England have retained the Ashes. Yes, England have retained the Ashes. Is it just CricketChicks or does that get better every time you say it?!
England’s performance at the MCG was a master class in how to play cricket. Winning the toss on an overcast day and with a green topped pitch, Andrew Strauss made exactly the right decision when he elected to bowl first. He (and Andy Flower) also made the right decision in electing to leave out Steven Finn (currently England’s leading wicket taker) for Tim Bresnan, who, on a slow and low pitch, provided control as well as chipping in with some vital wickets. Meanwhile, Chris Tremlett proved he was much more than a ‘horses for courses’ pick at the WACA, adjusting his length to snare four vital wickets. Together, Bresnan and Tremlett didn’t do bad for a second string bowling attack and, with James Anderson added to the mix, the result was carnage. Australia all out for 98. Yes, Australia all out for 98. Is it just CricketChicks or does that also get better every time you say it?!
England’s reply was mighty as the batsman, this time, conducted a lesson in leaving anything wide of off stump. Solid in defence and confident in his stroke play, Jonathon Trott was by far the stand out batsman. While he may not be pretty (and in fact at times rather annoying) he is a mighty effective number three. A line-up without him, seems unimaginable now. In contrast a line-up without Paul Collingwood seems ever more likely. Another low score and some missed catches, while fielding at slip to Graeme Swann, may prove to be the final nail in his coffin. The question, however, is whether England will give Collingwood another chance or prove to be as ruthless as they were with Finn. If he does play, the Sydney Test will be a massive opportunity for Collingwood to prove that he is still capable of playing at the highest level, while if he doesn’t, it will be a massive opportunity for his most likely replacement, Eoin Morgan, to stake a claim for the number five position.
While England’s only problem seems to be the form of Collingwood, Australia’s are much, much bigger. Well and truly hammered in this Test, the wheels appear to have well and truly come off for Ricky Ponting. His verbal tirade at both umpires shows a man desperate to keep not only his job but his place in the side. Yet, as was revealed today, this decisions seems to have been taken out of dear old Ricky’s hands as the selectors announced he would miss the final Test. While the reason given is Ricky’s damaged little finger, one can’t help feeling that it has more to do with national embarrassment and a lack of patience. It seems there can be no way back for Ricky. It’s a sorry end to a quality batsman’s career, but, if any consolation can be offered, it seems unlikely that Michael Clarke will do any better. Not only is he, reportedly, highly unpopular amongst the team but he simply doesn’t have the quality of players the Aussies once took for granted. It’s for this simple reason that Australia are two down and in all probability will be three down by the end of the series.
All England have to do is to continue as they have. 2-2 doesn’t nearly sound as convincing as 3-1. Now, that score-line really would be something worth re-saying.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Monday, 20 December 2010
Third Test Déjà vu
It’s the summer of 2009 and England have just beaten Australia for the first time in 75 years, in a Test Match at Lords. The nation is euphoric and expectant. After a draw at Edgbaston, the focus turns to the crucial third Test; a win at Headingley and England cannot lose the series. The result, a crushing defeat for the home nation by an innings and 80 runs. Unable to cope with both pace and movement, England’s batsman were undone by the Australian quick’s and outclassed by some solid batting. The result, 1-1 and everything still to play for.
The course of an Ashes series, it seems, is destined never to run smooth. Or so it would appear for England. All hopes of inflicting a crushing defeat on the home side (we were thinking 4-0) and of extracting some revenge for what they did to us four years ago, faded meekly on Sunday morning as Australia hammered England by a 267 run win. Another crucial third Test, another loss for England and once again, the Ashes held in the balance.
