A lot of people have written pieces on how England can level the series. Almost all of them involve a) winning the toss and batting first and b) playing Monty Panesar. I need hardly add that, for either strategy to be a success, England need to post 450 in their first innings.
England have been in defiant mood since the Brisbane anti-climax, though they would have undeniably benefited for a warm-up game between Tests. If Glenn McGrath misses out through injury, then, besides the inevitable Edgbaston comparison, England will face either fiery left-armer Mitchell Johnson or explosive tearaway Shaun Tait. A seam attack of Brett Lee, Stuart Clark and Johnson or Tait, on the relatively docile Adelaide pitch, hardly appears the stuff of nightmares.
For England, James Anderson will certainly be dropped. Despite Australia refraining from selecting Stuart MacGill, England may well play two spinners. Panesar, who offers both attacking threat and enormous control (his Test economy rate is 2.58), has the mental strength to cope with being attacked by Australia’s batsmen, and must play.
But Ashley Giles shouldn’t. Though he scored 47 runs in the first Test, he took just a solitary wicket; meanwhile, his bowling average crept above 40, which should only emphasis how lucky we appear to be to have discovered Panesar. What is the point of playing two left-arm spinners when one is as palpably unthreatening as Giles?
It may weaken the batting a touch, but I would select Sajid Mahmood, who offers a reverse-swinging threat and genuine hostility, in addition to Panesar. In doing so, England would bring in two of the four most likely match-winners they have in their squad, imperative considering they are 1-0 down and another potential match-winner, Stephen Harmison, is less GBH and more harmless.
England will be dreaming of winning the toss, batting first, reaching 300-3 after day one before topping 500. But, if they lose the toss once more, they will be happier in the knowledge they have Mahmood and Panesar in their ranks.
Tagged with: Monty Panesar, Ashley Giles, Sajid Mahmood
Thursday, 30 November 2006
Tuesday, 28 November 2006
In defence of Harmison
Steve Harmison is the ultimate enigma - a player who can frustrate and exhilarate in equal measure. When he is on song his bowling is often unplayable, with even the greatest of Test batsmen falling by the wayside. Yet he can be, as he amply demonstrated at Brisbane, a wayward, even woeful, bowler, whose form and technique seem to simply disappear.
As has been said on many occasions cricket is a sport where psychology is as important as technique. How a player approaches a match mentally can determine success. The game is littered with examples of players who had wonderful ability, but could not translate it into good performances on the field and players who had average technique, but used all their mental strength to make what little they had go as far as possible.
Harmison, ever the paradox, has plenty of ability and mental strength, but they can desert him at a moment's notice. This is never more true than when he is on tour, deprived of his home comforts. It is then that he can appear at his most abject, as was the case this week, a solitary figure lost in a place no longer familiar to him.
Consistency is another yardstick for measuring a player's quality. Praise is heaped on those cricketers who can perform well for long periods, who can sustain their form and be relied upon by their Captain and team. Other, more mercurial, players are usually praised one week and vilified the next. Harmison is a prime example of such a player.
Just four Tests ago he was being universally acclaimed for his destruction of Pakistan at Old Trafford, a match in which he took 11 wickets for just 76 runs. His bowling was extraordinary as he blasted Pakistan's strong batting line-up away, firing unplayable deliveries down the pitch at will. There was no shortage of confidence or venom in Harmison in that match, a far cry from Brisbane.
Yet the clue is in just how recently Harmison was able to perform so well. There is no way that huge technical flaws have suddenly afflicted him. It is just that well catalogued inconsistency, which has plagued him throughout his career. Just as he is written off he comes up with a bowling performance like Old Trafford or Lord's the year before. He could just as easily do so again at Adelaide.
It is for this reason that Harmison should not so readily be discarded, as many commentators have suggested. He is a proven match-winner, a player who has the ability to bowl better than most. Yes, he can bowl appallingly badly and embarass himself and his team, but that is the enigma, and England cannot afford to take to the field at Adelaide without him.
Tagged with: Steve Harmison
As has been said on many occasions cricket is a sport where psychology is as important as technique. How a player approaches a match mentally can determine success. The game is littered with examples of players who had wonderful ability, but could not translate it into good performances on the field and players who had average technique, but used all their mental strength to make what little they had go as far as possible.
Harmison, ever the paradox, has plenty of ability and mental strength, but they can desert him at a moment's notice. This is never more true than when he is on tour, deprived of his home comforts. It is then that he can appear at his most abject, as was the case this week, a solitary figure lost in a place no longer familiar to him.
Consistency is another yardstick for measuring a player's quality. Praise is heaped on those cricketers who can perform well for long periods, who can sustain their form and be relied upon by their Captain and team. Other, more mercurial, players are usually praised one week and vilified the next. Harmison is a prime example of such a player.
