to.

Simon Katich may be the most improved player in world cricket, having changed from a rather non-descript middle order batsman into a rather non-descript, but effective, opening batsman. Bowling to Katich must be a nightmare – he looks vulnerable all the time but consistently delivers.

Alastair Cook has had a fairly thin time of it of late, his century at the Oval aside, but the absence of another opener from the main touring party suggests that his place is secure. Much depends on the timing of his trigger movements – the evidence from the warm-up games is that he is in decent rhythm but Australia will see him as an opportunity to get a good start to England’s innings.

Middle order

Ricky Ponting is an all time great, one of the very best batsman and, as an aside, fielders ever to have played the game. However, he has now fallen out of the world top ten and is no longer the force that he was, although he showed glimmers of his old self in India. If Australia are relying on him for consistently high run scoring through the series then they may well be disappointed, but there may be one great innings left in him.

Jonathan Trott was England’s best batsman in the summer, although hardly anyone seems to have noticed. He had a thin time of it in South Africa last winter but has come back strongly and may well take some shifting. The evidence of his test career so far is that once he gets in he tends to make big scores and will be hoping that he continues in this vein. They won’t want to be relying too much on his bowling, though, since that would be an indication that things weren’t going well.

Future Australia captain Michael Clarke had a pretty horrible time of it in India and has been struggling with both his back and a shift of popular opinion against him. However, he enjoyed himself, for the most part, in England last time out and on form he is both great to watch and very effective. England will look to get under his skin, but if he can recapture his best form then he could be a key player.

What to make of Kevin Pietersen? It’s been a long time since his last test century and the pressure is starting to mount, although that run has included scores of 99 and 81 not out and he was the player of the World Twenty20. Had a thin time of it in the summer in tricky batting conditions but Australian pitches may suit him and he was one of the few players to have a decent series in 2006/7. England have done well of late without spectacular contributions from their most talented player, but their lives will certainly be easier if he can score some runs.

The stellar start to Mike Hussey’s career seems a long time ago and it’s hard to avoid the feeling that the selectors should have bitten the bullet some time ago. Made a fluent hundred for Western Australia a few days ago, but he will know that his place is under threat. He needs runs at Brisbane and Adelaide to make it through to the end of the series.

When Steve Waugh suggested in 2001 that Paul Collingwood was the best young batsman in England the response ranged from ‘Paul who?’ to laughter, but he has overcome a poor start to his international career to become a linchpin of England’s middle order. His test career is pretty close to the end but he will fight all the way and has been involved in most of England’s rearguard actions over the last eighteen months. Has had a good start to the tour without looking in great form and, of course, is one of very few English batsmen to have made a test double century in Australia.

Marcus North has had a curious test career. He played well in England last year, although he failed miserably in both of the defeats, and made a career saving hundred in India in his last test, but the fact remains that he has failed to make it past ten in half of his test innings. If he can get to twenty five then he is very dangerous, but England will fancy their chances. His off spin is very handy as well, as shown by his rather surprising appearance on the Lord’s honours board.

If Simon Katich is Australia’s most improved player, then the honour on the England side goes to Ian Bell. Having never quite fulfilled his undoubted talent in the past, Bell now seems to have the self-confidence to go with his ability and has also been helped by the emergence of Jonathan Trott at number three. Bell seems much happier at number six and is coming off a superb 192 against Australia A. If Australia are expecting a soft touch then they might well be in for a surprise.

The Importance of Brisbane

We’re almost there now: the phoney war will soon be at an end, the speculation can end and I can get on with writing about cricket rather than conjecture.

Much has been made of England’s poor record at Brisbane, and not without due cause, but we all need to come to terms with the fact that there is little point, at the moment, in comparing this series with those of the last twenty years or so, for in each of those Australia were demonstrably the better side and firm favourites before the series started. England haven’t always helped themselves in the first test, mind you, with Nasser Hussain’s bizarre decision to bowl first in 2002, a decision that was compounded by the injury to Simon Jones, and Steve Harmison’s memorable first ball wide in 2006.

