The Ashes Blog

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

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

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

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.

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.

Day 1: Australians 337 for 8 (Hussey 143*, Katich 95)

There were some concerns for the Australians with a few of their top batsmen failing, but Mike Hussey looks like he could be back to form and ready to terrorise the England bowlers.

Phillip Hughes was once again dismissed cheaply, and I just wonder if he might have used up too much energy in playing for Middlesex. He’s a terrific player, and I’m not going to discount him, but he needs to get this run of low scores out of him as soon as possible. He is the sort of guy that can just turn it on at anytime … a little bit like Adam Gilchrist, you just never want to write him off.

However, another shining light was Mitchell Johnson, who once again showed the more qualified batsmen the way to go. You England fans shouldn’t underestimate this guy – he is seriously good. And I mean, Flintoff ‘05 good. Look out. Read the rest of this entry »

Day 1: Australians 349/7
Not a great start, with a few in the top order going cheaply. Hughes batted how I expect him to go during the Test matches – chasing hard, going for quick runs, and occasionally losing the fight as a result. But that’s ok, because I think more often than not his style will come off. My one concern is Captain Ponting, who made just 8. He needs runs to get him into the groove again. However, the Aussies recovered thanks to their lower order. Brett Lee showed he can bat, and if his bowling is good enough to get him in to the XI for the First Test, I reckon he could add some pretty valuable runs.

“I’ve heard this pitch compares a lot to Cardiff, although obviously it will be a different stage with a lot more pressure for the Test.

“It was good to spend some time out there. We’ve been going pretty hard in the nets, but it is good just to see where you’re at in the middle and things felt okay.

“The main point of this game was blowing some of the cobwebs out and part of the process towards stepping out for day one at Cardiff.
- Brad Haddin

Day 2: Sussex 311 … Australians 18/0
All of the Aussie quicks had a good day at the office, with Lee and Clark leading the way and Peter Siddle close behind. Hauritz was disappointing, and I can’t see him making the Test team. Read the rest of this entry »

Symonds is out, McDonald is in, and Brett Lee gets another chance at glory on English soil. Frankly, I think the selectors have done alright. I am surprised they went with Ronnie (McDonald) over Roy (Symonds), but I think they made the right decision. As for the rest, it’s all fairly predictable stuff. Only one specialist spinner is in the squad (Hauritz), but that’s not going to be a problem. If Cardiff is a turning pitch, then guys like Clarke, Katich, and North are all wicket takers who can combine to fill the extra spinner position.

As for the fast bowling “pack”, Johnson and Siddle are automatic selections, which leaves Lee, Clark, and Hilfenhaus fighting for the extra 1 or 2 spots.

Here’s the squad: Read the rest of this entry »

Australia: 5/527 dec.
England: 1/19

What a day! Michael Clarke scored his second century in as many Tests, Mike Hussey continued his Ashes run feast with another hundred, and then Adam Gilchrist came on and took 57 balls to score the second fastest century in Test match history (Vic Richards put on a century against England in 1986 in just 56 balls). I was having dinner with my wife and my parents at the time, so I didn’t get to see much of it. Gilchrist scored so quickly that when we started our meal he was just 12 years old and captain of the Deniliquin South Primary School team. When we tuned in 30 minutes later he’d knocked up a hundred against England, and quite possibly sealed the Ashes for Australia. You can see a ‘wagon wheel’ of his scoring shots here. Will over at The Corridor called it “an umissable horror show”. For the Australian fans it was like watching a Hollywood feel-good movie, only better because there was no Meg Ryan.

I thought England’s bowling was generally pretty good, especially Panesar early in the day. However, England just couldn’t make the most of their opportunities, with Jones making a mess of what should have been an easy stumping when Clarke was on 2. No big deal … the Aussie number 5 only went on to make 135 not out. And then there were a couple of dropped catches – Jones (again!!) had to almost push Kevin Pietersen out of the way to get to a skied hook from Hussey, and the ball promptly went to ground. Then Strauss dropped one at first slip, and watched the ball race away to the boundary. Then there were the dropped catches in the crowd from Gilly’s sixes – all four of them.

