Incredible Agar + solid Hughes pull Australia back from abyss T1D2

England 215 & 2/80 (43ov, Cook 37*, Pietersen 35*) lead Australia 280 (64.5ov, Agar 98, Hughes 81*, Smith 53, Anderson 5/85) by 15 runs with 8 2nd inns wkts in hand: T1/5 D2/5 at Trent Bridge Nottingham.

Well, I was wrong to suggest that Ashton Agar shouldn't have been in the team (even though I was thinking of him as the no1 spin bowler). Whatever his bowling abilities his 98/101b(2x6,12x4) on debut and at no11should guarantee him a place - higher up the order- for the next foreseeable future.

His innings was remarkable not just for its quantum but also its quality: especially of strokeplay (not always along the ground) and choice of ball to hit.

We shouldn't forget Phil Hughes who contributed 60 to the 163 world 10th wicket partnership Test record. At times he exasperated me by not appearing to follow conventional wisdom by trying to keep the strike (as  conventional wisdom prescribes), but it became clear that he knew Agar's capabilities much better than me. He toughed it out and became more fluent as he stroked his way to yet another career refreshing (saving?) innings. 81*/131b/9x4 was not like the Hughes(es) of old but displayed a grittiness that I doubted he was capable of.

Even so, Agar looked the more accomplished of the pair, which only reinforces how well the young man batted.

Several significant records were broken: click
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/650423.html">here
to see Cricinfo's summary.

The partnership saved Australia who had crumbled before Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann after the former had Steven Smith caught behind  for 53/79b/1x6, 7x4.  From the other end Hughes watched 5/108 turn into a nightmarish 9/117  before the unexpected revival and retreat from an abyss of almost certain defeat to shape a pinch-yourself-to-make-sure-that -it's -true lead of 65.

A handy lead in a low scoring match and Mitchell Starc's capturing two cheap wickets( one of which stirred up some criticism of the DRS umpiring) made England's 2/11 at tea look almost as grim a position as Australia's had been earlier.

At that point I dozed off,  and only watched highlights of the last session later, when it looked as if Kevin Pietersen and Alistair Cook fought determinedly and succeeded in preserving their wickets on a wicket taking more spin. A lead of 15 doesn't seem a lot but the spectre of Anderson and Swann bowling in the 4th innings must be causing a few collywobbles in the Australian camp.

Can Agar take a wicket or three? Will the sunny weather of D2 continue or will it revert to the gloom of D1? Can the Australian attack restrict England to a gettable target (like c200)? All this and more awaits.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/match/566932.html"> Scorecard

England have slight edge after 14 wickets fall on hard fought day of uneven quality: Ashes 2013 T1 D1

Australia 4/75 (21ov, Smith 38*) trail England 215 (59 ov, Trott 48/80b,9x4, Bairstow 37, Root 30, Siddle 5/50, Pattinson 3/69) by 140 runs on 1st inns; T1/5 D1/5 at Trent Bridge Nottingham. England won toss and chose to bat.

Yesterday Sir Ian Botham predicted that this Test would be over in three and a half days, with England winning. I scoffed at what I took to be pre-series bluster, but after a hurly-burly first day's play in which 14 wickets fell it looks as if Sir Ian was, unusually for him, erring on the side of caution.

Australia surprised me (and many others) by preferring the 19 year old Ashton Agar to Nathan Lyon (who took 9 wickets in his last Test).  I couldn't see a good reason for this and the decision may well come back to bite them. He only bowled a few nothing-to-write-home-about overs but will almost certainly need to do more when England bat again, which will probably be on day two.

The first session gave little hint of what was to come. The Australian bowlers, Peter Siddle included because of his first few overs, were all over the place in what should have been helpful overcast conditions. The England batters took advantage of this and the fast outfield and at lunch were handily placed at 2/98 from 26 overs with Jonathan Trott looking good.

But early in the afternoon session  Kevin Pietersen swatted Siddle to cover and it was 3/102. At 124 Trott, who'd looked so on top of the situation, played on to Siddle for 48, which turned out to be the highest score of the day. Even so England's position didn't look to be beyond redemption, but none of the remaining upper order could keep Siddle 14-4-50-5 at bay, while James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc refocused and sliced through the tail.

215 looked decidedly below par. Yet when Australia collapsed to 3/22, including Michael Clarke bowled for a duck by a beautiful Jimmy Anderson nip backer (watch the replay if you can), it suddenly looked ample. Steve Smith, like Agar a late addition to the original squad, batted positively - his straight drive for 6 off Graeme Swann was the shot of the day - restore a measure of hope to the visitors.

 Talk about Australia batting down to no11 is all very well, but in the circumstances it sounds like Bothamesque bluster. The weather and the pitch, which is already starting to crumble, will play a big part in shaping the course of the match but on paper now England have an edge.

All this makes for mandatory viewing (the Sky Sports feed is available here on both free to air - Gem - and Foxtel)  for the next couple of days. I  shall try to keep awake as long as possible (unlike last night where I nodded off early in the afternoon session and had to catch the highlights this morning).

Scorecard

Let the Ashes begin!

Posting just a few hours before the first  England v Australia Test  begins at Trent Bridge.

Like most observers of the current scene, I find it hard to predict an Australian win in the 5 match UK series. The best I'd hope for is perhaps one win and some resolute resistance by the visitors which might give them heart for the return bout here later this year.

England are a fairly settled team, strong in all departments: even their fielding is better than Australia's. But they are not infallible, as their recent struggles to avoid defeat to New Zealand show.

