The Ashes Blog

Below you’ll find the  statistics for all of the players who competed in the 2009 Ashes Test series in England.  Statistically speaking, it was kind of a freak series. Australia had the best bowlers, with three guys taking 20 or more wickets each in the series. For England, their best bowler was Stuart Broad with a relatively low 18 wickets. The third best bowler for England was James Anderson with 12 wickets in 5 Tests … which is only 2 wickets more than Aussie bowling discard Nathan Hauritz (10 wickets in just the three Tests).

Then there’s the batsmen, where Australia dominates the list of averages. Of Australia’s top 7 batsmen, 6 of them scored more than 350 runs in the series.  For England, only 1 man – Andrew Strauss – scored more than 350 runs. And their top order batsmen of Cook, Collingwood, and Bopara are all in the bottom six when it comes to batting averages. Pathetic!

How did England win?

Yet despite all of these rather ordinary looking results, England won the series 2-1. How on earth did they manage that??!  I think it’s because they put runs on the board in crucial moments, and sent Aussie batsmen back to the sheds when it really mattered. When the big moments came, someone stood up and delivered a match winning performance. Australia wasn’t capable of that, and that’s why they lost.

Players missing in action

I also think Australia really missed Brett Lee. If he had been able to play all five Tests, Australia might have had a better result … certainly if he’d been present at Cardiff, I don’t think Anderson and Panesar would have been able to bat out those final 11 overs as they did. In my series review I suggested that the absence of Lee could prove as costly for Australia as Glenn McGrath’s absence from two Tests in 2005 (the only Tests England won that year), and that would seem to be the case this time too. But then England were without Kevin Pietersen for three Tests, and when they were without Freddie Flintoff at Headingley they lost their only Test of the summer, so it all evens out.

England batting averages

England bowling averages

Australia batting averages

Australia bowling averages

Preview: This is a big, big Test match, as it’s only the fourth time in about 40 years that the result in the fifth Test will decide who wins The Ashes. I can’t see Australia losing, but you never know what impact someone like Freddie Flintoff could have.

The teams? Well, I think England has made a mistake by choosing Harmison instead of Onions. And I think Australia would have been better off picking Brett Lee instead of Stuart Clark.

England will bat first, and we all know what happened last time. This time they’ll need to score at least 600, and I’d consider that unlikely.

Day 1: England 307 for 8 (Bell 72, Siddle 4-63)

s

It was hardly a day of high skill, as Australia’s bowlers were ordinary and England’s batsmen gave their wickets a way. I posted a Tweet saying that I thought this might be Ian Bell’s day for a big score, and although not huge, his 72 was England’s highest individual score. So at least the decision to move him to number 3 for England seems to have paid off this time, but will it work again? He got there, but he didn’t fill me with confidence.

Australia played Clark instead of Lee, and although Clark was efficient he also failed to take a wicket. I still think Lee would have been a better wicket taking option, although this pitch looks like it’ll be a turner so perhaps the selectors should have included Hauritz. Mind you, if the wicket is a spinner’s deck, then Australia’s part-time spinners in Clarke, North, and Katich could probably take care of things.

Overall, the Aussies will be pleased enough. However, with the pitch looking a little dodgy they’ll need to build a 1st innings lead of at least 100 because batting last at The Oval could be tricky.

Day 2: England 332 and 58 for 3 lead Australia 160 (Katich 50, Broad 5-37, Swann 4-38) by 230 runs

Well, that was interesting. Dodgy umpiring decisions that went against both sides, dodgy batting by Australia and England’s top order, and a dodgy pitch that will unfortunately have the greatest impact on the game. Dodgy.

England is now well in control, and look set to regain the Ashes. Australia could conceivably fight their way back if they can dismiss England for less than 120 (which is possible), but then they’ll need to bat extremely well in very difficult conditions in the fourth innings. Doable, yes, but highly unlikely.

Day 3: Australia 160 and 80 for 0 (Watson 31*, Katich 42*) need 466 more runs to beat England 332 and 373 for 9 dec (Trott 119, Strauss 75, Swann 63, North 4-98)

England is now well in control, and The Ashes are almost theirs. Almost, but not quite. Although the pitch is deteriorating, and England has the bowlers to take 10 wickets, it is not a given that England will win at The Oval. This Australian team should fight hard, and if they put some pressure on England’s bowlers, anything could happen. Mind you, I only give the Aussies a 0.2 per cent chance of getting there.

