Ashes 2013
What do Australia do now?
August 14th
[09:00 CEST]
For Australia, the news is stark. They have competed for parts, sometimes large
parts, of all four Tests, yet have always found that England have been just too
good in the end. They have lost 7 of their last 8 Tests, the one exception
being a game ruined by rain. Even in that rain-ruined game they had collapsed
in the second innings and one would have not bet against England pushing the
chase mighty close even from their parlous position, because they had been in a
similar position in almost every innings of the series and escaped.
It is hard
to see how the series will not end 4-0. Even if Australia get on top at The
Oval, you know that they will find a way of losing the game. England know that
they can play so much better at The Oval than they have so far in the series.
Australia’s
decline has been clear for several years. From a peak rating in the ICC Test
Championship of over 140, they are likely to end this series below 100.
Occasional series wins against overpowered rivals and some straw clutching have
convinced Cricket Australia and the fans of the team that their side was
something special that was on the verge of greatness again. It has allowed the team
to blunder on with no real forward vision. When Australia lost 1-0 to South
Africa it was spun as “a better result than England’s had been”. At one point
in the 4th Test an Australian fan retorted that the difference
between England and Australia is that “Australia know that they are c**p, but
England have not realised that they are too”: with England at #2 in the ICC
Test rankings it puts the other eight Test teams in their proper place! There
is a general retreat from reality in Australian cricket: defeat is okay
provided that we can convince ourselves that the opposition was lucky/as bad as
us (delete to taste).
Whereas
England learnt from a bad 2012 and came out stronger: P 13, W 8, D 4, L 1 since
that defeat by South Africa, with a current 12-game unbeaten run, Australia
have lost four Tests in a series for the second time in six months and have, in
the last year, got a record of P 14, W 3 D 3 L 8, with the three wins all against
a Sri Lankan side in the doldrums that has never won a Test in Australia. When
Australia are playing a superior rival they compete, but then go under in the
end; they seem to have lost the knack of obtaining a fighting draw, let alone a
hard-fought win.
Most of the
attention has been on Australia’s batting failures, but the bowling failures
have been just as manifest and not just in the spin department. Australia
expected Nathan Lyon to be outbowled by Graeme Swann, hence the Ashton Agar
play. Time and again though in the series, the new ball attack has had England
on the rack, only for the back-up bowlers to relax the pressure and let England
escape. Peter Siddle has faded as Ryan Harris has grown and Harris has, all too
often, been left carrying the entire attack. Harris though is close to the end
of his career and is probably one, final injury or a season, whichever comes
sooner, from retirement. Who will replace him? Pattinson is injured, but had
not made a great impact anyway averaging 44 in a low-scoring series. Cummins is
injured, again – will he ever survive the rigours of Test cricket? Mitchell
Johnson carries too much baggage to be risked against England. Mitchell Starc is
out of favour despite respectable returns in his two Tests in this series. And
poor Jackson Bird at times was struggling to stay above 80mph at
Chester-le-Street, his pace fading rapidly towards the end of both innings.
Australia
have used seven specialist bowlers and two all-rounders in this series so far.
Seven bowlers have bowled at least 80 overs – i.e. at least 20 per Test. It
looks like they still do not have a clear idea who their best attack is. They
have also used 16 of the 18 players in their squad. With Shane Watson doubtful
for the 5th Test, there must be a chance that James Faulkner can
make that 17 out of 18, with Matt Wade the only one of the squad to miss out
and even he may well get a game if Australia decide to look to the future.
In contrast,
England’s “creaking” attack has been consistent. Anderson, Broad, Bresnan and
Swann have delivered all but 45 of the overs in the series, with Steve Finn’s
one Test accounting for more than half of the rest. Whereas England’s four main
bowlers have 67 of the 72 wickets to fall to England, Australia’s four most
used bowlers, which surprisingly include Ashton Agar, have just 46 of the 70
wickets taken by Australia in the series.