Australia have been in turmoil since (and perhaps before) the on and off field debacles in India earlier this year. The fast bowling seems to be its strongest suit as the batting is an unknown quantity, even it seems to the new coach Darren "Boof" Lehmann. As I post this the selectors have only named the opening pair: Chris Rogers is restored to the eleven after a single appearance some years ago and will be partnered by Shane Watson, whose wish to open has been granted.

Apart from Michael Clarke, head and shoulders above everyone else (despite his back problems) it's anyone's guess who will fill the other three top order positions; my choice would be Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes and Steven Smith. Not the most confidence inspiring group, but who else deserves to replace them? David Warner...not in my book (for the time being at least). I thought that Smith gutsed it out in India and was surprised that he wasn't named in the original squad. I don't share the same optimism about the other two, but if Australia are going to be competitive they're going to have to lift a notch or two.

We shall see...must start the fire so I'm ready for a long night - whoever gains the upper hand.

Cricinfo turns 20

Cricinfo my customary goto source of most cricket news and records for the past 15 or so years has turned 20.

During this time it has evolved from a volunteer to a large corporate (ESPN) organisation which has shifted its hub to the subcontinent by adding rather than diminishing its scope. It also has provided generally given at least some space to divergent views of many of the burning issues of the times .

Its record section provides great coverage and analysis of international Test, ODI and T20 and
much domestic top tier cricket: to see just how well, compare its site to Cricket Australia's substandard one (eg its "live" coverage of matches).

Anyway, congratulations to Cricinfo.

England too good for Australia in all departments: Champions Trophy ODI

"England draw first blood after pacemen shackle weakened Australia" says the headline on
this report . It looks, from, what I saw of the match, to be an accurate summary.

I missed most of the England innings as I was at "Shane Warne the musical " ( well worth seeing if you get the chance).

When Australia batted Warner was lead footed, Watson looked solid (though not forceful) for a while, and Hughes seemed to be playing himself in, albeit uncomfortably, but lbw Root when he chose the wrong ball to move up a gear.

Bailey to many people (inc me and Warne - in the commentary box, not onstage)'s surprise was the best of a modest bunch.

Without the injured Michael Clarke ( an unfortunate but increasingly likely possibility) Australia will find it hard to qualify for the finals: they need to beat NZ & SL to do so. Maybe the squad should be augmented by some of the better performing Australia A team which is playing in the UK cricketing backblocks at present (read Brad Haddin and Peter Siddle, both of whom scored 100s this week against Scotland).

England 6/296 (50ov, Bell 91, Bopara 46*, Trott 43) def Australia 9/221 (50ov, Bailey 55, Faulkner 54*, Anderson 3/30) by 48 runs: Champions Trophy Group A match at Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Scorecard

NZ still well in T1 after combative D2

Well, my prediction about England getting on top of NZ didn't exactly come about, not only because Matt Prior, lbw first ball, didn't lift the scoring rate, but with runs on the board and Jimmy Anderson looking dangerous (as well as getting his 300th Test wicket), I'd say that the home team have a slight advantage, but one which may well fluctuate in the next couple of sessions or beyond.

I didn't watch much of T1D2 though did catch up on the Foxtel highlights, From what I saw it was clear that the highlights of the day were (1) a continuation of NZ's tight bowling, with Tim Southee coming to the fore, (2) great swing bowling from Jimmy Andersson and ( 3) a refreshingly aggressive innings by Ross Taylor.

At present the match is in the balance, though IMO that balance is titled in England's favour, because NZ, notwithstanding their batting strength ( read Brendan McCullum and Kane Williamson) are still in first innings arrears and have to bat last against a tight England attack.

Time to resume my position on the couch.

New Zealand 4/153 (49.4 ov, Taylor 66/72b/13x4, Williamson 44*/137b/5x4, Anderson 15-7-32-3) trail England 232 (112.2 ov, Bairstow 41/107b/4x4, Root 40/114b/4x4,  Trott 39, Cook 32, Bell 31, Southee  28.2-8-58-4, Wagner 3/70, Boult 2/48) by 79 runs with 4 1st inns wkts in hand: T1/2 D2/5 at Lord's.

Scorecard

Back from break to see NZ hold England in check in day of 1950s style Test cricket

I've taken a break from cricket following, not only because there's been no IPL coverage apart from sketchy highlights of matches and a bit more on the emerging scandal (or series of scandals) there.


But last night I settled onto the couch and watched the first two sessions of England v NZ T1 at Lord's, which turned out to be (1) a good day for the Black Caps and (2) a throwback to the 1950s.

England (Alistair Cook) won the toss, opted to bat, and struggled against some steady NZ bowling, a lush outfield and perhaps their own defensive mindset.

4/160 from 80overs isn't the kind of batting to lure crowds through turnstiles (and perhaps to the TV screen). Yet young Trent Boult 17-7-29-2 and old(er ) Bruce Martin 24-11-37-1 had reason to be pleased, even though Martin's missed c&b from Jonathan Trott before he'd scored was a big blot on an otherwise clean NZ fielding sheet.

Slow batting, slow outfield, rain forecast: are these the ingredients of a draw?

I predicted (to myself) that on home turf England would reverse their modest achievements in the recent Antipodean series. But after T1D1 a 2-0 result looks less likely. For what it's worth I reckon England are better placed than 4/160 suggests. If Matt Prior can hit out and the rain keep away England may yet win. On the other hand if the Black Caps can persist and play four or so more days like the first (a big ask IMO) who knows what might happen?

England 4/180 (80ov) v New Zealand; T1/2 D1/5 at Lord's