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.