SAvAUS 2014: Centurion Wrap

In my series preview, I noted that it was hard to tell where the Australians were in the world pecking order.  After all, they had only played the English since their resurgence: an English team that has lost Trott, Swann, Prior, KP and their coach in the last few months.  While this was seen as a consequence of Australia's dominance, the loss of both players and matches could have been due to disharmony in the dressing room, or the English management style- both have been blamed- rather than the rise of Australia.  However, I think we now have an answer.  

The Australians have systematically dismantled an even more highly fancied South African team.  While the Aussie batting still looks brittle, it finds ways of making runs- even better, now it is not Haddin doing all the rescuing.  The Johnson-led bowling dominated everyone, apart from De Villiers- who is rightly rated as the best batsman in the world.  The fielding was where the difference was seen most - even more than the bowling.  Compare the three dropped catches when Warner was batting to the two screamers by Doolan, not to mention the sharp catch by Smith in the second innings.  The first three should have been caught (though G. Smith's effort was a very difficult one).  The last three were such that had they been dropped, few would have blamed the fielder.  (As an aside: the Tasmanian fielding coach must be good- I thought we would miss Bailey's close catching, but Doolan has more than matched him.)  That having been said, the Saffers are also in transition- they recently changed their coach and lost Kallis.  Still, they are a team that has a habit of not losing, and are still full of champions.  All of this points to Australia's acendancy being real, not a figment of English disintegration.  

So what does this mean for the rest of the series?  I had predicted a narrow win to the South Africans. If any team could still pull it off the South Africans can.  But it looks unlikely.  The manner of the defeat was reminiscent of the recent Ashes.  If Johnson continues to hold fitness and form, I cannot see South Africa turning the series around.  I expect Steyn to lift a bit, no longer hampered by his food poisoning. Also it would be unlikely that Johnson can keep knocking Smith over on his second ball to him.  So some improvement can be expected.  However, Petersen's dismissals did not look very good for an international opener.  MacLaren did not look even close to a replacement for Kallis, and probably needs to be replaced with a batsman.  And Peterson is not a test class spinner, and I am not sure that South Africa has one.  Overall, the Aussies are likely to run away with the series given the way South Africa folded twice this test.

SAvAUS 2014: The Rise of Smith

Shaun Marsh is, rightfully, getting a lot of plaudits for the first day of the test at Centurian.  However it is Smith's performance that is really pleasing.  For the third time in four tests Smith has put together a good first innings score, each time having come in with Australia in a bit of trouble.  If he can get another nine runs today, it would be his third century in those four matches.  In fact Smith has had a great year this year.  To add to the two hundreds in the recent Ashes and the 91* here, he has a 92 in Mohali, an 86 at Manchester and 138* at the Oval.  Interestingly, all of these were in the Aussies' first innings, as was his 53 at Nottingham.  His hundred at the Oval (his first) means that he is in a good position to record his fourth hundred in seven matches.  In fact in the last year since his return to test cricket, he has scored 924 at 44.  Only Clarke has more runs in that time, and no one has a better average.  Smith scored 810 (at 73.63) in the Aussies first innings during these tests.  All in all, not a bad effort for a player who many thought was lucky to get picked to tour India (though he was seen as a player who could use his feet to the spinners).  

SAvAus 2014 series preview

Another Australian international cricket summer has finished and the focus shifts to South Africa.  England have headed home with very little to cheer about.  The Aussies are riding high having won all three formats convincingly, and are set to take on the top nation over the next few weeks.  The recent win by New Zealand over India puts Australia very near if not actually in the unofficial second place in the test rankings (the rankings are only officially adjusted at the end of series).  However it is difficult to work out where Australia are really at.  Was this summer more about Australia's resurgence or England's capitulation?  Are the Aussies on the rise, or are the results more about England's slide?  Remember that only six months ago the Aussies and the English were in almost the reverse positions.  The Aussies had been thrashed mercilessly in India, and (though I have argued the the score line was flattering to the English) beaten soundly in England.  

