Boxing Day Preview

The Ashes are over for this edition, England has handed them over.  However, try telling the packed house at the MCG on Boxing Day that this is a dead rubber.  So what should the two teams look like going into this match?

The Aussies

The Aussies are unlikely to change a winning formula, unless there is an injury.  Gone is the rotation policy that might have cost Harris a game or two. As it is, he has made it through seven consecutive tests- a minor miracle- and while a little sore seems likely to be picked for an eighth.  

This is not to say that the Aussies don't have issues, particularly with the batting.  Rogers is constantly playing for his place, and Bailey is far from confirming himself as a long term test prospect.  Watson, in spite of doubling his tally of centuries this year, still looks a bit fragile at three.  However there is no one making an undeniable case to unseat any of them.  Of concern is the fact that all three are over 30 (as are Harris, Haddin, Johnson and Clarke- though their current form gives them plenty of breathing space).

At least Smith seems to be showing a bit of promise, and some substance (there is no way I would have believed I would write this a year ago).  The Aussies will be hoping that this continues, and he is joined by a few more.

So basically stick with the same team, and hope that a few of them consolidate their place.  And hope that Silk and/or one of the other batsmen in the Shield will start piling on the runs and putting pressure on them.  

England

Having unexpectedly lost the Ashes, in the face of 10-0 predictions to the contrary,  the English have several questions regarding their team.  Like the Aussies, they have a few ageing players, though none of these have the protection of form that some if the Aussies have.    

Cook: has had a couple of very average series against the Aussies so far.  However he has a lot of selection credit to use up before he gets dropped, having been perhaps the key batsman over much of the last four years.  He will be back, it is just a matter of time.  His captaincy is more of a question.  It is generally conservative, defensive and unimaginative on the field, and does not seem to have inspired his team off it.  However, only Bell has the form and standing in the team to take over at this stage.  Cook will stay for the foreseeable future.  After all he has only lost four of the 19 tests he has captained, winning 9.

Carberry:  has been fairly impressive, first at getting in, and then at finding a way to get out when set. Still early in his career, but he is over 30 already.  He will need to prove himself soon.  

Root: is also new(ish) in his career, and very new at the number three slot.  He is however, the wrong person for the job.  The Aussies tried Warner at six and quickly corrected that mistake.  So too, the English need to get Root out of three.  While he did make a reasonable 87 (until Stokes, the biggest English score for the series), he has batted so slowly that it has not really hurt the Aussies that he has survived for a while.  He is averaging 157 balls a match, but it is only costing the Aussies about 51 runs.  His strike rate is the lowest for the series apart from Tremlett and Panesar. Meanwhile, the pressure is on his partners to score, the Aussies get the English on the back foot, and the rest is history.  He seems to be the future of English batting (though if you take out his 180 at Lords when the Aussies were at their worst, he is averaging 24 in Ashes cricket), but three is not his cup of tea.  The English need to decide whether to put him in in place of Carberry, as everyone expects him to open eventually, or to have him serve his apprenticeship at 5 or 6.

KP:  Has had plenty of people calling for his head.  I can understand that.  He is extremely frustrating the way he gets out sometimes.  In many ways he is like Watson with the bat- you expect him to deliver far more often than he does.  However, unlike Watson, KP generally gets a good innings or two a series.  And those innings generally shift the match, if not the series his team's way (more often than not it is in the second test of a series).  The fact that he is quite human the rest of the time is not usually noticed because players like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior have covered for him.  It is noticeable now mainly because the others have failed too.  He is still a very good player having a bad run.  Unless he fails in the rest of this series and the next one or two, I would keep him.  His experience and occasional brilliance is going to be required going forward.

Bell: is still the backbone of the side.  Having carried them to victory in England, he is having a far more modest series this time.  He has however still out scored every one of his teammates.  He needs to move to three unless and until Trott returns.  He has the technique and temperament to do well there.  He can also set the tone for the team- likely to be a much more positive one than Root has set so far. As it is, England are usually already in trouble by the time he gets in.   

Stokes:  shows promise, but it is early days yet.  One century does not make a test match batsman, though you have to start somewhere.  His bowling is also useful.  He can't be dropped for a while yet.  

Prior: has had a lousy series with bat and gloves.  He is really low on confidence.  He is perhaps the ripest candidate for being replaced.

Bresnan: had an average return in his first test back from injury.  The most conservative of the third seamer options on tour, and so will probably stay.  Needs to step up a notch with the bowling to fill a Siddle-like role for England.

Broad: if fit he has to play as he has shown the most fight out of all his team.  However the news was not very good a few days out.

