Reflections on a one sided Ashes series

First of all, an unequivocal "Well Done, Australia". They were clearly the better side.

Why? Essentially because, as someone has said, they were both a team of champions and a champion team.

In moments of adversity there was always at least one, and often more than one, player who stepped up with a significant performance.

After losing the first Test easily, England regrouped at Adelaide, but Australia just kept on plugging away, keeping in touch for four days and then grasping their opportunity on the fifth to turn a likely draw into a victory.

In Perth Australia's first innings of 244 offered England some hope but they couldn't take a first innings lead. Australia then ground the attack into submission with its third 500 + innings of the series (with Adam Gilchrist's ultra quick century rubbing more salt into the wounds) , leaving England a huge fourth innings target. But only four players (and extras) reached double figures in a total of 350 so Australia won the Ashes back with a convincing 206 run victory.

The Boxing Day Test began with another feeble England batting display: all out 159 as Shane Warne took his 700th test wicket and then some. Australia's overnight 2/48 became 5/84 on day 2, but then Hayden and Symonds took the total to 363, in the face of which England again capitulated losing by an innings.

And so to the SCG for the final act. After a modest first innings of 291 (though hopes of better things remained at 4/245), a top order Australian batting wobble did not translate into a collapse. A 102 run lead knocked the stuffing out of England, who effectively threw in the towel,
handing the match to Australia by 10 wickets.

Some of Australia's strengths

# Four all time great players (Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist)

# Two very good Ashes debutants (Clark and Hussey)

# Two players who seized the opportunities they were given through unexpected circumstances (Clarke and Symonds)

# Three established players who each dispelled any concerns that they weren't up to the job (Hayden, Langer and Lee).

# A very high standard of ground fielding which helped choke England and generally good catching

# Good running between the wickets

# A desire for revenge after the reverses of 2005

# Good off field support from coach Buchanan and his team.

England's weaknesses

I agree with many other commentators' views eg inadequate preparation, poor team selection (to much harking back to 2005), unfit and underperforming players, poor tactics. I'd also add poor fielding and running between the wickets.

All that said I don't think that England fielded a full eleven of test standard at any time during the series: Anderson, Mahmood and Giles struggled, Strauss may have been roughly treated by the umpires but he didn't live up to his reputation, Harmison got off to a woeful start and while both Jones and Read kept proficiently (the latter more so than the former) neither looked to be the batsman all modern test teams expect their keepers to be.

Was 5 - 0 an accurate reflection of the relative strengths of the teams?

I think that it probably overstated Australia's advantage a little, yet only for the first four days at Adelaide and sporadically elsewhere (a good stroke or delivery here, a good session there) did England compete on anything like equal terms.

One thing they didn't have was the better of the umpiring decisions: nearly all the marginal ones seemed to go Australia's way.

They dropped some crucial catches, notably Ponting at Adelaide, but events elsewhere in the series suggested that even had this catch (which was more difficult than it looked) been taken the other Australian batsmen would have made a reasonable fist of their reply.


I couldn't see why England declared at 6/551 in their first innings at Adelaide. Batting on would have increased the likelihood of a draw, but it would have given them a psychological fillip which may have helped them to lift for the following Tests.

"Barmy and nasty too"

Today's Australian publishes a letter from Margaret Lindley of South Hobart complaining about the Barmy Army :

Throughout the fourth Test, I was forced, along with thousands of others, to endure its repeated insults to Australia and Australians, particularly to Australian women.

I invite the army’s admirers to listen, for example, to its version of Waltzing Matilda. Probably the only repeatable line in this foul-mouthed parody is the first, “We all shag Matilda”. If a group of Lebanese youths gathered in a public space to chant precisely the same words as those sung by these visiting Englishmen, there would be a national outcry.

I was interested to hear the speakers in today's post match presentation ceremony praise the Barmy Army. Even Mr Creagh O'Connor, the Cricket Australia chair, paid tribute to them. This is a bit twofaced given all the trouble that CA and its affiliates went to to exclude the Barmy Army trumpeter (the least offensive member of the army since they don't sing along when he plays) . CA has also, as I've previously posted, put the boot into its media competitor (and generally more reliable source of information) Cricinfo over its relatively mild comments about Justin Langer. In comparison with the BA's chant about Langer, which makes some very scurrilous claims about him, this is small beer indeed.