However this is part of a bigger picture of confusing form lines.  The English form line has fluctuated wildly.  A couple of years ago Pakistan whitewashed them, and Sri Lanka pushed them to a drawn series on the road.  This shortly after beating the then world number one India in England 4-0.  More recently they beat India in India- almost impossible in this day and age.  However since then they barely escaped New Zealand unscathed, only to thrash them in England before the Ashes marathon started.  Their form at home has been very strong- except against South Africa 18 months ago.  Their form away has been poor- except, strangely, in India which is one of the hardest places to tour.  

The Aussies have a more consistent home form.  In the last few years we have whitewashed India, Sri Lanka and England at home, and pushed a strong South Africa in the first two tests before being beaten in the third test to lose the series. Only the draw against New Zealand was really disappointing.  The last twelve months have also produced consistent away form as well, though more of the negative than positive variety- losing seven of the nine test we played away.  

Indeed, with the odd exception, the trend to dominance at home and capitulation away seems to be increasing for all the major teams.  Only South Africa seems to consistently buck the trend, often winning away (eg their most recent tours to England and Australia), while being pushed at home by the likes of Australia and Sri Lanka on their last tours, and India in the first test of this summer.  The fact that, in spite of being pushed, they rarely lose is the main reason they are the number one team.  Indeed they rarely dominate against the top teams, but they usually win and rarely lose.  Their last series loss was by a Mitchell Johnson inspired Australia in 2009.  

A battle of the bowlers?

The question for the Aussies is whether Johnson can do it again.  In fact not just Johnson but the whole of the reported "best bowling attack in the world".  Unfortunately this is a title that has been, and probably still is held by the hosts.  The comparison of the two attacks is a bit like the comparison of their leading bowlers.  At their very best Johnson is better than Steyn, but as the years have shown since that series in 2009, Steyn is at his best far more consistently than Johnson, and his worst is still very good, unlike Johnson's.  

Similarly the Aussie attack has the potential to be better than the South African attack, but the Saffers are more consistent in the long haul.  Johnson has had a summer of consistency, like 2009, but can it continue?  Can the Aussie attack take the mantle of the best in the world?  

While the bowling has been the main focus in the lead up to this series, the difference between the sides is more likely to come not from the relative bowling strength, but the batting.  Here South Africa have the clear advantage.  Even in the absence of the prolific Kallis, there are proven champions like Smith, de Villiers, and Amla.  Only Clarke has a similar pedigree for the Aussies.  Of the rest, only Rogers and Warner average over forty.  Warner and Smith are developing, the former into a potential match winner, and the latter has played a couple of really good fighting innings.  However the Aussies will have two players with very little experience, without brilliant red ball form, and with first class averages in the thirties batting in the top six.  The only way to avoid this is to pick Hughes for his fourth attempt at test cricket.  He has the best first class average, red ball form and experience of the candidates to replace Watson and Bailey (Henriques, Doolan and Marsh are the others).  In most cases he would be an obvious pick, but his unorthodox style and perceived technical weakness (no worse than most others) mean that the selectors have shown themselves reluctant to pick him consistently.  Contrast the Aussie line up with the rest of the South African line up, where players like Faf would walk into most teams in the world.  The only area that Australia may have the advantage is in the tail.  

While this series is billed as the battle of the bowlers, it is more likely that how the two batting line ups cope with the expected high class bowling will be the difference.  On paper South Africa should be ahead in this battle, and I predict that they will go on to win the series by one match (1-0 or 2-1).  However, as watchers of the Australian international summer will attest, cricket is not played on paper.  That is why this should be a series well worth watching.  

