Preview: England have picked Panesar and Swann – smart move. Australia has picked Hilfenhaus and Hauritz – not so smart. Why would you pick Hilfy over Clark? I’m not quite sure, but I hope it works.
Anyway, England have won the toss and elected to bat, and that’s massive. A huge boost for England. If they lose the First Test, batting first with a team that is focussed on spinning, they might as well all give up and go and play darts. However, Australia still has the better batting lineup, and although England has a statistically stronger bowling group, Australia is ahead overall when you compare batting and bowling averages.
Day 1: England 336 for 7
(Pietersen 69, Collingwood 64, Prior 56)
That was an evenly matched first day, with each side delivering a counter-attack at some point. I thought Johnson was off his game early on, but he came back really well. Hilfenhaus surprised me with his effectiveness, and he may yet turn out to be Australia’s new Terry Alderman.
England will be frustrated with their day. Enough of their recognised batsmen had good starts (three half centuries and only one guy scored less than 30), and someone should have gone on to get a really big score. But the funniest thing was the sight of James Anderson, England’s number 10, coming out as nightwatchman ahead of Stuart Broad who bats at number 8. Why do you need a nightwatchman to protect your number 8??!
I mentioned in a Twitter post that this was a 400+ pitch, and I reckon England will be under par if they don’t make that. Let’s see what the second day brings us.
Day 2: Australia 249 for 1 (Katich 104*, Ponting 100*) trail England 435 (Pietersen 69, Collingwood 64, Prior 56, Johnson 3-87, Hauritz 3-95) by 186 runs
I think Australia’s back in this game, and I’m a little surprised at how easy it’s been. England’s spinners were supposed to destroy Australia because, well, if Nathan Hauritz could make the ball turn then anyone could. It looks like Hauritz got more out of the pitch than his (supposedly) superior English tweakers, who barely beat the bat all day. Yes, maybe Katich should have been out LBW, but England also had a bit of quick with LBW decisions (did you see Kevin Pietersen get hit plumb in front?) so it all evens out.
In the first session the England tail wagged, and gave a hint that perhaps this pitch wasn’t going to be as difficult to bat on as we were being told. But I don’t think anyone expected two centuries from Australia’s top order. One England commentator (was it Botham or Hussein?) at Sky Sport said that there wouldn’t be any hundreds scored in this Test. Yeah, right.
How many more runs does Australia need? I reckon they’ll want to be at least 100 runs in front, and that’s going to be tough. They’ll probably lose a few quick wickets on day three, and if England can stretch that out to 6 or 7 quick wickets for only a few runs, then the hosts will be right back in it. It’s not going to take much to turn this match on its head yet again.
Day 3: Australia 479 for 5 (North 54*, Haddin 4*) lead England 435 by 44 runs
England did pick up a few quick wickets as I suggested they would, but they’re now a long way behind Australia. I think England’s bowlers have simply been ordinary. Sure, it took a lot of determination and class from Australia’s batsmen to put on so many runs, but the English bowling was pathetic. It was only when Anderson was getting the ball to swing around that they looked seriously threatening. Is it time to swing the axe and give a few other bowlers a chance for the 2nd Test at Lord’s? With Andrew Flintoff they may not have a choice. Dean Jones is wondering if Flintoff might not be quite 100% fit, and that could be affecting his performance. Jones also put forward a rumour he’s heard that Flintoff is ready to retire from Test match cricket at the end of this series, and I reckon that could be right. Big Freddie isn’t playing as well as he used to, and I think his repetitive injuries might have a lot to do with that. It might be time to join the other retirees in the IPL.
As for the Aussies, they’re all doing well. The only disappointment is Mike Hussey, who seems to be the weak link in the batting chain at the moment. He did play well at Worcester, but apart from that he hasn’t been great for the past year or so. Are his days numbered? Could he be replaced by his younger brother David Hussey? We’ll have to wait and see.
Day 4: England 435 and 20 for 2 (Strauss 6*, Pietersen 3*) trail Australia 674 for 6 (Ponting 150, North 125*, Katich 122, Haddin 121) by 219 runs
Things just keep getting worse for England, and Australia seems to have the Midas touch. Here are some facts for the Australian batting card:
- 674 for 6 (dec) is the nation’s highest Ashes total since 1934.
- four century makers in their first innings – the first time a team had done so in an Ashes battle since England did it at Trent Bridge in 1938.
- North and Haddin became the 15th and 16th Australians to score a ton in their maiden Ashes clash.
I’m increasingly surprised at how well things have gone for the Aussies, and totally surprised at how inept England is playing. Everything about them is wrong. I heard Geoffrey Boycott last night on the BBC saying that Andrew Strauss is a poor captain, and based on this Test I would have to agree. Not that now’s a good time to change captain, of course.
As for tomorrow, well England needs someone to stand up and get them through the day. The pitch isn’t as bad as people were saying it would be, so I think it’s possible for England to survive day 5. One of their biggest obstacles will be themselves and their obvious lack of confidence. Oh, and watch out for Michael Clarke – he loves bowling late on day 5.
Day 5 – Match drawn. England 435 and 252 for 9 (Collingwood 74, Hilfenhaus 3-37) drew with Australia 674 for 6 dec
Well, England managed to hold on for a draw, much to everyone’s surprise. Monty Panesar and James Anderson held on at the end, much like Australia did at Old Trafford in 2005. However, it will be a hollow celebration for the England players, because they’ll know they were well and truly beaten in every way in this First Test.
The positives? I think one of the biggest will be the impact it has on cricket fans in England. If the Poms had lost, then a lot of people would have lost interest in the series. I even mentioned to my father-in-law yesterday that if Australia won this First Test, then it would be in the best interests of the game for England to win the next Test at Lord’s just to keep things close. It was hard work for a mad keen Aussie cricket fan like me to say that, but I know that Test cricket needs an absorbing battle between the old enemies in order to grab back the imagination of the English and Australian public.
As it is, there’ll be a little bit of pride in England from managing to not lose. England fans should be disappointed with the performance from their (supposedly) best XI, but they need to keep on supporting and keep on staying interested in this series. As Alex Brown writes at Cricinfo, the Ashes 2009 has all of the drama and intrigue of 2005’s epic battle, and is worth watching.
