Australia 1/126 (30 ov, S Watson 62*) v England Ashes 09 T3 D1 at Edgbaston.
Australia has not fielded its best available team. Stuart Clark was once again omitted. Moreover Brad Haddin withdrew with a broken finger between the toss (won by Australia) and the start of play . England sportingly allowed Graham Manou to replace him (a decision not without some self interest as an injured yet in form Haddin was potentially more dangerous, at least with the bat, than his untried deputy). The wayward Mitchell Johnson was retained (at Clark's expense) while Phillip Hughes, surprisingly, was dropped for Shane Watson, whose opening record in the longer forms of the game has been decidedly modest.
As it turned out Watson justified his selection with an impressive 62*(105b, 10x4) . He and Simon Katich put on 85 for the first wicket against an England attack which lacked the zest it had shown at Lord's. Still, 30 overs in a rain shortened day does not a Test match make, let alone give us much of a guide to the outcome. The weather may continue to play a part, even if there's provision to make up lost play over the remaining days.
Scorecard
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Former PM turns cricket writer...and not a bad one at that
John Howard, our former PM, has fulfilled what must have been one of his mid/ late life dreams and reinvented himself as a cricket writer, and IMO not a bad one at that if his recent contribution to the Australian Spectator is any indication.
Extract:
When we planned our trip to England, largely for cricket, the itinerary was not meant to include England’s first win at the famous Lord’s cricket ground in 75 years. We were outplayed, and our hosts thoroughly deserved their victory. Having watched the First Test I found it hard to believe that England could bowl us out twice in the one match. At Cardiff they only managed to snare six Australian wickets in five days. We claimed 19 English scalps in the same time. How different it was at Lord’s. Australia’s fate was really sealed when our opponents bundled us out for 215 in the first innings, a low enough score to allow for the follow-on, which Strauss did not enforce. The run chase of 522 in the last innings was always unachievable. In the circumstances, Australia’s score of 406 was remarkable. It did not suggest that Australia had lost any of its famed fighting spirit in cricket. That is a good omen for the remaining three matches in the series. England’s bowling and fielding in our first innings was the best I have seen from them in years. They acted like a team which had got its act together. This is already a great Ashes series.
Sentiment overcame calm judgment when Flintoff was named man of the match. It may have been his last Test at the home of cricket, but his contribution to his team’s victory was, in my view, less significant than that of either Strauss or Anderson. Strauss played a great captain’s knock of 161, which was the backbone of England’s very respectable first innings total. And it was Anderson who really broke through in Australia’s first innings, and put his side in such a strong position. Given that England won, and there were some very good personal performances from their players, the man of the match was always going to be an Englishman. That said, Michael Clarke’s score of 136 was achieved under enormous pressure, was without any real flaws and showed a lot of character. Those constant crowd chants of ‘Freddie’ obviously had their impact.
Mr H is a well known cricket tragic who in his previous public comments, including guest commentator spots on radio and TV has, apart from a contentious comment a few years ago, maintained a high degree of impartiality. He's naturally never denied his support for Australia but has usually given praise to the accomplishments of their opponents.
Now that he's no longer encumbered by the burden of high office he's showing signs of being more forthright. His assessment of why England won at Lord's is astute, and if he's right that England has "got its act together" then Australia really needs to worry.
It's a pity that he hasn't applied his analytical skills to Australia. He's now back in Australia but with (almost) every ball shown live here this shouldn't stop him from offering his thoughts on the rest of Ashes 2009.
Extract:
When we planned our trip to England, largely for cricket, the itinerary was not meant to include England’s first win at the famous Lord’s cricket ground in 75 years. We were outplayed, and our hosts thoroughly deserved their victory. Having watched the First Test I found it hard to believe that England could bowl us out twice in the one match. At Cardiff they only managed to snare six Australian wickets in five days. We claimed 19 English scalps in the same time. How different it was at Lord’s. Australia’s fate was really sealed when our opponents bundled us out for 215 in the first innings, a low enough score to allow for the follow-on, which Strauss did not enforce. The run chase of 522 in the last innings was always unachievable. In the circumstances, Australia’s score of 406 was remarkable. It did not suggest that Australia had lost any of its famed fighting spirit in cricket. That is a good omen for the remaining three matches in the series. England’s bowling and fielding in our first innings was the best I have seen from them in years. They acted like a team which had got its act together. This is already a great Ashes series.