** edited to include Warner as averaging over 40 before this series.

Aussie Report card

The Aussies have made a clean sweep: 5-0.  It was against the prevailing wisdom, and against the result of the last series only a few months earlier.  It was not just the wins, but the extent of the wins.  The closest match was won by 150 runs after the Aussies declared at the end of an over in which Bailey equalled the record for the most runs in an over (28).  Then there was the fact that, unlike the previous whitewash in 2006-2007, the Aussies were relatively inexperienced at test level, and England was the team with the proven champions in every department of the game.  It was an amazing series for the Aussies.  However there are still areas to work on as will be seen below:

Batting:

The batting was a mixed bag this series.  The team scored an impressive 10 centuries and 15 fifties, with only Lyon and Siddle failing to pass fifty in the series.  However  no one went past Clarke's 148 in Adelaide, and six of the centuries were in the second innings after England were already down.  The most troubling statistic is that of the 52 completed innings by the top six, 18 were at 10 runs or below, and 26 (or half of them) at 20 or below.  

Team Batting Grade: C+

Chris Rogers (5 Matches, 10 innings, 0 not out, 463 runs@46.3, 2 hundreds, 3 fifties: 4 Catches)

Finally he is starting to feel at home in the test arena.  After a slowish start, he ended the series with scores of 54, 61, 116, 11 and 119 to take him to the most runs of any batsman across the two series.  Rogers faced more balls more than any of the other Aussies with Warner's 703 balls second to his 945.  The openers did their job this series in blunting the attack, absorbing 1648 deliveries between them.  Both of Rogers' hundreds came in the second innings and he scored almost two thirds of his runs (307)  in the second innings.  He will want to convert some of his late form into first innings runs in South Africa.

Grade: B

David Warner (5M, 10I, 1NO, 523@58.11, 2x100, 2x50: 4 catches)

Showed a good start to the series when the Ashes were still in play, but tailed off in the last couple of matches as Rogers got going.  He displayed a bit more maturity with his batting than he has done any time previously (with the exception of Hobart a couple of years back).  He scored over two thirds of his runs in the second innings (360).  Like Rogers he will want some more runs in the first innings going forwards.

Grade: B+

Shane Watson (5M, 10I, 1NO, 345@38.33, 1x100, 2x50: 3 Catches) {4wickets@30.5}

Another frustrating series from Watson.  He scored a hundred in the second innings in Perth, but ended the series with only Bailey of the top seven averaging less.  This was one of his best series for a while but still averaged under forty.  The frustrating bit was that he looked as good as he has for a long time, but still didn't quite manage a very good series.  Hopefully this is the start of Watson the Improving.  His bowling was useful, with his knack for breaking partnerships and keeping it tight, though he was not needed that much.  

Grade: Batting: C, Bowling C+, Overall: C

Michael Clarke: (5M, 10I, 1NO, 363@40.33, 2x100, 0x50: 8 Catches) [5 Matches, 4 Tosses, 5 Wins]

Started the series with a bang scoring hundreds in Brisbane and Adelaide.  However, apart from these hundreds, Clarke failed to pass 24 in the rest of his innings.  However, he scored more than half his runs in the first innings, and over 300 runs while the Ashes were still up for grabs.  His captaincy was astute, and his team performed well above expectation. 

Grade: Batting: C+, Captaincy: A Overall: B

Steven Smith: (5M, 9I, 1NO, 327@40.87, 2x100, 0x50: 7 Catches) {1@58}

Smith started slowly, but picked up his game in Perth.  He scored two hundreds in impressive fashion - both of them in the first innings, and both when Australia were in trouble.  However his 31 in the first innings at the Gabba was his only other score over 20.  He scored 282 runs in the first innings across the series compared to only 45 in the second innings.  His bowling was barely called on, but he still contributed with a wicket.  He is also a fielding asset.  His first innings contributions get him a better grade than his totals might otherwise have warranted.  

