Shaun Marsh has had something of an in and out international career. He averages thirty-seven in one day internationals but has never been entirely sure of his place in the side and has been in indifferent form of late, as has been borne out by his exclusion from Australia’s World Cup squad. Given his chance by injuries to Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting, however, he took it with both hands. If Hussey fails to make the plane, as seems quite likely, then Marsh has made an eloquent case for selection. With Chris Tremlett, not a member of England’s squad, bowling well the ICC rule that squads should be announced a month in advance of the World Cup looks ludicrous, a clear case of the marketing tail wagging the cricketing dog.
Batting uncommonly low at number seven, Marsh came in with Australia in a mess, a situation that steadily worsened to 142-8. Finding an ally in the unlikely form of Doug Bollinger, who batted far better than his career figures suggested was possible, he took Australia to the comparative strength of 230. A partnership that had started out as an amusing diversion ended up yielding eighty eight runs and, effectively, winning the game for Australia. Once the partnership was broken the final wicket fell almost straight away but the damage had been done.
An hour or so before England would have been anticipating chasing 180 at most, but now found themselves chasing a significantly larger score in bowler friendly condition. In truth, they made a pretty poor fist of it, although Bollinger in particular bowled superbly. The frustration for England will be that a number of batsmen made starts but none were able to go on and play the match winning innings. Even Jonathan Trott, usually so hard to shift, fell after having established himself.
It was another intriguing game in a series that is shaping up nicely. Australia lead 2-0 but England know that they have created opportunities to win both games. The two sides look pretty well matched, but England need to re-discover the killer instinct that served them so well in the tests.
Thursday 27 January 2011
Thursday 20 January 2011
Elementary My Dear Watson (This Time)
There must have been times over the last few days when Shane Watson must have felt that he was playing England on his own, such has been the excellence of his performances. Here he effectively did with a truly great innings that won the game for his side. Having failed to capitalise on numerous starts in the test series, here he not only capitalised but made the second highest score ever in a one day international at the MCG. It was a remarkable achievement.
England will be disappointed not to have won the game, especially after the start that they had, but the dismissal of Strauss and the run ut of Kevin Pietersen when he was looking well set and destructive slowed their momentum and their total of 294, while decidedly useful, was short of what they would have hoped for. Lee was the pick of the Australian bowlers – having been denied the wicket of the rather scratchy Davies because of a reviewed no ball (something for which the commentators seem to afford a mystifying level of sympathy to the bowler) he knocked over both Strauss and Bresnan when they were well set and was comfortably the most economical of the Australian quicks. Mojo Mitch, who was having one of his scatter gun days, and the returning Doug Bollinger were both expensive, but the eighteen overs bowled by Watson, Doherty and Smith were effective in keeping the scoring rate down to manageable levels and Smith picked up two cheap wickets that suggested that he is more effective here than in test cricket.
Australia started positively with Haddin providing an admirable foil for the in-form Watson’s lightning start. Although Haddin eventually fell to the impressive Swann and Clarke and Smith (surely batting too high at number four) both lacked fluency Watson thundered on. Well supported by a typically perky one day innings from Mike Hussey and a sensibly played knock from Cameron White, Watson saw Australia home in style, belting the first ball of the fiftieth over for six for a deserved win.
England will be looking forward to getting Anderson and Broad back since both Bresnan and Tremlett, so parsimonious in the tests, were expensive, but Shahzad continues to show considerable promise and the spinners were reasonably effective in slowing the game down, although Yardy will be disappointed at his figures. Ultimately, though, they had no answer to the power of Shane Watson. The two sides, at the moment, look to be pretty evenly matched, so it may well turn out to be an interesting, if rather overlong, series.
England will be disappointed not to have won the game, especially after the start that they had, but the dismissal of Strauss and the run ut of Kevin Pietersen when he was looking well set and destructive slowed their momentum and their total of 294, while decidedly useful, was short of what they would have hoped for. Lee was the pick of the Australian bowlers – having been denied the wicket of the rather scratchy Davies because of a reviewed no ball (something for which the commentators seem to afford a mystifying level of sympathy to the bowler) he knocked over both Strauss and Bresnan when they were well set and was comfortably the most economical of the Australian quicks. Mojo Mitch, who was having one of his scatter gun days, and the returning Doug Bollinger were both expensive, but the eighteen overs bowled by Watson, Doherty and Smith were effective in keeping the scoring rate down to manageable levels and Smith picked up two cheap wickets that suggested that he is more effective here than in test cricket.
Australia started positively with Haddin providing an admirable foil for the in-form Watson’s lightning start. Although Haddin eventually fell to the impressive Swann and Clarke and Smith (surely batting too high at number four) both lacked fluency Watson thundered on. Well supported by a typically perky one day innings from Mike Hussey and a sensibly played knock from Cameron White, Watson saw Australia home in style, belting the first ball of the fiftieth over for six for a deserved win.
England will be looking forward to getting Anderson and Broad back since both Bresnan and Tremlett, so parsimonious in the tests, were expensive, but Shahzad continues to show considerable promise and the spinners were reasonably effective in slowing the game down, although Yardy will be disappointed at his figures. Ultimately, though, they had no answer to the power of Shane Watson. The two sides, at the moment, look to be pretty evenly matched, so it may well turn out to be an interesting, if rather overlong, series.
All Good Things Come to an End
And so it came to pass. Having run England desperately close in Adelaide Australia deservedly brought England’s record breaking run of victories to an end in a match that wasn’t quite as close as the final margin suggested.
As so often with Twenty20 this was a game of fine margins, but there can be little doubt that the better side on the night won. Having got off to a flying start, Australia were reined in extremely effectively by England’s spinners but Aaron Finch, a slightly surprising choice for the side, more than justified his selection with an effective and, occasionally, brutal innings that first rebuilt the Australian effort and then hauled it to a competitive total. Much of Australia’s other batting was surprisingly tentative with four of the nine batsmen recording strike rates of under a hundred but Finch’s fifty-three from thirty-three balls would, ultimately, prove decisive.
England would have felt confident of overhauling Australia’s one hundred and forty seven and got off to a decent start through Bell and Davies but the middle order failed, with Morgan surprisingly lacking in fluency, in the face of another superb spell from Shane Watson and some effective stuff from Mitchell Johnson. At 113-6 England looked dead and buried, but sensible batting from Bresnan and the impressive Woakes, coupled with a crass five wides from Tait in the penultimate over, took them into the final over with at least an outside chance, needing eighteen. Brett Lee, however, held his nerve and, in spite of a huge six from Woakes, the result was never really in doubt.
England can take heart from having had the opportunity to blood some new players and, in particular, from the promise shown by Chris Woakes, while Australia will be delighted to have won and with the success of Finch and Watson in particular. In this form of the game the two sides look pretty well matched – we shall see what happens in the fifty over series.
As so often with Twenty20 this was a game of fine margins, but there can be little doubt that the better side on the night won. Having got off to a flying start, Australia were reined in extremely effectively by England’s spinners but Aaron Finch, a slightly surprising choice for the side, more than justified his selection with an effective and, occasionally, brutal innings that first rebuilt the Australian effort and then hauled it to a competitive total. Much of Australia’s other batting was surprisingly tentative with four of the nine batsmen recording strike rates of under a hundred but Finch’s fifty-three from thirty-three balls would, ultimately, prove decisive.
England would have felt confident of overhauling Australia’s one hundred and forty seven and got off to a decent start through Bell and Davies but the middle order failed, with Morgan surprisingly lacking in fluency, in the face of another superb spell from Shane Watson and some effective stuff from Mitchell Johnson. At 113-6 England looked dead and buried, but sensible batting from Bresnan and the impressive Woakes, coupled with a crass five wides from Tait in the penultimate over, took them into the final over with at least an outside chance, needing eighteen. Brett Lee, however, held his nerve and, in spite of a huge six from Woakes, the result was never really in doubt.
England can take heart from having had the opportunity to blood some new players and, in particular, from the promise shown by Chris Woakes, while Australia will be delighted to have won and with the success of Finch and Watson in particular. In this form of the game the two sides look pretty well matched – we shall see what happens in the fifty over series.
Thursday 13 January 2011
Elementary My Dear...Woakes?
Eight in a row. It doesn’t have the resonance or significance of, say, Australia’s sixteen consecutive test victories, but it’s a record and worthy of celebration. It would be pushing it to say that England have mastered Twenty20 cricket, but their strategy, fielding and strength in depth are admirable, although not everyone agrees: on my daily trawl through the cricket blogs I found a poster on cricinfo conversations (strap line ‘Home of the One Eyed and Deluded’) who stated that England were the worst Twenty20 side in the world. There’s just no pleasing some people.
This was unquestionably the hardest that they have been pushed on their record breaking run, however. Having engineered a comfortable position they were then stung by a fabulous bowling performance from Shane Watson, who had earlier starred with the bat, and looked to have thrown it away, only for Chris Woakes, on debut, to hold him nerve with the élan of a long established player and drag them over the line in a thrilling finish.
Australia can take considerable heart from their performance, but they are still dogged by familiar problems. Their fielding is way below the standards that they have set themselves in the past, their strategy looks flawed and they have continued their unfortunate habit of failing to take advantage of winning situations. England’s batting has considerable depth, with number eleven Ajmal Shahzad averaging twenty-nine in first class cricket, but even so a side which has the opposition needing fifteen from two overs with eight wickets down should win more often than not. Brett Lee, the experienced spearhead of the attack, leaked eleven runs from a dismal nineteenth over and not even Shane Watson’s excellent last over could pull the game back.
