The Ashes Blog

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)

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

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)

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.

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 »

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.

Australia: 244
England: 2/51

Despite my best efforts with the “Keep Ashley Giles Playing” campaign, the England spinner was dropped for the 3rd Test. Did anyone see that coming?!! He was replaced by possibly the world’s most popular beard, Monty Panesar, who had a fantastic day in his first Ashes Test. With 5 wickets, he had Australia’s batsmen in trouble, and together with the new and improved Steve Harmison, England had a pretty good day.

Matty Hayden once again got a start, but was out to a corker from Hoggard. Hayden doesn’t seem to be coping well with the swinging ball, and one wonders if this might be his final Test series.

Mike Hussey was the hero once again with an unbeaten 74. His average for the series is now a healthy 156, and he just looks fantastic. He adapts his game really well according to the situation, and seems to be one of the smartest players in the Aussie lineup. If only his younger brother David could achieve the same level of consistency.

When it comes to the England camp, everyone is asking about Monty. Why wasn’t he playing in the first two Tests? Debate rages over whether it was Duncan Fletcher or Freddie Flintoff who left the Montster out of the XI, but whoever it was, they should be given a CT scan and a psych exam. Seriously, leaving a genuine wicket-taker out of the side is the biggest mistake anyone’s made since Universal Studios said to George Lucas, “Nobody wants to watch a movie called ‘Star Wars’”.

Robbo at the BBC reckons “Monty the Magician” can win them the series, while over at The Tonk they’re saying that sports players across the country will soon start “doing the Panesar“.

What about day two? Well, England will be wanting a lead of at least 100, but that’s going to be tough. Stuart Clark looks the most dangerous of Australia’s bowlers, and if he can get a wicket or two in the first hour then I think England might struggle. But then, they’ve got Monty coming in at number 11, and with him anything’s possible.

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 »