Sentiment overcame calm judgment when Flintoff was named man of the match. It may have been his last Test at the home of cricket, but his contribution to his team’s victory was, in my view, less significant than that of either Strauss or Anderson. Strauss played a great captain’s knock of 161, which was the backbone of England’s very respectable first innings total. And it was Anderson who really broke through in Australia’s first innings, and put his side in such a strong position. Given that England won, and there were some very good personal performances from their players, the man of the match was always going to be an Englishman. That said, Michael Clarke’s score of 136 was achieved under enormous pressure, was without any real flaws and showed a lot of character. Those constant crowd chants of ‘Freddie’ obviously had their impact.
Mr H is a well known cricket tragic who in his previous public comments, including guest commentator spots on radio and TV has, apart from a contentious comment a few years ago, maintained a high degree of impartiality. He's naturally never denied his support for Australia but has usually given praise to the accomplishments of their opponents.
Now that he's no longer encumbered by the burden of high office he's showing signs of being more forthright. His assessment of why England won at Lord's is astute, and if he's right that England has "got its act together" then Australia really needs to worry.
It's a pity that he hasn't applied his analytical skills to Australia. He's now back in Australia but with (almost) every ball shown live here this shouldn't stop him from offering his thoughts on the rest of Ashes 2009.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Comfortable Aust victory, but....
"Australia win, Johnson struggles": not my words but the Cricinfo report headline of the Australian team's three day game v Northamptonshire. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Stuart Clark, Shane Watson and Andrew McDonald all turned in good performanceswhile in the second innings Graham Manou redeemed his first innings golden duck Australian debut with a robust unbeaten half century. Clark surely deserves to play in T3 and Watson must also be in the selectors' minds (but with his history of injuries perhaps not in the forefront thereof) . McDonald probably won't be considered even though in each Test he's played he's performed above expectations.
Which is more than can be said for Mitchell Johnson....
I think he should be dropped.
Scorecard
Stuart Clark, Shane Watson and Andrew McDonald all turned in good performanceswhile in the second innings Graham Manou redeemed his first innings golden duck Australian debut with a robust unbeaten half century. Clark surely deserves to play in T3 and Watson must also be in the selectors' minds (but with his history of injuries perhaps not in the forefront thereof) . McDonald probably won't be considered even though in each Test he's played he's performed above expectations.
Which is more than can be said for Mitchell Johnson....
I think he should be dropped.
Scorecard
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
1-0 to England: Ashes 09 T2 D5
England 425 and 6/311 dec beat Australia 215 and 406 (107 ov, M Clarke 136, B Haddin 80, M Johnson 63, A Flintoff 5/92, G Swann 4/87) by 115 runs: Ashes T2 D2 at Lord's.
England were on top pretty well throughout the match and deserved to win. Congratulations to them.
The 115 run margin was, if closer than looked likely on D4 when Australia were 5/128 in their second innings, undeniably emphatic. As the first England win at Lord's in an Ashes Test since 1934 the victory will give the team an additional morale boost.
On D5 neither Brad Haddin nor Michael Clarke was able to carry on from where they left off the evening before: Haddin was caught in the slips off Andrew Flintoff without adding to his overnight 80 (130b/ 10x4) or his team's 313, while Clarke added only 11 to his tally before Graeme Swann bowled him for 136 (227b/14x4). Mitchell Johnson's aggressive 63 (75b/9x4) featured some strong hitting and driving but but itself was never going to get Australia home. Flintoff bowled throughout the session to finish with 5/92; he was well if less ostentatiously supported by Swann's 4/87.
Flintoff won the Player of the Match Award, though as our former PM John Howard astutely observed during a guest spot on today's ABC RN Breakfast, England won the game on the back of Andrew Strauss' 161 and good bowling from Jimmy Anderson and the other quicks which skittled Australia for a paltry first inngs 215.