The obsession with pace looks outdated. Tait and Lee conceded eighty-one from their eight overs and both conceded unhealthy numbers of runs at the end of the innings, with Tait suffering the ignominy of being swatted for six by Woakes. The successful bowlers in Twenty20 cricket have tended to be medium pacers or slow bowlers and while Tait can be devastating on his day he can also be a liability. International batsman aren’t especially bothered by pace, rather they are discomfited by movement and by bowlers who bowl awkward lengths. Like Mitchell Johnson, Tait’s action has too many flaws in it for him to be consistently effective and Australia may want to re-think their strategy for future matches.
For England, Ian Bell looked impressive at the top of the order, although he did benefit from a horrible dropped catch first ball, Kevin Pietersen hit the ball very hard and provided some startling momentum early in England’s innings and Eoin Morgan continued to impress – it is a measure of how far he has come that both he and England’s supporters will be disappointed that he didn’t go on to finish the job. Chris Woakes, though, deservedly captured the headlines – Andy Flower is said to be very impressed with him as an all round cricketer with a view to getting him involved in the test side sooner rather than later and it’s easy to see why: his bowling was decent without being spectacular but his batting showed both skill and a sound temperament, as did his very relaxed post match interview. He could become a very significant player for England, but they are in the happy position of being able to ease him into the side. The future looks bright.
This was unquestionably the hardest that they have been pushed on their record breaking run, however. Having engineered a comfortable position they were then stung by a fabulous bowling performance from Shane Watson, who had earlier starred with the bat, and looked to have thrown it away, only for Chris Woakes, on debut, to hold him nerve with the élan of a long established player and drag them over the line in a thrilling finish.
Australia can take considerable heart from their performance, but they are still dogged by familiar problems. Their fielding is way below the standards that they have set themselves in the past, their strategy looks flawed and they have continued their unfortunate habit of failing to take advantage of winning situations. England’s batting has considerable depth, with number eleven Ajmal Shahzad averaging twenty-nine in first class cricket, but even so a side which has the opposition needing fifteen from two overs with eight wickets down should win more often than not. Brett Lee, the experienced spearhead of the attack, leaked eleven runs from a dismal nineteenth over and not even Shane Watson’s excellent last over could pull the game back.
The obsession with pace looks outdated. Tait and Lee conceded eighty-one from their eight overs and both conceded unhealthy numbers of runs at the end of the innings, with Tait suffering the ignominy of being swatted for six by Woakes. The successful bowlers in Twenty20 cricket have tended to be medium pacers or slow bowlers and while Tait can be devastating on his day he can also be a liability. International batsman aren’t especially bothered by pace, rather they are discomfited by movement and by bowlers who bowl awkward lengths. Like Mitchell Johnson, Tait’s action has too many flaws in it for him to be consistently effective and Australia may want to re-think their strategy for future matches.
For England, Ian Bell looked impressive at the top of the order, although he did benefit from a horrible dropped catch first ball, Kevin Pietersen hit the ball very hard and provided some startling momentum early in England’s innings and Eoin Morgan continued to impress – it is a measure of how far he has come that both he and England’s supporters will be disappointed that he didn’t go on to finish the job. Chris Woakes, though, deservedly captured the headlines – Andy Flower is said to be very impressed with him as an all round cricketer with a view to getting him involved in the test side sooner rather than later and it’s easy to see why: his bowling was decent without being spectacular but his batting showed both skill and a sound temperament, as did his very relaxed post match interview. He could become a very significant player for England, but they are in the happy position of being able to ease him into the side. The future looks bright.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
In Praise of... England's Selectors
Selectors as a group seldom get any praise from supporters for there is almost always a local favourite or media driven campaign that undermines their work, but England’s selectors have got rather a lot right over the last few years.
A striking statistic is that four of England’s top seven scored centuries on their test debut, and two more made fifties, with Paul Collingwood the odd man out. This suggests two things: firstly that county cricket is an increasingly effective preparation for test cricket and secondly that players are being picked when they are ready rather than being thrust into the side on a whim.
The most recent successful debutant, Jonathan Trott, is a case in point. Once the experiment with Ravi Bopara at number three had failed (I didn’t say that they got everything right) popular opinion was, as so often, behind a recall for Mark Ramprakash, but the selectors stuck to their guns and went with Trott. The rest is history: he made a composed debut hundred and now, after eighteen tests, he is averaging over sixty.
It is not only the batsman, however. How many of us would have predicted that Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan would have played such an important role in the retention of the Ashes? When Graeme Swann was languishing in county cricket, deemed to be temperamentally unsuitable for the England side, how many would have selected him for the tour of India where he made his breakthrough? In Australia the decision to drop Steven Finn, the leading wicket taker on either side at that point, must have been a tough one but, once again, it was the right one for the team.
Of course, they are blessed by having a pretty deep talent pool to draw from, but they also seem to have got a handle on what is required from a test cricketer and have consistently selected players with the mental, as well as technical and physical, qualities that are needed. We’re all quick to criticise when we perceive them to have got things wrong (and I’m sure that there are still people out there who are convinced that Adil Rashid should be playing, or Mark Ramprakash, or whoever) but they deserve a lot of credit for their efforts over the last couple of years.
A striking statistic is that four of England’s top seven scored centuries on their test debut, and two more made fifties, with Paul Collingwood the odd man out. This suggests two things: firstly that county cricket is an increasingly effective preparation for test cricket and secondly that players are being picked when they are ready rather than being thrust into the side on a whim.
The most recent successful debutant, Jonathan Trott, is a case in point. Once the experiment with Ravi Bopara at number three had failed (I didn’t say that they got everything right) popular opinion was, as so often, behind a recall for Mark Ramprakash, but the selectors stuck to their guns and went with Trott. The rest is history: he made a composed debut hundred and now, after eighteen tests, he is averaging over sixty.
It is not only the batsman, however. How many of us would have predicted that Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan would have played such an important role in the retention of the Ashes? When Graeme Swann was languishing in county cricket, deemed to be temperamentally unsuitable for the England side, how many would have selected him for the tour of India where he made his breakthrough? In Australia the decision to drop Steven Finn, the leading wicket taker on either side at that point, must have been a tough one but, once again, it was the right one for the team.
Of course, they are blessed by having a pretty deep talent pool to draw from, but they also seem to have got a handle on what is required from a test cricketer and have consistently selected players with the mental, as well as technical and physical, qualities that are needed. We’re all quick to criticise when we perceive them to have got things wrong (and I’m sure that there are still people out there who are convinced that Adil Rashid should be playing, or Mark Ramprakash, or whoever) but they deserve a lot of credit for their efforts over the last couple of years.
Where Next for Australia?
It has become de rigueur in recent days to downplay England’s achievements in winning the Ashes by describing this Australian side as the worst in history. While there is no doubt that it is nowhere near the standard of its recent predecessors this seems rather harsh – after all, it is only a few months since they really should have shared a series in India and their defeats in the year or so prior to the start of this series generally came in games where they at least got themselves into decent positions before blowing them. The fact is that England played cricket at a level that was way above what anyone expected and Australia, with a few honourable exceptions, weren’t able to deal with it.
So, where do Australia go from here? There is, unsurprisingly, popular enthusiasm for filling the side with young players, much as there has been on the regular occasions when England have slumped, but this runs contrary to the recent trend of Australian selection and is certainly no guarantee of success. What the selectors do need to consider, apart from their own positions, is what qualities are required from a side that is no longer ranked at number one and which doesn’t have the talent to dominate matches simply by turning up. At the risk of rubbing salt into the wounds they need to take a leaf out of the England selectors’ book and pick players as much on character as on talent.
The Captaincy
It should be pretty uncontroversial to say that Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain should now be at an end. He has been a successful captain of a great side but has not, in truth, been a great captain. In this series he has tinkered constantly with the field to the detriment of his bowlers and his outburst at Melbourne was the final nail in his coffin. Australia’s problem now is who to succeed him with – Michael Clarke has long been groomed for the role, but his form has been woeful and his test captaincy hardly got off to a stellar start in Sydney. He is also said to be unpopular in the dressing room and he doesn’t immediately strike observers as the kind of tough character that Australia need now. This is the first major challenge for Hilditch and co.
The Openers
Shane Watson has done a surprisingly good job since his promotion to be a stop gap opener at Edgbaston in 2009 and he had a far better series with the bat than many of his team mates, but his poor conversion rate and tendency not to capitalise on starts suggest that he may be of more value to his side in the middle order than at the top. One of the many differences between the sides was the capacity of England’s batsmen to convert starts into big hundreds and Watson, for all of his qualities as a cricketer, shows no sign of having either the temperament or the technique to produce this sort of match-winning innings. His propensity for being involved in run outs rather counts against him as well.
This, however, is the lesser of Australia’s opening problems. Simon Katich has performed admirably since moving up the order, but even before his injury he wasn’t looking entirely comfortable. His replacement, Phillip Hughes, is clearly blessed with a tremendous eye but has been consistently exposed by England. His lack of footwork is shocking in a test opening batsman and his recent domestic record suggests that bowlers in first class cricket have got wise to his strengths and weaknesses as well. He has the talent to come again but has to tighten up his technique – the fact that he has been unable to do so thus far does not bode particularly well.
The problem for the selectors is who to bring in. Shaun Marsh, by his own admission, lacks the temperament to bat for long innings, Phil Jaques could be an option but is thirty-one and there are also questions about his technique and Mark Cosgrove, who has a decent first class record, has fallen foul of the Australian management in the past through issues of weight and fitness and remains overweight and unfit. It will be fascinating to see what they come up with.
The Middle Order
I have written elsewhere that this series should mark the end not only of Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain but also of his test career. If we assume that this will be the case (and it is by no means a given) then the question is who will replace him.