The last time that the two sides were evenly matched was in 1986/7, when they were each as mediocre as each other. Brisbane then saw a marked swing in the expected course of the series, with an England side that had been written off completing a famous victory off the back of Ian Botham’s last great test innings. For all of the events that have followed, that was the last time that the result at Brisbane really determined the momentum of the series. Until now, that is.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this test is more important for Australia than England. England have a recent track record, not least in the last two home Ashes series, of bouncing back well from poor first test performances, and they seem to be the stronger side mentally. If Australia win then it will give them some much needed confidence and could give them the momentum to go on and win the series, but if they lose then they may unravel completely under the weight of public opprobrium. As an aside, by my reckoning the last time Australia won a series after losing the first test was in England in 1997.  Mind you, that should be qualified by acknowledging that for a long time it was unusual for them to lose tests at all.

So, where am I going with this? Essentially, my point is this: both sides will be desperate to win at Brisbane, but a defeat for England would be less catastrophic than it would be for Australia. We can only wait and watch…

Climbing off the fence

Keen readers (if such a thing exists) will note that in my ‘Preview’ post I was fairly cagey about predicting the outcome of the series and, not being one who is inclined to gamble, I’m fairly loathe to get too bogged down in predicting the outcome of the series. However, given that one of the purposes of writing a blog is so that people can point in laugh in future, I shall break the habit of a lifetime.

Being something of a cricket geek (a ‘tragic’ in Australian terms), my first thoughts were of history. England last won a series in Australia against a full strength side by more than one test in 1970/71, and that was, technically, a seven test series, although one of them was completely washed out. As an aside, it’s also notable as the series in which England weren’t awarded a single LBW decision.

That’s not that useful a fact, though, given that England have only won two series in Australia since then, and one of them was the Packer assisted 5-1 hammering in 1978/79. It’s also quite interesting, if completely irrelevant, that on every other occasion since the First World War that England have won in Australia they have done so by a margin of at least two tests.

Where does this geekiness leave us, then? Brisbane is crucial, although more so for Australia than England, as I shall cover in more detail in the run up to the test. Assuming that all is well, however, I’m going to predict an England series win by three tests to one.

Get yourselves to the bookies to put money on Australia...

Spin doctoring

In recent posts I have extolled the virtues of Nathan Hauritz and asserted confidently that Kenin Pietersen is unlikely to face a slow left armer in the series, so it should have come as no surprise to anyone to see Xavier Doherty included in the Australian squad for the first test.

It’s an interesting selection: Doherty is twenty-eight on Monday and has no first class pedigree to speak of. Indeed, it is startling that the two spinners in Australia’s squad have fewer first class wickets between them than Monty Panesar has test wickets. It’s sobering to ponder what the media reaction would have been both here and in Australia would have been if England had picked playes with such meagre first class records, but, of course there is comparitively recent precedent. In 1987 Australia picked Peter Taylor (or Peter Who? as the papers called him) for the Sydney test after just six first class matches and he was Man of the Match in an Australian win. Precedent lovers will note, however, that England won the Ashes.

There is a perception that Doherty has been selected specifically to combat Kevin Pietersen. If that is true then it is a selection that smacks slightly of panic – picking a spinner on the basis that one opposition batsman may find him hard to play isn’t necessarily a path that you go down if you have complete confidence in your bowling attack. Still, as has been amply proven already, I’ve been wrong before.

The alternative, of course, is that Andrew Hilditch and the selectors are playing some sort of alphabet based game and simply wanted to be the first Australian selectors to pick a player whose christian name begins with x.

England v Australia A - Final day

Ultimately, this was a comprehensive vistory for England. I wrote last week that we would know more about their prospects, and about their batting line-up, after this game, and they delivered on all fronts. I can’t remember a better start to any tour, let alone an Ashes one, with all of the starting eleven having played a decent amount of cricket with reasonable returns and those reserve players who have had a game having also had some good moments. This looks a confident, settled, well lead team that is ready for the challenges ahead.

