A good day, DRS and Swann

Day 2 at Old Trafford was, for the Aussies, a good day that they would have liked to be better.  For the first time in a while, the Aussies passed 500.  They managed to bat five session, and may have batted longer if they wished (after all the key 10th wicket partnership never got to bat).  Five of the eight batsmen got passed fifty.  The area that the Aussies need to improve is the fact that only one went onto a hundred.  Admittedly, both Haddin and Starc were batting well enough to get there given more time.  But then again, Rogers and Smith looked that good in the 60s too.  Clarke has now scored two of the three centuries the Aussies have managed this year.  The other was Wade's hundred against Sri Lanka.  

The bowlers did well at the end of the day, snaring a couple of wickets and almost having one or two more.  If Clarke had been able to readjust after being wrong footed, and get to Cook's edge, the day would have been even better.  However, there was a bit of luck with Bresnan's dismissal.  Cook did not let Bresnan review even though it was fairly clear he did not hit it.  

England's use of the DRS in this game has put Australia's use of it in the first two tests into perspective.

Rogers and Clarke

Clarke and Khawaja were all over the headlines after yesterday's play, but the man of the day for me was Rogers.  A highlight reel of his innings shows great shot after great shot.  More than that, I believe it was Rogers that was responsible for the good position that the Aussies were in at the end of the day.  It was his stroke play that gave them a good opening partnership (Watson only scored 19 after all).  It was he that kept the scoring going while Clarke was struggling early on, and took the pressure off his captain so that Clarke could settle in.  I have written before about the pressure on Clarke as the only performing batsman, and to have Rogers take control as he did allowed Clarke to work through the pressure.  It is just a shame that Rogers couldn't find the extra sixteen runs to get a century.

Clarke will be proud of his innings, largely because it was a fight early on, and he still made it to the hundred.  The best bit was that it was against Swann that he started to find his stride.  Swann provided plenty of balls that tempted Clarke to get his feet moving.  By the time the seamers came back, Clarke was looking good.

I guess I can't write about yesterday without commenting on the DRS and Khawaja.  It was a bad decision by the umpire.  A worse one by the 3rd umpire who could watch it over and over and still got it wrong.  I am not sure how either of them have him out.  However, for those calling for the end of the DRS, a reminder that without it, Khawaja would still have been out.  I think that the problem with DRS is more the people operating it.  On the whole they are good umpires- even if they are having a bad series.  However they are trained, and have years of experience as centre umpires.  They are not technology specialists.  They may not get the impact of the telephoto lens etc.  The other problem is that the third umpire is restricted to answering direct questions by the on field umpire, and can't suggest the sorts of issues that might be pertinent.  Enough on that for now.

One final comment.  Watson didn't go out lbw this time, but he still managed to waste a start.  I think they replaced the wrong player to get Warner back in the team.  Oh well.  Then again he might score a ton in the second innings, or take five for not much and win the match.  We can only hope.

Where to from Here? (Part 2)

In my last post, I discussed the need for stable selection in the batting.  Now it is the bowlers turn.  While they have outperformed the batsmen significantly, the selection policies around the bowlers has been poor as well.

As an example, the way that Nathan Lyon has been treated over the last six months or so has been appalling.  He has entered the last two series as Australia's leading spinner.  In India he was dropped for Maxwell, a glorified part-timer.  Yes, technically Doherty was the key spinner in the team, but the reason he was there was that they wanted Maxwell as an all-rounder.  And they did not want two off spinners, so Doherty came in as a left arm spinner, and Lyon got dumped.  Doherty is a reasonable short form bowler, but not really a test level player.  Maxwell is a batsman that bowls a bit.  The experiment failed, and Lyon returned and took nine wickets in the final match of the India series.  He was once again the number one spinner.  Except that he was dropped for the next test for an virtually unknown nineteen year old, after a third spinner, Fawad Ahmed was tipped to take his spot.

Lyon's main fault is that he will never be a Warne or McGill, nor even a Swann.  What is true is that he is a solid performer, but not a world beater.  He hasn't won Australia many matches, however a record of 79 wickets in 22 matches suggests that he is quite useful.

Where to from here? (Part 1)

In my last cricket post I suggested that the problems with Australia's batting were as much systemic as anything else.  This means that the solutions are not easy and will take time.  But what does that mean for the team right now?  What should Lehmann, and the rest of the leadership do now?

Firstly, and I can't believe I am saying this, but we need to realise that the current Ashes are not everything -after all we have a series against the world's best coming up next year.  Not that we give up.  We should fight out this series and the next.  However, we have spent the last couple years putting band aids on our problems, and taking risks especially in selection to try to pull off an amazing win.  This goes way beyond the batting, and it hasn't worked.  Now we need to take a longer term view - realising that it may cost us matches in the short term.  However, if we used the same sort of short term thinking we have in the recent past, we will need to settle in for a long time in the middle of the pack, maybe even lower.

Short of wholesale systemic change, the main area we need to change the way we work is in selection.  Our selection policy is all over the place at the moment.  Two of the eleven picked for the first test were not even in the 16 player squad.  They effectively leap frogged at least seven players to get into the team.  It is this sort of panic selection that exacerbates the problems the team is having.

In this post we will look at the selection of the batsmen, who form our biggest problem.  In the next post we will look at the bowlers, who have performed reasonably well in spite of some poor selection decisions.