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.