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.

Dear Mr Rudd

An open letter to Mr. K. Rudd, PM

Dear Mr.Rudd,

I am disappointed. You once had the, admittedly dubious, honour of being my favourite politician (Barry Jones having long since retired).  You played a central role in one of the most moving moments I have ever encountered from our politicians.  Your apology to the stolen generations was and is the proudest I have ever been of one of our politicians.  As a nation, many of us were caught up in the excitement of Kevin07, and there was an air of expectation as you showed a more compassionate and caring leadership than we had experienced for some time.  Apart from the apology to the stolen generation, there was the dismantling of the Pacific Solution and a more caring approach to asylum seekers and the potential for real change in relation to climate change.  You handled the onset of the GFC quite well, if perhaps a bit generously.  Australia seemed to be going in a good direction led by a politician who had convictions and seemed to be able to act on them.

However, yesterday the only conviction on show seemed to be that a "lurch to the right" would get you votes.  Your policy announcement made me more ashamed to be an Australian than anything I can remember.  Australia's recent history with asylum seekers has been disgraceful.  The policy you announced makes it look tame.  Rather than accepting our responsibility as citizens of the world, we are going to pass our responsibility off to another country, one that an ill afford to help.  A country in which the majority of people live in extreme poverty, and we are going to expect them to carry the cost our rejection of human need.  Asylum seekers have be vilified, dehumanised and used for political purposes for too long.  This is the last straw.  Bring back the compassion.  Where is the Kevin Rudd of 2007-2008?  The conviction politician of yesteryear seems to have disappeared.  Are you such a political animal that you would reverse your position, abandoning compassion for cruelty just to keep power?

The upshot of yesterday is that I want to make it as difficult as possible for you to implement this hideous policy.  I realise that I have little power.  However I do have a vote.  Consequently I will not be voting Labor at the next election, unless the policy changes dramatically.  With the Liberal policy almost as bad, I have been forced to explore other options.  I have resisted voting Green for many years as I question some of their policies.  However I can see that even with the areas I do not agree with their platform, their policies stem from a compassion for those impacted by their policies.  Occasionally I might feel that their compassion is misdirected or that their response is not ideal, but I would rather support people who err on the side of compassion than the fear politics and dehumanisation we have seen from Labor and the Coalition in the past 10-15 years (with the brief exception of the early years of your first Prime Ministership).  So I will be supporting the local Greens candidate Adam Bandt over the other parties, and encouraging others to do so.  I will also be thinking about my senate vote to try to minimise the chance that my vote will effectively go to Labor, and maximise the chance that a minor party can work against this policy in the Senate.

I have never been very politically active.  Now I plan to be more so thanks to your latest policy.

Yours Sincerely

S. Rhys Spiller
a.k.a Recess75

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.