Day three at The Oval was a great one for England. I said yesterday that if England could be dismissed for less than 120 then Australia would be back in the game. Clearly that didn’t happen.

New boy Jonathan Trott scored a century in just his second innings (and became only the second Englishman to score a century in this series), and looks the part. The lower order of Swann and Broad also added valuable runs, and really made the pitch look rather tame. The Aussie bowling was, however, pretty ordinary. They bowled wide of off stump far too often, and just made it too easy for the batsmen.

Australia now faces a massively monumentally hugely big total to chase, and it will be close to unattainable even for a pretty strong batting side like Australia. However, based on England’s effort, if the Aussies can get to 200 for  no more than two wickets down, then they are on track for a new world record. And watch out for Ponting. This is his last innings in England, and he does tend to play well in the big games.

Day 4: England 332 and 373 for 9 dec beat Australia 160 and 348 (Hussey 121, Ponting 66, Swann 4-120) by 197 runs

Congratulations to the England cricket team on a comprehensive 197 run win at The Oval. It was always the most likely result, though as an Australian fan I am pleased with the fight shown by our batsmen. To score 348 on this pitch (which is more than England scored in their 1st innings) is a great effort, and it ended up being a couple of run-outs that finished things off for Australia rather than the bowlers.

As I expected, captain Ricky Ponting batted brilliantly for 66, and it was only a poor call from Mike Hussey that led to his run-out. If it weren’t for that then he looked set for a really, really big score. As for Hussey, he might have done enough to keep his place in the side for a little while longer with a determined century.

So as England regain the Ashes, again, I suppose we can expect to see jubilant scenes across the UK. Last time England won their players were given an MBE. This time I suppose they receive a Dukedom. They might want to watch that they don’t overdo the celebrations, however, as the events that transpired after their 2005 victory inspired Australia to a 5-0 whitewash the next time they met.

When these sides meet again in Australia in 2010/2011, there will be some small changes but a lot of the personnel could be the same. There’ll obviously be no Freddie Flintoff, and possibly no Michael Hussey or Stuart Clark for the Australians. It will be an interesting series, as Australia will once again seek revenge on the old enemy. I’ll be booking my seat at the Gabba for the First Test for sure.

It’s locked at 1-1. Match results have been unpredictable, with each side putting in strong and poor performances. Freddy Flintoff is playing his last Test for England, and Ricky Ponting considers this the biggest Test of his career. Both sides have everything to play for.

So, who will win the 2009 Ashes series?

I think it will be Australia. They have the momentum and the form, and I can’t see England turning things around so dramatically from the fourth Test debacle. For England to win they’ll need a huge individual performance from someone like Strauss, Flintoff, or Anderson. That’s a possibility, but I think overall Australia has the stronger team at present.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment below, as I’d love to see what you think.

Apparently England is seriously thinking of bringing back Mark Ramprakash or Marcus Trescothick for the final Test at The Oval. I find this unbelievable.

Firstly, if Ramprakash or Trescothick are good enough for the fifth Test, why weren’t they good enough for the previous four Tests? Why weren’t they even considered for the previous four Tests?

Secondly, imagine what England crowds and the media would be saying if the situation was reversed and Australia was talking about recalling a 39 year old player. It’d be on for young and old!!  Who could that Australian player be? How about one of Australia’s national selectors, Jamie Cox. He’s just a month younger than Mark Ramprakash, he’s made big runs at Australian domestic and England county level (51 first class centuries), and as a selector he could pick himself for the side! Or how about Shane Warne, who is also 39 years old. Now that would worry England.

Now consider the headlines if Jamie Cox was being considered as a replacement player for Simon Katich, or if Shane Warne was looking at getting a game ahead of Nathan Hauritz:

“Australia: Grandad’s Army”

If a 39 year old was to play for Australia, he would be old enough to be the father of Australia’s youngest squad member, Phillip Hughes. It really would be a step up from “Dad’s Army” to “Grandad’s Army”!

Where are these headlines in the England daily papers?  They’re not there because some people in the English media would love to see one of the old guys come back again and save the day for mighty England. It’d certainly make a great movie.

