The Ashes Blog

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*)

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

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

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

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.

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.

1. Australia regains the Ashes
It was only 15 months ago that England was celebrating, but the Aussies took just 1 ball from Steve Harmison to get the Ashes back.

2. England’s injuries
Several of England’s top players were injured during the year, including Michael Vaughan, Simon Jones, Freddie Flintoff, Ashley Giles, and James Anderson. In a double blow for England, Giles and Anderson recovered in time for the first Test in Brisbane.

3. Shane Warne bags 700
The world’s greatest leg spinner finally made it to 700. He also took his 700th wicket.

4. England crumble in Adelaide
The England team declared at 6 for 551 in the first innings, the entire cricket world was anticipating a draw, but mighty England managed to pull off an unlikely loss.

5. Monty Panesar takes 8 on debut
English spinning sensation Monty Panesar grabbed 8 wickets in his first Test against Australia, prompting Ian Thorpe to say that “Monty is fully Sikh!”
(Local Aussie humour … click here for an explanation, or just move on to the next one.)

6. Australia wins 10 out 10
In stark contrast to last year’s Ashes result, Australia won all 10 Tests this year, whilst England won just 4 out of 14 (it becomes 5 out of 14 if you include the match Darrell Hair forfeited on Pakistan’s behalf).

7. The defection of Troy
When Troy Cooley moved back to Australia, England’s bowling squad promptly fell to pieces, Australia benefited, and there was something about a big wooden horse. Or maybe that was just in the movie.

8. The blame game
Apparently England’s poor form was due to Duncan Fletcher, the ECB, the wives and girlfriends of the England players, and David Beckham. The players themselves had nothing to do with it.

9. The end of an era
Cricket legends Warne and McGrath announced their retirement from Test Match cricket, prompting wild celebrations from England fans and Stuart MacGill.

10. Australia’s one-day win at the Champions Trophy
It was only a one-dayer, but Australia’s 6 wicket win over England in October gave the Australians extra confidence, and planted the seeds of doubt in the minds of the England players, especially Mr Harmison.

Are there any other big Ashes moments that you’d like to add to this list?

I thought it would be interesting to do a statistical comparison of the two sides to see how they will fare against each other, statistically speaking. What I’ve done is add up the batting averages for all 11 players in each side to give a team batting average. I’ve then added up the bowling averages for Australia and England, and this gives us a team bowling average. To the Australian batting averages I added the England team bowling average to give a final total (and vice versa for England). So if a side has a very good, and therefore low, bowling average then they won’t be adding too many runs to the oppositions total team average, so it seems to me like a fair comparison: Read the rest of this entry »