Just four Tests ago he was being universally acclaimed for his destruction of Pakistan at Old Trafford, a match in which he took 11 wickets for just 76 runs. His bowling was extraordinary as he blasted Pakistan's strong batting line-up away, firing unplayable deliveries down the pitch at will. There was no shortage of confidence or venom in Harmison in that match, a far cry from Brisbane.
Yet the clue is in just how recently Harmison was able to perform so well. There is no way that huge technical flaws have suddenly afflicted him. It is just that well catalogued inconsistency, which has plagued him throughout his career. Just as he is written off he comes up with a bowling performance like Old Trafford or Lord's the year before. He could just as easily do so again at Adelaide.
It is for this reason that Harmison should not so readily be discarded, as many commentators have suggested. He is a proven match-winner, a player who has the ability to bowl better than most. Yes, he can bowl appallingly badly and embarass himself and his team, but that is the enigma, and England cannot afford to take to the field at Adelaide without him.
Tagged with: Steve Harmison
Will Michael Vaughan play in this Ashes series?
Michael Vaughan will tomorrow play for an England side again. As low-key comebacks go, a one-day match for the England Academy against Western Australia 2nd 11 is right up there. But, suddenly talk of him appearing in the Ashes doesn’t seem so fanciful.
The Melbourne Test begins on 26th December, exactly a month from now. Playing a Test match, even one in the Ashes, after a month of being fit doesn’t seem the slightest bit ludicrous.
If Marcus Trescothick was available, Vaughan’s chances of selection would appear only negligible. Yet the lack of an experienced batsman, together with England’s woeful opening Test performance, means the chances of the 2005 Ashes-winning captain appearing down under this time must be considered very real, even if he is palpably still odds-against to play.
Vaughan, of course, has brilliant memories of Australia, having scored 633 runs in 2002/03 playing some of the most authoritative and elegant shots ever seen in Australia; his handling of Stuart MacGill in the last two Tests was particularly memorable.
He is still officially England’s captain (though Andrew Flintoff was appointed for the tour itself) and, at 31, could conceivably play for another Ashes cycle. His batting may have been consistently disappointing of late – he averages less than 30 in his last 12 Tests (excluding Bangladesh) – but his tactical dexterity, together with his undeniably batting grace, could yet be an important part of this series. And, whether he plays in this series or not, Michael Vaughan has not played his last game for England.
Tagged with: Michael Vaughan
The Melbourne Test begins on 26th December, exactly a month from now. Playing a Test match, even one in the Ashes, after a month of being fit doesn’t seem the slightest bit ludicrous.
If Marcus Trescothick was available, Vaughan’s chances of selection would appear only negligible. Yet the lack of an experienced batsman, together with England’s woeful opening Test performance, means the chances of the 2005 Ashes-winning captain appearing down under this time must be considered very real, even if he is palpably still odds-against to play.
Vaughan, of course, has brilliant memories of Australia, having scored 633 runs in 2002/03 playing some of the most authoritative and elegant shots ever seen in Australia; his handling of Stuart MacGill in the last two Tests was particularly memorable.
He is still officially England’s captain (though Andrew Flintoff was appointed for the tour itself) and, at 31, could conceivably play for another Ashes cycle. His batting may have been consistently disappointing of late – he averages less than 30 in his last 12 Tests (excluding Bangladesh) – but his tactical dexterity, together with his undeniably batting grace, could yet be an important part of this series. And, whether he plays in this series or not, Michael Vaughan has not played his last game for England.
Tagged with: Michael Vaughan
England must readdress the balance of power soon
As feared the first test of this latest Ashes series has gone the way of the old enemy. Unfortunately this does not come as that much of a surprise to many seasoned fans. England were woefully under prepared for this series and the problem is no more evident than in the fast bowling department where a lack of match fitness, rhythm and form were fully exploited by what can only be described as a masterful Australian batting line-up, anchored by the brilliance of Ricky Ponting, aggressiveness of Justin Langer and resilience of Mike Hussey.
Australia have learnt lessons from the 2005 Ashes series and have adjusted their side accordingly, bringing in the unerring accuracy of Stuart Clark and the solid rock of the middle order that is Hussey. Two quality additions to an already quality side. Whilst there are question marks over the two openers reactions against a swinging and seaming new ball as they age, England have not asked them. This has so far proven to be disastrous with Ponting, currently the best batsman in the game, able to come to the crease facing a softer ball and a demoralised attack.
The Australian Captain can not be afforded such comfort, or he will score and score heavily. England must be on the mark from ball one in order to exploit Matthew Hayden’s tendency to waft outside off stump and prevent Langer from making such booming starts. England must attack Ponting with that new ball and make him uncomfortable, in the process exposing Damien Martyn early, who is looking over his shoulder nervously at Michael Clarke, as he nears the end of his career.