Swann:  can't have had too many worse runs of three matches.  He has been thoroughly out bowled by Lyon, and on occasions Root.  However he brought a lot more to the team than Panesar (his likely replacement), so the Aussies will be happy about his retirement.  Panesar bowled slightly better than Swann in Adelaide, but his batting and fielding are a class below Swann's so it is a loss to the team overall.  A better choice may be Scott Borthwick, the young leg spinner added to the squad on Monday.  Not sure how well he bowls (there must be something to his being picked as a bowler), but sounds like he can bat, and he gives them a view to a longer future than Panesar.

Anderson: like Swann is struggling, but he has been struggling for longer, most of the last seven matches.  He looks like he needs a rest.  He is too good a bowler not to come back from this, unless he has all enjoyment of the game ground out of him.  Rest him for a test or two.  Let him get back on his feet again.  He is too proud to be happy about this, but then again, England are too conservative to be likely to drop him.

So I would keep Cook, KP and Bell as the experienced batsmen, with Bell moving to three.  I would probably open with Root, bringing Ballance in at five (though if you think Compton is a better medium term prospect as an opener, then keep Carberry and put Root at five so you don't have to move him again). Stokes stays at six.  Bairstow can't do any worse than Prior, so he would come in.  The bowlers would be Bresnan, Broad, Borthwick (or more likely, Panesar, or Rankin if England go for four quicks) and Finn (though Anderson will probably still be picked by the English).  Finn would be told that he has two tests to justify his place on the tour, and have instructions to bowl fast.  Rankin or Anderson would replace Broad if he is still hobbling.  In all probability: Bairstow for Prior, Panesar for Swann, the rest of the team unchanged.

Prediction:

Before Swann's retirement, I suspected that this match would be the closest yet in the series.  The English have nothing to lose, and the Aussies will have their fire dampened a little by having already won the Ashes.  However, Swann's retirement may galvanise the English (in which case my prediction holds) or it might totally shatter them, in which case Aussies all the way.  I am hoping for the former, leading to a hard fought Aussie win, unless the weather intervenes in which case a draw is likely.

Swann Dive

It must have been a while since a concerted effort to hit a top class bowler out of an attack has been this successful.  There has been an unmistakable aggression from the Aussie batsmen as they have taken on Swann.  And now three tests later, he is not only out of the attack, he is out of cricket, announcing his immediate retirement in the middle of a series.  The Aussie team will be glad to see him go.  He is the sort of player that you don't like in the opposition- he was always finding ways into the game with bat, ball or fielding.  He had that slightly cocky air that Aussie love in their players and hate in the English.  There was good reason that he was one the three English players I nominated as my least favourite of the current crop - and it wasn't that he was a bad player.  It is hard to take 255 wickets at a tick under 30 if you are not good at bowling in some way.

His retirement means that his average stays under that 30 mark (8 more runs conceded would put him over).  Thirty is that arbitrary mark between good/useful bowlers on the one hand and very good/great bowlers on the other.  For some reason history seems to treat the bowlers with an average under thirty in a class better than those whose average is just above.  Let's hope that Swann didn't retire to protect  history's view of him.  

I'm also hoping that his departure is not related to Trott's.  Not that "stress related illness" is even on the cards, but in the aftermath of Trott's departure, the English management style came in for a heap of criticism.  Swann's performance in the last few games may have been indicative of a loss of enjoyment and passion for the game. If this disappeared because of the team management style, then England have a whole lot more trouble coming their way.  

More likely is the fact that Swann always planned to retire at the end of the series and has just brought it forward for some reason (his announcement seems to read that way). His performance this series may indicate that his elbow is troubling him again- though he makes no reference to this.  It might just be that he was worded up that his performances so far meant he was surplus to requirements (being dropped) for the remaining tests, and bringing forward his retirement makes it look better for him (unless you characterise his retirement as desertion).  Besides, announcing it now gives him the option of getting home for Christmas if he wants.  Perhaps he just wanted to give his replacement a couple more matches to get used to being the English spinner as he indicates in his statement.  After all, two more matches would have made so much difference to Warne's replacements...

Big Mitch's henchmen

I made a comment in an earlier blog post that the difference between the sides was Mitchell Johnson.  In many ways I stand by that comment.  His batting in the first innings in Brisbane was a key, almost as much as his bowling in the first three innings of the series.  However he did not win the Ashes alone.  He had help.  In particular he had two henchmen that have helped him change the fortunes of Australia.