Usman Khawaja made a promising debut at Sydney, although it is a mark of how public expectations have fallen that scores of thirty-seven and twenty-one should have been met with such rapturous acclaim. Tim Bresnan made the observation that any weaknesses will be identified and exploited pretty quickly in test cricket, but he looks to have a decent technique and a sound temperament. Batting at three is a tough assignment for a young player, but Australia will benefit from his emergence and he should stay there for the foreseeable future.
This then raises the question of who should bat below him. Michael Clarke has endured a horrible year but remains a player of high quality – it is striking that he has chosen to give up Twenty20 cricket in order to concentrate on re-discovering his game for the tests. Assuming that his back is okay then he should re-discover his form, which would be of immeasurable benefit to his side. Below him, Mike Hussey has done enough in the short term to keep his place, having played superbly at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, but his performances at Melbourne and Sydney were more like his previous form and it remains to be seen whether the first three tests of the series were a glorious last hurrah or the start of something more significant.
Given the potential travails of the top order it is essential that a specialist batsman comes into the side at number six. Steve Smith has undoubted talent but he is not a good enough batsman or bowler yet to justify his place and his bowling would certainly benefit from time in first class cricket. This may be the time to promote Callum Ferguson to the test side – he only average thirty-five in first class cricket with a highest score of one hundred and thirty-two, but he has looked the part in one day internationals and may have the temperament to succeed. Australia’s selectors should bear in mind that players such as Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Paul Collingwood had modest first class records but still had excellent test careers.
Wicket-keeper
Brad Haddin was one of the few Australians to emerge from the series with any integrity, but even so his days may be numbered. At thirty-three he is no spring chicken and the fact that he has been omitted from Australia’s Twenty20 squad may be a hint as to which way the selectors are thinking. His problem is that, although he batted well, his keeping remains patchy and there is a strong case for saying that Tim Paine is both a better keeper and a better batsman. There may also be thoughts in the selectors’ minds that Paine is a possible future captain.
Spinners
Although it is difficult to imagine his selection making much difference to the outcome of the series, the omission of Nathan Hauritz didn’t help Australia, since his is not only the best spinner available to them but also would have bolstered a fragile tail. Given that his omission seems to have been the result of a falling-out with Ricky Ponting then he may be back before long, and has been included in Australia’s one day squad, but the selectors should also be looking hard at Steve O’Keefe, another decent spinner who can also bat. It’s possible that Michael Beer may have played his one and only test match at Sydney.
Fast Bowlers
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the series was the performance of Australia’s much vaunted pace bowlers. Damien Fleming was asked before the series which side had the better attack and he replied ‘Australia by far’ but, Perth aside, they were undisciplined and lacked penetration.
Part of their problem is the lack of a true leader of the attack. Mitchell Johnson has been groomed for the role but lacks the control, consistency and mental strength required. Ryan Harris, who bowled well in his three tests, might be a contender, but his body and age may prevent him from playing much more, if any, test cricket. Peter Siddle tried his heart out and was, at times, unplayable, but he too lacked consistency: he took two six wicket hauls but only two other wickets in the series. Ben Hilfenhaus, meanwhile, seemed to have gone backwards – he kept the runs down but seldom looked like taking wickets. They weren’t helped by the lack of fitness of Doug Bollinger, who bowled exceptionally well last winter, but even he probably isn’t an attack leader.
The questions moving forward, then, are what to do with Mitchell Johnson and when to start blooding the promising youngsters. I suspect that they will persist with Mitch, preferring to focus on his bowling at Perth rather than his performances elsewhere. If they do then it will truly be a triumph of hope over experience. They will also want to start looking at the younger players such as James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc, but will be wary of throwing them in too soon for fear that they will sink rather than swim.
There is, then, much for Cricket Australia to ponder. The concern is that, in their public pronouncements at least, they don’t seem to think that there is much wrong, but it seems to the outsider that the talent pool is fairly shallow. It is interesting that Picky Ponting has emphasised the need to review the role of domestic cricket in producing international cricketers because the conveyor belt of talent might not have lurched to a standstill but it is certainly moving rather more slowly than was the case. This is a true test of Australian cricket: it will be fascinating to see how they respond.
So, where do Australia go from here? There is, unsurprisingly, popular enthusiasm for filling the side with young players, much as there has been on the regular occasions when England have slumped, but this runs contrary to the recent trend of Australian selection and is certainly no guarantee of success. What the selectors do need to consider, apart from their own positions, is what qualities are required from a side that is no longer ranked at number one and which doesn’t have the talent to dominate matches simply by turning up. At the risk of rubbing salt into the wounds they need to take a leaf out of the England selectors’ book and pick players as much on character as on talent.
The Captaincy
It should be pretty uncontroversial to say that Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain should now be at an end. He has been a successful captain of a great side but has not, in truth, been a great captain. In this series he has tinkered constantly with the field to the detriment of his bowlers and his outburst at Melbourne was the final nail in his coffin. Australia’s problem now is who to succeed him with – Michael Clarke has long been groomed for the role, but his form has been woeful and his test captaincy hardly got off to a stellar start in Sydney. He is also said to be unpopular in the dressing room and he doesn’t immediately strike observers as the kind of tough character that Australia need now. This is the first major challenge for Hilditch and co.
The Openers
Shane Watson has done a surprisingly good job since his promotion to be a stop gap opener at Edgbaston in 2009 and he had a far better series with the bat than many of his team mates, but his poor conversion rate and tendency not to capitalise on starts suggest that he may be of more value to his side in the middle order than at the top. One of the many differences between the sides was the capacity of England’s batsmen to convert starts into big hundreds and Watson, for all of his qualities as a cricketer, shows no sign of having either the temperament or the technique to produce this sort of match-winning innings. His propensity for being involved in run outs rather counts against him as well.
This, however, is the lesser of Australia’s opening problems. Simon Katich has performed admirably since moving up the order, but even before his injury he wasn’t looking entirely comfortable. His replacement, Phillip Hughes, is clearly blessed with a tremendous eye but has been consistently exposed by England. His lack of footwork is shocking in a test opening batsman and his recent domestic record suggests that bowlers in first class cricket have got wise to his strengths and weaknesses as well. He has the talent to come again but has to tighten up his technique – the fact that he has been unable to do so thus far does not bode particularly well.
The problem for the selectors is who to bring in. Shaun Marsh, by his own admission, lacks the temperament to bat for long innings, Phil Jaques could be an option but is thirty-one and there are also questions about his technique and Mark Cosgrove, who has a decent first class record, has fallen foul of the Australian management in the past through issues of weight and fitness and remains overweight and unfit. It will be fascinating to see what they come up with.
The Middle Order
I have written elsewhere that this series should mark the end not only of Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain but also of his test career. If we assume that this will be the case (and it is by no means a given) then the question is who will replace him.
Usman Khawaja made a promising debut at Sydney, although it is a mark of how public expectations have fallen that scores of thirty-seven and twenty-one should have been met with such rapturous acclaim. Tim Bresnan made the observation that any weaknesses will be identified and exploited pretty quickly in test cricket, but he looks to have a decent technique and a sound temperament. Batting at three is a tough assignment for a young player, but Australia will benefit from his emergence and he should stay there for the foreseeable future.
This then raises the question of who should bat below him. Michael Clarke has endured a horrible year but remains a player of high quality – it is striking that he has chosen to give up Twenty20 cricket in order to concentrate on re-discovering his game for the tests. Assuming that his back is okay then he should re-discover his form, which would be of immeasurable benefit to his side. Below him, Mike Hussey has done enough in the short term to keep his place, having played superbly at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, but his performances at Melbourne and Sydney were more like his previous form and it remains to be seen whether the first three tests of the series were a glorious last hurrah or the start of something more significant.
Given the potential travails of the top order it is essential that a specialist batsman comes into the side at number six. Steve Smith has undoubted talent but he is not a good enough batsman or bowler yet to justify his place and his bowling would certainly benefit from time in first class cricket. This may be the time to promote Callum Ferguson to the test side – he only average thirty-five in first class cricket with a highest score of one hundred and thirty-two, but he has looked the part in one day internationals and may have the temperament to succeed. Australia’s selectors should bear in mind that players such as Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Paul Collingwood had modest first class records but still had excellent test careers.
Wicket-keeper
Brad Haddin was one of the few Australians to emerge from the series with any integrity, but even so his days may be numbered. At thirty-three he is no spring chicken and the fact that he has been omitted from Australia’s Twenty20 squad may be a hint as to which way the selectors are thinking. His problem is that, although he batted well, his keeping remains patchy and there is a strong case for saying that Tim Paine is both a better keeper and a better batsman. There may also be thoughts in the selectors’ minds that Paine is a possible future captain.
Spinners
Although it is difficult to imagine his selection making much difference to the outcome of the series, the omission of Nathan Hauritz didn’t help Australia, since his is not only the best spinner available to them but also would have bolstered a fragile tail. Given that his omission seems to have been the result of a falling-out with Ricky Ponting then he may be back before long, and has been included in Australia’s one day squad, but the selectors should also be looking hard at Steve O’Keefe, another decent spinner who can also bat. It’s possible that Michael Beer may have played his one and only test match at Sydney.
Fast Bowlers
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the series was the performance of Australia’s much vaunted pace bowlers. Damien Fleming was asked before the series which side had the better attack and he replied ‘Australia by far’ but, Perth aside, they were undisciplined and lacked penetration.