What now for England? Well, they basically need to try and bat for as long as possible. That shouldn’t be too difficult on this track, as it has flattened out a fair bit. If they can keep their heads on, they should be able to put a few decent partnerships together. Although an England victory seems about as close to impossible as you can get, if they bat smart they should be able to take the match into the fifth day, and then who knows, maybe they can hold on for a draw. Then again, it could all be over by tea on Sunday.

England: 129
Australia: 4/168

Australia wins by 6 wickets

How did this happen??!!

This would have to go down as one of the most remarkable wins ever … up there with India’s wins over Australia in 2001 and 2005. At the start of the day we were all expecting a bland draw. Maybe England would try and go for quick runs, declare, and set Australia a total to chase, but that seemed unlikely. But after seeing both sides cruise past 500 in their first dig, I can not understand how England could be strangled to the point that they are all out for 129 from 73 overs.

Shane Warne was the chief destroyer with 4 for 49, but the Aussie quicks were brilliant as well, cutting England’s run supply and causing the tourists to make careless errors with the bat. Although the wickets were useful, I think it was the uber-slow scoring rate that really ended England. It was “active euthanasia” in so much as they brought on their own death by doing nothing. Absolutely nothing. If they had added another 50 runs, or batted for another hour, they would have been safe. If I were an England cricket fan I would be demanding a Royal Commission.

Paul Collingwood was the hero in the first innings with a brilliantly created double century. In the second innings, post-Aussie victory, he is the villain who faced 119 balls, made just 22 runs, and exposed the fragile English lower order to the wily deception of Messrs Warne and McGrath. I think he’ll have a bit on his mind tonight.

Then there was the England bowling. Lacking in venom, bite, and a decent spinner, Flintoff had no-one to turn to but himself. Harmison was offering nothing, and Giles never looked like giving the ball the magic it had when in the hands of Shane Warne.

So, where to now for England? What do they have to do to get themselves back into this series?

Australia 513
England: 1/59

It was a tough day for the English bowlers, and a day of redemption for Australia’s batsmen. Michael Clarke showed that his place in the team is warranted with a well crafted 124, his improved batting apparently the result of a chat over dinner with Shane Warne on Sunday night. Adam Gilchrist also showed that he’s not quite finished yet with 64.

This Test has been spoken of as being a repeat of the Edgbaston Test, so on day two I made a few predictions. As per Edgbaston 2005, I said that Australia would finish up roughly 100 runs behind England … they did better than that, and were only 38 behind. I also said that Ponting would top score for the Aussies (as he did at Edgbaston), and that Adam Gilchrist would finally make a few runs, which he did. Although one wonders if Gilly would have had the same success if Flintoff had been bowling, as the big Lancastrian was unable to bowl for much of the day.

Shane Warne continues to show his all-round ability, as he became only the sixth man to have taken 300 Test wickets and score 3000 runs. That puts him in the same category as Ian Botham, Imran Khan and Kapil Dev (although Warne’s batting average is far lower than the other players in this exclusive group). But at least he got there, so good on ya, Warnie!

For the English, Matthew Hoggard was the hero, as he bagged 7 wickets for the innings. Given that only 17 wickets have been taken across 4 days of Test match cricket, I’d say that’s a fantastic effort from the English swinger. Amongst the other bowlers, Harmison went wicketless, though his much improved line and length will give him some confidence for the next 3 games. Giles and Anderson were also made to look pretty ordinary on this pitch, but then so did most of Australia’s bowlers, so it’s difficult to learn too much from this effort.

What can we look forward to on day five? Well, in my view there’s a 98% chance that this game will head for a draw, a 1% chance that England will win and a 1% chance that Australia will win. If England wants to level the series they will have to make 200 runs in the first session (I reckon that would be a little over 6 runs an over), declare, and then take 10 Aussie wickets in just 2 sessions. I can’t see that happening. If Australia wants to win then they would need to take another 9 scalps before lunch, whilst restricting England’s scoring, and then try and get the runs in the final 2 sessions. (Cue the Mission Impossible soundtrack) The only other option is that England offers a sporting declaration with, say, a 200 run lead, and then give Australia 40 overs to get them. The Australians would be tempted by the offer, risky chances would be taken, and just maybe England could grab the wickets they need. Or perhaps Australia would get the runs. Frankly, I just don’t think Flintoff and the England management would have the courage to do that, so it looks like we’ve got a draw coming up.

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 »