So, will Trescothick or Ramprakash play the fifth Test at The Oval? No. England selectors are smarter than we sometimes give them credit for, and I think the only change they’ll make will be to remove Ravi Bopara (who is obviously out of his league playing Australia at Test level), and replace him with Robert Key or Jonathan Trott. That’s it. No big comeback, no strictly come dancing, no romantic finale. All the talk about Ramps and Tresco making a comeback is ridiculous. England has lost just the one Test for goodness sake!  One Test!  There’s no need to be bringing players out of retirement at this stage.

Updated August 15, 2009: England’s selectors have apparently done exactly what I expected them to do and have dumped Ravi Bopara and replaced him with Jonathan Trott for the Fifth Test:

“England will give Jonathan Trott a Test debut against Australia at The Oval next week as they seek to reverse the horrors of Headingley by pulling off a victory that would regain the Ashes.

They will resist the clamour for mass changes after an innings defeat in the fourth Test, with Ravi Bopara the only batsman to suffer. Bopara will be dropped, with Ian Bell taking his place at No3.”
- England drop Ravi Bopara and bring in Jonathan Trott for Ashes finale

Preview: For England Flintoff is out, and Harmison is in. Prior has just injured himself during a warm-up, but will play. Their side has lost a lot of balance, and you get the impression that once the openers go, there’s not a lot there to add big runs. The Australians will be loving it.

For Australia Hauritz is out, and Stuart Clark comes in – a good move, that one, considering the wicket. I hope I don’t regret saying that. Brad Haddin is also back behind the stumps, although you have to wonder if he’s fully recovered from a busted finger.

So, what can we expect? England is definitely weaker, but will their batsmen finally stand up and perform?  Can Australia’s bowlers figure out how to take 20 wickets?

Day 1: Australia 196 for 4 (Ponting 78, Watson 51) lead England 102 (Prior 37*, Siddle 5-21) by 94 runs

Before the first drinks break of the first session I made the following comment on Twitter:

I wonder if this will be a 14 wicket day #ashes

It turns out I was right, as England, batting first, lost all 10 wickets and Australia lost 4. Absolutely amazing!! England really looked horrible right from the start, when Andrew Strauss should have been given out the first ball of the match. In my preview of the fourth Test, I wondered if England’s batsmen would finally play well – they didn’t. I also asked whether Australia’s bowlers could finally take 20 wickets in an Ashes Test – yes, they can.

Prior to this game I would have been happy to see Peter Siddle carrying the drinks, but today he stood up to claim his best ever bowling figures of 5 for 21. Apparently he received some helpful advice from England discard Darren Pattinson – perhaps big Darren should get a game!

What about day 2? England will need early wickets, something that is definitely achievable on this wicket. However, they’ll have to get through Clarke and North, the two guys who so brilliantly saved the game for Australia at Edgbaston. If they can’t do that, and if Australia builds a lead of over 200, then this Test would appear to be all over.

Day 2: England 102 and 82 for 5 trail Australia 445 (North 110, Clarke 93, Ponting 78, Broad 6-91) by 261 runs

This match is pretty much all over, and we’ve only had two days of cricket. Somehow, though, it seems like it’s gone on for much longer with 25 wickets falling in just 6 sessions. The Australians have obviously picked up some momentum from their successful final day in the Third Test at Edgbaston, and they have completely dominated this Headingley Test. England have not been in the game at all. They are either completely dependent upon the presence of Pietersen and Flintoff, or else they were never really in this series and it was only Australia’s inability to perform at 100% that gave England a chance. Now that Australia is getting back to operating at their best they seem unstoppable.

The Australians batted superbly on the second day, especially Michael Clarke and Marcus North, who put on 152 for the fifth wicket and took the game completely away from England. Then in came Stuart Clark for a nice little cameo of 32 from 22 balls (including 3 sixes).

England have only got 5 wickets left in the bank, and I can’t see them lasting too long on the third day. Matt Prior is still in and will probably go the tonk for a few quick runs, and one or two of the tailend batsmen might do the same, but England is a defeated team and will need to improve significantly if they are to be competitive in the final deciding Test at The Oval.

Day 3: Australia 445 (North 110, Clarke 93, Ponting 78, Broad 6-91) beat England 102 and 263 (Swann 62, Broad 61, Johnson 5-69, Hilfenhaus 4-60) by an innings and 80 runs

England: woeful, insipid, insecure

Australia: confident, accurate, perfect

After the previous three Test matches being relatively close (in so much as each team was in the game at some point, or at least performed well at times), this Headingley Test was decidedly one-sided from the very first hour of the first day. Australia was totally in control, and despite some late hitting from the tailenders on day 3, the match was always in their hands.

Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann did bat well on day three, but it’s nothing to get hopeful about. This was how England can perform when there’s no pressure, when they have nothing to lose. Australia’s bowling, too, became a little more wayward than it had been, again the result of not needing to apply any further pressure upon the opposition as the match was already in the bag.

So what can we expect in the final Test at The Oval? England will probably make some changes to their side, with talk of Robert Key, Mark Ramprakash, and Marcus Trescothick as possible players. Personally, I wouldn’t be making too many changes, as that would be far too unsettling for the side. Get Flintoff back if possible as a replacement for Harmison, and replace Ravi Bopara with a genuine number 3 batsmen. His ego is big, but his talent is not.

As for Australia, well they look confident and will be difficult to stop. However, England definitely remains a chance to win the series. When conditions are right, the England bowlers are very, very good. If their batsmen can perform to their ability, they could put some big runs on the board and get back on top. But with the momentum all Australia’s way, that’ll be tough.

Some interesting stats:

Innings and 80 runs
The margin of defeat – an innings and 80 runs – is England’s second largest at Headingley after the innings and 148-run loss to Australia in 1993. The margin of victory was also Australia’s largest since Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath retired.

16
Ian Bell, Ravi Bopara and Paul Collingwood scored 16 runs between them in the Test – the lowest-ever aggregate for England’s Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in Tests.

7-1
The century tally after four Tests is 7-1 in Australia’s favour with five of their batsmen averaging over 50. Andrew Strauss is the only England batsman with a series average higher than 40.

Preview: The Australian selectors have dropped Phillip Hughes and replaced him with Shane Watson. Not that I’m surprised, as I made this exact recommendation in a previous post (Northamptonshire v Australians). It’s made me think that the Australian cricket selectors are reading The Ashes Blog.

Unfortunately it looks like the rain could have the biggest impact on this game. The ground is soaked, and plenty of rain is expected to fall on Edgbaston for the next few days, so everyone is expecting a draw. Let’s hope it’s not that bad.

Day 1: Australia 126 for 1 (Watson 62*)

Australian captain Ricky Ponting finally won the toss and was able to bat first. Brad Haddin had to pull out after breaking a finger during training, so there was a mad scramble to replace him with reserver ‘keeper Graham Manou. That’s a big loss, as Haddin was Australia’s leading runscorer, although his wicketkeeping has been a bit ordinary at times.

The big talking point is the elevation of Shane Watson to opener, a move which I have previously endorsed. So when I awoke this morning to see Watson was undefeated on 62 I was rather chuffed. So many people said it wouldn’t work – and perhaps it won’t long term – but he’s got off to a great start and looks really solid. If he can hold down that position, continue to bowl as a wicket taker, and not get injured (that’s the big one for Watson), he could be really, really handy. I hope he can pull it off.

As for England, well their bowling was pretty ordinary. Maybe it was the sight of having a righthander open the innings for Australia that put them off, as that’s something they haven’t seen for quite a while. Anyway, they’ll need a vastly improved bowling performance on day 2 if they are to make any inroads.

Day 2:  England 116 for 2 (Strauss 64*) trail Australia 263 (Watson 62, Onions 4-58, Anderson 5-80) by 147 runs

Normality resumed on day two at Edgbaston. England remembered how to swing the ball, Australia forgot how to play cautiously against a swinging ball, and the umpires made some terrible decisions.

I’m not sure if it was a change in conditions (it was quite overcast), or that the ball finally became old enough to reverse swing, but the bowling from England’s Anderson and Onions was just brilliant. The ball was moving everywhere, and the Aussies had no idea what to do. England seems to be in the better position at this stage of the 2nd Test, but I just can’t help but feel that there’ll be yet another change in fortune in this game.  Can Australia possibly fight back with quick wickets? I think they can, if they bowl in the right areas. At least Mitchell Johnson is starting to look good again, which is a real plus.

As for Shane Watson, it was a shame for him that he couldn’t add further to his overnight score. However, he was the top scorer in Australia’s first innings, so he did the job he was supposed to do, and if he can bowl some handy overs as well then even better.

Day 3: Washed out by rain

What a shame. The match is well placed, but the rain just kept on coming and play was abandoned at 2:40pm.

