The Ashes Blog

30 Jul, 2009

2009 Ashes: Third Test

Posted by: TheAshesBlog.com In: Photos| Tests ()

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*)

The Edgbaston outfield was still a little soggy ...

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

Matt Prior took a stunning one-handed catch ...

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

Andrew Flintoff hits out ...

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

Michael Clarke salutes the crowd

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.

Australia 263 (Watson 62, Anderson 5-80, Onions 4-58) and 375 for 5 (Watson 53, Hussey 64, Clarke 103*, North 96) drew with England 376
Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • MySpace
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
previous post: Northamptonshire v Australians | next post: 2009 Ashes: Fourth Test


6 Responses to "2009 Ashes: Third Test"

1 | David B

July 31st, 2009 at 8:21 am

Avatar

Replacing Hughes with Watson was stupid on two counts. But sometimes stupid actions work, as this one has done. In the short term at least!

2 | TheAshesBlog.com

July 31st, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Avatar

I think it’s a bit too early to call it a stupid decision on the part of the selectors. If Watson can make regular good scores at the top of the order then I think they’ve made the right decision. His technique has definitely improved in recent times … he’s not the hack he used to be.

If it doesn’t work out then he could easily be moved down the batting order and Hughes brought back in. Given the circumstances in England I think this gamble was one worth taking, and I think the selectors have made the right call. Long term? Let’s just wait and see how Watson goes.

3 | Zameer

August 1st, 2009 at 8:44 am

Avatar

I think Anderson and Onions bowled briliantly on day 2. I assume that the pitch may be favourable to seemers in day 3, but the problem is can Australia bowlers do the job. With a low score to defend and the pressure to retain the Ashes, I think this match is more in the favor of the English, unless the Aussies can fight back like India did in Kolkata. (Mission impossible).

4 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Avatar

Zameer: I think the Australian bowlers have the ability to fight back and dismiss England for under 300, but whether they have the confidence is another matter. If they get a couple of early wickets on day 3, then I think they’ll be right back in it. But the weather’s not looking great.

5 | Ashwin

August 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Avatar

IF you notice very keen, Broad,Bopara and Cook are struggling .. ..England are just more dependent on Strauss , Anderson and Flintoff to make up for it
Oz’s currently are struggling with Bat , not the Ball.. If English middle order is weak , so is Aussie lower order , and Haddin s non presence is not doing any good

I see Watson as good selection , He completes the full arc for taking 20 wickets , but man you need runs to defend ..:)

6 | David B

August 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Avatar

Broad and Bopara may be struggling, but Cook did score 90+ at Lords. And, in the right conditions, Onions showed that he is a very good bowler. I understand that Onions is second top wicket taker in the County Championship this season, with an average of under 14. Who is the top wicket taker? HARMISON. Unless Broad does well in Australia’s second innings, Harmison should replace him. Nobody likes facing him.

Comment Form

Flickr PhotoStream

    Langer and Hayden walk out to the middleRicky PontingAndrew FlintoffJustin LangerKevin PietersenDuncan Fletcher and the England cricket team plansBrett LeeMatt Hayden and Andrew SymondsAndrew Flintoff wins the toss

About

TheAshesBlog.com is the home of the re-enacted Ashes photos, where you'll find pivotal Ashes moments re-enacted in an Aussie backyard. So we might show Ricky Ponting celebrating a century, only the venue is a backyard in Brisbane rather than The Oval. And the stumps are a cardboard box. And KP doesn't really look like that in real life ... or does he?

Categories