The Australian side is not without weaknesses, but England are not currently exploiting them and are allowing the Australians to make hay in the sunshine with ease. If England can get into the middle order early as they did in 2005 then we have seen that Australia can succumb to pressure. Adam Gilchrist still looks a shadow of his former self and whether it be Clarke or Shane Watson at six, neither are assured of their place and are under pressure. England must make them feel that pressure more.
From a batting point of view England have started to find some touch, albeit belatedly. One can not help but feel that Andrew Strauss would not have given his wicket away so cheaply twice had he had the responsibility of captaincy resting on his shoulders though. He averages around fifteen more runs for Middlesex when captain and visibly rises to the occasion. He would also perhaps not have missed quite so many things in the field as the weary Flintoff did.
Flintoff’s captaincy is based more on leadership than tactics. Had England played two slips and two gullies from that start at the Gabba, a traditional field there, then Australia could have quite easily found themselves three down at lunch, deprived of Hayden, Langer and Ponting, as numerous balls flew through gully in the air.
Ian Bell is yet to prove himself against Shane Warne, but there were positive signs from him when he glared back at Brett Lee. Alistair Cook meanwhile seems to be settling into the familiar role of opener and looks relaxed at the crease. One further crumb of comfort is the possible return of Michael Vaughan in the fourth test, although things must improve long before then.
The batting order remains something of a mystery. Paul Collingwood produced a wonderfully crafted innings against Australia and was fully deserving of a century, but as was shown in the first innings, he does not have the best of techniques early on in his innings against the moving ball. He is undoubtedly, like Graham Thorpe, a man for a crisis and should be providing stability at five rather than being offered up to quality seam bowling at four, to help engineer that crisis.
Kevin Pietersen is undoubtedly England’s best batsman, especially against Australia. He can comfortably bat at four and seems to have learnt how not to give his wicket away early on in his innings. Moving Pietersen back to four would also split himself and Flintoff in the line-up, which Fletcher seems keen to do. However, as I have well documented before, Flintoff has not performed with the bat in the one day side for a long time and he is not a consistent test match run scorer either and is simply not making the runs required of a number six.
It is a definite worry for England who may now have to consider playing an extra batsman. When Vaughan finally returns he is the obvious choice to slot in as opener or at number three. For the time being though Ed Joyce is an extremely capable county batsman who is eager to test himself at the highest level.
The resilient and flamboyant Middlesex batsman would relish the chance of playing for England in Australia and could perhaps provide some stability at the top of the order coming in at either three or four, to push Pietersen back down to his more preferred position of number five and more importantly extend the batting line-up with Freddie moving to seven and a seemingly rejuvenated Geraint Jones to eight.
This move would negate the need to play Ashley Giles and allow England to play the more attack minded Monty Panesar, who proved over the summer that he can bowl unchanged for lengthy periods as part of a four man attack and provide an economical and wicket taking option. England could then rotate the brilliant Flintoff, along with Matthew Hoggard and the third seamer.
My take on Stephen Harmison is that he hasn’t been himself for over a year now. He has never been the most consistent of players, but now he appears to have lost his game mentally and technically. It is hard to see how such drastic flaws can be resolved over a period of just three days. England could not afford to play an extra batsman with Harmison in the side as they just do not know what return they are going to get from the big Durham man.
Therefore it is likely that Giles and not Joyce will line up in Adelaide. However, if Harmison is not selected, which seems more than reasonable when one considers the threat of going 2-0 down if he performs as he did at the Gabba, then who could England turn to. Liam Plunkett faces the same problem as James Anderson and Harmison himself in that he just has not played much cricket over the last six months. Sajid Mahmood is pacey, but similarly prone to hitting the leg side.
Attention then shifts to the Academy squad where Stuart Broad and Chris Tremlett linger on standby. Both have the required attributes to succeed in Australia, with their height and mid-80’s pace. Broad is very much in the mould of Stuart Clark and Glenn McGrath who have experienced and will undoubtedly continue to experience, great success on the wickets of Australia.
Tremlett is more like Harmison, a hit the deck bowler, who has worked on his aggression levels this year and has proved his fitness over the back end of the season. Tremlett too can have his good and bad days though and ultimately both are untested at this level and would be risky picks, especially as part of a four man attack.
Australia have built their success on a four man attack though, with a wicket taking spinner, rather than a containing one, negating the need to play an extra quick bowler. England can now follow this model, with Pietersen and Collingwood providing back up options, but they must find the right fast bowler to back-up Flintoff and Hoggard.