For a while it looked as if England wouldn't add another run: Fifth Test Day 4

First Kevin Pietersen out without addition to his and the team's score. Then Monty Panesar foolishly, needlessly run out for a 19 ball duck, just as the Channel 9 commentators were drawing the longest of bows and talking up his batting ability. Come on guys, why couldn't you have just reverted to type and reminisce about the old days? You might also, to put Australia's margin of victory into a broader test cricket perspective, have mentioned the near and actual "blackwashes" (as they were called at the time) achieved by the great West Indies teams of the 1980s.

Back to the present. Sajjid Mahmood scored the first runs of the day with a boundary off McGrath. 7/114 became 8/122, 9/123 and, thanks to some biffing from Harmison, all out 147, which left Australia to make 46 to win. The batting order did not change, despite some loopy suggestions from the blogosphere that McGrath and Warne should be promoted, and the mission was duly accomplished without loss and without sentimentality, as Matthew Hayden, not Justin Langer, hit the winning single.

And then the presentation ceremony, at which the speakers generally avoided any reference to the drubbing which England had received.

So, a series that was disappointing for its lopsidedness comes to an end. I'll have some other things to say about it anon, so please watch this space.

Scorecard

England again fail to grasp opportunities so face defeat: Fifth Test Day 3

The Channel 9 review of the day called it "morning madness". The first session, extended to make up for time lost to the weather on previous days, began with James Anderson having Michael Hussey caught behind: 5/190. Adam Gilchrist, in his customary aggressive mode, and a more circumspect Andrew Symonds took the score to 260 before Monty Panesar lured Symonds into a swing and a miss which bowled him.

Enter Warne, who immediately began to bat as if there were no tomorrow (for the game, not just his career). His aggression and good fortune in not being given out caught behind off Panesar, being missed once or twice (depending on how rigorously you assess chances) and escaping a run out chance, rattled England. Their only compensation was having Gilchrist adjudged caught behind for 62, by which time Australia 7/318 had already taken a first innings lead.

To my mind the missed run out chance was a turning point: Sajjid Mahmood did not observe the elementary principle of getting behind the stumps at the bowler's end. Had he done so he would have been able to gather a slightly wide return and break the wicket with Warne still out of his ground. At lunch Australia were 7/325. Lee was out immediately on the resumption of play but, as in the first session, the wicket signalled a further Australian revival as Warne continued to ride his luck (and play some very good strokes) with robust support from Stuart Clark.

Warne didn't get his hundred, as he was last out stumped off Panesar for a quickfire 71, the highest score of the innings. 393 looked 50 more than it should have been.

England's reply was in keeping with so much of its cricket in the series: an early wicket (Cook), 1/43 at tea (with 12 taken from Warne's only over offering them a scintilla of hope)), but then back to the past with a collapse leading to 5/114 at stumps. Strauss, Bell and Collingwood all, as previously in the series, got a start. Strauss was hit on the helmet by Lee and visibly distressed (though he batted on until Clark got him lbw) and Collingwood was well caught by Hayden in the gully. The worst offender was Bell, who flashed at a ball from Lee which was well wide of his off stump (as Flintoff and Jones had done in that second innings in Adelaide).

Flintoff himself dragged his back foot on to the crease to a classic leg break from Warne. The third umpire took an eternity to decide (and I'd have understood if he'd given Flintoff the benefit of the doubt), leaving Pietersen, resolute as usual on 29 not out, and Panesar, sent in as nightwatchman ahead of Read, to await tomorrow to try to build on their 12 run lead.

Barring monsoon rain, the only question is when Australia will complete the 5 - 0 whitewash, which will be only the second in Ashes history and the first since 1920 - 21 that this has occurred. (Gideon Haigh in The Guardian has written a good little piece about that occasion).


Scorecard.

...gnomes will never harm me? Not if you're Justin Langer or Cricket Australia

How pathetic. Cricket Australia has taken offence at Cricinfo for allowing some posts on its website which refer to Justin Langer as a gnome.