Part of their problem is the lack of a true leader of the attack. Mitchell Johnson has been groomed for the role but lacks the control, consistency and mental strength required. Ryan Harris, who bowled well in his three tests, might be a contender, but his body and age may prevent him from playing much more, if any, test cricket. Peter Siddle tried his heart out and was, at times, unplayable, but he too lacked consistency: he took two six wicket hauls but only two other wickets in the series. Ben Hilfenhaus, meanwhile, seemed to have gone backwards – he kept the runs down but seldom looked like taking wickets. They weren’t helped by the lack of fitness of Doug Bollinger, who bowled exceptionally well last winter, but even he probably isn’t an attack leader.
The questions moving forward, then, are what to do with Mitchell Johnson and when to start blooding the promising youngsters. I suspect that they will persist with Mitch, preferring to focus on his bowling at Perth rather than his performances elsewhere. If they do then it will truly be a triumph of hope over experience. They will also want to start looking at the younger players such as James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc, but will be wary of throwing them in too soon for fear that they will sink rather than swim.
There is, then, much for Cricket Australia to ponder. The concern is that, in their public pronouncements at least, they don’t seem to think that there is much wrong, but it seems to the outsider that the talent pool is fairly shallow. It is interesting that Picky Ponting has emphasised the need to review the role of domestic cricket in producing international cricketers because the conveyor belt of talent might not have lurched to a standstill but it is certainly moving rather more slowly than was the case. This is a true test of Australian cricket: it will be fascinating to see how they respond.
Monday 10 January 2011
Mojo Mitch Revisited
Perhaps slightly unfairly, Mitchell Johnson has come to epitomise the travails of Australian cricket over the last few weeks. Certainly the Barmy Army has been keen to highlight his role and reports are that England supporters have bought up all of Cricket Australia’s Johnson related merchandise. In the words of one observer, you can’t get a Mitchell Johnson fridge magnet for love nor money.
For Mojo Mitch this series has been a microcosm of his career since arriving in England in 2009 as the much heralded leader of the Australian attack. When he is good, as in the first innings at Perth and the second innings at Headingley, he is as close to unplayable as anyone in the world. When he gets it wrong, however, which is rather more frequently, he is a liability, not only gifting batsmen runs but also creating huge problems for his captain through his inability to bowl consistently on one side of the wicket.
The same is true of his batting. Blessed with a keen eye and considerable power he is capable of taking the game away from the opposition in an hour or so, but he is every bit as inconsistent with the bat as with the ball. In this series he made half centuries at Perth and Sydney but in his other five innings he contributed seven runs at an average of 1.4. This is in line with the rest of 2010 – between January and the start of the Ashes series he had scored one hundred and fifty-five runs at 10.33, but without his three highest scores his average fell to 3.17. This is a level of inconsistency that is unacceptable in a purported all rounder batting at number eight.
The real issue for the Australian management is that his problem is not mental or technical, it is a combination of the two. His bowling action has been scrutinised time and again, but the simple fact is that his arm is too low to enable him either to bowl a consistent line or to get the seam into position to allow the ball to swing. This means that, unless everything clicks into place as it did at Perth, his bowling is out of control. This is compounded by his desire to bowl as fast as he can – trying too hard causes problems for bowlers with excellent actions, let alone those who are technically flawed. However, if he isn’t swinging the ball then pace is his only weapon, so he is in a difficult position.
The lack of technique is also an issue for his batting. He barely moves his feet, relying instead on his eye and a full swing of the bat. This makes him very susceptible to the moving ball, especially early in his innings, as England and others have exploited effectively. Watching his second innings dismissal, to a very good ball, at Sydney in slow motion it was striking that he started to play forward, as he should have done, but then withdrew his front foot, leaving him trapped on the crease. It is almost as if he knows what he should be doing but can’t quite bring himself to do it.
Finally, there are the mental issues. With a handful of honourable exceptions, this Australian side looks weak mentally, lacking either the application or the intelligence to battle through when times are tough. Mojo Mitch is perhaps the most striking example – his bowling falls to pieces under pressure (he finished the series with the ball by being taken to the cleaners by England’s number nine) and he seems to lack the stomach for the fight when under pressure with the bat, particularly in the second innings. It came as no surprise to anyone when he was dismissed without scoring in the second innings at Sydney.
What, then, are the Australian selectors to do with him? There is no denying his talent, but at twenty-nine he is no longer a promising youngster and he and his coaches have singularly failed to resolve his technical issues. He is the kind of player who would have been a luxury worth indulging in the heady days when Australian cricket ruled the world, but in a side that is trying to re-build and come to terms with their new found standing in world cricket he is a luxury that they simply cannot afford.
For Mojo Mitch this series has been a microcosm of his career since arriving in England in 2009 as the much heralded leader of the Australian attack. When he is good, as in the first innings at Perth and the second innings at Headingley, he is as close to unplayable as anyone in the world. When he gets it wrong, however, which is rather more frequently, he is a liability, not only gifting batsmen runs but also creating huge problems for his captain through his inability to bowl consistently on one side of the wicket.
The same is true of his batting. Blessed with a keen eye and considerable power he is capable of taking the game away from the opposition in an hour or so, but he is every bit as inconsistent with the bat as with the ball. In this series he made half centuries at Perth and Sydney but in his other five innings he contributed seven runs at an average of 1.4. This is in line with the rest of 2010 – between January and the start of the Ashes series he had scored one hundred and fifty-five runs at 10.33, but without his three highest scores his average fell to 3.17. This is a level of inconsistency that is unacceptable in a purported all rounder batting at number eight.
The real issue for the Australian management is that his problem is not mental or technical, it is a combination of the two. His bowling action has been scrutinised time and again, but the simple fact is that his arm is too low to enable him either to bowl a consistent line or to get the seam into position to allow the ball to swing. This means that, unless everything clicks into place as it did at Perth, his bowling is out of control. This is compounded by his desire to bowl as fast as he can – trying too hard causes problems for bowlers with excellent actions, let alone those who are technically flawed. However, if he isn’t swinging the ball then pace is his only weapon, so he is in a difficult position.
The lack of technique is also an issue for his batting. He barely moves his feet, relying instead on his eye and a full swing of the bat. This makes him very susceptible to the moving ball, especially early in his innings, as England and others have exploited effectively. Watching his second innings dismissal, to a very good ball, at Sydney in slow motion it was striking that he started to play forward, as he should have done, but then withdrew his front foot, leaving him trapped on the crease. It is almost as if he knows what he should be doing but can’t quite bring himself to do it.
Finally, there are the mental issues. With a handful of honourable exceptions, this Australian side looks weak mentally, lacking either the application or the intelligence to battle through when times are tough. Mojo Mitch is perhaps the most striking example – his bowling falls to pieces under pressure (he finished the series with the ball by being taken to the cleaners by England’s number nine) and he seems to lack the stomach for the fight when under pressure with the bat, particularly in the second innings. It came as no surprise to anyone when he was dismissed without scoring in the second innings at Sydney.
What, then, are the Australian selectors to do with him? There is no denying his talent, but at twenty-nine he is no longer a promising youngster and he and his coaches have singularly failed to resolve his technical issues. He is the kind of player who would have been a luxury worth indulging in the heady days when Australian cricket ruled the world, but in a side that is trying to re-build and come to terms with their new found standing in world cricket he is a luxury that they simply cannot afford.
Sunday 9 January 2011
Viva Colly!
When Paul Collingwood was first selected for England’s one day side in 2001 it was not a decision that was met with widespread enthusiasm. He was playing for arguably the worst side in the country and hadn’t really pulled up any trees in county cricket, but he must have had something about him, for Steve Waugh described him as the most promising English batsman that he had seen that summer. His international career could have been over before it started, however, with a contribution of just twenty runs, no wickets and no catches in his four appearances against Australia and Pakistan.
Duncan Fletcher, however, had spotted something and took him on the one day tour to Zimbabwe that winter where, playing in three matches, he began to repay the faith with innings of thirty-six, seventy-seven and fifty-six not out, as well as his first wicket and catch. Even so, it was difficult to imagine him becoming a mainstay of the one day side, let alone the test team, especially when the tours to India and New Zealand brought, after an excellent seventy-one not out against India in the first match, just fifty-one runs at an average of 8.50. He did, however, start to show some of his all round excellence with 4-38 at Napier and people were starting to take notice of his outstanding fielding.
He was still considered a one day specialist, however, and it was a surprise to many when he was selected in two tests in Sri Lanka in 2003. Even then, it was easy to make the assumption that he was simply a stopgap who would play a handful of tests, a feeling that was reinforced with his selection at the Oval in 2005, in which he scored seven and ten and was, famously, rewarded with an MBE. This, however, was a precursor to a run in the side and he took his chance with successive innings in tests against Pakistan and India of ninety-six, eighty and one hundred and thirty-four not out. Rather against the odds he was here to stay.
Now he has called time on his test career, although he will carry on playing one day and Twenty20 cricket for a while longer. His retirement has come at the right time, too, for he has looked unconvincing in test cricket for most of the last year and his average, which at one time was as high as 48.42 has been in steady decline and now stands just a shade above forty. He can look back on his test career with considerable pride, however: he is one of only a handful of Englishmen to make a double century in Australia, he has a highest score at Lord’s of hundred and eighty-six and, of course, he has become Brigadier Block, the rock upon which England’s rearguard actions of the last few actions have been built, from Cardiff to Cape Town.
Along the way he has become the most capped England one day player of all time, he is the only man in one day international history to make a century and take six wickets in the same match, he holds the record for the best bowling figures by an Englishman in a one day international, he reached the triple of one thousand runs, one hundred wickets and one hundred catches in one day internationals in far fewer matches than anyone else, he has taken some of the most stunning catches imaginable and, of course, captained England to the World Twenty20 title. Oh, and along the way Brigadier Block has hit more international sixes than Ian Botham. Not only that, he’s achieved all of this while always coming across as a thoroughly decent bloke who also gives his best for the team, with no hint of ego.