With the lingering threat of losing the little old urn that was recovered just eighteen months ago, England must surely look to do something to readdress the power balance, which has visibly shifted towards Australia and that might just mean moving away from the old tried and tested and taking a gamble on the future of English cricket, sooner rather than later.
Chris Pallett
Australia have learnt lessons from the 2005 Ashes series and have adjusted their side accordingly, bringing in the unerring accuracy of Stuart Clark and the solid rock of the middle order that is Hussey. Two quality additions to an already quality side. Whilst there are question marks over the two openers reactions against a swinging and seaming new ball as they age, England have not asked them. This has so far proven to be disastrous with Ponting, currently the best batsman in the game, able to come to the crease facing a softer ball and a demoralised attack.
The Australian Captain can not be afforded such comfort, or he will score and score heavily. England must be on the mark from ball one in order to exploit Matthew Hayden’s tendency to waft outside off stump and prevent Langer from making such booming starts. England must attack Ponting with that new ball and make him uncomfortable, in the process exposing Damien Martyn early, who is looking over his shoulder nervously at Michael Clarke, as he nears the end of his career.
The Australian side is not without weaknesses, but England are not currently exploiting them and are allowing the Australians to make hay in the sunshine with ease. If England can get into the middle order early as they did in 2005 then we have seen that Australia can succumb to pressure. Adam Gilchrist still looks a shadow of his former self and whether it be Clarke or Shane Watson at six, neither are assured of their place and are under pressure. England must make them feel that pressure more.
From a batting point of view England have started to find some touch, albeit belatedly. One can not help but feel that Andrew Strauss would not have given his wicket away so cheaply twice had he had the responsibility of captaincy resting on his shoulders though. He averages around fifteen more runs for Middlesex when captain and visibly rises to the occasion. He would also perhaps not have missed quite so many things in the field as the weary Flintoff did.
Flintoff’s captaincy is based more on leadership than tactics. Had England played two slips and two gullies from that start at the Gabba, a traditional field there, then Australia could have quite easily found themselves three down at lunch, deprived of Hayden, Langer and Ponting, as numerous balls flew through gully in the air.
Ian Bell is yet to prove himself against Shane Warne, but there were positive signs from him when he glared back at Brett Lee. Alistair Cook meanwhile seems to be settling into the familiar role of opener and looks relaxed at the crease. One further crumb of comfort is the possible return of Michael Vaughan in the fourth test, although things must improve long before then.
The batting order remains something of a mystery. Paul Collingwood produced a wonderfully crafted innings against Australia and was fully deserving of a century, but as was shown in the first innings, he does not have the best of techniques early on in his innings against the moving ball. He is undoubtedly, like Graham Thorpe, a man for a crisis and should be providing stability at five rather than being offered up to quality seam bowling at four, to help engineer that crisis.
Kevin Pietersen is undoubtedly England’s best batsman, especially against Australia. He can comfortably bat at four and seems to have learnt how not to give his wicket away early on in his innings. Moving Pietersen back to four would also split himself and Flintoff in the line-up, which Fletcher seems keen to do. However, as I have well documented before, Flintoff has not performed with the bat in the one day side for a long time and he is not a consistent test match run scorer either and is simply not making the runs required of a number six.
It is a definite worry for England who may now have to consider playing an extra batsman. When Vaughan finally returns he is the obvious choice to slot in as opener or at number three. For the time being though Ed Joyce is an extremely capable county batsman who is eager to test himself at the highest level.
The resilient and flamboyant Middlesex batsman would relish the chance of playing for England in Australia and could perhaps provide some stability at the top of the order coming in at either three or four, to push Pietersen back down to his more preferred position of number five and more importantly extend the batting line-up with Freddie moving to seven and a seemingly rejuvenated Geraint Jones to eight.
This move would negate the need to play Ashley Giles and allow England to play the more attack minded Monty Panesar, who proved over the summer that he can bowl unchanged for lengthy periods as part of a four man attack and provide an economical and wicket taking option. England could then rotate the brilliant Flintoff, along with Matthew Hoggard and the third seamer.
My take on Stephen Harmison is that he hasn’t been himself for over a year now. He has never been the most consistent of players, but now he appears to have lost his game mentally and technically. It is hard to see how such drastic flaws can be resolved over a period of just three days. England could not afford to play an extra batsman with Harmison in the side as they just do not know what return they are going to get from the big Durham man.
Therefore it is likely that Giles and not Joyce will line up in Adelaide. However, if Harmison is not selected, which seems more than reasonable when one considers the threat of going 2-0 down if he performs as he did at the Gabba, then who could England turn to. Liam Plunkett faces the same problem as James Anderson and Harmison himself in that he just has not played much cricket over the last six months. Sajid Mahmood is pacey, but similarly prone to hitting the leg side.
