Australia

Reflections

thelegglance137 Comments

It took as little time as anticipated for England to wrap up the fourth Test, and with it the series and the Ashes.  It has been an extraordinary win, all the more so for being so unexpected.  Yet in that sense it isn’t quite so different to last time, when Australia won 5-0, a result no one (apart from Glenn McGrath, who always forecasts that) expected either.

England are rightly celebrating, they thoroughly deserve to as well.  With the exception of Lords, which looks ever more peculiar in retrospect, they have battered Australia.  England did something in response to that defeat that much of the media failed to, which was to accept the pinch and move on.  England’s resilience following that hammering is something that they can rightly take pride in, and is the sign of a good team, or at least one that might become a good team.

Yet the danger in responding to this victory is in being wise after the event.  It isn’t vindication of the last two years because England didn’t play how they’d played over the last two years.  Cook is to be thoroughly praised for his captaincy because he didn’t captain the side how he’d done so up to this point.  That isn’t proof that those backing him as captain previously were right in any way, but it is a recognition that for whatever reason, he seems to have dramatically improved – something those supporting him didn’t demand he do.   And that is a fascinating development.  Cook was dreadful in Australia, he was worse against Sri Lanka, desperate against India, and a disaster as one day captain before his more than slightly hamfisted sacking.  In his interview after the game’s conclusion, he acknowledged that, admitting to being stubborn (not necessarily a bad thing), and to having made an effort to be more proactive and positive in this series.

Trevor Bayliss too chose his words carefully, saying that Cook had been excellent in this series, with a fairly clear implication when talking about how this had been done that he didn’t think he had been previously.  And that is about right – the only rational way to to respond to any situation is to adapt a view as the facts change.  Cook has been really good as skipper this series, and it is immensely to his credit that he has been prepared to take input from outside and learn.  After having been captain in the same rather plodding and defensive manner for quite a long time, that is perhaps the most welcome and unexpected development.  Being wise after the event means refusing to admit that no one saw this coming – and no one did.

Bayliss himself had come into the England set up at the start of this series, but he wasn’t present for the New Zealand one, which gave the first hint at Cook’s England adopting a different approach.  It was such a sudden switch after the West Indies series and the miserable World Cup that the removal of Peter Moores would seem to point to that being the major change.   Yet it is probably a little more than that – Moores’ style of coaching was similar to Andy Flower’s in one area, that it was prescriptive, with the coach directing the team rather than the captain.  That was seen time and again where England would come in after a session, and resume with entirely different tactics – the captain was the cipher for a coach telling them what to do.

The appointment of Bayliss, and the retention of Farbrace, indicated that this type of coach was not how Strauss saw the best interests of England – and that decision was a wise one.  Whatever anyone thought of Cook’s captaincy, it was frustrating to see him not actually captain the side himself.   It is therefore a possibility that the change in coaching set up allowed Cook for the first time to captain the side how he wanted to.  England have been the only side where the coach has been given such power, and Bayliss and Farbrace are more in the Fletcher model, where the coach stands in the background to support the players and the captain runs the team.

It’s no coincidence that England players have quickly felt the freedom to back their own ability under this kind of structure, nor that the previously rigid set up limited that freedom.  Playing without fear is an easy thing to say, but it requires a system where players aren’t berated for their failures.  England under Moores and Flower certainly had success, but the team became ever more hidebound, negative and restricted, terrified of making a mistake – and it was that attitude that Australia pounced on in 2013/14.

Equally, the early season series against New Zealand may have acted as the dropping of the scales in front of English eyes; if that is the case, then England may well owe a debt of gratitude to Brendon McCullum, though perhaps Australia would have been equally well advised to have had a chat to Kane Williamson about how to play the moving ball.  The one day series too, with England playing scintillating cricket, showed a break with the shambles of the past, in intent if nothing else – which is why no one greatly cared if England lost that final match, they were far too wowed by the style of play.  The point is that it is easy to blame Moores, but he was simply continuing an approach that he himself started and Andy Flower continued.  It worked for a while too, but signs of problems were there long before the implosion in Australia if only some had paid attention to those pointing them out.

The hardest part of coaching is being able to keep out of the way.  Bayliss, when responding to questions about Cook’s captaincy, demurred at the idea he’d given instructions, saying all he had done was to offer options, and it was up to Cook to then choose – and that he chose wisely.

What happens next is the key, because harder challenges lie ahead, in the UAE and South Africa.  At the start of this series the feeling was that this would be Cook’s last as captain – the appointment of Root as his deputy and the end of cycle feel about Ashes series indicated that win or lose, it might be time to move on.  The nature of England’s win has changed that somewhat, though Cook may still feel that he could go out on a high by doing so. Yet the change is that he now can choose himself, rather than circumstances dictating.  It isn’t the win that has done that, it’s the way England won, and the way he himself led the side.  Let’s make no bones about it – it was quite impressive, and all the more so for being so unexpected.

There has been a clear shift in so many other ways too.  The England players made a point of going around the ground after each win and meeting the supporters, posing for selfies, signing autographs.  The interviews have been much more open and honest – all things that have been areas of deep criticism for the England of the last 18 months and beyond.  There is not a chance of the ECB ever apologising for anything that they’ve done, but this at least is a start and a move in the right direction.  Whether it is mere lip service or something more, is down to the ECB.

One of the most striking things about this England side is the clear joie de vivre that the young players have brought to the team.  There has been a changing of the guard in many ways beyond the obvious, a recognition that in order to get the best out of them, letting them free to do their thing is the way to do it.  Stokes, Root, Moeen and Wood have been the most evident examples, and even the grumpy old curmudgeons like Broad (OK, that’s a touch unfair on him) and Anderson have bought into it.  The England dressing room appears a much better place to be than it has been for quite a long time.  The idea that this win is a put down of all those who have been calling for exactly this is somewhat bizarre.  This is not the England team approach that received so much criticism.  It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that one particular player would have thrived in such an environment, given it is exactly what he wanted to see in the first place.

Certainly Joe Root has benefitted, and has gone to number one in the Test player rankings as a result.  It may be that it is a purple patch of form and nothing more, but there are signs that he may be becoming a genuinely fantastic batsman.  He scores so quickly, without apparent effort.  Technically, he is getting out to the ball much better than he did when he was dropped in Australia, where he hung back in the crease.  His weight distribution now comes forward into the ball, hence the glorious drives – but more than anything, his approach is one where he is first and foremost looking to score runs.  This too is an expression of a change of mentality in the side, and one in which he’s thriving.  That England now have a set up that is seeking to get the best from their players rather than berate them and keep them in line, amazingly enough seems to work.

The bowlers too have performed admirably.  Broad has been underrated for quite a while; yet his record in recent years has been very good, even in the Ashes meltdown of 2013/14 where he along with Stokes was pretty much the only player who could hold his head up high; the biggest issue with him is when England insisted on playing him through injury.  He is now number two in the bowling rankings, with Anderson just behind him.  Yet those two are a known quantity, what is welcome is seeing how the support bowlers have performed.  They’ve not always got the results that might mark them out as being special, but they have shown immense promise.  Stokes blows hot and cold, as young players tend to do, Wood looks like he has pace and the ability to move the ball.  They have potential, if correctly managed.  As for Finn, one fine match and one quiet one is fine as long as he continues the upward trajectory.  He too is indicative of a different approach from the England side, allowing him to bowl rather than micro-managing him.  Again, it is to be greatly welcomed, and with a degree of luck, the results should follow, and the pace return.

All of the others contributed.  Lyth may not have had a great series to date, but the way he set about the small target at Edgbaston extinguished Australian hopes early, while his catching was very good.  He won’t be content with his series, and nor should he be, the Oval may signal a last chance for him, but he has had an effect on the outcome.  Bell batted superbly at Edgbaston but has had a quiet series outside of that.  The jury remains out for Bairstow, but he did bat well at Trent Bridge, while Buttler has had a poor series with the bat, but kept extremely well.

And Moeen, well Moeen has bowled just about adequately, but batted very well indeed.  Which probably shouldn’t come as a surprise given he’s a batsman first and foremost.  Two spinners will be needed in the UAE, and while Moeen might well be the best off spinner England have (depending on whether Panesar can continue his rehabilitation), the Oval could well be the opportunity to introduce Adil Rashid.

For Australia, the big news was the announcement of Michael Clarke’s retirement.  At many times he has been a prophet not honoured in his own land, but the warmth of the reception he got from the Nottingham crowd showed the esteem in which he is held.  He has had a year of unimagined highs and tragic lows, and perhaps that finally proved too much for him, in which case that would be completely understandable.  He has been a fantastic player and an often inspirational captain.  But over the last year, what he proved more than anything else was that he was a leader with whom few could compare.  When Phillip Hughes was tragically killed, Clarke managed to speak not just for a nation in shock, but the whole cricketing world.  He became everyone’s captain, one who all who have picked up a bat would have followed to the ends of the earth.  In terrible circumstances, he stood tall.