Yet, can England’s most recent loss simply be put down to giddiness, as was the case at Headingley? As while the prospect of a first win down under for over 25 years may be enough to cause the said effect, Australia have most definitely upped their game. Vilified by their press, slated by their fans and with a Captain hanging onto his job by a thread, the Aussies came out fighting. Opting not to pick a front line spinner, they (literally) hit England hard with an all out pace attack. The enigma that is Mitchell Johnson, went from zero to hero, as he finally found some form with both pace and late swing; a deadly combination, as six of England’s batsman were to find out in the first innings. Their low scores contributing to a poor overall total of 187. The second innings was not, however, much better. All out for a pathetic 123, the culprit this time being Ryan Harris, claiming half the English wickets. The fastest track in international cricket, the WACA, reminded the world what a joy to watch rapid, hostile bowling can be. While it reminded the English what a force Australia can still be.
One of the main reasons the Aussies were tipped as favourites (by the bookies at least) before the series began, was because of their home advantage. Nowhere is this more crucial than in Perth. In a world dominated by benign pitches, the WACA is the exception. While England’s bowlers did a reasonable job in adjusting (Chris Tremlett was outstanding, taking his first Test Five-For) the batsman did not. In fact, the only batsman who did (and in possession of the century to prove it) is Mike Hussey, who, incidentally, plays his cricket for Western Australia. That said, despite the pace and bounce of the pitch, England’s batsman should have done better. A fact which has left many asking whether England should consider making some changes to their line up. Paul Collingwood, who has failed to make any score of significance since the start of the series, is most in the firing line with talk of him moving down to six (the in-form Ian Bell consequently moving up) or even being dropped for Eoin Morgan. The bowlers may not escape unscathed either. Steven Finn, (who despite being England’s leading wicket taker) is also expensive and fatigued, seems most likely to be left out.
While, the loss at Perth is not ideal, England shouldn’t panic. Just look back at how the 2009 series ended.
The course of an Ashes series, it seems, is destined never to run smooth. Or so it would appear for England. All hopes of inflicting a crushing defeat on the home side (we were thinking 4-0) and of extracting some revenge for what they did to us four years ago, faded meekly on Sunday morning as Australia hammered England by a 267 run win. Another crucial third Test, another loss for England and once again, the Ashes held in the balance.
Yet, can England’s most recent loss simply be put down to giddiness, as was the case at Headingley? As while the prospect of a first win down under for over 25 years may be enough to cause the said effect, Australia have most definitely upped their game. Vilified by their press, slated by their fans and with a Captain hanging onto his job by a thread, the Aussies came out fighting. Opting not to pick a front line spinner, they (literally) hit England hard with an all out pace attack. The enigma that is Mitchell Johnson, went from zero to hero, as he finally found some form with both pace and late swing; a deadly combination, as six of England’s batsman were to find out in the first innings. Their low scores contributing to a poor overall total of 187. The second innings was not, however, much better. All out for a pathetic 123, the culprit this time being Ryan Harris, claiming half the English wickets. The fastest track in international cricket, the WACA, reminded the world what a joy to watch rapid, hostile bowling can be. While it reminded the English what a force Australia can still be.
One of the main reasons the Aussies were tipped as favourites (by the bookies at least) before the series began, was because of their home advantage. Nowhere is this more crucial than in Perth. In a world dominated by benign pitches, the WACA is the exception. While England’s bowlers did a reasonable job in adjusting (Chris Tremlett was outstanding, taking his first Test Five-For) the batsman did not. In fact, the only batsman who did (and in possession of the century to prove it) is Mike Hussey, who, incidentally, plays his cricket for Western Australia. That said, despite the pace and bounce of the pitch, England’s batsman should have done better. A fact which has left many asking whether England should consider making some changes to their line up. Paul Collingwood, who has failed to make any score of significance since the start of the series, is most in the firing line with talk of him moving down to six (the in-form Ian Bell consequently moving up) or even being dropped for Eoin Morgan. The bowlers may not escape unscathed either. Steven Finn, (who despite being England’s leading wicket taker) is also expensive and fatigued, seems most likely to be left out.
While, the loss at Perth is not ideal, England shouldn’t panic. Just look back at how the 2009 series ended.