Attention then shifts to the Academy squad where Stuart Broad and Chris Tremlett linger on standby. Both have the required attributes to succeed in Australia, with their height and mid-80’s pace. Broad is very much in the mould of Stuart Clark and Glenn McGrath who have experienced and will undoubtedly continue to experience, great success on the wickets of Australia.
Tremlett is more like Harmison, a hit the deck bowler, who has worked on his aggression levels this year and has proved his fitness over the back end of the season. Tremlett too can have his good and bad days though and ultimately both are untested at this level and would be risky picks, especially as part of a four man attack.
Australia have built their success on a four man attack though, with a wicket taking spinner, rather than a containing one, negating the need to play an extra quick bowler. England can now follow this model, with Pietersen and Collingwood providing back up options, but they must find the right fast bowler to back-up Flintoff and Hoggard.
With the lingering threat of losing the little old urn that was recovered just eighteen months ago, England must surely look to do something to readdress the power balance, which has visibly shifted towards Australia and that might just mean moving away from the old tried and tested and taking a gamble on the future of English cricket, sooner rather than later.
Chris Pallett
Monday, 27 November 2006
England's performance ratings
After the heavy loss in Brisbane here are the marks out of ten for England's players:
Andrew Strauss - 3 After making two good starts Strauss was caught playing the pull shot in both innings. He played the shot in the first innings too early, before he had assessed the bounce of the pitch, and he mistimed it horribly. In the second innings the stroke was better executed, but he managed to pick out the fielder at fine leg. As it is one of his favourite shots and one which brings him many runs Strauss should not be put off playing it - he just needs to be more certain of the pitch before doing so.
Alastair Cook - 5.5 In his first Test innings in Australia Cook was unfortunate to receive a top class delivery from Glenn McGrath, which ended what had been a promising start. Second time around Cook showed his maturity and class in making 43, only to be found out by the other Australian maestro, Shane Warne. But Cook is a quick learner and over the rest of the series he should be able to build on the decent foundations he has laid in Brisbane.
Ian Bell - 6 A strong and resolute half century in the first innings revealed just how far Bell has come since his traumas of the last Ashes series. While everyone else fell around him he played with grit and no little skill. Unfortunately, he was unable to repeat the performance, falling for 0 to Shane Warne in the second innings.
Paul Collingwood - 7.5 He struggled in the first innings, never really coming to terms with the pitch and seemingly realising many people's fears that he would not be able to adjust to the bounce of Australian wickets. However, all these negative thoughts were banished by his magnificent, gutsy second innings 96. Deprived of a deserved century by a misjudged charge down the wicket to Shane Warne, he can still be highly satisfied with his display. Allied to his usual top class fielding, which included two fine catches, Collingwood was one of the pluses in England's defeat.
Kevin Pietersen - 8 Playing against his natural game in the first innings, Pietersen only succeeded in prolonging his agony, eventually being trapped lbw by McGrath. Clearly he was not impressed with his effort and strode to the wicket with much more of his customary swagger in the second innings. His batting was superb at times as he unleashed his wonderful array of shots, particularly targetting Warne. That he dominated the Australian bowlers for long periods is testament to his quality. Like Collingwood he failed to reach three figures, falling for 92, but the manner of his play will have left its marks on the Australian attack.
Andrew Flintoff - 7 While all the bowlers around him were struggling against the Australian first innings assault, Flintoff played a lone hand in stemming the runs and taking wickets. His return of 4 for 99 in the opposition's mammoth 602 was magnificent. Sadly, his batting was poor, as he followed a first innings duck with just 16 in the second innings, falling to a badly timed hit across the line to Warne. His captaincy was generally good, though he lacked inspiration when things were at their most difficult and he is still unsure when to bowl himself and for how long.
Geraint Jones - 6 A faultless display behind the stumps, in which he conceded only 2 byes over the two Australian innings and held the one chance that came his way. His batting, which was what got him back in the side, was good. In the first innings he seemed to have found some form only to be caught on the crease by a McGrath delivery which nipped back. With England facing defeat Jones played some excellent shots in his second innings, only to play on to a ball which kept low. It was shame as he was going well and might have made that bigger score that has eluded him for so long.
Ashley Giles - 5 Controversially selected ahead of Monty Panesar, because of his superior batting and fielding, Giles did not disappoint in this regard. Two handy innings of 24 and 23, despite being rusty, showed that he could still handle a bat against strong bowling. However, his own bowling was no more than adequate and did not offer Flintoff the control he would have wanted. Giving the ball a little more air and bowling slower than usual Giles managed to induce a poor shot from Damien Martyn, but that was the high point of his efforts with the ball, as the Australian batsmen came after him. In the second innings he only bowled 5 overs.
