English Report Card

(For the Aussie Report Card click here)

It is hard to say where it all went wrong for England.  They have been outplayed in every area of the game.  Their batsmen scored a thousand less runs than the Aussies (2158 vs 3189 including extras).  Their bowlers took 23 fewer wickets (77 vs 100 including runouts), and they only took 20 wickets in Sydney where the Aussies were practically giving them away to hasten the end of the series.  They dropped more catches and missed more stumpings, and these errors cost them more than the Aussies' errors cost them.  Even their captain lost four tosses out of five.  

The problem is not skill or experience.  England have shown over the last four or five years that they have the skill.  They even (briefly) reached number one in the world.  They were also by far the more experienced line up that started the 'Gabba test.  Nor was age a factor.  Australia had the oldest players, and the higher average age.  No, test cricket is played as much between the ears as in the middle, and one suspects that it is here that the problem lies.  Perhaps the team is jaded.  Having just won the Ashes in England, it may have been hard to try to climb that mountain again.  Perhaps the pressure of the dressingroom culture is wearing thin.  Exacting standards are much easier to handle when you are in the ascendancy, but can become a burden when things are not working out as you would like.  Perhaps the team believed the publicity that had people like Botham predicting a 5-0 scoreline for England, not against it: They just needed to turn up, watch Australia roll over and collect their trophy - but were shocked when it was their team on the back foot (both literally and figuratively).  From shock came panic which compounded the problem.

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

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.

Humble pie and good prospects: state of a cricket nation.

Just over twelve months ago on this blog, I questioned Clarke's ability to mould the team in the way Border did in the eighties and nineties. Well twelve months on, I am willing to admit there is more substance to Clarke than I had given credit for. He has shown himself an astute captian.

The changes he made in the Sydney test last year seemed to me at the time the actions of a man who wanted to show he could stamp himself on the team, rather than actually doing so. It merely confirmed what I had thought just a week or so before. However, since officially taking the reigns, Clarke has shown a creativity that his predecessor did not. In particular, Clarke seems to know how to use a spinner, especially one trying to establish himself. As I noted last year, Ponting struggled with this, which made it difficult for him to rebuild the team, and contributed to the revolving door of spinners we had before Lyon. Clarke has also stepped up with the bat, with a century against each opponent he has faced as the full time captain. In particular, his score against South Africa in trying conditions was

Cricket: RIP Captain Ponting

Today Ricky Ponting retired as Australian Cricket Captain.  The comments I have read have painted Ponting as unrealistically good, or unrealistically bad.  So what should we make of him? 

Well firstly, he is the best batsman that Australia has produced in the last thirty years or so.  Perhaps the best since Bradman, but I am unable to make that judgement.  He is certainly one of the four great batsmen of the last twenty years.  Only Sachin consistently outshines him, and even that was a close run thing until the last two years.  Lara was better at his best, but Ponting had him in the long haul.  Kallis is the invisible one of the four, included because of sheer weight of numbers.

As a batsman, he is a great, but as a captain?  If Kallis is one of the greats by sheer weight of numbers, then perhaps Ricky is one of the great captains.  He has a winning record that is amazing - 48 test wins is more than any other Aussie captain, and until Australia's recent slump, the best winning percentage.  He won over 70% of his one day games as captain, including two world cups in which Australia went through unbeaten.  Yet on the other side of the ledger is the fact that he is the only Australian captain to lose the Ashes three times. 

Comparing him the his three predecessors, I don't think he stands up well.  Border was not a natural captain, but grew into the role.  He handed Taylor a far better team than he inherited.  Taylor was the most natural captain I have ever seen (Flemming of New Zealand was an extremely close second).  He seemed to read the game in amazing ways and come up with great moves more often than not.  Once again the team that he handed Waugh was even better than he received.  Waugh read the game well, if not as well as Taylor, but he also added a level of steel and aggression to the team.  The team he left Ponting was amongst the best in history.  Ponting's record was built on the back of a team that included, at different times, players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist (not to mention one Ricky Ponting) amongst the batsmen, and Warne, McGrath, McGill and Gillespie amongst the bowlers.

A team like that would probably have won if my grandmother had captained it - provided she didn't have to bat or field.  Not only were the players exceptional, but there was a winning culture around the team.  McGrath and Warne in particular felt they could pull the team back from any position, and did often enough that everyone else believed it too.  Ponting's strategy - a good one under the circumstances - was at the first sign of trouble hand one of them the ball.  On the other side, the batsmen intimidated all but the best of bowlers.  Teams were often psyched out before even a ball was bowled (remember Steve Harmison's howler in Brisbane anyone?).  The culture and the aura survived the departure of most of these players, with only a few small cracks (2005 Ashes, 2008-9 home series vs. South Africa) until 2009.  Australia was still the world number one test team after the return series to South Africa that year.  Unfortunately the cracks opened up quickly from there on. 

The leader of this team, Ponting, was not a natural captain.  Unlike Border, I don't think he grew up into the job.  At the end he still struggled to think creatively on the field.  He seemed a bit lost with how to deal with a spinner who needed guidance - Warne and McGill had known their games so well and were so well established that they virtually took care of themselves. 

Ponting did however have one outstanding leadership quality.  Those who played under him seem to be incredibly loyal to him.  With only one exception, I have never heard any of his players - past or present - say or do anything to undermine him.  Rather there is a fierceness to their loyal support when Ponting is attacked.  The one exception was Shane Warne - the man who probably would have had Ponting's job if he had been able to clean up his off field behaviour at least as much as Punter did.  Such loyalty from such a diverse group as the Australian XI has been over the years says something for his leadership.  He more than his immediate predecessors won the heart of his team.  Only Border came close, and that because he was the father figure of the team. 

In the past couple of years the pressure got to Ponting.  As the team deteriorated, so did his performances.  He was trying to be everything.  Captain, Premier Batsman, Rebuilder, Mentor, Chief Spokesman and cheerleader, everything.  I think that it was the right decision to hand over the reigns and concentrate on what he does best - batting.  We need him to help the team over this hump.  And for that he needs a clear mind - one focus - score as many runs as he can.  And if he helps some of the young guns get into the game - all the better.