Even though
you can make a real case for Nick Compton to come back into the England side to
open in the 5th Test, with Root going back down to #6, England have
made just one change all series and that was Bresnan replacing Finn after the 1st
Test. England will not change anything at The Oval unless injury forces them
to. In the unlikely event that Nick Compton were to be given a chance to stake
a claim to tour this winter, Jonny
Bairstow, who has reached 14 in every single innings, but then only once gone
past 37, would get a game off before going to Australia to get some runs with
Yorkshire and will come back refreshed and stronger, as he did last year.
In contrast,
Darren Lehmann is stating today that only Rogers and Clarke of the top seven
can be sure of their place at The Oval and, of the bowlers, only Harris and
Siddle can feel confident that they will be in the starting XI. Even so, with
the series lost and Harris so vital to the attack, there is a strong case for
not pushing his luck and resting him before the return series.
You can
understand Darren Lehman’s frustration. Watson averages 27, Haddin 25.1, Smith
25 and Khawaja, just 19. Yesterday, when Chris Rogers fell, England knew that
they would get Khawaja quickly. Watson has turned into a liability, not least
for his use of the pads to replace the bat and his use of DRS to replace common
sense. And Haddin’s two fifties have been the only times that he has passed 13
in the series: he will be 35 in October, one wonders if this will be his last
series. Darren Lehmann is hinting that Matt Wade will take the gloves at The
Oval and, if he does, will Brad Haddin have any serious expectation of playing
Test cricket again?
Even Warner,
of whom, at one point yesterday afternoon it was being commented that his
absence for the first two Tests had cost Australia the series, only averages
30. When a batsman averaging 30 in the series and with a career average well
under 40 is the saviour of your team, you know that there is a problem.
There is a
real possibility that Australia will continue their revolving doors policy and
make five or possibly as many as six changes at The Oval, with Faulkner, Wade,
Hughes, Starc and Agar all having a good chance of playing. Even Ed Cowan might
just be wondering if he may not get another chance to translate his fine county
form into Test runs. Watson, Khawaja, Smith, Bird, Haddin and even, possibly,
Lyon (if Agar plays, Lyon would depend on a conscious decision being made to
play two spinners) and, for strategic reasons, Harris will be uncertain of
retaining their places. It will do little to increase the confidence of those
who are selected that they will get a run in the side. The inevitable result is
that individuals play for themselves and to try to guarantee their next
paycheque, rather than for the team.
Last year
England suffered a horror run. 3-0 in the UAE when they should have won two of
the matches. 1-1 in Sri Lanka. 2-0 v South Africa when they should have won one
and could have won another. Lost the 1st Test in India badly. Yet,
with only minor changes, the same XI is being played and has now gone 12 games
unbeaten. I am trying to remember the last time England made two changes for a
Test unless it was due to injury or unavailability (including resting) of
players. They had some serious issues, but worked on them and the result was to
come back stronger. Occasionally decisions have looked unfair or ruthless but,
most times, they have worked.
Darren
Lehman needs to do what Duncan Fletcher and, later, Andy Flower did. Identify a
small number of players and stick with them through thick and thin, discarding
only when certain that one cannot make the grade. If you lose some games, you
lose them, but you build up a team. The first step along that way, as it was
for Duncan Fletcher, is to find a captain who can work with you on a long-term
vision over a minimum of 2-3 years. Fletcher’s answer was Nasser Hussain who,
steadily, made England first harder to beat and then, a decent outfit.
Often, the
difference between success and failure is a matter of just one or two players.
England in 2008 were two players short of a good side. By 2009, those players
had been found. Australia 2013 are in a similar position. It is no good
changing everything and starting from scratch: keep the nucleus of the side and
try to find those one or two faces who will make all the difference.
Cricket is
so much easier when you are commenting from the Press Box, or from the security
of a Blog, or in the stands. You do not have to justify your actions and
decisions. Will Darren Lehmann be strong enough to do what seems obvious to
many fans? Or does he have his own, clear strategy that we are just not astute
enough to see, but will just need time and patience to come to fruition? We
will have to wait and see. He is the one being paid the big bucks to make the
tough calls and, right now, they are as tough as they come.
No comments:
Post a Comment