Sport is cruel, and doesn’t often allow fairytale endings.  But Clarke will undoubtedly receive a standing ovation on both his last visits to the crease in international cricket, and few England supporters would begrudge him a century if the cricketing gods were to smile just once more on this supremely talented player.  There is so much more that can be said about him, but one must defer to Jarrod Kimber, whose article captured it perfectly.  It is outstanding:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/908005.html

In this series, Clarke himself was a paradigm for the batting woes of his team.  Apart from Chris Rogers, and to some extent David Warner, they all struggled.  Steve Smith had one fabulous Test, but apart from that looked horrifically out of form, demonstrating how quickly confidence can turn to despair in a batsman.  The middle order has had a calamitous series, with only Adam Voges’ unbeaten half century in heavy defeat offering up any kind of contribution.  He did enough to save his career for a further Test, but beyond that, given his age, he may not have much further to go.

Rogers will finish at the Oval, and with Clarke going too, plus Haddin’s and Watson’s careers being likely over, there will be major changes to the Australian team after this series.  Shaun Marsh has yet to look a Test cricketer, and is 32, while Mitchell Johnson absolutely is a Test cricketer but is nearly 34.   And perhaps that was always likely to be the case even if they had won.  Right at the start of this series, this blog made the argument that you never know if it is one tour too many until it actually happens.  This has indeed turned out to be one tour too many, yet although that possibility was acknowledged pre-series, there wasn’t much in the way of evidence that it would happen, more a feeling that there was the potential for it, and nothing stronger than that.

With so many players likely to move on, the management of that shift is going to be critical.  The reason for including Johnson in the above list is that it would be criminal to lose him at the same time as all that experience elsewhere.  He is bowling quickly and well, and has shown little sign of age catching up with him.

The home summer coming up for them comprises New Zealand and the West Indies.  It’s going to be a tough first half for a new team.  The blow of losing Ryan Harris on the eve of the series perhaps did more than anything to wreck the plans for a last hurrah for the older generation.

For England, it has the potential to be a firm base from which to build.  The talent has always been there, it’s how it was harnessed, and the reality is that it was harnessed extremely badly for much of the preceding 18 months.  That they have managed to get a basic grip on it now is to the credit of all those behind it.  But it doesn’t excuse those 18 months, and it certainly doesn’t excuse the ECB for their wider failings.  If used properly from here, they could genuinely reclaim their position in the hearts of all England fans, but it would be a mistake to think this Ashes win will do it and make everything in the garden rosy.  Cricket in this country is in trouble.  Cricket in the world is in trouble.  The alignment of England’s undoubtedly rousing victory with the release of Death of a Gentleman makes it foolish to believe that this solves everything, because it doesn’t.  But it could be a first step used wisely.  The doubt is whether that wisdom exists, that it will be used as a smokescreen to cover all the other issues that exist.  England have won, but those Outside Cricket have been merely waved at from the ivory towers.

For now, let us appreciate the return of the urn, and the efforts of an England team who have surpassed expectations.  For a Sunday, that is more than enough.  But the wider issues will not go away.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Ashes 4th Test, Day two review

thelegglance64 Comments

And that is pretty much that. Still 90 runs adrift, only three wickets left, short of a cricketing miracle for Australia, or the arrival of a freak hurricane, England will go 3-1 up sometime tomorrow, probably in the morning and regain the Ashes.  After the carnage of day one, to all intents and purposes the game was already up.

Being bowled out for 60 more or less guarantees defeat anyway, so today was in some ways a fairly normal panning out of the situation as expected from the end of day one.  Australia did bowl a little bit better, though that’s not especially unusual when a day has been as bad as that, it would be hard to imagine Australia could do any worse. Yet such was the total dominance of England’s position, they could happily play their shots safe in the knowledge that it mattered little.

Mitchell Starc got just rewards for a bowling performance that was a cut above those of his colleagues, but with the game already pretty much gone, it will hardly be a successful set of figures he will look back on with too much pleasure. Once again, Moeen and Broad showed they like batting together. Moeen is simply gorgeous to watch when in full flow, reminiscent of David Gower, to the point you want him to succeed simply because of that. His batting this series has been a major plus point, the debate over him will certainly continue, but his performances at key times with the willow have been the least of the issues.

As for Broad, some time ago it started to look as though he was just beginning to get his batting back. It’s not entirely there yet, but he is staying in line, and looking to play shots, rather than desperately slogging. A Broad who plays like that is a serious asset in the lower order.

Australia couldn’t possibly have batted as badly as they did in the first innings, and the opening stand from Warner and Rogers restored both a little respect and a fair degree of sanity to proceedings. Yet the problems were still there, Rogers never looked entirely comfortable, while Warner was consistently squared up.  England have clearly identified that his strength to the short ball is also his weakness when he’s cramped for room, hence coming around the wicket. His arms don’t extend and the ball can only go up. Other teams will be watching.

From a promising start, Australia collapsed horribly yet again. In each case it was a grim shot, even allowing for the two lives provided when England bowlers overstepped; Smith looks completely at sea at present, which is remarkable when only four innings ago he looked imperious at Lords. His idiosyncratic technique was always going to be examined in conditions where the ball moves in the air and off the pitch. He’s more than good enough to work that out, but it’s far too late for this series, and not alone in having serious difficulty against the moving ball. Clarke too was hopelessly out of touch, while Marsh’s dreadful shot did little to change the minds of those who simply don’t think he’s good enough for Test cricket.

As previously mentioned, it is never quite evident that a team has lost it until it actually happens, any more than anyone expected England’s hammering last time out. The signs were there after the first Test of a team showing signs of distress, and only a pitch that couldn’t have been better prepared to entirely nullify England’s bowlers got Australia back into it. Yet the abject, spineless capitulation of Australia’s batting in the last two Tests has been every bit as shambolic as anything England produced in 2013/14.

Well as England have bowled, time and again players have been dismissed playing attacking shots that are exceptionally high risk, with no evidence of a willingness to graft in less than perfect batting conditions. These are not bad players, to be getting out in this way repeatedly betrays minds that are completely shot, a team that has no idea how to arrest the slide. There is always a temptation when England win to limit the praise to them by pointing out the faults of the opposition. Yet in just the same way as the most recent 5-0 said more about England’s abysmal surrender than it did a great Australian side, so this almost certain series victory is less about England being outstanding than Australia being dire.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of things to praise England for, the catching has been excellent, the on field direction has simply been far better than anyone could possibly have expected from the captain given his performance to date, while Joe Root in particular is starting to look the real deal, and Ben Stokes might still be inconsistent but is a major talent in the making with both bat and ball. Yet when Australia keep being bowled out to self inflicted calamity rather than England brilliance, that praise does need to be tempered by a recognition that England haven’t suddenly become a great side.

Future opponents will not be anything like so meek. That isn’t meant to be grudging, more a reflection on an astounding collapse in morale and stomach for the fight from Australia. England can certainly take pleasure from the way they have pressurised Australia – unforced errors are rarely entirely unforced when it afflicts the whole team – but there can have been few tours where Australia have been so appallingly inept on such a regular basis.

This has been a truly bizarre series, no match has even had the resemblance of a close contest, and this fourth match has been even more one sided than the three previous.  Australia are shot to pieces.   Quite why that is, will be a debate for the future. For now, they deserve every bit of the kicking they are getting from their own media who at least seem to recognise a team shambles when they see one.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Ashes: 4th Test Preview

thelegglance61 Comments

A bit busy this week and travelling the country, so the posts will be much briefer than normal.  I’ll try and get reflections on the play up as and when I can at the end of each day, but it might not be so detailed, or indeed so argumentative!  Thursday is the day that will represent the biggest challenge, so bear with me.

As for this forthcoming Test, I’ve got to confess, I haven’t got a clue.  This series has been thoroughly ridiculous and making predictions is guaranteed to leave egg on faces.  You would think that England have the upper hand, and you would think that Australia are showing signs of distress.  But given the Lords hammering they dished out, that’s a dangerous belief to hold.

Of the items of side interest, Michael Clarke’s form is a concern for Australia, but it so often tends to be the case that the moment the media notice is just about the time a huge century is about to be delivered.  He’s clearly more than got the class to do it.

For England, it’s about how they cope with the absence of Anderson.  Broad looks more than capable of stepping up, the expectation is that if fit Wood will return, and he has made a decent enough start to his career, while Finn will be looking to show his performance in Birmingham wasn’t a one off.  The assumption is that the Trent Bridge pitch will offer something to the seamers, but previous pitches there have been dreadfully slow and low, not just two years ago.  For the sake of the game, let’s hope it’s not that.

The batting line ups of both teams looks as brittle as ever, so we arrive into the match having no real idea what is going to happen.  And actually, that’s a very good thing, because sport is always at its best when there is uncertainty, even if that uncertainty here is based on the flawed teams rather than excellence in both parties.

So having gone through all that, and having thought deeply….we’re no closer to having any idea what will happen.  Probably a tie.