Matthew Hoggard - 5.5 Could not get the new ball to swing in the crucial Australian first innings and was pretty ineffective as an attacking force. However, Hoggard has more than just swing in his repertoire these days and he managed to keep the runs down with his subtle variations. In one superb over he got Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist out lbw, giving England faint hopes of restricting the Australian total. Sadly, it was too little too late and Hoggard was unable to find much swing in the second innings.
Steve Harmison - 3 An abject start to the series for England's number one strike bowler. His first ball, a wide to second slip, summed up his effort. Whether he was under-prepared, froze on the big occasion, or simply lost his rhythm, Harmison was embarassingly ineffective. His display has been dissected by everyone and his technique questioned. It is not the first time he has struggled on tour and failed to lead England's attack. He needs to find some form quickly, as neither he nor England can afford another similar effort.
James Anderson - 3 Though his bowling was not as bad as his awful figures suggest, Anderson was poor in this match. He was unable to find any consistency in his line and length and rarely threatened the batsmen. He gave away far too many boundaries and applied no pressure on the opposition. Flintoff could not rely on him in any way and his lack of swing, conventional or otherwise, was a worry. His selection ahead of Sajid Mahmood looks like a mistake, though Anderson had shown form in the warm-up matches. It is a shame as Anderson has fought hard to get fit, but Test cricket is a harsh place to gauge your form, especially against Australia in their own back yard.
Tagged with: Andrew Strauss, Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Geraint Jones, Ashley Giles, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison, James Anderson
Andrew Strauss - 3 After making two good starts Strauss was caught playing the pull shot in both innings. He played the shot in the first innings too early, before he had assessed the bounce of the pitch, and he mistimed it horribly. In the second innings the stroke was better executed, but he managed to pick out the fielder at fine leg. As it is one of his favourite shots and one which brings him many runs Strauss should not be put off playing it - he just needs to be more certain of the pitch before doing so.
Alastair Cook - 5.5 In his first Test innings in Australia Cook was unfortunate to receive a top class delivery from Glenn McGrath, which ended what had been a promising start. Second time around Cook showed his maturity and class in making 43, only to be found out by the other Australian maestro, Shane Warne. But Cook is a quick learner and over the rest of the series he should be able to build on the decent foundations he has laid in Brisbane.
Ian Bell - 6 A strong and resolute half century in the first innings revealed just how far Bell has come since his traumas of the last Ashes series. While everyone else fell around him he played with grit and no little skill. Unfortunately, he was unable to repeat the performance, falling for 0 to Shane Warne in the second innings.
Paul Collingwood - 7.5 He struggled in the first innings, never really coming to terms with the pitch and seemingly realising many people's fears that he would not be able to adjust to the bounce of Australian wickets. However, all these negative thoughts were banished by his magnificent, gutsy second innings 96. Deprived of a deserved century by a misjudged charge down the wicket to Shane Warne, he can still be highly satisfied with his display. Allied to his usual top class fielding, which included two fine catches, Collingwood was one of the pluses in England's defeat.
Kevin Pietersen - 8 Playing against his natural game in the first innings, Pietersen only succeeded in prolonging his agony, eventually being trapped lbw by McGrath. Clearly he was not impressed with his effort and strode to the wicket with much more of his customary swagger in the second innings. His batting was superb at times as he unleashed his wonderful array of shots, particularly targetting Warne. That he dominated the Australian bowlers for long periods is testament to his quality. Like Collingwood he failed to reach three figures, falling for 92, but the manner of his play will have left its marks on the Australian attack.
Andrew Flintoff - 7 While all the bowlers around him were struggling against the Australian first innings assault, Flintoff played a lone hand in stemming the runs and taking wickets. His return of 4 for 99 in the opposition's mammoth 602 was magnificent. Sadly, his batting was poor, as he followed a first innings duck with just 16 in the second innings, falling to a badly timed hit across the line to Warne. His captaincy was generally good, though he lacked inspiration when things were at their most difficult and he is still unsure when to bowl himself and for how long.
Geraint Jones - 6 A faultless display behind the stumps, in which he conceded only 2 byes over the two Australian innings and held the one chance that came his way. His batting, which was what got him back in the side, was good. In the first innings he seemed to have found some form only to be caught on the crease by a McGrath delivery which nipped back. With England facing defeat Jones played some excellent shots in his second innings, only to play on to a ball which kept low. It was shame as he was going well and might have made that bigger score that has eluded him for so long.
