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: 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.

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 »

Glenn McGrath, the man known for his metronomic ability with the ball, has decided to call it quits. The Sydney Test will be his 124th, and with somewhere in excess of 560 wickets, he will end his career as the most successful fast bowler in cricket history.

He started off at New South Wales in 1992/93, but I think it was the following year, when he took 4 for 17 against Queensland, that he got the attention of the national selectors. I must admit that I hadn’t really heard much about him when he debuted against New Zealand in Perth. After all, he was just another New South Welshman who, because of where he was born, was now playing for Australia. But in 1994 McGrath went to the West Indies and blew ‘em away with 17 wickets for the series, helping Australia win back the Frank Worrell Trophy from the Caribbean superstars for the first time in 16 years. Ooh, aah, a champion was born.

Since then, he has been Australia’s rock. We got to the point where we were no longer surprised if he picked up 3 wickets in the first hour of play. After all, that’s what Glenn McGrath does. It’s going to be near impossible to fill that gap, but that’s ok. Someone else can now rise up to be Australia’s premier fast bowler. Ricky Ponting is hoping that Brett Lee can do it, although I think someone like Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson or perhaps Ben Hilfenhaus, is far more likely. Lee is good, but he hasn’t really shown that he can be the leading bowler. Hopefully he can prove me wrong.

What are others saying?

“He’s a fine bowler. He’s always there and he’s always testing you. He’s always on his line and length and he’s a fantastic cricketer.”
- Andrew Flintoff

“He is the meanest of opponents, seeks to dismiss batsmen without cost, or at worst for a few runs apiece. In truth he is more accountant than murderer.

Yet he is feared because he lures batsmen into unanticipated self-examination. They walk to the crease as accomplished players and are suddenly made aware of cracks in the facade.”
- Peter Roebuck

“No Warne and no McGrath. Who will shower the opposition with verbal abuse and unplayable deliveries now?”
- Scott at The Corridor blog

Australia: 5/312

Following the example of Pietersen and Collingwood, the Aussie pair of Ponting and Hussey put on a batting show with a 192 run partnership. The Australian captain knocked up his 33rd Test century, and is now Australia’s most prolific century-maker. It was his 7th for 2006, and he can thank Ashley Giles for giving him the opportunity. The English spinner dropped a fairly easy chance on the deep square leg boundary when Ponting was just 35 and the Australians were already 3 wickets down with just 78 runs on the board. Did Ashley Giles drop England’s chance at victory?

Hayden and Martyn were both dismissed cheaply early on in the day, and both will be under pressure to keep their spot in the team. Hayden will probably be ok for a little while yet, though Martyn may have to make room for the return of Shane Watson for the Perth Test.

At the close of play it was Michael Clarke and Adam Gilchrist at the crease, and is as nor the norm with England, the Aussie keeper was under attack from the start with the English quicks coming at him from around the wicket. So far Gilly has been able to hold them at bay and look almost comfortable. He’ll need to stay in there for quite a while on day four if he’s to help his side close in on England’s formidable total.

As for England, today was a pretty good effort from (almost) all of them. Hoggard was brilliant with the ball, taking 4 wickets, Harmison looked to be in control, and Flintoff led well with some effective bowling changes and field placements. They’ll be feeling pretty good about themselves, but they haven’t yet won this Test. Apart from the first hour or so with the new ball, it’s pretty difficult to get a wicket on this deck, so they’ll need to do well if they want to grab another 15 Aussie wickets before the end of the day on Tuesday. Frankly, I don’t think they can do it.

Say no to drugs!

Say no to whaling!

Say no to the follow-on!

Ricky Ponting did say ‘No’, and not everyone’s happy about it.

“There are times when Australia must drop down a gear from the attack-at-all-costs approach of Steve Waugh. On this occasion, however, Ponting got too cute. He should have struck while the iron was hot and England were cold.”
- Trevor Marshallsea, The Age

However, Ponting maintains that he did the right thing, saying that his bowlers would benefit from the break:

“Our bowlers, I felt, would be better having a break at that stage of the game. The wicket was only ever going to get a lot harder to bat on. The weather looked good going right through the game, so the cracks that were pretty predominant on the second day were only going to get worse, and I thought our bowlers would be able to exploit that later in the game.

Also, just getting England back out in the field again, and getting some of their bowlers who looked tired in the first innings to get out there and bowl again, to try and wear them down that way. As it turned out, it worked out really well for us.”
- Ricky Ponting

We will never know what England might have achieved if they had been asked to follow-on. It’s possible that they could have been knocked over for under 200, but then it’s also possible that Australia’s bowlers may have tired early, allowing England to put more than 400 on the scoreboard.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, was it a good move on the part of the Aussie captain?

Personally, I think he did the right thing … the Gabba pitch was almost unplayable on the final day, with the ball staying low one ball and screaming past the heads of batsmen the next, and even Stuart Clark was able to get the ball moving like a leg spinner. England was probably not a chance to score the 446 runs needed to make Australia back again, but was it worth the risk?

Having said that, it could also have been the right thing to have asked England to bat again. When you’re 445 runs in front on the first innings, can anything be bad? I doubt it.

Australia continues to dominate this game, and honestly, that’s surprised me. I was surprised at how easily Australia’s lower order was able to take the score from 6/467 to 9/602, Australia’s highest score against England at home since the 1946/47 series. I was also surprised at how quickly England’s top order collapsed on a pitch that still offers a truck load of runs. Glenn McGrath’s experience showed, whilst Stephen Harmison’s woeful start continued (though his bowling is improving).

Ponting’s 196 was brilliant, and Michael Clarke’s half century was a useful one … and perhaps gave the selectors another difficult selection decision for the 2nd Test.

Peter Roebuck reckons “England stand on the brink of cricketing calamity“, and he’d be right. They may yet find a way out of this mess with a couple of useful 200 run partnerships, but that’s about their only hope. The rain alone won’t save them this time … it’s as dry as a bone here in Brisbane.

Allan Lamb, speaking between innings, thought that Kevin Pietersen would “definitely bat at number 4″ ahead of Paul Collingwood. Maybe that’s the way they should have gone, given the ease with which Stuart Clark dismissed Colly for 5. But then Lamb also thought that England would be in a strong position at stumps on day two, so what would he know.

Freddie Flintoff said,

“We need a couple of big partnerships to get past 400 and we need to occupy some time as well.”

If he’s talking about the need to avoid the follow-on by scoring at least 402 runs, then I think he’s off the mark. As Scott rightly points out at The Corridor blog, anything over 250 would be enough to make Australia bat again. Ricky Ponting won’t want to push his bowlers too hard, so he’ll give them a rest even if England are bowled out for 350 runs less than the Australians.

What will the third day bring us? I am expecting a fightback of some kind from the tourists. Someone has to stand up. Will it be left to Freddie to save the day once more? So far he’s the only one who has shown the same kind of determination that won it for England last year. We’ll just have to wait and see if anyone else will support him.

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 »