@blueearthmngmnt

UPDATE FROM LCL – Do go over to The Full Toss and listen to James Morgan’s interview with Jarrod Kimber if you haven’t already done so, and not just because our humble little blog gets a mention (oh well, just because it gets a mention). Seriously, very interesting stuff, and well done to James for getting Jarrod to speak to you on all things blogging and film making.

Ashes: 3rd Test review

thelegglance63 Comments

When the intellects of Sartre, Russell and Machiavelli considered potential locations in which to contemplate life and the unfairness of being, it is safe to say that somewhere around the Banbury junction of the M40 probably didn’t figure too highly in their considerations.  Yet it was here that a revelation was to be found, a dawning horror, and a mind forced to express a desire never yet felt by an English cricket fan.

The miles were eaten up, the air conditioning was keeping the cabin cool and pleasant, yet a painful thought kept surfacing as the TMS team chirped away in the background.  The previous day’s work had prevented watching more than the first morning of the Test, although it had been closely followed in mounting amazement.  Australia had won the toss, and though it was felt not to be a bad toss to lose, no one expected the carnage that would follow.  The pitch had offered a bit to the bowlers, but with the exception of Rogers, the lack of discipline in Australia’s batting was the principal cause of a side skittled out for 136.  Certainly England took advantage of what help there was, but a succession of dire shots had led to the pre-series favourites being bundled out in just over 36 overs.  Anderson might have been the chief destroyer, but while he might be nowhere near the best bowler in the world (he is very good – the Henman rule applies*), he is one of the cleverest.  A little bit of swing, a little bit of seam, and an Australian batting order that has long been vulnerable to both allied to an apparent inability to graft in such conditions all led to a total that looked woefully inadequate at the time, and proved to be so as the game unfolded.  Yet although Anderson rightly took the plaudits, the England bowler who caught the eye was Steven Finn, not because of how many wickets he took, but how he looked.

Finn has been in the highly promising category for many years, and perhaps more than anyone else still available to play has been the subject of ire directed at the management and coaching staff.  Finn is a wicket taker, first and foremost, and back in 2010/11 he was dropped from the England team because he was too expensive, despite being the leading wicket taker in the series to that point.  The frustration that the England set up preferred economy to wicket taking prowess was strongly felt at the time, and only became ever more magnified in the years following.

Finn has a Test strike rate of 46.2; he is in 16th place in all of Test history (minimum of 2000 balls) with that, and that takes into account a lost four year period when his run up was messed with, panic set in about his habit of occasionally striking the stumps with his knee – and the ludicrous rule change resulting – and a general focus on what he can’t do, not what he can.  Finn will go for runs sometimes, deal with it.  Two of the best fast n’ nasty bowlers of the last decade, Shane Bond and Dale Steyn, both have poor economy rates.  Better than Finn for sure, but neither of those have been comprehensively mangled by well meaning coaching staff.  That Finn goes for runs is of little relevance if he takes wickets.  The age old choice of whether 5-100 off 20 is better than 2-60 off the same shouldn’t even be a debate.  Yet for the England of the last few years it clearly was, and if the current approach is just to let him bloody bowl, that in itself is to be celebrated.  Strike bowlers are so rare, so valuable it is of incalculable frustration that England have spent years trying to wreck their one bona fide example of it in years.

How a bowler of such talent could have ever reached the point of being “unselectable” was disgraceful.  It’s also entirely unfair how Ashley Giles is now being criticised for saying so, when he was clearly right at the time, and his comments were rather obviously borne of annoyance it had reached that point rather than a dig at Finn himself.

As Warwick approached on the right, and an eye glanced down at the fuel gauge that visibly dropped with every passing mile (note to self – rotary engines and fuel economy don’t go well together), that mind considered England’s reply.  Having been so panic stricken at Lords, England instead did exactly what they said they would in the build up to the game, and went on the attack.  Lyth may be having a bad time of it at present, but nicks to wide half volleys are not evidence of a flawed technique but one of a simple mistake or a mind that feels under pressure.  Like with so many of the Australian team, it was poor batting, but not in itself an inherent fault in his game.  He is starting to run out of time to make an impact, even if it is entirely right to stick with him for the rest of the series.

Cook had been simply unlucky, but he hasn’t had a great series so far. There’s an irony here, he’s never captained better in his whole time as England’s leader, yet the runs have dried up.  His game still looks far sounder than it did, so it shouldn’t be a concern in and of itself, but it’s there in the background.  What is somewhat startling is that almost everyone, me included, thought that for England to have a chance in this series, Cook would have to be the one who led the batting.  It’s not turned out that way so far, but there are two Tests to go to make an impact.

Bell and Root responded by decisively going on the attack.  For all the ups and downs of England’s performance, it is pleasing to see that the intent is still there, and they set about turning an initially strong position into one where England could ram the advantage home.  Much has been said of Bell being promoted to number three, and after the match he himself referenced that it felt good to have been backed.  There’s been a school of thought that Bell is somehow a reluctant number three, but this re-writing of history does him a disservice, not for the first time.  When Trott’s troubles first appeared, Bell was the one who said he would be happy to do the job, and was roundly ignored.  Pretending that it didn’t happen and using it as yet another stick with which to beat him is sheer mendacity.  He clearly needs to feel valued, and it is no good brushing that off and saying he should be able to handle it; different people have different needs – good management is in accounting for that.

Bell’s dismissal at the end of the day was simply him going a touch far and picking the wrong ball to hit.  It is the same for him as it is for anyone else, if you want a positive approach, this is what is going to happen sometimes.   A Bell who counter-attacks is an outstanding asset.

On the morning of day two, as I headed for the car, tickets for day three safely secured, a horrible nagging thought surfaced.  With Australia dismissed in less than half a day, this could be a short match.  That nagging thought became loudly ringing alarm bells as Johnson produced two terrific short balls in the second over to account for Bairstow and Stokes.  Bairstow may or may not be good enough ultimately to hold down a Test place, yet the reaction to a ball that had “out” written all over it was excessive to say the least.  A player 80 not out might ride the bounce, one at the start of his innings, and also at the start of the day, might not.  It was a very good ball, as was the one Stokes got.  It doesn’t say a thing about the batsman except that he was unlucky to receive it.

Yet while England were ahead, they were losing wickets.  Before even reaching the motorway, Root had gone, and so had Buttler, in the latter case needlessly given a review would have saved him.  Buttler has thoroughly gone into his shell with the bat, though it must be said, he is keeping extremely well, and seems subdued by the problems he is having outside off stump.  It may just be one of those things, but such a destructive player prodding and poking isn’t going to do him any good.  It is to be hoped he is encouraged to go out and play his shots, and then be backed on those occasions it goes wrong.

As the variable speed limits on the M25 showed first 60, then 50, then 40, indicating that the never ending joys of a traffic queue were ahead, England were only 50 runs ahead, with Moeen and Broad at the crease.  Two thoughts sprung to mind, one strategic, and one utterly selfish.  In the first instance, England were throwing away their advantage with abandon, and on the second, the weather was good, and I needed England to get a grip and bat for as long as possible.  With the two of them going after the bowling, the latter seemed ever more unlikely, but the former was a possibility.  Broad’s batting woes over the last three years have been well documented, even if in far too many cases it’s simply been dated back to when he was hit rather than the way it had tailed off long before then, but there have been signs of improvement recently, even if the runs haven’t always reflected that.  He’s less legside of the ball, doesn’t flinch as he did, and is looking to play shots, not simply slog.

As for Moeen, he is peculiarly unappreciated.  To date in this series he has 9 wickets at 45.  Not great figures, for sure, yet perfectly comparable to those Swann got against Australia, and Swann was without question the best England spinner since the 1970s.  Simply put, he’s doing a job with the ball against a team who don’t tend to struggle against English finger spinners, and doing it well.  Australia clearly want to attack him, yet when they do, they get out.  I remain unsure what people expect of him.

Of course, a big difference between him and Swann is that Moeen can bat.  There is an innate desire to see him succeed anyway, because he’s so gorgeous to watch.  His batting is highly reminiscent of David Gower – if not quite in quality – and when batting at number eight, provides a source of quick runs, stylishly scored.  It appears also that he relishes batting with the tail, and it is in that his value can be found.  A less attacking batsman would be left high and dry all too often as the bowlers were dismissed, but a curiously counter-intuitive point is that Moeen is usually dismissed when attacking as the wickets fall around him, which is both unselfish and oddly maximising his contribution.

As Oxford Services hove into view, England had extended their lead to one that might prove decisive.  A pause for coffee ended with England having been dismissed 145 ahead, and Australia were back in.

At this point, rebellious, naughty thoughts were surfacing.  Surely Australia couldn’t bat so badly a second time?  Yet that wasn’t the worst of it.  For the first time, the need for Australia to bat well was apparent.  As England came out to field, a sudden rooting for Rogers and Warner could be felt.  A sudden wish for Anderson to lose his radar, preferably with wide balls outside off stump that were left alone but were no threat to anyone.  As the key was turned in the ignition, I reached for my cork hat, bedecked the cabin with green and gold and launched into a chorus of “Come on Aussie, C’mon”.