Paul Collingwood, we salute you.
Duncan Fletcher, however, had spotted something and took him on the one day tour to Zimbabwe that winter where, playing in three matches, he began to repay the faith with innings of thirty-six, seventy-seven and fifty-six not out, as well as his first wicket and catch. Even so, it was difficult to imagine him becoming a mainstay of the one day side, let alone the test team, especially when the tours to India and New Zealand brought, after an excellent seventy-one not out against India in the first match, just fifty-one runs at an average of 8.50. He did, however, start to show some of his all round excellence with 4-38 at Napier and people were starting to take notice of his outstanding fielding.
He was still considered a one day specialist, however, and it was a surprise to many when he was selected in two tests in Sri Lanka in 2003. Even then, it was easy to make the assumption that he was simply a stopgap who would play a handful of tests, a feeling that was reinforced with his selection at the Oval in 2005, in which he scored seven and ten and was, famously, rewarded with an MBE. This, however, was a precursor to a run in the side and he took his chance with successive innings in tests against Pakistan and India of ninety-six, eighty and one hundred and thirty-four not out. Rather against the odds he was here to stay.
Now he has called time on his test career, although he will carry on playing one day and Twenty20 cricket for a while longer. His retirement has come at the right time, too, for he has looked unconvincing in test cricket for most of the last year and his average, which at one time was as high as 48.42 has been in steady decline and now stands just a shade above forty. He can look back on his test career with considerable pride, however: he is one of only a handful of Englishmen to make a double century in Australia, he has a highest score at Lord’s of hundred and eighty-six and, of course, he has become Brigadier Block, the rock upon which England’s rearguard actions of the last few actions have been built, from Cardiff to Cape Town.
Along the way he has become the most capped England one day player of all time, he is the only man in one day international history to make a century and take six wickets in the same match, he holds the record for the best bowling figures by an Englishman in a one day international, he reached the triple of one thousand runs, one hundred wickets and one hundred catches in one day internationals in far fewer matches than anyone else, he has taken some of the most stunning catches imaginable and, of course, captained England to the World Twenty20 title. Oh, and along the way Brigadier Block has hit more international sixes than Ian Botham. Not only that, he’s achieved all of this while always coming across as a thoroughly decent bloke who also gives his best for the team, with no hint of ego.
Paul Collingwood, we salute you.
Friday 7 January 2011
Done and Dusted - Day Five at Sydney
And so it came to pass. The rain wasn’t persistent enough to save Australia and, well though Siddle and Smith batted, their resistance was never going to be enough to delay England’s inevitable victory for too long. This was another magnificent performance by a superbly prepared and led side who seem to genuinely enjoy each other’s company and who have outplayed their opponents in every facet of the game.
To be picky, England didn’t bowl that well this morning, or at least not by the high standards that they have set themselves, and Smith and Siddle were able to enjoy themselves. It’s a shame for Peter Siddle that this is the second test in a row where he has found himself scoring futile, if entertaining, runs on the final morning for he deserves better for his efforts in this series. He is one of few Australians who can look back with any sort of pleasure at his performance in this series, for he is one of the few to show the character and application to make the most of his ability.
When the end came, though, it came quickly. Once Siddle had been caught trying a big shot off Swann (further echoes of Melbourne), Hilfenhaus and Beer lingered just long enough to see Smith to his maiden Ashes half century before falling to the new ball. It would have been fitting had any of the bowlers taken the final wicket but Chris Tremlett will have enjoyed his moment of history immensely. A year ago it would have been impossible to imagine him being on this tour, let alone playing such an important role in the series, but he finally looks what he promised to be six years ago, a highly skilled test match bowler.
Paul Collingwood will have enjoyed his final couple of hours as a test cricketer immensely. He had little to do beyond the customary smart stops and a chase to the boundary that brought a standing ovation from the Barmy Army, but it is fitting that a man who always put the team before his own success has finished his test career in a team that functions so well as a unit. It is also the right time to go, for the runs have dried up and it is time for England to move on, but even though he has had little impact with the bat he has taken a remarkable nine catches including, of course, the blinder to get rid of Ponting. He can look back on his career with immense pride.
Alastair Cook, unsurprisingly, was Man of the Series for his staggering tally of runs, which amounted to more than Michael Clarke, Ricky Ponting, Phillip Hughes, Simon Katich, Marcus North and Mitchell Johnson made between them. To highlight the difference between England’s openers and Australia’s, Cook’s highest single score of two hundred and thirty five was more than Katich and Hughes contributed between them in the series. Although Cook will, rightly, take the plaudits, this was a colossal team effort. Only Paul Collingwood of the top seven didn’t make a hundred while Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan all average twenty-six or less with the ball. The England economy rates are also worth a look: Swann didn’t have the most penetrative series but his economy rate of 2.72 gave Andrew Strauss a level of control that Ponting and Clarke could only dream of.
Australia will, I suspect, be quietly relieved that the series is over and that they can now re-group. They have to address their shortcomings, however, and the initial sound bites suggest that too many people are still burying their heads in the sand. Andrew Hilditch feels that the selectors did a pretty good job, in spite of their belief that Xavier Doherty and Michael Beer are worthier test cricketers than Nathan Hauritz, while James Sutherland, the Chief Executive of Cricket Australia, also doesn’t seem to think that there is much wrong. While this attitude persists then I fear that Australia will continue to struggle. Cricket Australia would be well advised to place less emphasis on marketing and the sort of embarrassing event that surrounded the announcement of the bloated uber squad before the start of the series and spend a bit more time concentrating on cricket. The events of the last few weeks suggest that the best marketing for Australian cricket is a successful side, not unnecessary glitz.
We should be concentrating on England, however. Six hours after the close of play Andrew Strauss led his men, some on rather wobbly legs, out to the middle where they sat and had a few more beers, a united group who have more than earned their hangovers. We, like them, should savour this moment – they don’t come along that often.
To be picky, England didn’t bowl that well this morning, or at least not by the high standards that they have set themselves, and Smith and Siddle were able to enjoy themselves. It’s a shame for Peter Siddle that this is the second test in a row where he has found himself scoring futile, if entertaining, runs on the final morning for he deserves better for his efforts in this series. He is one of few Australians who can look back with any sort of pleasure at his performance in this series, for he is one of the few to show the character and application to make the most of his ability.
When the end came, though, it came quickly. Once Siddle had been caught trying a big shot off Swann (further echoes of Melbourne), Hilfenhaus and Beer lingered just long enough to see Smith to his maiden Ashes half century before falling to the new ball. It would have been fitting had any of the bowlers taken the final wicket but Chris Tremlett will have enjoyed his moment of history immensely. A year ago it would have been impossible to imagine him being on this tour, let alone playing such an important role in the series, but he finally looks what he promised to be six years ago, a highly skilled test match bowler.
Paul Collingwood will have enjoyed his final couple of hours as a test cricketer immensely. He had little to do beyond the customary smart stops and a chase to the boundary that brought a standing ovation from the Barmy Army, but it is fitting that a man who always put the team before his own success has finished his test career in a team that functions so well as a unit. It is also the right time to go, for the runs have dried up and it is time for England to move on, but even though he has had little impact with the bat he has taken a remarkable nine catches including, of course, the blinder to get rid of Ponting. He can look back on his career with immense pride.
Alastair Cook, unsurprisingly, was Man of the Series for his staggering tally of runs, which amounted to more than Michael Clarke, Ricky Ponting, Phillip Hughes, Simon Katich, Marcus North and Mitchell Johnson made between them. To highlight the difference between England’s openers and Australia’s, Cook’s highest single score of two hundred and thirty five was more than Katich and Hughes contributed between them in the series. Although Cook will, rightly, take the plaudits, this was a colossal team effort. Only Paul Collingwood of the top seven didn’t make a hundred while Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan all average twenty-six or less with the ball. The England economy rates are also worth a look: Swann didn’t have the most penetrative series but his economy rate of 2.72 gave Andrew Strauss a level of control that Ponting and Clarke could only dream of.
Australia will, I suspect, be quietly relieved that the series is over and that they can now re-group. They have to address their shortcomings, however, and the initial sound bites suggest that too many people are still burying their heads in the sand. Andrew Hilditch feels that the selectors did a pretty good job, in spite of their belief that Xavier Doherty and Michael Beer are worthier test cricketers than Nathan Hauritz, while James Sutherland, the Chief Executive of Cricket Australia, also doesn’t seem to think that there is much wrong. While this attitude persists then I fear that Australia will continue to struggle. Cricket Australia would be well advised to place less emphasis on marketing and the sort of embarrassing event that surrounded the announcement of the bloated uber squad before the start of the series and spend a bit more time concentrating on cricket. The events of the last few weeks suggest that the best marketing for Australian cricket is a successful side, not unnecessary glitz.
We should be concentrating on England, however. Six hours after the close of play Andrew Strauss led his men, some on rather wobbly legs, out to the middle where they sat and had a few more beers, a united group who have more than earned their hangovers. We, like them, should savour this moment – they don’t come along that often.
Thursday 6 January 2011
On the Brink - Day Four at Sydney
For Australia to entertain any thoughts of getting out of Sydney with even a whiff of respectability then they were going to have to bowl well this morning and then bat with the kind of application that they haven’t shown since the Hussey – Haddin stand at Brisbane, which feels an eternity ago. They did neither.
