The Ashes Blog

20 Aug, 2009

2009 Ashes: Fifth Test

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

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)

Jonathan Trott was brilliantly run out by Simon Katich

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

2009Oval

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)

2009Ponting3

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.

Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • MySpace
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
previous post: Who will win the 2009 Ashes? | next post: 2009 Ashes averages and review


9 Responses to "2009 Ashes: Fifth Test"

1 | David B

August 21st, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Avatar

England missed a great opportunity to build a good score, with too many getting out when set. However, we will have a better idea of how good/bad this wicket is after Australia has batted. 350 might prove to be an acceptable score, though I suspect it would be at least 50 short of what is necessary.

2 | David B

August 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm

Avatar

I won’t refer to the pitch until after the game, except to say that only one perhaps two of the Australian batsmen could blame the wicket for their dismissal. The English bowlers just bowled too well. True North and Stuart Clark were not technically out, but Watson got at least one favour from the umpires, so it pretty well evens out.
It looks as though Australia will have to score over 300, perhaps well over, to win, which will be very difficult on that wicket.
In case anybody missed it, a new star arose in this game: Stuart Broad. He bowled and batted very well at Headingly, but that was lost in England’s terrible performance. This time he took the game by the scruff of the neck and completely transformed it in England’s favour. This performance could not be missed.

3 | mike

August 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Avatar

This pitch is nothing short of terrible. Even India in it’s worst moments didn’t produce wickets of this standard.

This is a test match the winner of which will win the ashes how dare you serve up this backyard track. We play on better wickets in C grade district in Australia and as silly as that seems it’s true.

The curator has produced wonderful wickets all county season therefore something is wrong here.

If this ever happened in Australia I would never go to another match. I also know it would never happen. There really is only one conclusion we can make,

“this wicket signifies the day the last gentleman left English cricket”.

You should all be ashamed.

4 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 22nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Avatar

David B: I beg to differ with regard to the wicket not being responsible for too many Australian wickets to fall. I think it had a lot to do with most of the guys getting out … it may not have affected the particular delivery that got them out, but the pathetic condition of the pitch would have impacted on their confidence to play each ball on its merits.

Not knowing whether a ball would kick up or stay flat would change the way they play. They would have been constantly thinking, “What will happen to this one?” This leads to hesitant batting, and mistakes are easily made even if the ball is not a bad one.

5 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Avatar

Mike: I wouldn’t go that far. The pitch was poorly prepared, but I wouldn’t say that this was done deliberately. The curator made a mistake, but then so did the Aussie selectors in not picking either Brett Lee (who could have done a Stuart Broad on that deck) or Nathan Hauritz (who could have done a Graeme Swann). Our bowling was ordinary in England’s 1st innings. Yes, England’s bowlers had a lot going for them given how much the pitch deteriorated during day one and two, but Australia’s bowlers could have made better use of what they were given.

All I would say is that it’s unfortunate that the toss of the coin has had a big impact on the result in this game. If Australia had batted first they would have made far more than 160 – that’s guaranteed. But then could Australia’s bowlers have skittled England for a paltry total? Maybe … maybe not.

6 | David B

August 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Avatar

Seeing everybody else is commenting on the wicket, so will I. On the third day nearly 400 runs were scored and only six wickets lost. Though some of the bowling was poor, how can you score that many runs and lose so few wickets on a bad wicket? True the wicket is odd and a result wicket (hooray for that), so high scores are unlikely. But surely that’s better than the normal Oval wicket in which draws are common.
I also fail to understand why when wickets are prepared for quicker bowlers, and even second-rate quicks reap a harvest, nobody complains. When wickets are prepared for spinners, most cricket followers are horrified. Cricket has always been a game of many skills, which a variety of wickets helps to promote, and so it should continue.
Can Australia win? I don’t agree with the view that a team cannot score 500 to win in the last innings. However, as I said above, high scores are not likely on this wicket, so England should win.

7 | David B

August 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Avatar

Why did England win the Fifth Test? I can think of three main reasons.
The first is that they won the toss, which was an advantage. However, it was not as big an advantage as expected, bearing in mind that 400 runs were scored on the third day and the two largest innings’ totals were the last two. In other words, if the pitch deteriorated, it did not do so by much.
The second reason is that the English bowlers generally bowled better than their Australian equivalents.
The third reason is that the English batsmen adapted better to the conditions. It was apparent that batting was difficult when you first came in, but it gradually became easier. This was clear from every innings I saw that totalled over 40. In the first innings the Australians were too impatient. The classic example of that was the dismissal of Michael Clarke who drove before he had assessed the pace of the pitch and consequently hit it in the air straight to a fielder. It was not really the wicket that got him out, but rather his own impatience.
I don’t think the ommission of Hauritz played a major part
in the result. I don’t think Hauritz is a much better bowler than North, and is probably inferior to Katich and Clarke. I know that Clarke had an injury, so he did not bowl much, but I am mystified why Katich did not bowl much more. He is a more than useful bowler and is the type that English batsman do not like very much.
Connected to that issue arises the question, who was captaining the Australian team? I saw two interviews with Merv Hughes and his views on at least three issues corresponded precisely with those played out on the field. Was Hughes just being loyal to Ponting, or was Hughes pulling Ponting’s strings? I suspect the latter is the correct answer. In which case, I would strongly argue that non-playing selectors should not have a say, beyond advice, in what happens on the field.
If Richie Benaud had been manipulated like that by a selector, I rather suspect that he would have politely told the interfering busybody to get lost. If Ian Chappell had been in that situation, he would have told him impolitely to get lost (or something much worse).
With regard to the whole series, it was a very good one, with plenty of twists and turns and memorable moments. It was not as good as the 2005 series, but that was one of the best ever, so one would have been foolish to expect it. Indeed, both teams were inferior to their 2005 equivalents, though they played plenty of attractive cricket and showed lots of fight.

8 | Wanderer

August 25th, 2009 at 2:59 am

Avatar

I agree, I don’t think the wicket can be blamed that much bearing in mind both 2nd innings produced the biggest scores.
Also, in Australia’s first innings, Watson and Katich started very well which shows what batsmen could do if they showed some patience and ‘got in’ first.

I don’t think celebrations will be to over the top this time. I think, rightly so, there won’t be a parade. Understandable, to an extent, in 2005 however because it had been 18 years since the last series win – so almost a whole generation (i.e. probably anyone under 25) had not remembered England winning the Ashes. It just didn’t happen. :-)

Hopefully England will not see this as job done this time, like in 2005. But back then we were not helped by the fact that Vaughan was injured for a long time after and that bowling attack never played together again as Simon Jones has never played a test since due to injury. But we’ll see…

9 | The Binocular

August 25th, 2009 at 9:40 am

Avatar

Some people have gone as far as to say, if you won the toss at the Oval you won the match.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Australia should have played Nathan Haurtiz and may be things would have been different.


What should Australia do with Hussey?

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