Over the last couple of years England – and more specifically the ECB – have enraged me, infuriated me, and led me to chuckle as the latest self-induced disaster unfolded.  Yet never before had England led me to actively become an Australian.  As Rogers played back, and Jim Maxwell announced with that gentle sorrow he does so well that the opener was on his way back to the pavilion, a loud expletive filled noise could be heard by anyone with half a mile of the silver car pulling onto the motorway slip road.  Even at England’s lowest moments, the incompetence and duplicitousness of the ECB included, never did I imagine myself actively cheering on Australia.  Australia for God’s sake!  As Finn roared in, his pace up, causing the top order no end of problems, a nagging feeling that now would be a good time for his hand to brush the stumps requiring him to go off and have it repaired for half an hour kept popping up at the back of my head.

There was hope.  David Warner seemed to be playing a different game to anyone else, but with the first day curtailed by rain, play could be extended until 7pm, meaning there was still four hours of play to go.  Finn beat Smith all ends up, and in came the captain.  Surely, despite all his problems, now would be the moment Clarke regained his mojo and made a game of it.

Not even the most ardent of Aussie fanatics let out as heartfelt a moan, as passionate an “oh no”, as angry an “Oh FFS” as I did when instead, that utter bastard Finn instead took out Clarke and Voges in consecutive balls.  Looking ahead, there were no signs of the violent thunderstorms now wished on Birmingham, all was sunny and pleasant.   That’s the trouble with tornadoes, they don’t happen when you need them to.

By the time Warner decided to play what I now considered the most irresponsible shot in the entire history of cricket and Mitchell Marsh had regarded the defence of his stumps to be an optional extra, the five stages of grief had rattled past the bargaining stage and had settled thoroughly on depression, occasionally leaping back to denial concerning the implausibility that buying a day three ticket could possibly be a risky enterprise.

By this stage, I’d also thoroughly blamed my friend Graham for suggesting we go to the Test in the first place.  Edgbaston is not exactly on my doorstep, so wincing at the £70 handed over to my best mates at Shell to get up there was looking the worst investment since Mr Enron had rung up offering a sure thing.

Having picked him up from his office, we headed to the hotel, just in time to see Mitchell Johnson conclusively prove he hates the English by hitting the ball aerially 180 degrees away from his intended destination.  23 runs ahead at the close of play, three wickets left.

What to do?

Well, we were there, so we might as well go and watch the conclusion.  Over a curry (what else?  It’s Birmingham after all) the decision was made to check out of the hotel in the morning, head over to Edgbaston and watch the last knockings of the game, before driving home.  The principal debate was whether it would be 100% refund for fewer than 10 overs, or just the 50% for fewer than 25.  Plus a disagreement as to whether the two overs lost for the change of innings would count or not.

Having consumed the world’s biggest breakfast (Graham’s colleague Dave Tait finished his before I’d even started – honestly, I’ve never seen anyone demolish a plate that fast) that comprehensively removed any desire for a £10 soggy burger at any point, we headed for the ground, idly wondering how many would be there.  It was packed.  Clearly, everyone had bought tickets in advance, but not everyone is local to the ground.  Still, England were going to win, and there were few empty seats.

And so it came to pass that Mitchell Starc became the hero of the day, along with Peter Nevill.  Australia certainly fought hard, and nearly got to a point where they had a chance of a highly unlikely victory.  Nevill himself was the subject of a fair bit of barracking for refusing to walk when he edged one down the legside, and then instantly reviewed one he’d middled.  None of this was serious, but made the endlessly repeatable point about the ludicrous hypocrisy of the Australian attacks on Broad for not walking in the 2013 Ashes.  Sauce for the goose.

It certainly didn’t feel a tense ground as England embarked on the short run chase, perhaps because those present were simply delighted to have seen so much play in the first place.  Cook and Lyth’s dismissals continued the match pattern of batsmen getting out to poor shots – the ball that bowled Cook was decent enough, but had more to do with playing back when he should have been forward than anything else, while Lyth simply played across the line.

It was Bell who removed any question of the chase being a nervy one by going out and playing his shots.  With a small target, teams get into trouble when they become fearful; each boundary knocks a significant percentage off the target, and Bell knew that and took the calculated risk of ensuring that the runs came sufficiently quickly to prevent that fear setting in.

And so instead of it being a short and sweet visit to see an England win, it became two full sessions to see England win.  The track had certainly flattened out, as evidenced by the relatively little difficulty Australia had in the morning.  The sun was out – the fourth of our cohort Paul Godfrey finished the day with an exceptional case of panda eyes due to leaving his sunglasses on all day, to much amusement – and the crowd was thoroughly involved in barracking Mitchell Johnson.

It’s actually an important point too.  When the crowd got on  his back, even given the match situation of England being about to win, his bowling fell apart, and the lengthy delay to his run up to make the crowd wait, plus running through the crease, were indications that he was listening to the crowd rather than concentrating on his bowling.  A note for the Trent Bridge crowd to pay attention to.

Two and a half days of play, and an England win.  A crazy, ridiculous match, which bore little resemblance to the norms of Test cricket, but a 2-1 scoreline after three in England’s favour.  Where next?

After the first Test, there were signs that there were cracks in the Australian side.  The hammering they dealt out to England at Lords didn’t change that, but it did show that they are no toothless tigers either.  After all the attempted cleverness about conditions that might suit England but not Australia, what this Test showed was that in English conditions, England can do well.  Who would have thought such a thing?  Of course, those conditions do also bring Australia’s bowlers into play too, but if you don’t back your own players to perform, what is the point in even competing?

The injury to James Anderson is unquestionably a blow, but Trent Bridge hasn’t swung quite as much as it used to, possibly because of the new stand built there – though the vagaries of swing make assuming correlation to equal causation as being even more unwise than normal.  England do have a chance to put the series and the Ashes to bed though, at a ground where they tend to perform well.  Certainly Australia are the side that have questions to ask of themselves after this one.  Mitchell Starc bowled poorly throughout which may be just one of those things, and the middle order in particular looks downright flaky.  Yet England are setting new international records with their habit of winning a game and losing a game, with the sequence now at seven matches.   It would be no surprise whatever if England were to repeat the dose by losing in Nottingham.

There is some talent in this England side, and like a lot of unformed talent, it is inconsistent.  If they want to become a good side, finding that consistency is going to be the difference.  But the momentum is all with England……and that makes as little difference as it ever has, though it won’t stop some saying that it does, or being wise after the event should England win.

It is almost impossible to draw conclusions from such a ridiculous Test match, except to say the series is being played by two flawed teams, and anything could happen.

Hopefully one thing that won’t is having to cheer on Australia, because that felt dirty.  And wrong.  So very, very wrong.

*Reaching fourth best in the world is not failure

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Ashes 3rd Test: Preview

thelegglance34 Comments

Perhaps to begin with, a few words about the sad death of Clive Rice.  Like so many of his generation, he didn’t get to play Test cricket due to South Africa’s banishment from the international game.  With a first class average above forty and nearly a thousand wickets at a bowling average in the low twenties, had he been able to perform at the highest level, he would have been a great addition in the era of the great all rounders that bestrode world cricket in the 1980s. Indeed, such was his ability, he could have been viewed as the best of them all.

An entire generation will remember seeing him play for Nottinghamshire over many years, and the Sunday League matches were required watching on Grandstand for a child rapidly falling in love with the game in the early eighties.  And while that shortened form of the game may not have quite shown him at his peak, he was plainly one of the main men in the sport.  Nor should it be forgotten that Rice brought an unknown 19 year old offspinner over to England, and was instrumental in Kevin Pietersen’s development.  14,000 international runs later, English cricket can be grateful for that too.

His early passing is a deep blow for the game, and it is to be hoped that a suitable tribute to a genuinely great cricketer can be arranged for the fourth Test, so those where he played and coached for so many years can pay tribute.

Turning attention to tomorrow, England have at least one change with Bairstow coming in for Ballance.  The news today is that there could also be disruption to the bowling attack, with Mark Wood’s fitness in question.  Should he not make it, then Steven Finn will be the replacement.  It was notable that in talking about that, Cook said Finn had been “bowling well in one day cricket”, an oblique reminder that the English summer now limits the first class opportunities to excel when the main Test series is on.

The pitch is of course part of the debate, and Australia have lost few opportunities to play mind games, with Mitchell Starc the latest to lob a grenade at England saying they didn’t know what they wanted or what they were doing.  There’s little doubt from the words flying from the Australian camp that they feel on top of England at the moment, it’s been a remarkable turnaround from the uncertainty afflicting them after the defeat at Cardiff.  The Lords pitch unquestionably offered up a lifeline to Australia, a team that were showing signs of fragility after the first Test defeat.  That Australia grabbed it with both hands and then demolished England entirely merely demonstrates that giving a good team a break like that is as daft as it always is.