Where to from here?
Australia have the job in front of them to regroup before T3. There will be much discussion about what changes should be made: should Johnson, or Phillip Hughes or both, be dropped are some of the more important questions. I think that room must be made for Stuart Clark unless he performs poorly in the 3 day match at Northhampton. He can (or should be able to) provide the nagging accuracy which makes it harder for batters to break into a gallop.
England have a few issues of their own, eg can Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen keep fit enough to contribute as the former has and the latter should in first two Tests? Winning two of the three remaining Tests to recover the Ashes is a big ask, but not an impossible task.
Scorecard
PS British Airways and Qantas are offering 425 UK - Sydney flights for 215 pounds each . (thanks to my daughter for drawing my attention to this).
England were on top pretty well throughout the match and deserved to win. Congratulations to them.
The 115 run margin was, if closer than looked likely on D4 when Australia were 5/128 in their second innings, undeniably emphatic. As the first England win at Lord's in an Ashes Test since 1934 the victory will give the team an additional morale boost.
On D5 neither Brad Haddin nor Michael Clarke was able to carry on from where they left off the evening before: Haddin was caught in the slips off Andrew Flintoff without adding to his overnight 80 (130b/ 10x4) or his team's 313, while Clarke added only 11 to his tally before Graeme Swann bowled him for 136 (227b/14x4). Mitchell Johnson's aggressive 63 (75b/9x4) featured some strong hitting and driving but but itself was never going to get Australia home. Flintoff bowled throughout the session to finish with 5/92; he was well if less ostentatiously supported by Swann's 4/87.
Flintoff won the Player of the Match Award, though as our former PM John Howard astutely observed during a guest spot on today's ABC RN Breakfast, England won the game on the back of Andrew Strauss' 161 and good bowling from Jimmy Anderson and the other quicks which skittled Australia for a paltry first inngs 215.
Where to from here?
Australia have the job in front of them to regroup before T3. There will be much discussion about what changes should be made: should Johnson, or Phillip Hughes or both, be dropped are some of the more important questions. I think that room must be made for Stuart Clark unless he performs poorly in the 3 day match at Northhampton. He can (or should be able to) provide the nagging accuracy which makes it harder for batters to break into a gallop.
England have a few issues of their own, eg can Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen keep fit enough to contribute as the former has and the latter should in first two Tests? Winning two of the three remaining Tests to recover the Ashes is a big ask, but not an impossible task.
Scorecard
PS British Airways and Qantas are offering 425 UK - Sydney flights for 215 pounds each . (thanks to my daughter for drawing my attention to this).
Monday, July 20, 2009
Clarke - Haddin partnership raises hopes of Aust win: Ashes 09 T2 D4
England 425 and 6/311 dec v Australia 215 and 5/313 (86 ov, M Clarke 125*, B Haddin 80*) Australia require another 209 runs with 5 wickets remaining . Ashes 09 T2 D4 at Lord's.
Thanks to Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin's unfinished 6th wicket partnership of 185 the second Test has gone into the fifth day and Australia against all expectations (and the run of the play) is still in with a chance. A slender chance yes, and one which I didn't expect to emerge from a disastrous Australian top order batting performance. Not to mention some poor umpiring: it beggars belief that a top international umpire could fail to pick up the palpable no ball with which Andrew Flintoff dismissed Simon Katich.
The stylish Clarke 125* (198b/ 13 x4) and the ebullient (and occasionally flashy) Haddin 80* (126b/10x4) batted superbly. They have set up another day's (or night's in these parts) mandatory viewing.
The key question is "can Australia win from here?" I don't think so: even if the pitch remains true it's asking a lot for the remaining batters to scrap (or, in Clarke's case, stroke) their
team to victory. But if they get within 100 runs that will show that the team is capable of landing a heavy punch on England.