So to keep you entertained, the opinionators have started to do what comes naturally to them. According to Sky Sports Commentator Shane Warne, “What is lacking is the aggression from the Aussies at the moment. That is glaring to me.” Warne goes on to suggest that perhaps the players are afraid of the consequences from Cricket Australia after being told not to sledge (as such activities were viewed negatively by the public), and he could be right. Although I think it’s more likely that the players are simply quieter guys. They’re not loud and confrontational – they just like to go out there and play the best cricket they can. Personally I think that makes for better cricket, and the fact they are underperforming is not the result of a lack of aggression but inexperience.

Another one complaining about the Australian team is journo Peter Roebuck, who is still disappointed by the elevation of Shane Watson to opener:

“Nevertheless, (Watson’s) previous performances suggested he ought to have been batting at six. Part of Watson’s appeal was he could bowl some probing spells.”
- Peter Roebuck, The Age

Watson himself is obviously keen to cement the role, and so he should. Whether it works out long term or not, I think it’s worth trying him out. Watson is a better player than he was a couple of years ago, and I think he could succeed as an opener. It’s unconventional, but sometimes the unconventional can work out for the best if the player is good enough.

Day 4: Australia 88 for 2 trail England 376 (Strauss 69, Flintoff 74, Hilfenhaus 4-109) by 25 runs

Flintoff is brilliant, and if this is his final Test (as has been rumoured), it’s been a good one. He took the game away from Australia today, just when England were in a bit of a pickle.

Australia had England down and out, but they just weren’t able to finish things off like they used to. I think they’re seriously missing the services of an experienced bowler like Brett Lee, who could charge in, send down a yorker or two, and finish off the tail. On this occasion, however, the Aussie bowling just wasn’t up to it and the England lower order had a fantastic time.

What will day 5 bring?  Australia will need to get a lead of 200 to stay safe. If they are dismissed with a lead of under 150 with a session or so to play, the English batsmen would give themselves a chance. The ball should start swinging for Anderson and his posse from early on day 5, which should make for an enthralling final day at Edgbaston … haven’t we seen that before?

Day 5: Australia 263 and 375 for 5 (Watson 53, Hussey 64, Clarke 103*, North 96) drew with England 376

That will give the Aussies a LOT of confidence. After being supposedly down and out, the Australians lost just 3 wickets on the final day at Edgbaston. England’s bowling unit looked En-bland, and were very, very ordinary. It seems they can only perform well when the conditions are ripe for extreme swing bowling.

Michael Clarke and Marcus North, however, were superb. They batted beautifully, and although they were a little lucky at times (Andrew Strauss dropped one at short midwicket), they took Australia to a position of safety, and perhaps even to one of strength. We can only wonder what might have happened if another day was available, and England were forced to bat last.

It’s been an interesting first two days in the tour match between Northants and the Australians. Let’s go through some of the Aussies who are under pressure:

Phillip Hughes: out cheaply in the first innings, and has so far made a lucky 65 not out in the second innings. He doesn’t look like he’s about to dominate the day like he used to, and I’d be tempted to dump him. No hard feelings, but it just looks like he’s lost his mojo in England.

Shane Watson: the guy is looking surprisingly good. Made runs, picked up cheap wickets – handy to have in the side, but could he open the innings? I reckon he could, and I don’t think it’s that big a gamble. Give him a go.

Mitchell Johnson: I really thought he’d come good in this game, but instead he finished with 42 for 0 from 7 overs. The selectors will be reluctant to dump him, but I wouldn’t blame them if they decided enough is enough.

Peter Siddle: was the leading wicket taker in the first innings, but was erratic.  If the selectors want to keep Johnson for another go, then perhaps Siddle needs to go.

Stuart Clark: bowled well, and looks reliable. I think Clark would fit well into the team, and he actually takes wickets. He’d be an ideal replacement for Peter Siddle.

So, based on performances so far, he’s my Aussie XI for Edgbaston:

Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North, Haddin, Johnson, Hauritz, Hilfenhaus, Clark

What do you think?

Kevin Pietersen has had surgery on his dodgy Achilles tendon, and is out for the rest of the 2009 Ashes series.

So we say goodbye to KP, and England will miss him greatly. Australian fans like myself, on the other hand, are delighted! We won’t miss him at all!  He’s easily England’s best, most dangerous batsman, and for him to be out for the final three Tests is a little bit of luck in an otherwise unlucky series. Granted, it is unfortunate that England can’t be at full strength, as it’s always better to defeat a side that is offering its best players. But I won’t be losing sleep over that one.