The recent rain has hampered preparations in Birmingham to the extent that heaters have been used on both pitch and outfield to assist in drying the surface.  What that means is that even if England had wanted it (unlikely) the wicket could not have been prepared with pace in mind.  What is far more obvious is that after the Lords debacle, it will offer something to the seamers, something the Lords track unquestionably didn’t.  However, what this debate around wickets does show is that for all the noble words upon the appointment of Strauss about it being all about the future, the same short term thinking applies.  English wickets have been extremely slow for a few years now, the idea the Australians have that they are specifically slowed down for them is simply wrong.  But it is still true that they are slow, and looked at over a longer period than the last five years, that isn’t typical of English grounds.  That’s largely because of the recent desire to ensure matches go the full five days to ensure a maximisation of earnings, but it’s hardly likely to benefit England’s development in that longer term to keep doing this.

In times past, the pitches offered a much greater level of variety, one that simply isn’t there any more with a uniform turgidness about them.  That Strauss, according to Nick Hoult at the Telegraph, sent an email requesting that the pitches be slower rather than faster as a general rule makes it abundantly clear it’s about the here and now.  The contradictions between what England say and what they do never seem to stop.

England will certainly have to play much better than they did at Lords to even compete, because any kind of similar performance is going to result in another hammering.  Yet there’s no reason they shouldn’t do.  Cricket teams do sometimes have matches where everything seems to go wrong for no apparent reason.  England are not as bad a side as they looked at Lords, and Australia are not as good either.  One of the recent trends in Ashes matches has been for them to be one sided, whoever wins.  Even the narrow Trent Bridge win of two years ago owed more to a freak performance narrowing a gulf between the side than anything else.

What England do have to do is come up with a method to combat the left armers, and that means showing a degree of aggression.  This is the test for England’s brave words about the way they want to play the game, because no side reacts well to being successfully attacked.  An England who try to sit in will play into Australia’s hands, as they rotate the bowlers knowing that wicket will follow.

That said, Australia have to be seen as favourites, and if they get their noses in front in the series, it is hard to see England coming back, especially after two consecutive defeats.  This Test is likely to prove pivotal in the series, how England handle the challenge this time will tell us much about where they are going as a team.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

2nd Ashes Test: Day Four review

thelegglance154 Comments

It’s one thing to lose, it’s entirely another to offer no resistance whatever, on a docile pitch, in good conditions.

This was as bad as anything on the Ashes from Hell tour, because this pitch offered absolutely nothing for the bowlers even on day four.  England at the start of play were clearly likely to lose the match, but few would have expected any side – not even Bangladesh – to surrender meekly in 37 overs.  This was abject, pathetic and spineless.  Sure, collapses happen, but with England they happen a lot, and they happen against Australia all the time – indeed even ignoring the three for not very many at Cardiff, it’s happened in 6 of the last 7 Tests against them.

That England went through the motions with the ball this morning is almost forgivable, given the match position.  Australia were so far in front even skittling them wouldn’t have made much difference.  But it did betray a side who knew their fate and didn’t rage against it.  The declaration when it came didn’t change the reality of what England needed to do, and what England knew they needed to do right from the start of play.

Instead, once again they flopped horribly.  Two of the first three wickets at least came from decent balls, though Lyth and Ballance both betrayed flawed techniques in how they got out.  What was extraordinary was how the Sky commentary team focused on these two dismissals and actually claimed Cook’s was a good ball at the time (Hussain in contrast did at least call it a “lazy little waft”).  It wasn’t, it was a dreadful shot, a short wide one that he went after and edged.  Getting out to a bad shot happens, it’s an occupational hazard of batting, but to seek to excuse it by crediting the bowler beggared belief, and merely fuelled the suspicion that Cook cannot be criticised on Sky.  Let’s get something clear here, players make mistakes.  They are human beings, and flawed intrinsically.  Pointing out a bad shot doesn’t lessen the person, it’s called being honest.  Stop making excuses.

England had lost their first three wickets for fewer than 52 for the 8th time in their last 12 innings.  It’s been repeatedly pointed out that the middle order will not always bail them out, and the horrible muddle England have got into over the last couple of years is still the same, even with different personnel.  Of the top four, the only one who is in any kind of form is Cook – and Cook the batsman is doing fine – indeed Cook the captain still didn’t have a bad match in the field, England certainly didn’t flop horribly because of his actions. Once again, the problem is not with what Cook does as a batsman, it is the way it is treated as though he’s Bradman reincarnated whenever he gets a few, while saying his dismissal was down to him being “desperately tired” as Mike Selvey put it – a tiredness that didn’t seem to afflict Rogers or Smith who scored far more runs.   And in mentioning Rogers, all cricket fans will have seen his dizzy spell with some concern.  Let us hope it was unrelated to the blow on the head he took at the start of day two.

And so once under way, the procession continued.  Bell again got out cheaply, and again in unconvincing fashion, managing to edge a ball that didn’t spin to short leg.  Stokes had the kind of dismissal that will haunt him for days to come, failing to ground his bat for an easy single.  Whether that was a simple matter of brain-fade or evidence of the kind of scrambled minds in the England team probably depends on how one wishes to think of them.

Buttler once again edged behind hanging his bat out to dry, and Moeen did absolutely nothing to prevent the addition of another piece of evidence that he can’t play the short ball very well.

By this point, not only were Australia rampant, but England were skulking around like a little boy who knew he’d been caught stealing.  Broad at least decided to go down fighting, throwing the bat.  That was another reminder of the dire displays in 2013/14, Broad reacting by trying to hit fours and sixes in a game long since gone.

Root’s dismissal as ninth man out was neither here nor there and entirely irrelevant to anything, while there was something apposite about the way Anderson’s stumps were shattered to end the torture.

The various Mitches had blown England away, and all credit must be given to them.  They will only get better having scented blood.

The only way of reacting to this omnishambles is that with the final wicket, Australia had gone into a 1-1 lead in the series.  It is scarcely credible that England had managed to fall apart so abjectly on such a placid wicket.  Yet they’d managed to, and shown no bottle whatsoever for the fight.  It is therefore ironic that the pattern of England wins and losses recently can be seen to be one of them being metaphorically flat track bullies, able to put sides away with aplomb when in front in the game, but collapsing in on themselves when challenged.  That is, except on non-metaphorical flat tracks where they aren’t just bullied, they are whipped, chained and thrashed.

The inquest will of course begin now, but there’s not much that isn’t already known and has been known for some time.

Bell is in awful form, and has been struggling for a couple of years.  Yet England set the precedent of standing by Cook when he had his drought, and they can rightly point to his form this year as being a justification for that.  So they’ve made a rod for their own back where Bell can legitimately say he deserves the same patience.  Whether he will get it or not is another matter, as is whether he should.  But missing straight balls as he has been isn’t terribly reassuring.

Lyth is perhaps one of two players under most pressure, but dropping him now would betray the same kind of muddled thinking that the ECB under Strauss have absolutely promised is a thing of the past in this brave new world.  Having not picked him in the West Indies when they should have, he then scored his maiden century only two Tests ago.  Lyth may not ultimately prove to be good enough, but that there is such a chorus for his replacement after two quiet Tests, and only four in total would be a return to the chopping and changing of the nineties.  And that worked so very well.

Ballance on the other hand has – at least for the time being – been found out.  He is clearly a highly talented player, and also young enough to improve, but his sophomore season is proving to be a nightmare for him.  The problem is that his place in the side is the critical number three position, and so the question of moving players around comes up.

Here is the rub though, moving Root up to number three is obviously an option, but Root didn’t perform particularly well as an opener two years ago, and there’s no pressing reason why he should do better now so high up the order.  Yes, he’s batting extremely well, but treating the symptom rather than the cause has never been much of a medical solution to anything.  Putting Root there would be to risk getting less out of England’s best batsman, not because of a certainty he would do better there, but solely because those above him currently are doing so badly.  That isn’t a justication, it’s negative selection.

Nor does it in any way address the problems Lyth and Bell are having, so while rearranging of deckchairs would give the selectors something to do, it doesn’t address the bloody great hole in the hull.

Naturally, as this was discussed, the elephant in the Sky studio hovered.  At one point Hussain talked about England needing a “Kevin Pietersen type” player in the top four, without a shred of irony.  At another, Ricky Ponting came dangerously close to saying the name of He Who Must Not Be Mentioned, and Gower flapped in utter horror (“don’t say it, don’t say it”).  This was extraordinary behaviour, but not necessarily for the reasons that might initially be thought.  There’s no reason to assume Pietersen would have made any difference in this Test, and no reason to assume he would be a panacea for England’s batting woes.  That’s not the point.  The ECB have made their decision and that is that.  But.  It is not for Sky to endorse that decision by refusing to even acknowledge the point, it is not honest to pretend it isn’t there.  An honest response is to point out the obvious that one player England could select is in the cold and then move on to the alternatives.  Each and every time this sort of thing happens, the recognition of what has been done is critical to the debate even if that decision is agreed with.  Pretending it isn’t there is ludicrous, no matter which side of the debate someone might be.