Ashley Giles - 5 Controversially selected ahead of Monty Panesar, because of his superior batting and fielding, Giles did not disappoint in this regard. Two handy innings of 24 and 23, despite being rusty, showed that he could still handle a bat against strong bowling. However, his own bowling was no more than adequate and did not offer Flintoff the control he would have wanted. Giving the ball a little more air and bowling slower than usual Giles managed to induce a poor shot from Damien Martyn, but that was the high point of his efforts with the ball, as the Australian batsmen came after him. In the second innings he only bowled 5 overs.
Matthew Hoggard - 5.5 Could not get the new ball to swing in the crucial Australian first innings and was pretty ineffective as an attacking force. However, Hoggard has more than just swing in his repertoire these days and he managed to keep the runs down with his subtle variations. In one superb over he got Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist out lbw, giving England faint hopes of restricting the Australian total. Sadly, it was too little too late and Hoggard was unable to find much swing in the second innings.
Steve Harmison - 3 An abject start to the series for England's number one strike bowler. His first ball, a wide to second slip, summed up his effort. Whether he was under-prepared, froze on the big occasion, or simply lost his rhythm, Harmison was embarassingly ineffective. His display has been dissected by everyone and his technique questioned. It is not the first time he has struggled on tour and failed to lead England's attack. He needs to find some form quickly, as neither he nor England can afford another similar effort.
James Anderson - 3 Though his bowling was not as bad as his awful figures suggest, Anderson was poor in this match. He was unable to find any consistency in his line and length and rarely threatened the batsmen. He gave away far too many boundaries and applied no pressure on the opposition. Flintoff could not rely on him in any way and his lack of swing, conventional or otherwise, was a worry. His selection ahead of Sajid Mahmood looks like a mistake, though Anderson had shown form in the warm-up matches. It is a shame as Anderson has fought hard to get fit, but Test cricket is a harsh place to gauge your form, especially against Australia in their own back yard.
Tagged with: Andrew Strauss, Alastair Cook, Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Geraint Jones, Ashley Giles, Matthew Hoggard, Steve Harmison, James Anderson
Sunday, 26 November 2006
Necessary risks
I've read a lot of reports about England's fightback at the Gabba yesterday, suggesting it was good, but should have been much better. That three of the wickets were given away and they should be walking out today, just three down rather than five down. I beg to differ.
Fighting back in a Test where you are 648 runs behind with nearly two days to go is tough, to say the least. England could have tried to grind out the time, playing defensively and taking no risks - just the approach the Australians hope for, as they put men around the bat and pressure batsmen out. Fortunately, England decided to play their natural game, to take on the bowlers and, in Kevin Pietersen's case, to dominate them. This approach is to be applauded, though it necessarily entails taking risks.
Playing aggressively means playing shots, but does not mean being reckless. However, it is a fine line between the two and Pietersen walks it every time he strides to the crease. For every one of his glorious attacking strokes there is the potential for him to mistime and end up back in the pavilion. Yesterday, he survived some scares, especially a mistimed hit to leg which went straight up in the air, but fortunately landed safely. It was a similar shot to that which saw the end of Andrew Flintoff, but went unremarked in the press.
Granted Flintoff's dismissal was a poor one, but it came as England were trying to stay on top of the Australian bowlers. If he had timed his shot better it may well have flown to the boundary and the applause would have rung out as loud as the criticism. Likewise, Andrew Strauss has been vilified for getting caught playing the pull shot for the second time in the match. Yet, how many runs has he scored with that shot in his Test career? Perhaps, this time it was the wrong shot to play, but maybe he just executed it poorly this time, something which can happen to any batsman.
Of the three 'giveaway' wickets, Paul Collingwood's was the most unfortunate. On 96 he charged down the wicket and was stumped. It looked bad and he would have been mortified, but everyone ought to remember how many similar shots he had played to get to 96. It was by playing aggressively, especially to Warne, that he reached that score. That he failed to make the three figure milestone is a shame, but it does not detract from a wonderful innings.
England know that they were over cautious in their first innings and died in the hole. They were determined not to make the same mistake again. Facing such a huge deficit they decided to throw off the shackles and try to strike some psychological blows of their own. If they lose the match, which seems likely, it will not be because of some over-aggressive shots in the second innings, it will be because of the nervous, defensive mindset they showed in the first, as well as the similarly negative selection policy and bowling displays.
Tagged with: Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss
Fighting back in a Test where you are 648 runs behind with nearly two days to go is tough, to say the least. England could have tried to grind out the time, playing defensively and taking no risks - just the approach the Australians hope for, as they put men around the bat and pressure batsmen out. Fortunately, England decided to play their natural game, to take on the bowlers and, in Kevin Pietersen's case, to dominate them. This approach is to be applauded, though it necessarily entails taking risks.