Matt Prior started the series by being the meat in the sandwich of Peter Siddle’s first day hat trick, but his batting has improved as the series has gone on and he was at his imperious best again today, moving effortlessly on from his overnight fifty-four to one hundred and eighteen. When he is batting well he is a joy to watch, rather in the style of his original mentor Alec Stewart, driving through the off side in particular with power and grace. He found good support, too, in Tim Bresnan, who is a more than handy batsman and, after a steady start, produced some thumping shots of his own. With Graeme Swann then enjoying himself hugely at the expense of the wilting Mitchell Johnson England’s innings finally closed at a startling six hundred and forty four, their second score of six hundred in the series and the fourth time that they have passed five hundred.
Australia started pretty well in reply with Shane Watson playing some trademark muscular shots and Phillip Hughes hanging on in there, but Watson’s departure to a farcical run out rather summed up Australia’s series and Hughes played a typical firm handed prod outside the off stump not long afterwards. Khawaja and Clarke both played nicely for a time, but both perished in the manner that has typified Australia’s batting approach over the last few weeks, pushing with hard hands at balls moving away from them. With Hussey perishing to a cut shot and Tremlett then producing two wickets in two balls there is no way back fro Australia. Haddin and Johnson were both undone by excellent deliveries, but this as Johnson’s eighth duck in his last eleven tests and he was, as so often, firm footed against the moving ball.
England took the extra half hour but Smith and Siddle, showing rare character in an Australian side that has none of the mental toughness of its predecessors, survived to the close. England’s champagne, however, is on ice. They have outplayed their opponents in every single department and tomorrow morning should be the first Ashes side ever to win three tests in a series by an innings. Bring it on.
Matt Prior started the series by being the meat in the sandwich of Peter Siddle’s first day hat trick, but his batting has improved as the series has gone on and he was at his imperious best again today, moving effortlessly on from his overnight fifty-four to one hundred and eighteen. When he is batting well he is a joy to watch, rather in the style of his original mentor Alec Stewart, driving through the off side in particular with power and grace. He found good support, too, in Tim Bresnan, who is a more than handy batsman and, after a steady start, produced some thumping shots of his own. With Graeme Swann then enjoying himself hugely at the expense of the wilting Mitchell Johnson England’s innings finally closed at a startling six hundred and forty four, their second score of six hundred in the series and the fourth time that they have passed five hundred.
Australia started pretty well in reply with Shane Watson playing some trademark muscular shots and Phillip Hughes hanging on in there, but Watson’s departure to a farcical run out rather summed up Australia’s series and Hughes played a typical firm handed prod outside the off stump not long afterwards. Khawaja and Clarke both played nicely for a time, but both perished in the manner that has typified Australia’s batting approach over the last few weeks, pushing with hard hands at balls moving away from them. With Hussey perishing to a cut shot and Tremlett then producing two wickets in two balls there is no way back fro Australia. Haddin and Johnson were both undone by excellent deliveries, but this as Johnson’s eighth duck in his last eleven tests and he was, as so often, firm footed against the moving ball.
England took the extra half hour but Smith and Siddle, showing rare character in an Australian side that has none of the mental toughness of its predecessors, survived to the close. England’s champagne, however, is on ice. They have outplayed their opponents in every single department and tomorrow morning should be the first Ashes side ever to win three tests in a series by an innings. Bring it on.
Wednesday 5 January 2011
Nails in the Coffin - Day Three at Sydney
Talking to a friend this morning he ventured that this was the day on which England secured the series, and it’s hard to disagree, for even if Australia knock over the remaining wickets quickly tomorrow then they will have to bat in a manner that hasn’t been seen all series if they are to stand a chance of victory. At the risk of tempting fate, the best that they can hope for is a draw.
The day started reasonably well for Australia. Anderson, having done his job (which is of questionable value) the night before didn’t hang around for too long and Collingwood, sadly, fell cheaply on what may well turn out to be his final test innings. Cook, who was magnificent once again, and Bell took the game away from them and then Bell and Prior hammered the nails into the coffin.
It is a measure of how far Alastair Cook has come since the start of the series, when many felt that he shouldn’t be in the side, that there is a sense of disappointment that he got out for one hundred and eighty nine. He has had a staggering series and is a shoo-in for the Compton – Miller Medal having made the highest score in a test at Brisbane, scored three centuries, the lowest of which has been one hundred and forty eight, and scored more runs in an Ashes series than any Englishman except Wally Hammond. Phenomenal is a word that is overused, but it can truly be said that he has had a phenomenal series.
Ian Bell hasn’t had a huge amount to do at number six, but he played well in both Brisbane and Perth and batted beautifully here. He had some luck and probably should have been given out caught behind on sixty-seven, but his hundred was a joy to watch, being slightly reminiscent of Sachin Tendulkar in the way that he played his shots. He is another who has had a tour that he can be pretty satisfied with and will be an important part of the side for a number of years to come.
Matt Prior has kept exceptionally well in this series but his batting in the first three tests was largely indifferent. At Melbourne and then again here he has shown what he is capable of, however. He played some blistering shots but also kept the scoreboard ticking to the extent that his runs came at almost a run a ball. His partnership with Bell, which came to an end with Bell’s nick to slip, finally swung the game totally in England’s favour.
England will look to bat on for as long as possible tomorrow and take a lead of at least two hundred and fifty, but even if they lose the remaining three wickets in the first over in the morning then they have already built a match winning or, at the very least, a match drawing lead. Graeme Swann may well have an important role to play on days four and five but England, without being complacent, can already reflect on an extremely satisfying first three days.
The day started reasonably well for Australia. Anderson, having done his job (which is of questionable value) the night before didn’t hang around for too long and Collingwood, sadly, fell cheaply on what may well turn out to be his final test innings. Cook, who was magnificent once again, and Bell took the game away from them and then Bell and Prior hammered the nails into the coffin.
It is a measure of how far Alastair Cook has come since the start of the series, when many felt that he shouldn’t be in the side, that there is a sense of disappointment that he got out for one hundred and eighty nine. He has had a staggering series and is a shoo-in for the Compton – Miller Medal having made the highest score in a test at Brisbane, scored three centuries, the lowest of which has been one hundred and forty eight, and scored more runs in an Ashes series than any Englishman except Wally Hammond. Phenomenal is a word that is overused, but it can truly be said that he has had a phenomenal series.
Ian Bell hasn’t had a huge amount to do at number six, but he played well in both Brisbane and Perth and batted beautifully here. He had some luck and probably should have been given out caught behind on sixty-seven, but his hundred was a joy to watch, being slightly reminiscent of Sachin Tendulkar in the way that he played his shots. He is another who has had a tour that he can be pretty satisfied with and will be an important part of the side for a number of years to come.
Matt Prior has kept exceptionally well in this series but his batting in the first three tests was largely indifferent. At Melbourne and then again here he has shown what he is capable of, however. He played some blistering shots but also kept the scoreboard ticking to the extent that his runs came at almost a run a ball. His partnership with Bell, which came to an end with Bell’s nick to slip, finally swung the game totally in England’s favour.
England will look to bat on for as long as possible tomorrow and take a lead of at least two hundred and fifty, but even if they lose the remaining three wickets in the first over in the morning then they have already built a match winning or, at the very least, a match drawing lead. Graeme Swann may well have an important role to play on days four and five but England, without being complacent, can already reflect on an extremely satisfying first three days.
The Two Sides of Mojo Mitch - Day Two at Sydney
I said yesterday that if Australia could bat well then they were still in with a shout and, although two hundred and eighty looks a little below par, they are still in the hunt after two days, something which certainly wasn’t the case at Melbourne.
England bowled well again against Hussey, Haddin and Smith, although Hussey will count himself slightly unlucky to be bowled off both bat and thigh pad by Paul Collingwood of all people. Haddin is a fine batsman but looks a place too high at number six, rather as Matt Prior did in 2009, and Smith is not yet a test number seven, so it was no great surprise to see Australia slump to one hundred and eighty nine for eight. At that point England must have entertained thoughts of bowling them out for under two hundred, but Johnson and Hilfenhaus had other ideas.
A quick glance at Mitchell Johnson’s stats over the last year or so show a lot of failures with the bat, but when he gets in he can be dangerous, as he showed at Perth and showed again here. He was severe on Swann and played one or two glorious shots off the quicker bowlers. With Hilfenhaus, who isn’t the worst tail ender in the world, riding his luck a little but then joining in with an astonishing six off Bresnan, England briefly lost control of proceedings as they added a rapid seventy six. The last two wickets came as a relief to England as Australia closed on two hundred and eighty, a score that had seemed unlikely not long before.
Unfortunately for Australia, Johnson and Hilfenhaus then undid much of their good work by bowling horribly with the new ball, allowing Strauss, in particular, and Cook to get England off to a flying start. By the time Strauss was out for a better than a run a ball sixty one wondered if the damage had already been done.
Johnson then evoked memories of Perth by dismissing the prolific Jonathan Trott without scoring, but Cook and Pietersen then set about rebuilding. Cook had some luck when he was caught at mid-on off Michael Beer, only for the debutants celebrations to be cut short by the revelation that it had come from a no ball. There was sympathy for Beer from the commentary box, but it is hard to feel too sorry for any bowler who has a wicket chalked off due to a no ball and especially a spinner. Beer, though, bowled nicely without ever looking desperately threatening.
Pietersen had looked in decent touch but, with four overs to go before the close, he became the third England batsman in the last two innings to fall hooking Johnson, Beer taking a nicely judged catch at fine leg. This brought in Anderson as night watchman, much to Mike Atherton’s consternation, but he survived to the close.
England are on top but are by no means in control of this game. With Anderson in and then the out of form Collingwood due in next Australia will fancy taking a couple of quick wickets in the morning and gaining some momentum. If Collingwood does fail, which seems likely on recent evidence, then much will depend on Cook, Bell and Prior. If these three play well then the match could well be England’s, but if they do not then we could yet be looking at a drawn series. It’s all to play for.