Grade: B  

George Bailey (5M, 8I, 1NO, 183@26.14, 0x100, 1x50: 10 Catches)

He has benefited from the fact that the Aussies were winning, and so were able to pick and stick.  However he has by far the lowest totals of the top seven, and is the only one not to score a hundred.  Furthermore, well over half his runs (119) were scored in the second innings in spite of the fact he only batted in three of them.  His highlight was one over where he tore apart Anderson in a spectacular way.  However he will be lucky to keep his spot in South Africa.  His fielding, especially his close catching, has been his main contribution this series.  

Grade: D

Brad Haddin (5M, 8I, 0NO, 493@61.62, 1x100, 5x50: 22 Catches)

For my money Haddin was the player of the series, though it was close with Johnson.  He set up every win by rescuing Australia in the first innings of each test match and giving the bowlers something to work with. For this reason he is being classed as a batsman rather than a separate category of wicket keeper.   More than three quarters of his runs (307) came in the first innings.  He had another great series behind the stumps, taking some blinders, and generally being reliable.  

Grade: Batting A+  Keeping: A  Overall: A+

Bowling

The bowling was really what won the series.  The team took all 100 wickets on offer - a feat that is apparently unique in the history of the game.  They bowled to plan and with great discipline.  The times when England's batsmen were on top were few and brief.  Furthermore the bowlers operated as a team.  Harris did not take a wicket in two innings, and Siddle missed out in the last innings of the series, but otherwise the four main bowlers each took a wicket or more in each innings of the series.  Lyon and Johnson took at least one wicket every innings - and were regularly bowling in tandem when England collapsed.  Watson and Smith were required for less than 60 overs between them, but picked up 5 wickets and generally kept the pressure on.  

Team Bowling Grade: A

Mitchell Johnson {37W@13.97} (5M 8I, 2NO, 165@27.5, 1x50: 4 Catches)
Named man of the series, and though I would have just given it to Haddin, he deserved it.  He bowled with pace, hostility and the most amazing of all, accuracy.  It yielded 37 wickets, often in bursts with Lyon.  More than that his bowling seemed to put England into a bit of shell shock from which they never fully recovered.  His batting, especially in the first innings at the Gabba, was also important.
Grade: A+

Ryan Harris {22@19.31} (5M 6I 1NO, 117@23.4, 1x50: 4 Catches)
A class act.  One of the best bowlers going around, and has finally been able to string together a full series.  He is quick and accurate, and moves the ball just enough to cause trouble.  The perfect foil for Johnson.  His enthusiastic batting (his strike rate was the highest in the team) was also worth watching at times.
Grade: A

Peter Siddle {16@24.12} (5M 7I 1NO, 38@6.33: 0 Catches)
A quiet series compared to the other bowlers, and also with the bat.  However he often took an important wicket to break a partnership, and his bowling to Pietersen was an important contribution to the team.  He had the best economy rate of all the bowlers - keeping the pressure on.
Grade: A-

Nathan Lyon {19@29.36} (5M 6I 6NO, 60runs no average: 5 catches)
Easily the best performed spinner in the series.  He took a large percentage of top order wickets (11 batsmen, 3 wicketkeeper batsmen), and was the bowler at the other end when Johnson ripped through the English on several occasions.  He was also a reliable fielder, and the undismissable batsman.
Grade: A

Sydney test preview

The Aussies are trying for a clean sweep- the second in three home Ashes and only third 5-0 scoreline in Ashes history-, and to jump to number three in the world.  The English are playing for pride and to keep the third place on the test rankings (for which they need a win here).  So a quick look at the teams:

Australia

Only a couple of injury worries would see the team change.  Harris's knee could see Coulter-Nile make a debut, and Watson's injury could see Doolan take his place at three, and Faulkner take his place (and Bailey's) as an all-rounder.  However they both seemed to be on track to keep the same team together for the fifth straight match.  

England

It seems likely that Ballance will get a run in the team given the repeated failures of the top six.  The question is who he replaces.  Carberry seems to be the favourite, though Root has been just as bad. England really cannot afford to have two slow scorers in the top three. Some people are still singling out KP, but he was by far the best in Melbourne.  I suspect Root will open with Cook, and Ballance will either slot in at three, or swap with Bell.  