Good day

Cameron White

There is an increasing wave of popular support for Cameron White to replace Ricky Ponting as captain once this series is done and dusted. This would be most un-Australian, since they have always prided themselves on appointing captains who would be guaranteed of a place in the team, and that certainly isn’t the case with White. He played very well here, though, and will have done his cause some good, although whether or not that’s a good thing for Australian cricket may remain to be seen.

Chris Tremlett

Tremlett followed up his strong first innings performance with three wickets, including two in two balls to knock some of the stuffing out of Australia A’s fightback. He looks fit and is bowling intelligently – the first choice seamers won’t be looking over their shoulders but the management will be reassured that they are well covered in case of injury.

Bad day

Steve Smith

On the day that he was included in the trimmed down squad for the first test, Smith would have been looking to make a mark on the game. As with Usman Khawaja, anyone can be dismissed first ball, but bowled leaving the ball is never something to be proud of.

Ajmal Shahzad

Having started the game well, it has become increasingly apparent why Tim Bresnan was selected ahead of him. He hasn’t bowled badly, and definitely has great promise, but should be looking forward to a winter with the performance squad.

Champagne moment

Phillip Hughes was looking well set on 81 when he flashed at a ball outside off stump. Andrew Strauss’ slip catch was not only important in the context of the game but was also an absolute blinder.

Punter's predicament

Ricky Ponting might be my favourite batsman of the last thirty years or so. Of course, when he’s been playing against England I’ve been willing him to fail, but even then it is hard not to be won over by his beautiful footwork, superb balance and wonderful range of strokes. He doesn’t have Lara’s flashing blade, Tendulkar’s appetite for runs or Richards’ power, but the aesthetics of his batting, in my opinion at least, are superior to them all.

Now, however, he has two problems that are comparatively new to him. The first is that his side is not the force that it was: Ponting has an admirable captaincy record but has never completely convinced in the role, largely because of the perception that he has mostly been in charge of a side that has simply been better than their opponents.  As a captain he faces the greatest challenges since Allan Border in that he has to meld a group of talented but not stellar cricketers into a force to be reckoned with. His captaincy and, rather unfairly, his career may end up being defined by whether or not he succeeds.

His second problem is the more pressing, however. Even though he may not have been the most tactically astute of skippers he has always lead from the front. His 156 at Old Trafford in 2005 was an epic captain’s knock that deserves its place in the pantheon of great Ashes innings, and he has frequently been the rock around which Australia’s batting has been built. The immediate aftermath of the retirements of Hayden, Langer, Martyn and Gilchrist saw him in imperious form which papered over the new found cracks in the batting line-up and delayed the process of decline.

Now, however, he finds himself less reliable with the bat. His, by his standards, recent mediocre run of scores would be less of a concern if he hadn’t started getting out to shots that used to be his bread and butter. His once imperious pull has given way to a reflex paddle that plays into the bowler’s hands and at the same time his tendency to play around his front pad early in his innings, which for a long time was his only acknowledged weakness, has become more pronounced and lasts longer. If he can overcome this and be, as many assume, a significant force this winter then he could end up being the difference between the two sides, but equally if he can’t then it could be a long series for Australia.

I think that it is unlikely that Ponting will end the series riding off into the distance on a white charger, his second Compton-Miller medal around his neck, but it certainly won’t be for want of trying.

England v Australia A - Day Three

It was an indication of how far my expectations have changed that I was slightly disappointed to find Australia A 100-3 when I got up this morning. This is partly because of my raised expectations of England’s performances, but also a reflection in the changes in the depth of talent available to Australia.