KP is to be replaced by Ian Bell, a guy who is potentially very good but who just can’t seem to get it right when he plays against Australia. Apparently he’s been in reasonable touch for his county, and he’s always looked like a very classy player, but he’s no Kevin Pietersen. However, it’ll be interesting to see how he goes.

If you’re an England fan, do you think KP’s absence will be a significant loss?

And if you’re an Australian fan, do you think this helps our chances of winning the 2009 Ashes?

Note: Original painting: “Fury of Achilles” by Coypel. Digitally altered by The Ashes Blog

According to Aussie cricket writer Greg Baum, Andrew Strauss is turning England into a petty team that is bordering on cheating, and has taken over from Australia in the sledging department:

“At Lord’s, England again has been the uglier team …

… England’s bowlers have sledged more than Australia’s. From 20,000 kilometres, it scarcely matters what they are saying: it is a puerile look. England was unconscionable in the way it wrapped up Flintoff in cotton wool in the pavilion between bowling spells. England observed few niceties …

A cricket team takes its cues from its captain. Flintoff was more suited to leading by example than instruction, Pietersen was divisive, but Strauss’ appointment looked to be a vote for good sense. Counter-intuitively, Strauss’ England had revealed itself to be competitive, but manipulative and petty.

… In this series thus far, Australia has carried itself with greater dignity.”
- Strauss’ style is unappealing – The Age

Greg Baum might be overstating it here. Perhaps he’s reading a bit too much into a few minor incidents. I’m prepared to give Strauss another go before labeling him in such a way. Perhaps the events mentioned in the article were a few moments of weakness. I agree that Australia has carried itself “with greater dignity”, but I’ll have to wait and see what the Third Test brings us before calling England’s current cricket team “manipulative”, “petty”, and “ugly”.

Have a read through the article in full, and leave us your thoughts in the comments box below.

Preview: Australia is going with the same squad that dominated most of the Cardiff Test. England has made just one change, with quickie Graham Onions playing in place of Monty Panesar. England could have brought in Harmison, and frankly I think they’re nuts for not playing Harmy. The Aussies are a little scared of Harmison, and that’s a big thing. Don’t underestimate the relief this gives to the Australians.

So, this should be a fascinating Test. Australia seem to have the better squad, but that doesn’t always matter.  This game will be close.

As always, I hope you enjoy these exclusive Ashes photos.

Day 1: England 364 for 6 (Strauss 161*)

A big century from Captain Strauss was the highlight on day 1 at Lord’s, and it looked like England was going to post a massive total.  I made a prediction on Twitter that they would finish the day with over 300 runs on the board for the loss of about 3 wickets, but as so often happens after a big partnership the rest of the side crumbled.

Ravi Bopara showed he could score quickly, but I think the number 3 batting position isn’t right for him, at least not at Test level. Collingwood showed that England needs to be in a hole before he can do anything useful, and Kevin Pietersen can’t shake the “lone wolf” accusations.

Day 2: Australia 156 for 8 (Anderson 4-36) trail England 425 (Strauss 161, Cook 95, Hilfenhaus 4-103) by 269 runs

All I’ve got to say is this: Australia’s batting was woeful. For further information try these links:

“No sympathy for careless Australia” – Cricinfo

“Aussies as Rick as a parrot” – The Sun

“Jittery Mitchell Johnson tests Ricky Ponting’s patience” – Times Online

So, now what?  Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Australia’s final three batsmen will not, I repeat – not – add another 270 runs to the scorecard. So, if Australia is dismissed for under 225, should Andrew Strauss enforce the follow-0n?  As an Aussie fan, I hope it does, as I think that’s Australia’s only chance at getting back into the game. If England bats again, they’ll completely put Australia out of the match. Which way will Straussy go?

Update on Ponting’s wicket: No wonder Ponting was surprised when he was given out. It turns out that he knew the rules of the game better than the TV umpire did:

Ponting was given out caught at second slip off the bowling of Jimmy Anderson after a long-winded process that saw umpire Rudi Koertzen refer the matter to TV umpire Nigel Llong to check whether the ball had carried.

By the time Ponting had reached the dressing room it was clear the ball had come off his pad, but the assumption was that Llong did not have the authority to overturn the decision.

