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

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

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.

What a massive blow this is for Australia. Brett Lee has injured a side muscle, and could miss either one Test, or all five. With all of the talk about reverse swing being a factor at Cardiff, and Lee being about the only Aussie who showed mastery of it in the practise match against England Lions, this creates a huge problem for Australia. The balance of the team is now out, and it’s going to make it tough for them to win. A few months ago the Australian supporters wouldn’t have though twice about losing Lee, as he was well off his best. But now he’s looking really good again, and, well, with him out Australia’s in trouble.

I expect they’ll replace Lee with Ben Hilfenhaus rather than Nathan Hauritz, though that will depend on what they see the pitch doing when the Australian selectors take a look at it on Wednesday morning.

For England, this will give them a pretty big boost. They would have been concerned by Lee’s performance at Worcester, but now they’ll be thinking that they’ll have a much easier time of it. And they probably will.

Kevin Pietersen is living on the edge. He should take 3 months off from playing cricket to allow his achilles heel injury to recover, but he’s not going to do that because he’s got an Ashes series to win. The problem, however, is that he could break down at any time. He could potentially wake up on the 3rd morning of a Test and be unable to walk down the stairs. And there’ll be no warning.

KP is England’s most dangerous batsman. He has to play, and he’s worth the risk. However, the potential is there for him to cause some serious problems for the England team should he break down at an inopportune time.

“I’m taking the best medical advice and I’m doing everything I can to be fit to face Australia.
But if my injury flares up just before a Test, I won’t be able to take part. But I promise you I will be doing everything in my power to make sure that I am OK.
I’ve got one more injection I can have before I’m not allowed any more. That would be a cortisone epidural into the spinal cord.”
- Kevin Pietersen in News Of The World

Do you think Pietersen will make it through all five Tests? Will he have to pull out unexpectedly either before or during a Test?

I thought I’d try and put together a playing list of recent Australian and English players who have struggled to play as much cricket as they would like because of various injuries. Some seem to spend half their life on the bench, whilst others have experienced occasional injuries but have nevertheless missed out on some big moments. Here’s my Injured Ashes XI:

1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Phil Jaques
3. Michael Vaughan (c)
4. Shane Watson
5. Andrew Symonds
6. Andrew Flintoff
7. James Foster (w)
8. Brett Lee
9. Simon Jones
10. Shaun Tait
11. Bryce McGain

Not a bad playing list, but do you think all eleven could be simultaneously fit for a game??! And how many of these guys will play a Test in the 2009 Ashes series?

Who would win in a match between an Andrew Flintoff XI (that is, a team of eleven Flintoffs) and a Mitchell Johnson XI (a team of eleven Johnsons)?

Read the rest of this entry »