Friday, 10 December 2010
Changing Fortunes
The series may stand at 1-0, but the gulf between England and Australia, is much greater than the score line would suggest. While England continued to improve on their performance at Brisbane, Australia seemed, if anything, to have gotten worse at Adelaide. Bowled out for a well below par 245, Australia’s bowlers once again proved ineffective (that being despite the introduction of Ryan Harris and Doug Bollinger), as England’s top order (with the exception of Strauss) once again cashed in. Another century for Alastair Cook - and more records broken - as well as a sublime 226 for Kevin Pietersen (a very much welcomed return to form), saw England rack up 620-4 declared. Facing a sizeable deficit it was time then, for the Australian top order to mirror that of England. However, a mixture of brilliant bowling (Graeme Swann finally finding his rhythm and taking a five-for) and out-of-form batsman (most notably Ricky Ponting himself and Marcus North), resulted in the inevitable concoction of a defeat by a staggering innings and 71 runs. To borrow that infamous heading by Martin Johnson, Australia, it seems, can’t bat, bowl or field.
Unsurprisingly then, the Australian selectors have made a few changes for the third test in Perth; many of which make little sense. Ok, so Australia have been forced to make a change at the top of the order (brining in Philip Hughes for the injured Simon Katich), while the replacement of North, for the young leg-spinner Steve Smith, seems to be a sensible move. But, dropping Doug Bollinger after only one test and brining back Mitchell Johnson (who hasn’t played a first class match since the Brisbane test and was hopeless in that match to boot) defies logic. As does the selection of the left-arm spinner Michael Beer. Relatively unknown, he is the tenth spinner Australia have tried since the retirement of Shane Warne. Playing for Western Australia, Beer seems to be a ‘horses-for-courses’ selection. While this can sometimes pay off, it invariably fails (remember the Darren Pattinson debacle anyone?). It’s also a little harsh on Xavier Doherty. Ok, so he’s not the best spinner in the world, but will Beer be any better? It’s also a little harsh on Nathan Hauritz, who continues to be overlooked despite the fact that he bowled relatively well in the 2009 Ashes series. What these changes highlight then, is that Australia are confused and muddled. Clueless as to when, or how, their next victory will come, they are desperately searching for the ‘X factor’. Unfortunately, players such as Warne and Glenn McGrath - who possessed such a quality - are rarer than an England win down under.
Talking of England, the only blot on their tour so far, is the injury to Stuart Broad. Forced to go home with an abdominal strain, CricketChicks hope the selectors pick Chris Tremlett as his replacement - for the Perth test at least. As at the WACCA he could be mighty effective. What were we saying about ‘horses-for-courses’?
Unsurprisingly then, the Australian selectors have made a few changes for the third test in Perth; many of which make little sense. Ok, so Australia have been forced to make a change at the top of the order (brining in Philip Hughes for the injured Simon Katich), while the replacement of North, for the young leg-spinner Steve Smith, seems to be a sensible move. But, dropping Doug Bollinger after only one test and brining back Mitchell Johnson (who hasn’t played a first class match since the Brisbane test and was hopeless in that match to boot) defies logic. As does the selection of the left-arm spinner Michael Beer. Relatively unknown, he is the tenth spinner Australia have tried since the retirement of Shane Warne. Playing for Western Australia, Beer seems to be a ‘horses-for-courses’ selection. While this can sometimes pay off, it invariably fails (remember the Darren Pattinson debacle anyone?). It’s also a little harsh on Xavier Doherty. Ok, so he’s not the best spinner in the world, but will Beer be any better? It’s also a little harsh on Nathan Hauritz, who continues to be overlooked despite the fact that he bowled relatively well in the 2009 Ashes series. What these changes highlight then, is that Australia are confused and muddled. Clueless as to when, or how, their next victory will come, they are desperately searching for the ‘X factor’. Unfortunately, players such as Warne and Glenn McGrath - who possessed such a quality - are rarer than an England win down under.
Talking of England, the only blot on their tour so far, is the injury to Stuart Broad. Forced to go home with an abdominal strain, CricketChicks hope the selectors pick Chris Tremlett as his replacement - for the Perth test at least. As at the WACCA he could be mighty effective. What were we saying about ‘horses-for-courses’?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)