Australia’s captain and best batsman knew differently and the International Cricket Council has since explained that Llong should in fact have informed Koertzen that the television replays had revealed Ponting did not hit the ball.

Rule 3.2.3 governing clean catches reads, in part: “The third umpire has to determine whether the batsman has been caught. But when reviewing the television replay(s), if it is clear to the third umpire that the batsman did not hit the ball, he shall indicate that the batsman is not out.”
- “Umpires fluff Ponting wicket”: The Age

Day 3: England 425 and 311 for 6 (Prior 61, Collingwood 54) lead Australia 215 (Hussey 51, Anderson 4-55) by 521 runs

Things just keep going wrong for the Australians. On day three at Lord’s, Ponting missed a simple opportunity to run out Kevin Pietersen, Ponting also dropped a simple catch at second slip, Hauritz was ruled to have not taken a low catch at mid-on, and Mitchell Johnson continued to bowl all over the place. Johnson’s place is definitely in doubt for the next Test. I’d love to see him return to the form he showed in South Africa, but if that doesn’t happen then I think a change in the bowling lineup would be a positive step.

In other news, according to Dean Jones Kevin Pietersen will be unavailable for the rest of this Ashes series due to problems with his Achilles heel. Apparently KP’s only just hanging in there for this game, which might explain his placid scoring in the 2nd innings. Now Deano correctly called Flintoff’s retirement, so I reckon he could be right on this one too. That’s going to be a big loss for England. With Lee possibly coming back for Australia for the next Test, and KP, we could see Australia really come back well (if they do eventually lose this Test at Lord’s).

Day 4: Australia 215 and 313 for 5 (Clarke 125*, Haddin 80*) need another 209 runs to beat England 425 and 311 for 6 dec

Five Australian wickets fell today, and three of them were not out. Now, I understand umpires can make mistakes – I spent a season working as a cricket umpire when I was younger and it’s hard work. But three big whoppers in one day is terrible. Here they are:

• Simon Katich caught in the gully, but it was a no-ball from Andrew Flintoff
• Phil Hughes caught at slip by Andrew Strauss, but it may have hit the ground as Strauss grabbed it, and the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman
• Mike Hussey caught at slip but he didn’t actually hit the ball – there was daylight between his bat and the ball

However, Australia’s still fighting hard, and I reckon they still have a chance to pull off a remarkable victory against the odds. I for one hope they have some better luck on day five.

So, what are their chances?  Here’s my odds:

• A 50% chance that Australia will fall short by 50 to 100 runs, and England win
• A 30% chance that Australia will be 1 to 49 runs short, and England win
• A 19% chance that Australia wins
• And finally, a 1% chance of a tie.

It really is set up to be a fantastic final day at Lord’s, which is exactly what we want. Good quality cricket, with both sides in with a chance at victory. I just hope that the side that plays the better cricket actually wins, rather than the side that is the recipient of fewer mistakes by umpires Koertzen and Doctrove.

Day 5: England 425 and 311 for 6 dec beat Australia 215 and 406 (Clarke 136, Haddin 80, Johnson 63, Flintoff 5-92, Swann 4-87) by 115 runs

Congratulations to the England cricket team, who were the better side in this game. Australia lost this Test due to their poor first innings effort in the face of some brilliant James Anderson bowling, and some wayward bowling by the Australians over the first couple of days. Did those poor umpiring efforts on day 4 have an impact? Australia lost this Test by 115 runs, and three batsmen were given out when they shouldn’t have been. If Hughes, Katich and Hussey had been able to add another 39 runs each then Australia would have won. Ok, so that’s a bit of a stretch, because you don’t know what else might have happened (they could have been bowled the very next ball, after all), but it does show that Australia wasn’t all that far behind. A bit of luck, some better decision making, and this Test would have been much closer.

To sum it up, I think there are some positive signs for Australia. I think Johnson – if he gets another chance – could be about to discover his lost form.  He has been woeful at times, but with a break, a practice game, and some confidence from his 63 run innings on day 5 at Lord’s I think things might start to come together for him. He’ll need to perform well in the game against Northants to ensure his spot at Edgbaston. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see Brett Lee or possibly Stuart Clark come back into the side, possibly as a replacement for Peter Siddle.

So, I expect Australia to improve significantly at Edgbaston, and to win the 3rd Test. I know, it’s a big call, but I sense a change in fortune for the tourists.