Once again, the fundamental point is that Sky’s editorial line is not meant to be at the behest of the ECB’s internal policies.  It’s a basic journalistic tenet, and one they have failed time and again.  It shouldn’t need stating, that’s the point.

More realistically in terms of England’s options, apart from moving those players around, Johnny Bairstow is the likely candidate to come in.  Should they do so then that certainly means changing the order as well, with Bell and Root at three and four.  A second spinner is also an option, if they also drop Lyth and move Root up to open.  That would be a lot of changes.

England were plainly unhappy with the pitch at Lords, which was more than obviously a chairman’s one, intended to last the full five days – so Australia (and England in a funny way) denying them the revenue from day five serves them right.  That’s somewhat ironic, because in one sense England were right to be.  Australia’s faster bowling attack is always going to be better on a very flat and slow surface where England’s fast medium offering is going to be akin to cannon fodder.  Yet this very flat, very slow surface was one on which England were shot out for 415 across two innings.  That’s woeful even on a green seamer, which if Cook has his way based on his post match interview is what we will get at Edgbaston.  The problem for him is that the Chief Executive of Warwickshire probably thinks otherwise.

Yet Cook was correct that for England to have a chance, their own bowlers need to have a chance in the game.  Over the last few years Test pitches in England have followed the same pattern, slow surfaces intended to stretch the game out to the full extent.  It is this tendency that Colin Graves was quietly referring to when he raised the idea of four day Tests – another example of treating the symptom incidentally.  That this has had the result of spectacularly biting England on the arse is exactly what they deserve, for it has been a long time since England produced the kind of quick pitches that might actually prepare them a little for facing the two Australian fast ‘n nasties, and even allow England to develop one or two of their own.

This match was nothing but total humiliation.  It is striking that in the Tests between these two sides, there are very few close ones, one side absolutely batters the other albeit Australia batter England rather more than the other way around.  To that extent England will feel that there is no reason they can’t win the next one, and they are of course right.  If anything has been demonstrated in previous Ashes series, momentum is a rather overrated thing.

Yet England did have a real chance to put Australia under huge pressure in this match.  After Cardiff there were definitely cracks in the side.  Not large ones, and as has been seen in this game, not critical ones.  But had they produced the kind of English pitch we used to get before they started trying to be clever and extract even more money from the poor spectator, it likely would have worked to England’s advantage.  Not so much to guarantee a win of course, but at least to give them a chance.  The Test against New Zealand at Lords was of course a fantastic one, yet that was so unusual compared to the ones we’ve seen in recent years that one can’t help but feel it was some kind of happy error. Certainly the two prepared in 2014 were every bit as lifeless as this one, and note that England could not bowl Sri Lanka out in one, and lost badly to India in the other.

Once England had lost the toss here, their chances of winning were very low.  The difference is that there was no reason why they should lose the Test.  And no reason whatever that they should lose the Test by the margin of 820-10 to 415-20.  Or to put it another way, based on this, England would have had to bat a whole additional Test to reach Australia’s match total.

And finally we come to the media in general.  At the risk of repeating a common theme on this blog, they went completely overboard once again after the win at Cardiff.  It was a terrific win there’s no doubt about that, but the “fickle” people in such places as here and at the Full Toss, repeatedly cautioned that England had a habit of losing their next match badly after a win, and that triumphalism was both premature and more than a bit ridiculous.  It didn’t stop them.  From writing a homage to Andrew Strauss as the architect of England’s success to saying Ian Bell was back, to long paeans of how the new England under Cook would go on to terrify all and sundry, this thrashing is matters coming home to roost.  Again.  Doubtless they will now swing the other way, demand wholesale changes and assume England will be blown away in the remainder of the series.  And that is indeed a possibility, and unquestionably a fear given this implosion.  It’s just not guaranteed.

England may well recover from here, it doesn’t mean they can’t win from here.  It does mean there is concern about how they will react to it – that is up to them, to decide whether there really are scars from 2013/14 or not.

Ashes 2nd Test: Day 2 review

thelegglance36 Comments
P1060682
Ballance is bowled by Johnson – look closely and you will see a bail in mid-air….

Now what was I saying about all those who piled in to complain about the pitch after one day?  In the Australian press it was all about England doctoring the surface, which apparently means creating one that Australia rack up a huge score on, and then rip through the England top order.  Indeed, it was wryly amusing to hear Stuart Broad imply that the surface very much aided Australia and not England.  Spin on both sides.

Meantime, the English press went big on the idea that it was a nailed on draw, that the groundsman should be shot and that it was impossible to get wickets on.  The old adage that you shouldn’t judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it is as true as it ever was.  Australia have bowled superbly on it, and have put themselves in prime position to square the series.

There did seem to be a little bit more in it today, but it remains excellent for batting, as Australia demonstrated all too well in their innings. Steve Smith led the way with 215, and as fabulous as that innings was, it was curiously less assertive than normal, and slightly more sketchy than at his best.  Which if anything should cause serious alarm in the England dressing room.  For Chris Rogers, it’s quite possible that his 173 is his last innings at a ground where he has served Middlesex so well.  If so, it’s quite a way to finish.

From there, the scorecard looks like Australia fell away somewhat, which is a good example of a scorecard not conveying a match situation.  Australia were pushing on and trying to score quickly.  Slow surfaces are often quite hard to score rapidly on, and the wickets fell at regular intervals.

England’s reply was a shambles.  As has been pointed out England keep finding themselves three down for very little, and sooner or later Joe Root wasn’t going to bail them out.  Adam Lyth’s poke at a wide ball was fairly typical of what often happens when a team has been in the field for the best part of two days, but it doesn’t make it any better a shot.  Ballance was again undone by a full ball, and while it is good to keep faith with a player, it’s at the point now where he’s not going to get anything else, so transparent are his difficulties.  He needs to work this out and fast.

Bell too was undone by a full ball, and once again this has become a notable weakness in his game.  Any player can be beaten by a full swinging ball, but not time and again. As for Root, he failed today.  It’s going to happen sometimes. From there, Cook and Stokes batted extremely well.  Broad again made a rather telling slip in the post play interview saying that it looked much better when England batted in a more disciplined way.  The implication of that was fairly clear.

There’s no reason whatever England can’t continue to bat that way, this remains a very easy paced, very flat surface. The trouble is that having lost four cheap wickets, they are 481 runs behind.  It is a huge ask for them to even reach the follow on point, no matter how flat the pitch might be. About the only positive they have is that they have frontline batsmen down to number eight in the form of Moeen Ali.  But to even get to within 200 runs, more than one player has to score a century.  All hopes really rest on Cook going very big and batting through.  It’s a big ask, but it’s what’s necessary.

England have got themselves in a horrible hole, and have been completely outplayed in the first two days.  The reality of their plight is that they can’t afford to lose so much as a single session if they want to get out of this one.  1-1 seems almost inevitable given the time left. @BlueEarthMngmnt

Ashes 2nd Test: Day One Review

thelegglance60 Comments

If there’s any amusement to be had from Australia closing on 337-1 today, it’s that it has once again made an awful lot of journalists look silly.  They don’t need much help in order to achieve those lofty heights, but their continued lack of awareness when jumping on a single victory as a harbinger of the future generates as much amusement as ever.  One wonders if today’s play was mainly down to Andrew Strauss as well, for example.

Instead of reacting with pleasure to England’s victory at Cardiff, but noting it was a single Test match and that Australia hadn’t become a bad team overnight, several once again got giddy – just as they did in the West Indies, and then just as they did against New Zealand.  After one outbreak of egg-on-face disease, it might have been thought that a lesson would be learned, but oh no, they did it again after England beat the Kiwis, and then a third time after Cardiff.  There’s not a thing wrong with offering an opinion, or making a call on what might happen – the risk that you will be wrong is an occupational hazard – there is a lot wrong with going over the top repeatedly and failing to learn the lesson that baseless hyperbole tends to bite back.  Doubtless the scurrying back over the bridge and pretending none of it happened will be in evidence tonight.

Now equally, it shouldn’t go too far the other way (place your bets on how doomed the fourth estate will consider England after today), it’s day one of five.  Lords is what it has been for quite some time, an excellent batting surface lacking in pace and movement.  It shouldn’t come as any kind of surprise that Australia, having won the toss, have had a good day.  It shouldn’t even come as that much of a surprise that they’ve had an exceptional day.  They’ve simply made the most of conditions, which is what decent sides do.

The irony is that over-reaction is one of the charges continually aimed at the bilious inadequates, yet it is the established press (one again) who are most guilty of it time and again.