England bowled well again against Hussey, Haddin and Smith, although Hussey will count himself slightly unlucky to be bowled off both bat and thigh pad by Paul Collingwood of all people. Haddin is a fine batsman but looks a place too high at number six, rather as Matt Prior did in 2009, and Smith is not yet a test number seven, so it was no great surprise to see Australia slump to one hundred and eighty nine for eight. At that point England must have entertained thoughts of bowling them out for under two hundred, but Johnson and Hilfenhaus had other ideas.
A quick glance at Mitchell Johnson’s stats over the last year or so show a lot of failures with the bat, but when he gets in he can be dangerous, as he showed at Perth and showed again here. He was severe on Swann and played one or two glorious shots off the quicker bowlers. With Hilfenhaus, who isn’t the worst tail ender in the world, riding his luck a little but then joining in with an astonishing six off Bresnan, England briefly lost control of proceedings as they added a rapid seventy six. The last two wickets came as a relief to England as Australia closed on two hundred and eighty, a score that had seemed unlikely not long before.
Unfortunately for Australia, Johnson and Hilfenhaus then undid much of their good work by bowling horribly with the new ball, allowing Strauss, in particular, and Cook to get England off to a flying start. By the time Strauss was out for a better than a run a ball sixty one wondered if the damage had already been done.
Johnson then evoked memories of Perth by dismissing the prolific Jonathan Trott without scoring, but Cook and Pietersen then set about rebuilding. Cook had some luck when he was caught at mid-on off Michael Beer, only for the debutants celebrations to be cut short by the revelation that it had come from a no ball. There was sympathy for Beer from the commentary box, but it is hard to feel too sorry for any bowler who has a wicket chalked off due to a no ball and especially a spinner. Beer, though, bowled nicely without ever looking desperately threatening.
Pietersen had looked in decent touch but, with four overs to go before the close, he became the third England batsman in the last two innings to fall hooking Johnson, Beer taking a nicely judged catch at fine leg. This brought in Anderson as night watchman, much to Mike Atherton’s consternation, but he survived to the close.
England are on top but are by no means in control of this game. With Anderson in and then the out of form Collingwood due in next Australia will fancy taking a couple of quick wickets in the morning and gaining some momentum. If Collingwood does fail, which seems likely on recent evidence, then much will depend on Cook, Bell and Prior. If these three play well then the match could well be England’s, but if they do not then we could yet be looking at a drawn series. It’s all to play for.
Is Usman the Man? - Day One at Sydney
The mantra throughout this series has been to reserve judgment on a pitch until both sides have batted on it, but it was a surprise to see Michael Clarke win the toss and bat this morning. The thinking at Sydney used to be to avoid batting last on a turning pitch, but this has been less true of late and the covering of grass on the wicket coupled with the overhead conditions made the decision something of a gamble. It is certainly true that Clarke knows conditions at the SCG well and so it may turn out to be an act of genius, but the feeling is that the track will get easier to bat on over days two and three.
England bowled exceptionally well with the new ball but Watson and Hughes, both showing unexpected discipline, batted well until the final ball before lunch. It was almost as though Hughes could resist no longer and sparred indeterminately at a short ball outside the off stump, Collingwood completing a routine catch. This was a shame both for him and for Australia since surviving the first session with all ten wickets intact in tricky batting conditions would have been an impressive achievement and might have set up the rest of the day nicely for them. As it is, the jury is still out on Hughes’ suitability at the top of the order.
Coming in at fifty-five for one, Usman Khawaja immediately looked at home – he got a nice ball first up which he tucked away for two but the withering pull and decisive leave that followed were impressive. Sides may look to pack the area behind square on the off side against him as he seems prone to slicing the ball in the air through that region, but he showed enough class to suggest that he has a long test career ahead of him, and he and Watson moved forward nicely in the overs after lunch.
It wasn’t to last, however. Watson, having shown great diligence in the morning session and a greater array of strokes after the interval, fell in a manner that has almost, regrettably, become his trademark, pushing outside off stump with hard hands to the slips. The stump mic caught his cry of ‘Oh no’ as the ball flew off the edge – well though he has done at the top of the order he may be of more use to Australia lower down as they look to develop their side.
Michael Clarke then came and went as he has done throughout the series, batting like a man ill at ease with his game and looking to hit his way out of trouble. The cut shot that brought about his downfall was both poorly conceived and poorly executed and meant that, once again, the top order was putting pressure on those batting lower down. One suspects that Clarke is too good a player not to re-discover his touch but his batting in this series has been horrible – even when he made runs at Adelaide he batted frenetically and looked like getting out at any moment.
As the rain clouds circled it looked as though Khawaja and Hussey, who also rode his luck a little, would take Australia through to the close, but in the final over before the rain finally descended Khawaja played an ill advised sweep shot off Swann and was comfortably caught at square leg. It is not a dismissal that he will look back on with any enthusiasm but he will, hopefully, learn from it. He certainly looked less at ease in the six balls that he faced from Swann than he had done against the quicker bowlers, but overall he can be reasonably pleased with his debut effort.
It was, then, an intriguing, if truncated, day. England are probably just on top, but if Australia can bat well tomorrow then they are certainly still in this match.
England bowled exceptionally well with the new ball but Watson and Hughes, both showing unexpected discipline, batted well until the final ball before lunch. It was almost as though Hughes could resist no longer and sparred indeterminately at a short ball outside the off stump, Collingwood completing a routine catch. This was a shame both for him and for Australia since surviving the first session with all ten wickets intact in tricky batting conditions would have been an impressive achievement and might have set up the rest of the day nicely for them. As it is, the jury is still out on Hughes’ suitability at the top of the order.
Coming in at fifty-five for one, Usman Khawaja immediately looked at home – he got a nice ball first up which he tucked away for two but the withering pull and decisive leave that followed were impressive. Sides may look to pack the area behind square on the off side against him as he seems prone to slicing the ball in the air through that region, but he showed enough class to suggest that he has a long test career ahead of him, and he and Watson moved forward nicely in the overs after lunch.
It wasn’t to last, however. Watson, having shown great diligence in the morning session and a greater array of strokes after the interval, fell in a manner that has almost, regrettably, become his trademark, pushing outside off stump with hard hands to the slips. The stump mic caught his cry of ‘Oh no’ as the ball flew off the edge – well though he has done at the top of the order he may be of more use to Australia lower down as they look to develop their side.
Michael Clarke then came and went as he has done throughout the series, batting like a man ill at ease with his game and looking to hit his way out of trouble. The cut shot that brought about his downfall was both poorly conceived and poorly executed and meant that, once again, the top order was putting pressure on those batting lower down. One suspects that Clarke is too good a player not to re-discover his touch but his batting in this series has been horrible – even when he made runs at Adelaide he batted frenetically and looked like getting out at any moment.
As the rain clouds circled it looked as though Khawaja and Hussey, who also rode his luck a little, would take Australia through to the close, but in the final over before the rain finally descended Khawaja played an ill advised sweep shot off Swann and was comfortably caught at square leg. It is not a dismissal that he will look back on with any enthusiasm but he will, hopefully, learn from it. He certainly looked less at ease in the six balls that he faced from Swann than he had done against the quicker bowlers, but overall he can be reasonably pleased with his debut effort.
It was, then, an intriguing, if truncated, day. England are probably just on top, but if Australia can bat well tomorrow then they are certainly still in this match.
Sunday 2 January 2011
Sydney
It seems only days since the captains were tossing up at Brisbane and Peter Siddle was engendering a sense of déjà vu among England supporters, but tonight we come to the final test. England, of course, already hold the Ashes but they will be desperate for the series win that their cricket has merited, while Australia will be looking for respectability and for something that they can build on as they move forward into 2011.
Sydney is no longer the raging turner of old, but there should be enough there to keep Graeme Swann interested and for Australia to give Michael Beer a belated debut, especially given the injury to Ryan Harris. The big story, of course, is the absence of Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke’s captaincy and Usman Khawaja’s debut. I have written about Ponting elsewhere, but Clarke’s story is almost as interesting. For so long the heir apparent, the wheels have come off his batting of late and he is rumoured to be unpopular with his team mates, so this will be a massive test of his credentials for the job. If Australia lose heavily then it will be fascinating to see what the selectors do. Khawaja, meanwhile, is in for a potentially tough debut, but his technique looks good and he will be eager to impress. I can’t help wondering, though, what those elements of the Australian media and public who have been keen to point out the South African origins of some England players make of his selection.
England will, presumably, be unchanged, although there may be some thought of brining Finn back into the side. Looking ahead, though, it seems likely that this will be Paul Collingwood’s final test, and he and the side will be keen to make it a memorable one. My prediction? England to win comfortably, exposing the long Australian tail, and to fulfil my pre-series prediction of a 3-1 win.
Sydney is no longer the raging turner of old, but there should be enough there to keep Graeme Swann interested and for Australia to give Michael Beer a belated debut, especially given the injury to Ryan Harris. The big story, of course, is the absence of Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke’s captaincy and Usman Khawaja’s debut. I have written about Ponting elsewhere, but Clarke’s story is almost as interesting. For so long the heir apparent, the wheels have come off his batting of late and he is rumoured to be unpopular with his team mates, so this will be a massive test of his credentials for the job. If Australia lose heavily then it will be fascinating to see what the selectors do. Khawaja, meanwhile, is in for a potentially tough debut, but his technique looks good and he will be eager to impress. I can’t help wondering, though, what those elements of the Australian media and public who have been keen to point out the South African origins of some England players make of his selection.