Some might nominate Michael Clarke who has scored a heap and captained really well.  However he has been the only batsman consistently scoring runs this year, so Clarke scoring runs doesn't really change the team.  Several of the other batsmen have (finally) scored runs, but most of them have been second innings runs (Warner, Watson) after the English had been beaten up by the bowlers in the first innings and the pressure was largely off.  Similar things could be said for the run glut at Perth (Smith - though his was a good innings, Watson).  However Haddin, the first of the henchmen, has come to the rescue of the team in each of the first innings of the series.  Plus he has been in very good form with the gloves.  Without him Johnson would not have had decent totals to bowl at. Even if he still blew England away, the batsmen would not have had the freedom to bat the same way as their lead would not have been as convincing.

In a similar way Johnson had help with the bowling.  Four times in the series there have been a clatter of English wickets: Brisbane first innings was 5/4 in 4 overs, and the second innings was 4/9 in 4 overs; in Adelaide's first innings it was 5/18 in 5 overs; and in the second innings in Perth it was 4/17 in 6 overs.  It is these quick bursts more than anything that sunk England's hopes this series. Most people remember the first common factor: Johnson- twelve of his 23 wickets came in these bursts.  What seems to be forgotten is that the bowler at the other end each time was Nathan Lyon.  His ten wickets this series have included 7 wickets from the batsmen, and Prior twice.  Five of these wickets plus that of Swann came during these destructive partnerships with Johnson.  Big Mitch may have scared the English, but he had help knocking them over.

Don't be fooled

The Aussies are 2-0 up, and in the box seat to regain the Ashes.  England have been pulled apart for a combined loss of 599 runs.  Given that Perth has been Mitchell Johnson's favourite ground over the years, it is not inconceivable that the urn could return to Australia in the next week.  It is not impossible, however unlikely, that 5-0 could be the score line at the end of the summer. But don't be fooled.  The gap between the teams is not as great as it looks at the moment.  It is only a few months, ago, with largely the same teams, that the English demolished Australia 3-0.  The difference then was one player: Bell.  Without his three centuries, and calming influence on the English middle order, the result could, probably would, have been different.  Overall the teams were fairly well matched apart from his influence.  Of course the weather helped, with the two matches that Australia dominated being heavily affected by rain (that England almost won one of them was more to do with Clarke declaring early because of the threat of rain than England's  efforts in the game).

This time around, in spite of the huge margins, the difference is again one player: Mitchell Johnson.  Australia may still have won in Brisbane without Mitchell, but not as comprehensively.  There is also the possibility that without Johnson, the first innings score would have been much lower, and all the pressure on the Aussies, which may have reversed the result.  Almost certainly Adelaide would not have been the same without him.  His burst of 5 for not much turned a test that was likely to be a draw into a test in which a win was possible. The psychological damage of that spell and the other bowlers did the rest.

Johnson's dominance in the first three innings of the series has made the difference between the sides look huge.  However, like Bell's dominance in England, it exaggerates the difference between the sides.  If Johnson were to return to his inconsistent past during the match in Perth, suddenly the teams don't seem so far apart.  The English batsmen will suddenly look ten time better than they have thus far, and the fact that Rogers, Watson, Smith and Bailey have not been overly convincing in the first two tests will look a lot more relevant.

The Aussies are on top, and their supporters should enjoy that, but don't be fooled: the gap between the teams is not as big as it seems right now.

Cricket Pessimist

Normally an mild optimist, cricket seems to bring out the pessimist in me.  Take this test for example: There seems to be an assumption in some sections of the media that now the Aussies posted 570, England will roll over and collapse.  It may happen, after all, Mitch got Cook early with a beauty.  And the English may still have a scar or two from the 'Gabba test.  On the other hand, the way Carberry and Root batted out the rest of the day indicates to me that the draw is at least as likely.  It is only 12 months ago a South African on debut batted for an unbelievably long time to save a match on this ground (over 11 hours across the two innings).  It would not be an entire shock to see that sort of thing happen again if these two keep batting for a while.  Add the fact that KP's one big score a series is more often in the second test than any other, and the fact that Bell has been their best batsman for the last six months, and it looks ever likelier.  Then, of course they have their own debutant in Kiwi (Stokes).  In fact, unless the Aussies get at least 7 or 8 wickets today, I'm tipping a draw (still a possibility even if they do).  Then the Aussies would have to lift in Perth and win for this draw to look like anything other than a moral victory for England.

Of course, the only thing worse than a moral victory, would be an actual win for England.  If you think I am being overly pessimistic, just look up the 2003 and 2006 Adelaide matches where the team batting first scored over 550, only to be beaten.  This is the one ground where a big lead and an early wicket is still a long way from a secure win.  It doesn't even mean we can't lose.