Bairstow proved me wrong when I said that he couldn't do worse than Prior.  The shame is that England have several good keepers going around, but picked part-timer Bairstow as the back up as they thought he could be a back up batsman as well.  I guess they could not believe that Prior would be in such bad form for so long.  However, I think they will give Bairstow a second chance.  

The bowlers are an interesting problem.  Borthwick is likely to get a run.  Firstly, Panesar injured himself, so may not be available.  Even if he is, Cook showed no faith in him in Melbourne bowling Root in two spells before finally bringing Panesar on with only 30-odd left to defend.  If they are going to have a specialist spinner they don't trust, it might as well be one that bats and fields better the Monty, and is a chance to develop for the future.  As for the quicks, having brought Finn and Rankin, at least one of them really needs to play.  They would need to replace Anderson or Bresnan.  Anderson needs the rest and Bresnan was particularly unimpressive.  I doubt that both will be replaced, and realistically if the other changes are made, the English are unlikely to make a change here.

Prediction

Having put up a good fight for the first two and a half days in Melbourne, getting themselves into a position to control the match, England fell apart spectacularly to lose inside four days.  Given that, it is hard to see any result other than another Aussie win, though if they can find the early fight from Melbourne it would be a better match.  I am not usually this optomistic but I am looking at a clean sweep (which probably means England will find a way to win, but I still think that is unlikely).

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...

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.

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 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.

I blame Hayden and Co.

The Aussie cricket team have a problem.  The problem is its batting.  That is about all that people can agree on.  Everything seems to be the reason for this problem: in separate articles, T20, the coaching structure, the selection policy and the state of Sheffield shield pitches, among others, have each been blamed for the Aussies poor batting in the past few days.  I am surprised that the GFC and global warming weren't the subject of articles -at least not that I saw.  The problem with the vast majority of these articles was that they were all looking for a single reason, and thus a silver bullet to fix it.  The trouble is that, like most real world problems, this problem is more complex than many would like.  Here we will look at some of the issues that have contributed to the problem.

Firstly, I blame Hayden and company - not that I would want to go back and change the way they played.   Matthew Hayden intimidated many a bowling attack, hitting them  to all parts of the ground.  Those that followed him often faced a battered bowling attack, and were able to score at pace.  A whole generation of cricketers grew up expecting that dominating good bowlers was the norm.  What they forget is that Hayden didn't succeed the first time he played test cricket. He went away, tightened his technique, and came back to take advantage of years of Australian domination to establish himself  as the brutaliser of bowlers he became.  He had a solid technique, a sound defence, good judgement and decent concentration, not to mention the back up of  five or six world class batsmen.  Many of the batsmen today want the domination without working on the rest.

This desire to dominate is exacerbated by T20.  It is a format that promotes big hitting.  It is also one that does not promote long innings- at best your innings lasts 20 overs.  In reality a quick fire 30 or 40 is good in this format.  An 80 at pace can win a match.  A failure is disappointing but expected given the need to throw the bat.  The problem isn't the format itself; after all Hayden and Gilchrist were champions in this format as well as Tests.  The problem is that this is now the format that many young cricketers are learning their craft and making their money.  With the Big Bucks League (BBL) players can make as much money in the T20 format as in Sheffield Shield.  The best of these can earn a huge amount in the Irresponsible Pay League (IPL).  The incentive to tighten up technique and learn to build innings is not as great.

This priority of T20 at the state level is emphasised by the way it dominates the summer.  The BBL has the prime school holiday weeks while the 50 over competition and the Shield matches are pushed to the edges of the season.  After mid-December there is no possibility to build a long innings until the end of January, or this coming summer, well into February.  I can understand that this makes the money, but what it gives in cash it robs in skill.  When players need to be learning to build a big innings, they are being encouraged to throw the bat.  After all it seemed to work for Hayden and Co.