England will, presumably, be unchanged, although there may be some thought of brining Finn back into the side. Looking ahead, though, it seems likely that this will be Paul Collingwood’s final test, and he and the side will be keen to make it a memorable one. My prediction? England to win comfortably, exposing the long Australian tail, and to fulfil my pre-series prediction of a 3-1 win.
The End for Punter?
As Ricky Ponting looks on at Sydney, his little finger throbbing and frustration welling up inside him, he will inevitably wonder if his illustrious test career finished in the wreckage and tantrums of Melbourne. If that is the case then it certainly won’t be the finish that he would have scripted for himself, nor would it be a fitting end to an illustrious career.
The wisdom among pundits is that he shouldn’t remain as captain but that he still has a good deal to offer as a batsman. Those Australian players who have ventured an opinion seem to suggest that they still consider him to be their leader and, in Michael Clarke’s words, a ‘champion player’. Sadly for all, that is no longer the case.
One of the great challenges for selection committees is when to let a great player go. A tradition seems to have arisen over the last few years for allowing players to go on until they say that they have had enough in the hope that they might recapture past glories: Matthew Hayden is a recent example of a player who went on for a year or so too long but was considered undroppable by selectors even when his batting resembled a parody of its former power. England have done the same: the most obvious example is Ian Botham, who kept being selected in hope rather than expectation. Too often sentiment has been allowed to stand in the way of progress and there is a real risk that this will happen in the case of Ponting, that he will be allowed another series to enable him to go out on the crest of the wave rather than in the embarrassment of recent days.
The problem is that, for all of the talk and expectation, his form in the Ashes shouldn’t be a great surprise to anyone who has been watching him of late. In sixteen tests since the last Ashes he has scored just over a thousand runs at 36.35. These are respectable figures, but are inflated by his 209 at Hobart against Pakistan, his only hundred in the period. Had he been caught on nought in that innings, as he should have been, then his average would have dropped below thirty. It’s also worth pointing out that ten of those tests have been against Pakistan, the West Indies and New Zealand who, without wanting to be rude, aren’t the most challenging opponents in world cricket at the moment.
All batsmen have bad trots, of course, but what should be of most concern has been the manner of his dismissals. It feels as though almost all of his innings in this series have ended with him prodding outside off stump, his feet trapped on the crease. At his best, Ricky Ponting’s footwork has been among the best in the world, but now his movements are tentative. Equally, his once withering pull shot has become little more than a reflex paddle, an invitation to fine leg or deep backward square. With his fielding also becoming mortal, all of the indications are that his eyes have gone slightly, that he isn’t picking the ball up quite as early as once he did and so all of his movements are just a fraction too late. That isn’t something that can be rectified, it isn’t a matter of form, it is something that signals the end of a career.
There is also the fact that Australia have to move on – they have to look forward to what they can achieve with the players that they have and the players that are coming through. The glory days are gone and so they need new leadership and new players stepping up. It may well be a painful process, but it is something that happens to all great sides eventually. They will be better served with a new captain and a new set of players who have the freedom to make their mark on the game, rather than living up to the expectations of the old. Quite who that captain should be is a matter of conjecture, but they have to move on and that means an Australia without Ricky Ponting.
The one hope that I think that all cricket fans, whatever their persuasion, share is that history judges him on his whole career, not on its rather messy end, for he has been a truly great cricketer, one of those that I will be privileged to tell my grandchildren that I have seen play.
The wisdom among pundits is that he shouldn’t remain as captain but that he still has a good deal to offer as a batsman. Those Australian players who have ventured an opinion seem to suggest that they still consider him to be their leader and, in Michael Clarke’s words, a ‘champion player’. Sadly for all, that is no longer the case.
One of the great challenges for selection committees is when to let a great player go. A tradition seems to have arisen over the last few years for allowing players to go on until they say that they have had enough in the hope that they might recapture past glories: Matthew Hayden is a recent example of a player who went on for a year or so too long but was considered undroppable by selectors even when his batting resembled a parody of its former power. England have done the same: the most obvious example is Ian Botham, who kept being selected in hope rather than expectation. Too often sentiment has been allowed to stand in the way of progress and there is a real risk that this will happen in the case of Ponting, that he will be allowed another series to enable him to go out on the crest of the wave rather than in the embarrassment of recent days.
The problem is that, for all of the talk and expectation, his form in the Ashes shouldn’t be a great surprise to anyone who has been watching him of late. In sixteen tests since the last Ashes he has scored just over a thousand runs at 36.35. These are respectable figures, but are inflated by his 209 at Hobart against Pakistan, his only hundred in the period. Had he been caught on nought in that innings, as he should have been, then his average would have dropped below thirty. It’s also worth pointing out that ten of those tests have been against Pakistan, the West Indies and New Zealand who, without wanting to be rude, aren’t the most challenging opponents in world cricket at the moment.
All batsmen have bad trots, of course, but what should be of most concern has been the manner of his dismissals. It feels as though almost all of his innings in this series have ended with him prodding outside off stump, his feet trapped on the crease. At his best, Ricky Ponting’s footwork has been among the best in the world, but now his movements are tentative. Equally, his once withering pull shot has become little more than a reflex paddle, an invitation to fine leg or deep backward square. With his fielding also becoming mortal, all of the indications are that his eyes have gone slightly, that he isn’t picking the ball up quite as early as once he did and so all of his movements are just a fraction too late. That isn’t something that can be rectified, it isn’t a matter of form, it is something that signals the end of a career.
There is also the fact that Australia have to move on – they have to look forward to what they can achieve with the players that they have and the players that are coming through. The glory days are gone and so they need new leadership and new players stepping up. It may well be a painful process, but it is something that happens to all great sides eventually. They will be better served with a new captain and a new set of players who have the freedom to make their mark on the game, rather than living up to the expectations of the old. Quite who that captain should be is a matter of conjecture, but they have to move on and that means an Australia without Ricky Ponting.
The one hope that I think that all cricket fans, whatever their persuasion, share is that history judges him on his whole career, not on its rather messy end, for he has been a truly great cricketer, one of those that I will be privileged to tell my grandchildren that I have seen play.
Retained! - Day Four at Melbourne
And so it came to pass. England’s players and management will wake up tomorrow morning with headaches brought on by too much champagne: Australia’s selectors, meanwhile, have rather more worrying headaches to deal with.
Unlike at Adelaide or, indeed, unlike their own batting at Perth, England had to work for their wickets. Once Mitchell Johnson had gone to an indeterminate push at a good delivery from Tremlett, Haddin and Siddle at least showed some character in prolonging the game into the second hour of the morning. Both offered tough chances to Collingwood at slip, both played and missed and Siddle was millimetres away from being run out, but they showed the kind of character and application that has been all too rare from Australia in this series. Siddle, in particular, has had a match to remember but eventually perished – having had one big shot beautifully caught in the crowd he went for another and fell to a well judged catch by Kevin Pietersen. After that it was simply a case of watching and waiting and it was appropriate, given his dismantling of the top order yesterday, that the final wicket fell to Tim Bresnan, Hilfenhaus’s inside edge being beautifully caught by a diving Matt Prior.
England were suitably jubilant but also careful to say that the series has not been won yet while Ricky Ponting, as always, was more generous in his post match interview than he had been on the field. The captain’s future is just one concern for the selectors, but it seems to be the main topic of conversation in the Australian media. It is hard not to feel a little sorry for Ponting, for someone had to be captain at the point at which the side went into decline and he happens to have been the man with the poisoned chalice. It is always easy to blame the man in charge, and his captaincy certainly hasn’t been great, but Australia’s problems run far deeper than that.
The only change that England may ponder for Sydney will be the return of Steven Finn, although I suspect that they will be unchanged, while Australia will, at the very least, need to replace Ryan Harris, presumably with Michael Beer. My prediction of 3-1 is still looking reasonably good.
One final note: I notice that the more cretinous of the media who were keen to attribute the defeat at Perth to the arrival of the players' families have kept quiet about the fact that they are still there.
Unlike at Adelaide or, indeed, unlike their own batting at Perth, England had to work for their wickets. Once Mitchell Johnson had gone to an indeterminate push at a good delivery from Tremlett, Haddin and Siddle at least showed some character in prolonging the game into the second hour of the morning. Both offered tough chances to Collingwood at slip, both played and missed and Siddle was millimetres away from being run out, but they showed the kind of character and application that has been all too rare from Australia in this series. Siddle, in particular, has had a match to remember but eventually perished – having had one big shot beautifully caught in the crowd he went for another and fell to a well judged catch by Kevin Pietersen. After that it was simply a case of watching and waiting and it was appropriate, given his dismantling of the top order yesterday, that the final wicket fell to Tim Bresnan, Hilfenhaus’s inside edge being beautifully caught by a diving Matt Prior.
England were suitably jubilant but also careful to say that the series has not been won yet while Ricky Ponting, as always, was more generous in his post match interview than he had been on the field. The captain’s future is just one concern for the selectors, but it seems to be the main topic of conversation in the Australian media. It is hard not to feel a little sorry for Ponting, for someone had to be captain at the point at which the side went into decline and he happens to have been the man with the poisoned chalice. It is always easy to blame the man in charge, and his captaincy certainly hasn’t been great, but Australia’s problems run far deeper than that.
The only change that England may ponder for Sydney will be the return of Steven Finn, although I suspect that they will be unchanged, while Australia will, at the very least, need to replace Ryan Harris, presumably with Michael Beer. My prediction of 3-1 is still looking reasonably good.
One final note: I notice that the more cretinous of the media who were keen to attribute the defeat at Perth to the arrival of the players' families have kept quiet about the fact that they are still there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)