Playing aggressively means playing shots, but does not mean being reckless. However, it is a fine line between the two and Pietersen walks it every time he strides to the crease. For every one of his glorious attacking strokes there is the potential for him to mistime and end up back in the pavilion. Yesterday, he survived some scares, especially a mistimed hit to leg which went straight up in the air, but fortunately landed safely. It was a similar shot to that which saw the end of Andrew Flintoff, but went unremarked in the press.
Granted Flintoff's dismissal was a poor one, but it came as England were trying to stay on top of the Australian bowlers. If he had timed his shot better it may well have flown to the boundary and the applause would have rung out as loud as the criticism. Likewise, Andrew Strauss has been vilified for getting caught playing the pull shot for the second time in the match. Yet, how many runs has he scored with that shot in his Test career? Perhaps, this time it was the wrong shot to play, but maybe he just executed it poorly this time, something which can happen to any batsman.
Of the three 'giveaway' wickets, Paul Collingwood's was the most unfortunate. On 96 he charged down the wicket and was stumped. It looked bad and he would have been mortified, but everyone ought to remember how many similar shots he had played to get to 96. It was by playing aggressively, especially to Warne, that he reached that score. That he failed to make the three figure milestone is a shame, but it does not detract from a wonderful innings.
England know that they were over cautious in their first innings and died in the hole. They were determined not to make the same mistake again. Facing such a huge deficit they decided to throw off the shackles and try to strike some psychological blows of their own. If they lose the match, which seems likely, it will not be because of some over-aggressive shots in the second innings, it will be because of the nervous, defensive mindset they showed in the first, as well as the similarly negative selection policy and bowling displays.
Tagged with: Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss
Do England know how to save Test matches?
Considering their cataclysmic first three days, England can be content with reaching 293-5 on the fourth day. It is, rather prematurely, being lauded as the start of England’s attempts to retain the Ashes. England’s endeavours were certainly an improvement. But they didn’t bat in the manner that saves Test matches.
Three of England’s wickets were lost to reckless shots, the sort that would attract light criticism even in limited overs games. Andrew Strauss was caught pulling for the second time in the game; Paul Collingwood, after a fine innings, was stumped; and, most inexcusably of all, skipper Andrew Flintoff played a suicidal shot, caught trying to hit Shane Warne out of the state. It was more reminiscent of his pre-2003 batting, characterised by a lack of coherent thinking.
Though defiant, England’s batting was more Edgbaston 05 than Johannesburg 95. Rattling along at 3.66 an over, England were responsible for a day of exhilarating cricket. Yet their emphasis seemed to be on taking the game to Australia, rather than saving the game themselves.
It is an indication of modern Test cricket that the art of saving games has been lost. Batting time has been replaced by belting.
England have long since been a victim of ‘100 and out’ syndrome; indeed, Collingwood would never have attempted such a reckless shot had his score been anything other than 96. We only need to look at the Australians – Ricky Ponting was devastated to have missed out on a double ton, having made exactly 100 more than the Durham man.
Collingwood’s feisty knock deserves enormous credit, and has surprised many, myself included. But he must realise that, the moment he put century before the match, he ended England’s hopes of salvation. His partnership with Kevin Pietersen constituted the most uplifting facet of England’s performance.
At 244-3, Australia were searching for their next wicket, and there was a very real chance England would save the game. Alas, England gifted it to them.
Tagged with: Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss, reckless
Three of England’s wickets were lost to reckless shots, the sort that would attract light criticism even in limited overs games. Andrew Strauss was caught pulling for the second time in the game; Paul Collingwood, after a fine innings, was stumped; and, most inexcusably of all, skipper Andrew Flintoff played a suicidal shot, caught trying to hit Shane Warne out of the state. It was more reminiscent of his pre-2003 batting, characterised by a lack of coherent thinking.
Though defiant, England’s batting was more Edgbaston 05 than Johannesburg 95. Rattling along at 3.66 an over, England were responsible for a day of exhilarating cricket. Yet their emphasis seemed to be on taking the game to Australia, rather than saving the game themselves.
It is an indication of modern Test cricket that the art of saving games has been lost. Batting time has been replaced by belting.
England have long since been a victim of ‘100 and out’ syndrome; indeed, Collingwood would never have attempted such a reckless shot had his score been anything other than 96. We only need to look at the Australians – Ricky Ponting was devastated to have missed out on a double ton, having made exactly 100 more than the Durham man.
Collingwood’s feisty knock deserves enormous credit, and has surprised many, myself included. But he must realise that, the moment he put century before the match, he ended England’s hopes of salvation. His partnership with Kevin Pietersen constituted the most uplifting facet of England’s performance.
At 244-3, Australia were searching for their next wicket, and there was a very real chance England would save the game. Alas, England gifted it to them.
Tagged with: Paul Collingwood, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss, reckless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)