Ashes 2015
Third Test: Day 1; What on Earth is Going
on Here?
July 29th 2015
How much damage has Lord’s done to England’s morale? The Australians are laughing and poking fun again, which is never pleasant to watch; really they do not seem to consider this England side worthy opponents and, to their more radical fans, the first Test was a story of a doctored pitch and diabolical luck.
Wiser heads will have seen that Australia are still vulnerable. There are doubts about the health of Chris Rogers, who has had a second, frightening scare. The middle order of Clarke, Voges and Marsh missed out to a large degree when the top of the order were scoring runs for fun at Lord’s. And, of course, there is Mitch J.: can he have consecutive good matches in England for the first time? As the Australian talismen, if Clarke and Mitch J. are struggling, Australia will struggle. It is not hard to argue that Australia are not as good as they appeared to be at Lord’s, nor are England so bad: something between Cardiff and Lord’s is the correct balance. Man for man, Australia are probably better, but by much less than we expected before the series started.
That said, England’s top order struggles are getting too serious to ignore. Lyth, Ballance and Bell are all under real threat. On this occasion, Ballance has been made the fall guy, allowing Jonny Bairstow to come back in for what seems like his umpteenth opportunity but, he has got so many runs for Yorkshire that if the county game is to have any relevance to the Test side, he had to get into the side.
More controversially, with Mark Wood injured, Steve Finn was recalled. This seemed like a high-risk strategy. To everyone’s astonishment though – particularly, one suspects, the Australians, Finn had a blinder. Brought on for Stuart Broad after just three overs from him, Finn immediately removed Steve Smith and suddenly, the whole balance of the series seemed to change. Steve Smith had hit 215 and 58 at Lord’s and here he was, edging to slip cheaply off a bowler who Australia can hardly have considered a threat. And then, in his third over, Finn removed Clarke too and suddenly Australia were under the cosh and England knew that they needed just one more wicket.
Enter another bowler ridiculed by the Australian fans. Jimmy Anderson tore through the breech created by Finn. Within half an hour of Lunch is was 94-7 and you were blinking in disbelief. If the courageous Chris Rogers, who knew that one more blow to the head would probably end his career, had not hung on like a limpet Australia would have been in dire straits. Once Stuart Broad finally removed him, there was no recovery.
The most optimistic fans saw England with a lead by the Close. Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath predicted that 136 would give Australia a significant first innings lead and that Australia would be batting again by the Close.
How wonderful it was to see the Australian seamers show as little discipline as their batsmen and allow England to race along. None of the seamers when for less than 4-an-over (even the most profiligate of England’s seam trio – Steve Finn – went at well under 4) and had it not been for Lyon’s two wickets – one, the most outrageous piece of luck to dismiss Alistair Cook, the other the most outrageous rush of blood from Ian Bell – Australia’s situation would be even more dire.
There was plenty of talk that England were outrageously lucky, with many fine deliveries getting no reward, but the truth of it was that Australia’s attack was like a pre-2004 version of Andrew Flintoff: loads of effort, loads of threat, but little reward because the length and the line were not quite right to turn balls that skimmed past the edge into balls that were nicked behind. Before the innings the pundits said that the Australian seamers would see the English length and line to get the maximum out of the wicket and replicate it with even greater threat. What no one expected was that the Australian seamers would look good, but totally fail to present a consistent threat.
What was interesting was the way that Michael Clarke, seeing how England were attacking – just a single maiden was bowled in 29 overs and both Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Marsh went at 5 or more an over – seemed to be careful to shield Mitch J. He got a three over spell, then one of two overs and, after Joe Root hit him for a streaky six, did not re-appear, which was most un-Mitch-like. It may just be coincidence that rain-breaks and planned rotations ended up depriving him of a longer spell but, in conditions where he was expected to be almost unplayable, it was odd to see so little of him in the attack.
Mitch J.’s morale is known to be fragile. In the past the English crowds and the Barmy Army have got after him and his bowling has fallen apart. In 2009 he was dropped from the side after a series of increasingly erratic performances and, in 2013, was not even picked due to poor form. With an attack that has a lot of potential, but not so much experience, it would be understandable if Michael Clarke wanted to protect his most valuable asset from a 2009, or 2010/11-like decline, where a single explosive performance was followed by a serious tailing-off.
For Day 2, England know that the loss of Ian Bell before the Close has exposed the middle order. Jonny Bairstow is new at the crease and must surely be nervous after his last encounter with Australia. At parity with 7 wickets left and perfect batting conditions expected, England know that anything less than a lead of 200 would be a criminal waste. They need to bat long and try to put Australia out of the game by the end of the second day.
The aim has to be to see off the first hour and then start to accelerate. England need at least two fifties from Root, Bairstow, Buttler and Moeen, plus a couple of 30s or 40s: if they get them they will be well set. In contrast, if Australia get an early wicket they will be confident of keeping the lead well below 100 and getting right back into the game.
Mitch-watch: 3 and 5-0-20-0.
Where was Mitch?
No comments:
Post a Comment