No doubt also there will be some complaining that the pitch is too flat and that it is therefore some kind of anti-cricket surface.  That may yet prove  to be true, but it is a faintly ridiculous line to take after a single day.  Much will depend on how it plays over the remainder of the Test – should it prove to remain entirely flat, then such comments will be justified.  If it deteriorates – and let’s be clear, Lord’s usually produces a result – then there’s no reason for any such claim.

What today’s play does mean is that Australia are in a very strong position to dictate terms for the next couple of days at least.  England didn’t bowl badly, and while they missed a couple of half chances they couldn’t be said to have performed badly – not that they were outstandingly good, just not bad – it was benign conditions for batting and Australia just cashed in.  At this stage it’s already going to be key how England bat in response.  Even with everything going right, England are going to be facing 450; more realistically somewhere around 550 and above is probable.  Rogers and Smith deserve immense credit for maintaining their discipline, and should they survive the first hour, England will unquestionably be chasing leather.

The pitch at that point is if anything likely to be even better for batting on, so there’s no reason for England to have a problem on it.  Except that thing called scoreboard pressure.  Australia will have their tails well and truly up, and negating the early stages will be critical.  Cook had a quiet first Test, but he will be needed to play one of those long innings in reply.  There’s no reason whatever he can’t.

For Australia, the one person in the team who may need to be kept away from sharp implements is David Warner.  Being positive against the spinners is one thing, and players who take a chance in order to dominate always risk looking foolish when it goes wrong, but the nature of the three shots in an over against Moeen Ali were outright slogs at the ball.  First one was fair enough (a full toss), the second was wild, and the third was downright rash.

Cook rotated the bowling well enough, trying different things, and attempting to find a combination that worked.  Sometimes you just have one of those days.  What we do not know yet is whether that is an example of England lacking penetration on flat surfaces or simply a result of the conditions.  Certainly the ball barely swung, and definitely didn’t seam.  England tried to counter this by bowling dry, which was exactly the right approach, but weren’t able to maintain the pressure.  If one was to be critical, that’s perhaps where it might lie, a few too many four balls.  It’s quibbling, they worked hard.

Short of having a disaster and being bowled out for 150, day one is a set up day, with limited certainty about what is to follow.  It has always been that way and always will be that way.  Australia have had an outstanding day today, but whether it is a decisive one, it is impossible to say.  There’s no doubt though that England are up against it as things stand, and will have to play well to get a result.  They are quite capable of so doing, and if they do, there is the potential for a borefest.  The additional pace in the Australian bowling order will make them feel that they can get something out of the surface that England didn’t, and they may be right about that too.

Today is one day.  And a very good one for Australia it was too.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

The Ashes: 2nd Test preview

thelegglance32 Comments

Brad Haddin won’t be playing in this match for personal reasons – there’s nothing else that need be said about that except to wish him well.  Cricket is just a game.

Few realistically expected England to arrive at Lords 1-0 up, and even fewer to have been so dominant at Cardiff, a venue where Australia were thought to hold all the cards before the game.   Reports indicate that Shane Watson will be jettisoned from the team, and if so it is hard to escape the feeling that it will be the end of his Test career.  It seems exceptionally harsh to do so after one match, given he was downright unlucky in both innings but especially the first.  Selecting Mitchell Marsh for the first Test would have been a perfectly reasonable choice; but having gone with Watson, to then drop him after a single outing carries the whiff of panic about it, both scapegoating him for the team’s failings and effectively an admission it was the wrong call in the first place.

Furthermore, it is hard to see a way back for Watson now, meaning a player who is likely to be somewhat disgruntled is in the squad for the remainder of the series with little chance of selection ever again.  It’s the kind of muddled thinking that we’ve seen all too often from England in recent times.

Peter Nevill will make his debut as ‘keeper for this match, and by all accounts is a batsman/keeper rather than a wicketkeeper/batsman.  Lords has made more than one highly competent wicketkeeper look foolish with the ball moving after the bat, so it will be a tough challenge for him to start his international career there.  Perhaps many England supporters too will hope he has a decent game.

It seems likely that Starc will play, demonstrating that Cricket Australia now operate a Mitchell quota system.  There’s been little said about continuing to bowl him so extensively at Cardiff, but there must be question marks about his fitness over five days.  The enforced retirement of Ryan Harris was clearly a blow, but the ineffectiveness of the seamers has produced ripples of concern about the depth of the Australian bowling stocks.  More than anything, it is a response to the result on a very slow pitch rather than a real problem, Starc, Hazlewood and Johnson remain a major threat.

The same can be said for the batting, and it is striking how a single result can change the perception and the reading of the two sides.  Australia’s batting is now fragile, Warner is having difficulty with the pitches and the swinging ball (as an aside, it is quite impressive how Warner can so consistently say the wrong thing – why on earth would he come out with that?), Chris Rogers’ failure to score a century is reaching crisis proportions, Clarke is all over the place against Broad, Steve Smith’s technique is questionable in English conditions, while for England Cook has become a great captain, Root is the best batsman in the world, Bell is back, Stokes is devastating, Wood is the heir to Simon Jones and so on.

It’s nonsense of course, Australia’s batting isn’t necessarily their strong suit, but little has changed since before the series began except that they played appallingly in one match – more than anything, getting in and getting out is something batsmen view as the ultimate crime, and they did it spectacularly across the board.  What has changed is that they’re under a little more pressure to perform than before, because defeat at Lords and the prospect of the team unravelling comes into view.  The records of the players involved means there is no reason why they shouldn’t come back with a vengeance, and although the Lords surface is likely to be fairly slow again, it’s usually an excellent batting wicket and one they should find to their liking.

For England, it is likely they will name an unchanged side.  Moeen Ali was the big doubt, but Adil Rashid’s endless wait for his debut will continue, as he has been ruled out by injury.  That Moeen was set to miss the match clearly means he isn’t going to be completely fit, and thus his selection is a considerable gamble.  From this distance it’s impossible to know how serious it is, but for a player to be considered unfit to play, and then magically sufficiently fit when his replacement is unavailable hardly seems like good management of resources.  It should also be remembered that if the injury flares up during the game, England will not be entitled to a substitute fielder, and one would imagine Australia will be very aware of that – of course the same applies to Starc.

Although England’s batting performed very well at Cardiff, they have been prone to falling over in recent times, and not always in hostile conditions.  Early wickets were lost in the first Test for not very many, something that they have become rather prone to, and they aren’t always going to recover from that.  Cook had a quiet game with the bat, and despite Root’s heroics, he remains instrumental in drawing the sting from the seamers.

It’s extremely hard to call this game.  It will likely go near the distance, as Lord’s is the epitome of a chairman’s pitch.  Australia have a slight hint of disarray about them, but that will be swiftly put aside if they play well here.  England have the opportunity of opening up some major cracks in the opposition, but they will have to play better than they did at Cardiff to do that.  Should they do so, then all bets are off for the remainder of the series, and the howls of protest from Down Under will be loud and long.

I’ve said before that you don’t know a team is past it until it actually happens, and they often spectacularly implode when it does (viz. England 2013/14), but equally one defeat doesn’t for a second mean we are there yet.  For that reason, this Test is completely pivotal.  An Australian victory sets the expected balance of the world back on its perceived correct axis.  An England victory, and it’s crisis point.  It will be a fascinating five days.

@BlueEarthMngmnt

Warping out*

thelegglance49 Comments

One of the differences between those who write on cricket in the media and the poor blogger is that they get to see all the play, are spoiled rotten in the media centre, and are paid for the privilege.  In contrast, the likes of us have to work for a living – and that’s why the dire quality of some of the output from the usuals is so deserving of contempt.

To that end, I was away all of last week, didn’t see a ball of the first three days, saw only the highlights on Friday and finally got to watch some play yesterday.  I did get to listen to a fair bit, while driving around the country, but it’s not quite the same.  And so following the match was somewhat awkward, lots of reading of reports and updates, and generally trying to keep abreast of what is happening.  Since then I’ve gone back and reviewed the highlights to try and get a proper feel for the Test.

I can’t say I’m totally surprised that England won the match, it very much depended on whether England played in the same manner as they’d indicated in the New Zealand series for both Tests and ODIs.  The scale and dominance of the victory on the other hand, that was somewhat unexpected.

Australia’s performance was dire throughout.  More or less anything they could get wrong they did.  As ever, the question is how much of that was their own doing, and how much was down to England’s performance.  What can be said is that after a single Test conclusions shouldn’t be drawn, and yet again we see the crowing from certain quarters.  We’ve been here before, in the last two Test series there was exactly the same arrogance (from the press, not the team), only for England to fall flat on their faces the following game.