This isn’t a bad Australia A side – it’s perfectly possible to imagine Khawaja, Ferguson and O’keefe donning the baggy green in future and Paine, Smith, White, McKay, Hughes and George all have recent test experience – but they look rather flat compared to past incarnations. It’s not so long since Australia could have fielded an A side that included Matthew Elliott, Darren Lehmann, Stuart Law, Michael Bevan, Stuart MacGill and Michael Kasprowicz, after all.

There is undoubted promise, though. Khawaja, for all his failure in this match, is a genuine talent. Phillip Hughes, who can’t get a place in the uber-squad, has a first class average of 55, although centuries have been thin on the ground of late. Tim Paine could easily take over the gloves from Brad Haddin and O’Keefe and Smith both have plenty of ability. The future certainly isn’t bleak for Australia, but the performance, and relative strength, of the A side is simply an indication of where Australian cricket is at the moment. Hard work lies ahead.

Good day

Ian Bell

One of the most infuriating characteristics of England batsmen in the recent past has been their inability to go on and make really big centuries. Bell has shown before that he has the appetite for big scores, but this was a statement of intent. He will be disappointed not to have made a double century, though. Like Michael Vaughan, he seems to be vulnerable in the 190s.

Tim Bresnan

Having had a quiet first couple of days, Bresnan impressed, as so often, with the bat, and then knocked over three top order wickets, including two in two balls, to show why he’s on the tour.

Phillip Hughes

Having resembled a cat on a hot tin roof in the first innings, and having been omitted from the uber-squad, Hughes looked much more the batsman who terrorised South Africa in his debut series. He hit one monstrous slog sweep off Monty Panesar and the square cut that took him to fifty was beautifully played.

Bad day

Usman Khawaja

Anyone can get out first ball, but this wasn’t good timing for Khawaja, who has been widely touted for a test place. He may have to wait a little longer for his chance.

Peter George

Again clad in kit from the Australia A lost property box, George leaked runs and didn’t look a serious threat.

Callum Ferguson

Another widely touted for a test berth, and a player who has batted well in ODIs, Ferguson has had a match to forget.

Champagne moment

No particular moment really stood out, but Ian Bell’s cheeky uppercut to reach 150, Phillip Hughes’ six off Monty Panesar and the same player’s withering cut shot to reach fifty were all highlights.

England v Australia A - Day Two

We have now reached the point where I can’t remember England ever having prepared so well for an overseas series. I’m well aware that there are still two days to go, but the partnership between Bell and Collingwood has put England firmly on the front foot and they will look to put the game out of sight tomorrow.

Good day

Ian Bell

Since returning to the side in South Africa, Bell has looked England’s best batsman. Jonathan Trott’s emergence at number three has helped him since it has enabled him to take his favourite spot at number six, but the evidence is that he is finally adding steel and self belief to his undoubted talent. This was a fabulous innings – to come in at 136-5 and dominate in the way that he did was very impressive.

Paul Collingwood

Bell and Collingwood batted well together in South Africa last winter and this was a situation tailor made for him. He now has scores of 94 and 74 not out going into the series and, as so often, is in better form than he looks.

Alastair Cook

Alastair Cook was the England batsman under most pressure coming on tour, and he has delivered an unbeaten hundred and now a composed sixty in his last two innings. The timing of his trigger movements is crucial to his success and, at the moment, they look in decent rhythm.

Steve O’Keefe

For the second day running, Steve O’Keefe impressed. His bowling is reminiscent of Paul Harris and he bowled very tidily, producing a good one to continue Kevin Pietersen’s horrible run against slow left arm armers. His omission from the uber-squad looks more surprising by the day.

Bad day

Kevin Pietersen

Pietersen’s travails against slow left armers continued, but he’s unlikely to face any in the test series.

Peter George

Having enhanced his reputation in India, George bowled indifferently and also seemed to have borrowed his kit from a much smaller team mate.

Steve Smith

Having batted well yesterday his bowling (10-1-57-0) was disappointing. Nathan Hauritz may be sleeping slightly better as a consequence.

Champagne moment

On a good day for England Ian Bell reached his hundred in style with a boundary from Steve Smith.