Once they get into the test arena, the pressure to perform or face the chop is huge.  The first innings of this current series, Phil Hughes was the one who rebuilt the innings with Agar.  Agar got the headlines, but without Hughes, Agar's heroics would not have happened.  Two failures at Lord's have several commentators indicating that Hughes is batting for his place in the current tour match.  It is good to have competition for places, but there also needs to be moderation of the pressure on a batsman.  Even Clarke seems to be feeling the pressure to perform as the only established batsman in the top six.

Next time I will look at what this Aussie team needs to do two matches down in a ten match Ashes bout.

Lords:post mortem

What a devastating performance.  Not England's, but the Aussies.  On a ground where not that long ago, we had not lost for over 70 years we folded like a pack of cards. Not once, but twice.

It was not that England's bowling was brilliant.  It was good, but not spectacular.  Most of the time, the Aussies bowled as well or better.  Nor was it that the English batsmen were so good- they were three down for thirty or less twice in the match.  Yes Root and Bell in particular scored heavily, and some of Root's shots were pure poetry (you know, like those songs that sound really good until you listen to the words and realise that they go against everything you hold dear), but on the whole it was patient, sensible batting.  Good, not brilliant.  No the real difference in this match has been the quality of the Australian batting: abysmal.  Once again the top order failed, and even though Clarke and Khawaja steadied for a while, the overall picture was not that different to the one I painted a couple of days ago (here).  As I said yesterday, the Aussies need to learn patient, sensible batting.  Go for good, not brilliant- at this stage, I am not sure any of our top order can get near brilliant (Clarke has the ability, but not the support he needs at this stage).  Clarke and Khawaja tried, as did the tail, but overall it was a failure by the batsmen.

Having said that, it was the bowlers (and captain) that provided the first of the two key moments that turned the test match from a competition to a cake walk.  Having England nine down for a reasonable score in the first innings,  and all that elusive momentum going our way, we changed the way we bowled to the last pair. Rather than line and length and patience which had chipped away at the rest of the team, we tried to make things happen.  Swann and Broad hit out and scored a quick and reasonably sizeable partnership.  All the momentum had swung the other way.

Watson and Rogers steadied the ship though, and saw Australia to the cusp of lunch without loss.  Rogers, realising the break was almost there, tried to slow down the game.  Unfortunately, he was not successful in preventing another over.  In that over, Watson played all around the ball, reviewed the plumb lbw and the rot started.  The momentum that Swann and Broad had established was renewed and Australia never really recovered.  Siddle's three quick wickets at the end of that second day dampened it a bit, but the damage had already been done.

The worst of this defeat is that England have not played that well, and yet beat us by almost 350.  The performance that England put up would not beat South Africa.  It may even have struggled against an improving India.  But Australia's devastating performance with the bat made sure that it was more than adequate to finish us off.

In the next couple of (cricket) posts, I will outline the key problem, and what I think needs to be done to deal with it.

Well done Root

So many puns, none of which are appropriate for a blog like this.  Oh well, I will just have to congratulate Joe Root.  He batted beautifully in the parts I saw.  His timing and placement were exquisite.  Early on he batted with the patience expected of a top class batsman.  Later on he cashed in when the bowlers tired.

Please Aussies.  Pay attention.  Learn from what you saw Root do here.  It is exactly what Bell did in three of the four innings this series.  These inngs have been the difference.  They consisted of patient batting that never got entirely bogged down, punishing the loose ball and kept the scoreboard ticking over.  Most of all, they showed they could concentrate over a long period of time.

The time for the Aussies to practice is the rest of this match.  They will have to bat virtually two days to save (or really unlikely, win) this match.  What better time to try to bat the way Root and Bell have shown works.  Last time the Aussies struggled to survive two sessions.  Two days is probably beyond them.  If they manage it, it will go along way towards getting back in the series.  Particularly because the way they will have to bat to save themselves here is the way they will have to bat over the next eight tests if they are to have a fraction of a chance.