Scorecard
Thanks to Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin's unfinished 6th wicket partnership of 185 the second Test has gone into the fifth day and Australia against all expectations (and the run of the play) is still in with a chance. A slender chance yes, and one which I didn't expect to emerge from a disastrous Australian top order batting performance. Not to mention some poor umpiring: it beggars belief that a top international umpire could fail to pick up the palpable no ball with which Andrew Flintoff dismissed Simon Katich.
The stylish Clarke 125* (198b/ 13 x4) and the ebullient (and occasionally flashy) Haddin 80* (126b/10x4) batted superbly. They have set up another day's (or night's in these parts) mandatory viewing.
The key question is "can Australia win from here?" I don't think so: even if the pitch remains true it's asking a lot for the remaining batters to scrap (or, in Clarke's case, stroke) their
team to victory. But if they get within 100 runs that will show that the team is capable of landing a heavy punch on England.
Scorecard
Sunday, July 19, 2009
England grind Australia down: Ashes 09 T2 D3
England 425 and 6/311 (71.2 ov, M Prior 61, P Collingwood 54) lead Australia 215 ( J Anderson 4/55) by 521 runs with 4 second inns wkts in hand and 2 days to play: Ashes T2 D2 at Lord's.
Game over? After a day when England chose not to enforce the follow on, batted circumspectly until tea (2/130), then let fly to build a lead of 521 before rain stopped play, is there any other conclusion which a reasonably knowledgeable (and not too one eyed) cricket follower could draw?
The central fact is that England have outplayed Australia for the entire match and deserve to win. Australia may have a good batting lineup but its attack, especially given Mitchell Johnson's loss of form, is thin, very thin, as the match Scorecard confirms.
Disclosure: I had an early night, so I only watched the Sky/ Fox highlights of the second and third sessions.
Game over? After a day when England chose not to enforce the follow on, batted circumspectly until tea (2/130), then let fly to build a lead of 521 before rain stopped play, is there any other conclusion which a reasonably knowledgeable (and not too one eyed) cricket follower could draw?
The central fact is that England have outplayed Australia for the entire match and deserve to win. Australia may have a good batting lineup but its attack, especially given Mitchell Johnson's loss of form, is thin, very thin, as the match Scorecard confirms.
Disclosure: I had an early night, so I only watched the Sky/ Fox highlights of the second and third sessions.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Australian batting implodes: Ashes 09 T2 D2
Australia 8/156 (49ov, M Hussey 51, J Anderson 4/36) trail England 425 (101.4 ov, A Strauss 161, A Cook 95, B Hilfenhaus 4/107) by 269 runs with 2 second inns wickets in hand: Ashes 09 T2 D2 at Lord's)
The low point, if it can be called that, of England's day came at the outset when Andrew Strauss was out without adding to his overnight score. His individual 161 (268b/22x4) turned out to be more than the first 8 Australian wickets, in a stunning form reversal from Cardiff, could muster.
Yes, the conditions may have been more favourable for quick bowlers than at Cardiff, yes there may have been a contentious dismissal or two, but the fact remains that England barely faltered in amassing what should be an impregnable position.
The only two Australian batters who showed any form were Mike Hussey, who'd missed out in the First Test, 51 (91b/8x4) and Simon Katich 48 (93b/ 6x4).
Weather and bad light cut the day short, and may do so for the next three scheduled ones but it's hard to see Australia, despite Hussey's positive spin in the post play media conference, getting out of this one without a heavy defeat.
Scorecard .
The low point, if it can be called that, of England's day came at the outset when Andrew Strauss was out without adding to his overnight score. His individual 161 (268b/22x4) turned out to be more than the first 8 Australian wickets, in a stunning form reversal from Cardiff, could muster.
Yes, the conditions may have been more favourable for quick bowlers than at Cardiff, yes there may have been a contentious dismissal or two, but the fact remains that England barely faltered in amassing what should be an impregnable position.
The only two Australian batters who showed any form were Mike Hussey, who'd missed out in the First Test, 51 (91b/8x4) and Simon Katich 48 (93b/ 6x4).
Weather and bad light cut the day short, and may do so for the next three scheduled ones but it's hard to see Australia, despite Hussey's positive spin in the post play media conference, getting out of this one without a heavy defeat.
Scorecard .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