I can't find a reference to the incident(s) on either party's website, nor on the ABC's, where Peter Roebuck during his commentary stint this morning IMO quite rightly chided CA for blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

Other media coverage is a bit sketchy (are they frightened of falling foul of Cricket Australia?), though I've found reports on The Australian , The Age and News of the World websites, the last of which summarises the situation most succinctly:

Respected cricket website cricinfo has been hauled over the coals for referring to Langer as a "gnome" in their online commentary.

The remark was meant tongue in cheek and the angry reaction from the home side's press department is way over the top.

Can't Langer take a bit of ribbing? For someone who has gone on record about the "badges of honour" bruises which he's received from fast bowlers he sounds very sensitive. If he is, then he's obviously not heard the Barmy Army's scurrilous chant about him and which I heard during the Adelaide Test. I could understand it if he was offended by that.

Australian bowling dominates early but England avoids knockout blow: Fifth Test Day 2

After another rain interrupted day in which 78.4 overs were bowled Australia, at 4/ 188, are less favourably placed than England were at stumps yesterday. Yet nobody seriously expects Australia to lose their last 6 wickets for 57 tomorrow, as England did today. Andrew Flintoff, out for 89, showed his full potential with the bat for the first time in the series and may be able to turn it on again in the second innings, provided he gets more substantial support from his lower order team mates who buckled against the Australian new ball attack (and Shane Warne's sole but significant 1,000th wicket in international cricket).

Why isn't Australia likely to fold? Because Michael Hussey, England's batting bogeyman of the series, is still there with 37 and looking comfortable; because Andrew Symonds has built a platform of 22 upon which he may be able to build tomorrow; and because the batsmen to come after them ought to be able to help their team to a modest, and maybe even a comfortable, first innings lead of 50 to 100.


This scenario might be amended by the England bowling, which today, at least in the persons of Messrs Harmison (pleasingly), Anderson (surprisingly) and Panesar (much as expected), was able to sustain pressure for longer periods than it had done for much of the series. The ground fielding was good, too, and Anderson's run out of Ricky Ponting for 45 was a pivotal moment (sure Ponting misjudged the situation but Anderson's throw under pressure was good and reminiscent of his throw from the deep in the tour match against South Australia which ran out Darren Lehmann going for his hundredth run). One potentially crucial gaffe was Andrew Strauss's failure to dive for a catch at short leg off Hussey: he's obviously not comfortable fielding there and he didn't touch the ball so it doesn't count as a chance but he should have observed the convention that short leg fielders should stay down for as long as possible.


My prediction that an England collapse this morning would allow Australia to get a firm grip on the game has been proved wrong - for the moment - by England's refreshing tenacity, which saw them recover to win two of the day's three disjointed sessions. England can't afford to have another bad session like this morning's: it can lose one (and just conceivably two) on points but must avoid the knockout punch which may come from either a significant Australian batting revival or another feeble batting performance.

Scorecard

England batting more determined but match too early to call: Fifth Test Day 1

On a day where rain delayed the start of play England won the toss, batted and reached 4/234 from 80 overs.

Had they lost one or two fewer wickets England would have had more cause to be pleased with their day's efforts, but at least the batsmen displayed more collective determination than they have done since the first innings at Adelaide. Unlike Adelaide, however, nobody played a big innings: the openers grafted but both were out caught at the wicket by the time the total had crept to 58. Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen steadied things with a 108 run partnership (when a 208 run one was needed) but both were out to Glenn McGrath within a run of each other (Pietersen well caught by Michael Hussey from a mistimed pull, Bell bowled), leaving their team 4/167. Fortunately captain Flintoff, who looked as good if not better than he's done in the series, and Paul Collingwood stayed together until bad light stopped play.

While the match is still alive, and it's hard to pick a clear winner on the strength of an abbreviated day's play, I think that Australia had the better of what play there was. England would be disappointed that each of the four batsmen dismissed got a start yet none really went on with it. Bell in particular looked very solid and I was surprised to see him bowled off an inside edge.

The Australian bowlers, each of whom bowled tightly if without quite the same degree of menace they have displayed for much of the rest of the series, will be looking for an early breakthrough when play resumes. England will be hoping to bat on and on and to get well beyond 400: in practical terms this means that Flintoff and Collingwood will have to stay together for some considerable time. Both sides are well aware of the brittleness of England's lower order batting, so the first hour or so's play will very likely give a pointer to the ultimate result.

Scorecard