Oh dear!

What can you say after a performance like that.  The Aussies fell apart Keystone cop style.  Watson started well, before failing to go on with it yet again.  Worse he was dismissed predictably with an lbw while falling across his stumps.  Worst of all he reviewed the decision, costing Australia Rogers wicket because Rogers was to hesitant to use up the last review.  Watson is fast proving that even as an opener, test cricket is more than he can handle.  Unfortunately, we don't have anyone better who is still available. 

The rest of the innings is, as they say history (or should that be misery).  Outside of the opening partnership, the best partnership of the innings was between the number 10 and 11.  The only bright spot in the day was the Aussie bowling which took 6/103 across the day.  Harris fully deserved his name on the honour boards.  His batsmen let him down.

The problem is that this is far too regular.  The 128 on day two joins  scores of 164, 131, 163, 136 and the infamous 47 in the 46 innings since Clarke officially took over as Captain.  This does not include the many times the tail has got the Aussies out of trouble, including from 9/117 just a week ago.  In fact, on 17 occasions in the past 46 innings, the first five partnerships have failed to get the Aussies to 150.  That is significantly more than one in three.  Removing the innings where we chased 19 in the fourth innings (and lost a wicket by the way), we lose an average of 4.53 wickets in reaching (or failing to reach) 150.  That is in spite of two occasions when the openers have put on 150+.  

The average for the first five wickets during Clarke's tenure is an almost acceptable 204.87, but this is hugely inflated by the series against India in Australia when Clarke, Hussey and Ponting cashed in and the top order averaged 329 (including one innings we declared at 4/659).  Without that series it drops to an average of 185.77 across 39 innings.  If we only look at the post-Hussey era, it drops to a very alarming 134.64 in 11 innings.  The first five wickets have only passed 200 twice in that time.  

To be competitive the Aussies need to find several batsmen who can bat and bat long consistently.  Otherwise the England domination of the Ashes will continue for as long as the last Aussie one.

Honours almost even

To get to the field at Lord's, the players have to go through the Long Room.  Here there are honour boards commemorating each century and each five wicket haul in Lord's tests over the years.  When Ian Bell finished his innings yesterday, a piece of  tape with his name on it had reportedly been stuck to one of these boards awaiting a more permanent inscription.  As yet no Aussie in this match has earned this honour.  In this alone honours were uneven.

Both teams would have been a bit disappointed with the final score for the day.  Both teams would have been happy to reach that score at other times.  After losing the toss, and being made to bowl on what looked a very good batting strip, the Aussies would have settled for 7/289 as the closing score.  England would have wanted a couple less wickets.  However at 3/28, the Aussies would have hoped to have had at least one or two more Englishmen back in the sheds.  England would have been happy with the final score.  When Trott went, the Aussies must have felt like they were one wicket away from running through England.  When Siddle bowled Bairstow, they had it... except for the fact that the replays showed that Siddle had marginally overstepped and the decision was overturned.  For the second time in two innings the Aussies missed out on a key wicket at least partly due to their own poor play (no ball, bad use of DRS).  For the second time the reprieved batsman forged an important partnership with Bell, helping him to a hundred.  By the end of the Bell-Bairstow partnership, the Aussies were just hoping to get to five or six wickets for the day.  England would have been disappointed to lose three quick wickets at the end of the day.  More so because all three fell to the very part time leg spinner Smith.

There was one concern for the Aussies.  With Watson taking one to add to Smith's three it was the batsmen who contributed the most wickets.  I guess that is fair enough, as the bowlers have been doing their part with the bat in recent times (See: Batting upside down).  However the Aussies will be hoping that Harris puts his name on the honour boards in the first session, and that one of the batsmen follow suit in the afternoon.

