The Ashes Blog

07 Aug, 2009

2009 Ashes: Fourth Test

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

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

Marcus North took a stunning catch in the slips

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

Stuart Clark hit a six that ended up in the media toilet block

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

Stuart Broad powers one down the ground

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.

<a name=”1249468514″></a>
Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • MySpace
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
previous post: 2009 Ashes: Third Test | next post: England’s retirees set...


11 Responses to "2009 Ashes: Fourth Test"

1 | zarjaz

August 8th, 2009 at 4:52 am

Avatar

England 102 all out – all the talk from Strauss that the Ashes could be won by England in this test was always self-evidently a case of ‘puffing up’ England’s prospects. And a classic case of hubris – pride before a fall!

For, even before the test started and England collapsed so spectacularly, creating the scenario where it will be frankly amazing if the series is not 1-1 going to the Oval for the final test – even before this test started, it was errant nonsense to be talking in this way. Because, before the Test started, little more was required of the Aussies than that they win one of the two remaining games for the Ashes to be winging their way back to Australia again.

Strauss might have talked of ‘winning the Ashes’ if england won at Headingley – giving the impression of a side in pole position to have the Ashes – but the reality was that the Aussies only needed to win the game for the position to be that the Ashes were, as things stood, going back to Australia!

Strauss is too much one to ‘talk up the positives’. We did well in West Indies – after a long time of England not performing – and suddenly, his talk is as if England are in a position to beat the best sides in the world. The reality is that we could beat the weak W Indies but that’s as far as our class goes (unfortunately!!!).

Strauss is all about saying the thing that the establishment will like – he is an old colonial-school type of talker, everything is ‘jolly good’ when it’s good, and ‘the boys are working hard and there’s plenty of positives’ when things are going badly. It all sounds good but it’s meaningless and is like his actual captaincy on the pitch, where he struts and pouts like a captain but often is quite weak if you look half-closely (in spells he manages to make good choices over fielding positions and bowlers but the rest of the time is weak – eg being over-defensive when we are in a strong position and thereby losing essential ground).

With Flintoff gone – his presence is almost (though not entirely) the most important thing about his participation in this Test series, rather than his stats (it gives confidence to the others so the team holds it together better) – and Pietersen out, the England team looks distinctly weedy in its abilities.

And how ironic that Pietersen got so knocked by the media in the first two tests, when he top-scored in the first innings of the first, and made 75/80 runs in the second test, which while not his best was a vital contribution to England being able to win. Without his valuable runs – average 37.5 in his two tests – England would not have survived at Cardiff or won at Lords. The media knocked him like the Aussies doing sledging but even the crocked Pietersen that produced those performances is better than the batters we’ve got now. A lot better.

2 | russell galloway

August 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am

Avatar

I think the the whole thing fell apart when Strauss decided to bat on a day when they had overcast conditions with the son peeking through and not consulting his opening bowers about to bowl on this pitch….surley these are conditions are for the bowlers.

After being bowled out for 102 the guys had nothing to go for which got their heads down and the wicket improving all the time. Also no change of plan with of extra bowlers (bowling the same rubbish all the time) which could have changed patern of play.

Big mistake Andrew Strauss

3 | russell galloway

August 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am

Avatar

Please don’t be like Graeme Smith who a few years ago at Newlands won the toss and againts all advice put Pakistan into bat first and lost by an innings +runs….
at newlands allways bat first…or lose

4 | David B

August 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Avatar

It is not often that a game is decided by lunch time on the first day, but I think this has been. The Australian selectors got it right, for once by picking Clark. The English selectors got it wrong by going in a batsman short.
The only way England can now win this game is by bowling very well twice and batting very well once. I think they are capable of one or two of those tasks, but I can’t see them doing all three.

5 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 9th, 2009 at 9:10 am

Avatar

Russell: I would agree with that. Strauss should have bowled, given all that had gone on … and the conditions obviously suited the pacemen that day.

6 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am

Avatar

David B: You said:

“The only way England can now win this game is by bowling very well twice and batting very well once. I think they are capable of one or two of those tasks, but I can’t see them doing all three.”

Unfortunately for England they weren’t able to do any of those tasks well. They bowled very poorly once and batted very poorly twice. I think they need to treat this game the same way they regard the 2006/2007 Ashes series and pretend it never happened. Move on to the Oval and start again.

7 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Avatar

zarjaz: I take it you’re not a fan of Strauss’ captaincy. Do you think he should remain as England captain after this series (if England lose, that is)?

8 | Wanderer

August 10th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Avatar

I think the problem lies mainly with England’s batsmen. We are just not disciplined or paitient enough. Don’t know which balls to leave and which to play.

Broad and Swann had a good knock yesterday but, like you say, it’s all very well doing it when the pressure’s off – needed it in the first innings.

Australia have batsmen who dig in if they have 1 bad innings (like Lords and Edgbaston). England just cave in because we don’t seem to know how to bat if we have to dig in – none of the top order (bar Collingwood) did it at Cardiff either when we needed it and we were very lucky to avoid an innings defeat there.

I don’t think in this sense England’s batsmen were so different in 2005 (we could score quickly but I didn’t think our paitence/discipline was brilliant) – perhaps luckily for us there was no test then at Headingly with its testing conditions.

They showed another stat on Sky Sports yesterday. In the series:
England’s top 5 wickets – 937 runs
England’s bottom 5 wickets – 910* runs

*probably a few more now.
And of course only 1 England player has a century compared to several Aussies.

9 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 11th, 2009 at 6:33 am

Avatar

Wanderer – you’re right. England’s big problem is the batting provided by its top and middle order. Once Australia gets Strauss out, the game’s over until Prior and the tail get in.

10 | Christian Louboutin Boots

August 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am

Avatar

England 102 all out – all the talk from Strauss that the Ashes could be won by England in this test was always self-evidently a case of ‘puffing up’ England’s prospects. And a classic case of hubris – pride before a fall!

11 | TheAshesBlog.com

August 20th, 2009 at 6:21 am

Avatar

Christian Louboutin Boots: But can England still win the Ashes? What do you think the result of the fifth Test will be?

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