Cricket 2014
Australia Put Things In Context
October 26th 2014
So many things have happened since my last post a month and a half ago. The Domestic season ended, with an Australian being the difference between Middlesex surviving and dropping into Division 2. Not too many fans could have complained if Middlesex had been relegated, having been consistently worse than dreadful since late May but, over the course of the season, Lancashire were just a bit worse. While the teams at the top of Division 2 and in Division 1 attract the top players, teams such as Leicestershire and Gloucestershire can only watch their players leave in droves for more attractive counties where international aspirations are more easily attended to. It is setting in stone the divisions between the have and the have-not teams, a situation that is being paralleled in Test cricket.
All has paled into insignificance though due to two events that have shaken world cricket and caused domestic cricket to be forgotten even faster than usual: a book and the forced end of a tour.
You do not have to be a cricket fan to know that Kevin Pietersen wrote a book – or, at least, a ghost-writer did and he signed it. The book has laid bare the soul of English cricket. Whatever you think of KP, he was a great player (“was” as he is unlikely to play anything other than the odd T20 game in the future) and his case has been ridiculously badly handled by the ECB management. He has put a lot of noses out of joint, but a lot of people are struggling to see what the explanation is for all that has happened and why, if he was such an awkward blighter, he was first made captain and then exiled and then brought back again and then exiled again? What is clear is that the England side that went to Australia was far more divided and in a far worse state than we imagined at the time. It was in no state to play cricket and some poor squad picks did not help. It was a great example of how to destroy a winning side. The storm surrounding KP’s book has just gone to show that the blood-letting and the instability will last for a while yet and, until unity and common-purpose is restored, the side will struggle. Not everyone has confidence that the ECB management is capable of making things work.
Test cricket itself has split into the have and the have-nots. The storm surrounding the West Indian decision to end the recent series in India has made that clear, even for those who have tried to deny it. This was the result of a dispute that has bubbled on for years, occasionally causing the West Indies to field a second, or even a third eleven. The West Indies cricket board is strapped for cash and survives with lucrative tours such as those by England that fill islands, hotels and stadia with fans and those of India that earn generous TV revenues. The West Indies have already seen how they have passed from being “A” tourists of England, to being “B” tourists, getting the short, May tour. Gone are the 5-Test summer series (the last was in 2000) and being the principal attraction of the summer (the last time was the 4-Test series in 2004). The West Indian players, many of whom are genuinely talented, want to earn as much money as their colleagues abroad, but their Board simply does not have the money to make that possible. To put it kindly, the West Indies Cricket Board has not been exactly an example of great management, watching the dividend of the glory years slip away, showing no sign of having any coherent plan to harness the natural talent of the islands, or any capacity or intent to generate unity of purpose.
The BCCI, who are showing themselves to be as bullying as the English or Australians were in the post-war years, have cancelled all bilateral tours in a fit of pique and threaten to sue the West Indies Cricket Board for the $60 million that they calculate that the tour has cost them in lost revenues. Many neutrals fear that this could push West Indies cricket into bankruptcy.
India refuse to host, or even play, Pakistan and now, the West Indies. They do not host Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (not economically viable as tourists) and are less than enthusiastic about New Zealand. South Africa play few Tests against anyone right now. This leaves India depending on frequent tours by England, Australia (committed to tour every year) and Sri Lanka to provide the bulk of cricket for home fans. It’s a repetitive diet that will soon pale. Right now, only three sides in world cricket matter. The others and, particularly, the weakest in playing terms and the least powerful economically, survive on crumbs, mainly from the BCCI’s table but, in the case of Bangladesh and New Zealand, ever more on the ECB’s willingness to continue frequent bilateral series that generate revenue and give exposure.
Meanwhile, Australia are playing Pakistan. Not too many Australians would have been very worried about this series. They do not tend to rate Pakistan too highly and a Pakistan without its most potent bowler and in a permanent state of anarchy is not regarded as much of a rival. A 5-0 win against England followed by a 2-1 win in a re-building South Africa persuaded the Australians that their side is a bit special. Pakistan are showing them that they are not. England were just so awful that they were no kind of test for the Australians and, in South Africa, the Mitch Johnson/Ryan Harris combo proved irresistible. Against Pakistan, the support for Mitch Johnson is much weaker and suddenly the Australian attack looks far less penetrative. From 7-2 on the first morning, Pakistan fought their way to a competitive total and reached 415-5 before collapsing. They then watched, probably as bemused as anyone, as Australia collapsed themselves from 128-0 and a position of great security to 267-8, from which some tail-end hitting helped scramble past 300.
There was a blizzard of criticism of the slow Pakistan batting and tactics on the first morning, comparing it to England’s display in Australia. There was though a critical difference: they saw off the storm in the morning and kept batting; Mitch Johnson was forced to come back for a third, a fourth and a fifth spell. As he did so, his pace dropped from a nasty 90+mph, to a much more friendly mid-80s. Even in the second innings his pace was down as tired legs had still not recovered – it is what England totally failed to do.
The biggest difference though is the nature of the Australian support bowling. In England, Australia had Ryan Harris bowling almost unsupported. In Australia, Harris and Johnson together posed a sustained and massive threat that cowed the opposition and terrified the tail; with Peter Siddle in his correct role as a support, rather than a strike bowler, the side was unstoppable. In Pakistan, Johnson is almost unsupported and even when he takes a few wickets, the support bowling cannot maintain any kind of pressure. Nathan Lyon is bowling with the batsmen on top and comfortable and finding that it is a whole different story to coming on when the top-order batsmen have been blown away and the middle-order and tail are trembling.
Of course, Pakistan have not yet won the series. However, as a measure of just how much Australia rate their opponents, there are only two Tests in this series and Australia cannot now win it. They have been so much second best since the first hour of the match that it is not easy to see how they can come back in Abu Dhabi and square the series. Pakistan, in contrast, must be thinking that they can ambush and whitewash another side in their adopted home.
What we are seeing puts England’s performance last winter in sharp context. England were awful. Australia were good, but they are far from a great side: they are a decent one, but still have many of the problems revealed in summer 2013. Australia are giving England an unpleasant reminder that they were not beaten by one of the finest sides of the last 50 years, as the 2006/07 tourists were, instead they were beaten out of sight by a side than is not much more than a decent upper-mid table team. That is the measure of how bad England were. The England side has, despite the win against a totally disinterested India, not restored itself to anything even approaching its former level. The reality check should do the ECB good.