First let’s take England.  Cook unquestionably led the side well and captained well.  Good.  Very, very good.  If this is the new captain Cook, then there won’t be too many complaints, he was proactive in the field, changed his bowlers well and generally looked in command throughout.  And this is the point – when the facts change, so does my opinion and perspective, and I don’t have the slightest issue recognising it.  It’s those who blindly insist on a particular view in defiance of what is in front of them that have the problem.  It’s true too that generally there’s been an improvement in how he’s managed the side over this summer.  Quite why that might be is somewhat curious, in terms of what has changed, the only thing that stands out is the replacement of the coach.  I’ve long called for Cook to be in control of the side and live and die by his own actions, not fall back on the backroom staff.  If he’s doing that and doing it well, that is great news.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that the various meltdowns in Australia and here can be forgotten, no matter how some like to pretend they didn’t happen, preferring to stick their fingers in their ears and say they weren’t listening.  What it does mean is that he can look back on this Test with a fair degree of pleasure.  And if continues to captain in that vein then he will reap the plaudits and rightly so.  It’s a matter of whether he does or not that is the question.  He won’t ever be a great captain, but if he’s an adequate one then that is good enough, because up to now he hasn’t been.  Plaudits for this one Mr Cook.

What was particularly striking about the approach was in the second innings.  England were determined to get to a 400+ lead as quickly as they possibly could, and continued to attack even as wickets began to fall.  The sheer jaw-dropping astonishment of seeing an England team do that can’t be overstated.  It certainly seemed to take Australia by surprise.

Initially it didn’t look that way, as England got off to a somewhat sedate start and lost wickets.  In a single Test, that can happen, but it’s something that has occurred a little too often for comfort.  The dropping of Root by Haddin (more on him later) turned out to be fairly critical, as Root took the game to Australia in a way that’s now becoming somewhat familiar.  Before the series began Root was largely written off in much of the Australian media, based on his troubles down under last time.  It was a strange rationale, given that on the same basis Steve Smith could be written off for his performances to date in this country.  I rather doubt it came as a great shock to the Australian team just how good he is looking, but it certainly seemed to elsewhere.  Root’s success has led Ian Chappell to call for him to be pushed up to number three at the expense of Ballance.  I never see the case for this.  If a player is performing outstandingly well in the middle order, where is the benefit in moving him?  It’s treating a symptom rather than a cause and risking weakening the batting if the player doesn’t have the same success in a higher position.  It doesn’t matter where Root bats if he is going to average nearly 60, wherever he goes in, he is going to drag the side to a higher total.  Leave him where he’s comfortable.

Ballance himself scored a fairly scratchy 60 in the first innings, but that will do him the power of good.  An ugly knock does more for the confidence than anything else, because the time at the crease allows the player to rather literally find his feet.  Of course he needs to kick on, but that innings was deeply valuable both to him and the team.

Stokes and Moeen also contributed, and the latter case is important.  He certainly bowled well in the match, but having a batsman of that quality at number eight is a major strength for England.  It has been argued it’s a waste, but it makes for an immensely powerful middle order, IF he can hold down his place as the spinner.  Previously I’ve argued that Moeen is being unfairly compared to the best spinner England have had in the last forty years, and I maintain that he is doing well enough in his primary role to more than justify his selection.  He isn’t going to run through too many sides, but he is certainly useful and his batting frees up an additional spot in the side.  His bowling is improving, but like anything it isn’t a linear trend, there will be peaks and troughs.

Stokes himself is contributing too with both bat and ball.  Both will improve over time, and the very selection of Moeen creates the space in the team for what might be called a luxury player like Stokes.  Patience is required, but England have a genuine five man attack with this line up, and that is a major advantage, perhaps best seen in the way that despite so many fears about it, Anderson is not being bowled into the ground thus far.

Bell scored a few runs in the second innings and looked much more like himself.  Yet it is indicative of the knee jerk response that his 60, a well constructed and fluid innings, was treated as though it was 150 and justification for keeping him in the side.  Personally, I don’t believe there was ever a case for dropping him, and certainly not after the selectors maintained faith with Cook for two years.  But as ever, a single innings proves nothing at all except that if you keep them in the side long enough they will eventually get a few.  That doesn’t mean it wasn’t extremely welcome, and nor does it mean that he didn’t look much better.  It does mean that trumpeting success on the basis of a single fifty is as downright idiotic as it ever was.  He will want more, and hopefully this innings will have got the monkey off his back to the extent he can get more.  It’s no more or less than that.

Jos Buttler failed both times with the bat, which is neither here nor there in a single match, but he did keep very well, and the only reason for mentioning it is that every all rounder who has ever played the game will talk about how difficult it seems to be to get both disciplines operating at full capacity at the same time.  It seems to go this way mostly – one works very well, the other malfunctions a little.

As for the bowling, Wood looks a threat every time he bowls, and perhaps more importantly, for all the wishful thinking about getting a left armer into the side, he provides balance.  Anderson, Broad, Wood and Stokes are all different kinds of bowlers.  That they’re right arm doesn’t in itself matter, it’s not a samey attack.  And while on this subject, it didn’t go unnoticed that it was mentioned as a problem that England have seven left handers and thus provide Lyon with a line of attack given the rough outside off stump.  It’s quite true, but the same applies the other way around given that Australia have two left arm seamers.  Sauce for the goose.

Turning to Australia, this one is a match for them to forget.  While refusing to form definitive views after one match, I hold by the view that you never know a side past its sell by date until they actually become so – just as with England in the last Ashes.  There might be cracks, but complete collapse isn’t anticipated.  This game Australia were truly awful.  Most batsmen are far more annoyed at getting in and getting out than they are being dismissed cheaply, which is considered an occupational hazard.  And yet for the first time in Test history, all of numbers three to six were dismissed in the thirties.  This is both good and bad for Australia, good because all have had time in the middle to get used to conditions, bad because they then got out and mostly to poor shot selection.

Much of the talk around how Australia move forward has centred on the future of Shane Watson.  His playing around the front pad has got him into trouble throughout his career, yet in this game I have a mite of sympathy for him.  The first innings decision was a rotten one, made worse by a proper understanding of how Hawkeye works.  It didn’t show the ball clipping the leg stump, it suggested it was possible it might have done, and at a low probability.  Yes, by all means uphold that decision from the umpire, I don’t have a problem with that; I do feel sorry for Watson because when he gets hit on the pads now, umpires are seemingly predisposed to giving him out when they likely wouldn’t give out another player.  His second innings dismissal was certainly closer, but still an umpire’s call.  Another player would have got away with that one probably, the first innings one certainly.   He may be facing the end of his Test career, and while that may be the correct decision for the Australian team, he was thoroughly shafted in this match.

Warner and Smith both exhibited signs of where they are likely to be vulnerable in English conditions.  Warner’s style of stand and deliver batting is always going to be vulnerable to the ball seaming or swinging.  This isn’t new, and it isn’t in itself the end of the world, because he showed in the second innings that he can fight through the hard times.  Smith has a quirky technique and that is why he finds it more difficult in English conditions, something he’s struggled with since he first broke into the side.  He is more than talented enough to learn how to cope.

Haddin looks like he is reaching the end of the road.  Both his keeping and his batting look frayed and have done for a little while now.  Of course, he could just be out of form, something rarely granted to older players, but this series could well prove decisive for him unless he improves significantly.

As for the bowling, the surface effectively nullified the pace of Starc and Johnson.  Despite some whining in the Australian press, it was a fairly typical Cardiff surface.  What did surprise was that England’s attack handled those conditions so much better.  Johnson had fairly miserable figures for the match, but didn’t bowl too badly.  Starc looked a fine bowler, but I can’t be alone in struggling to understand why when he was clearly injured Clarke insisted on bowling him again and again.  By the second innings the game was already disappearing over the hill, it seemed bizarre to watch him limping over after over and still being kept on.  If he isn’t fit for Lords some questions need to be asked about why they made it worse.  If indeed that is the case, then all of a sudden Australia have some problems.  Siddle is an honest enough workhorse and won’t let anyone down, but he’s not in quite the same class.  Cummins is highly promising, but hasn’t played a first class match in two years, and it’s asking an awful lot for him to come in and play a Test.  Hazlewood on the other hand, looked very good indeed, and will be a handful on other pitches.

Nevertheless, Lords should be a little more conducive to the pace bowling than Cardiff was while not exactly a seamers paradise, and thus triumphal writing off of Australia is highly premature.  It is hard to believe Australia will be so poor in the next game, but if they are, then this tour could go horribly wrong for them.

After one game England will feel it went about as well as it possibly could have done.  Australia will feel it went about as badly as it did in their worst nightmares.  They are more than good enough to step up their game, while England have flattered to deceive on more than one occasion.  What it does though is to provide the most perfect start to the series from the perspective of the spectacle.

One other thing I noted: At the conclusion of the Test, the England players made a point of going around the ground and signing autographs and posing for photos with the supporters.  I don’t remember them doing that before, so whoever has come up with it as a means of engagement deserves a pat on the back.  Is it lip service?  Maybe.  Is it welcome anyway?  Definitely.

*It’s always amused me that this term immediately makes people think of Star Trek and high speed.  In times past, warping out of harbour involved rowing the anchor out ahead in a boat, and winding the capstan in to make progress when there was no wind.  It was backbreaking work and an incredibly slow process.  It seemed appropriate.

@BlueEarthMngmnt