Lords: Preview

The Queen has been and gone and the play is about to start.  The Aussies have made a couple of changes.  Khawaja is in for Cowan and Harris for Starc.  Cowan being dropped is not a surprise.  His performance in the first test was not at all inspiring.  As a fan, I am disappointed at the way he played that test.  He had been one of the very few players to be better at the end of the Indian series than at the beginning.  Yet he looked all at sea at Trent Bridge.  I thought he might have had one more test to prove himself (See here), and to give Warner a chance to dislodge him.  If he was going to go earlier, I wondered if Faulkner wouldn't get a chance.  Still Khawaja looks good at the crease, and hopefully he will grab his chance.  The Aussies need it.

As for Starc, he may have missed out because Siddle took a five-for last match.  I think they may have been thinking that Harris would come in for Siddle, given his warm up games.  Harris is one of the best bowlers Australia has when he is fit.  Using him in two or three tests, picking the grounds that will suit him, is a good idea.  His injury prone nature is another reason I would have preferred Faulkner to Khawaja.  Three of the Aussie bowling line up are injury prone, and it would have been nice to have a quality back up.

Bresnan in for Finn is a good move from England, though the Aussies won't be too unhappy.  Finn at his best is way more dangerous than Bresnan, but he gives more four balls too.  He was the player that released the pressure on the Aussies in the last match.

It is a shame for the match that the English won the toss.  I think the game would have been much more interesting if the Aussies got to bat first.  Still, if the Aussies can get a few early it could be very interesting.

The moment the (cricket) romance started

I can remember the few days that sealed my lifelong love affair with cricket.   They were December 26-30, 1982.  Don't get me wrong, I loved cricket before these five days, but there was no turning back after them.

The first almost eight years of my life, I lived in a cricket mad country, so there was already a love for the game.  Then we were moving from Asia to Africa, so we visited "home"- Australia in between.  So from playing cricket I got to watch some serious cricket for the first time: The Ashes were on.  And I watched every minute I was allowed to, from the beginning of the first test to the end of the last.  But it was the fourth test that stuck deep in my psyche..

Lessons from Trent Bridge

England won a tight test.  It should have been an easy win, especially with Australia at 9 down and about 100 behind in the first innings.  However they made it closer than it needed to be.  There is much that Australia can learn from this match:

1. Swann can be played.  Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test.  As it was Anderson had to do the work.

2. England are reliant on Anderson.  He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming.  Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent.  When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game.  It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday.  If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.

Broad the Fraud?

I awoke this morning to read several outraged comments from Aussies about the fact that Stuart Broad failed to walk when given not out even though he obviously edged a catch to Clarke at first slip.  The general consensus seemed to be that Broad was (is) a cheat.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not an English fan, and Broad is in a battle with KP and Swann as my least favourite English player.  However, I find myself in the awkward position of defending him.  Broad is not the first, nor will he be the last player who let the umpire decide whether or not he was out.  In fact most players do.  Even Australia's captain has been known to do this.  Yes some players will walk on fairly obvious dismissals (Bairstow earlier).  A few rare players will walk even when they could have gotten away with it: Gilchrist comes to mind.  But some may remember, there was almost as much controversy over Gilchrist walking as there has been over Broad refusing to.  Perhaps Broad would be more respected by the Aussie fans had he overridden the umpire, but he is not really the problem.  The problem consists of three parts: firstly the umpire, secondly DRS and finally the Aussie tactics.

Phil and Agar

Last night the Aussies got themselves out of a heap of trouble thanks to a virtually unknown 19 year old and a two time has been.

This is Phil Hughes' third crack at test cricket.  Both other occasions had early success (2 hundreds vs. South Africa the first time, and one against Sri Lanka the second) but soon after the flaws in his technique were exposed and he was dropped.  This time hasn't seen the stunning success of the earlier attempts, but rather he has grafted out a couple of decent scores in tough circumstances in the last few tests.  He still has a unique approach, but there is a level of grit and determination that wasn't there before. Hopefully it will last.