Fourth Test, Day 1: Australia Imitate The Foreman Against Frazier Fight

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fourth Test, Day 1: Australia Lose the Plot

 

August 6^th 2015

Remember Joe Frazier against George Foreman? Joe Frazier was going to attack and not be intimidated whatsoever. It was toe-to-toe, chin to chin, not one step back. You may remember too that Joe Frazier was floored six times in two rounds before being knocked out. Later, the more canny Mohamed Ali took the blows, tired his opponent and knocked him out himself. The Australians were Frazier when they needed to be Ali.

It is not impossible that Alistair Cook could decide to declare at Lunch today and try to win inside two days. The series has reached that level of silliness that his declaration timing may, instead, be influenced by the knowledge that thousands of fans have tickets for Day 3 and will be hoping to see England re-gain the Ashes rather than gaining a refund because the match has already ended.

Really, almost everything came down in Australia’s favour today: England were missing there attack leader, Australia lost the toss but were inserted to give them an immediate chance to Test England’s weakened attack and England’s recent win-loss sequence was due to flip to “loss” and everyone felt that once some early movement had been seen off, the pitch would be full of runs. Recent decisions to insert have not always had happy consequences and this one  looked 50-50 to such an extent that some speculated that Alistair Cook was scared to bat and possibly be shot out quickly.

And yet, in a demented hour and a bit of cricket, Australia threw away the match and, with it, the series.

Not only that, but they made a strange tactical selection that has made their task even harder by playing only three seamers, two of whom are strike bowlers who can only bowl short spells. Playing Shaun Marsh for brother Mitch Marsh strengthened the batting and allowed Michael Clarke to retreat to #5, but made not an iota of difference to the result: as at Edgbaston, it was still the tail-enders who gave England the biggest problems. Comfortably the highest partnerships were for the 8^th and the 10^th wicket and the top score was by Mitch Johnson at #8.

“We want four wickets before Lunch” a friend told me before play started. The fourth wicket fell with the 16^th ball of the morning as Australia flung the bat at everything.

Ten runs off the first over. Nineteen from the first three. It would not have been a bad start in a T20, but it was hardly the way to see off the threat of the new ball.

The problem was that it looked like all-out attack with no common sense applied whatsoever. The innings lasted 18.3 overs: 111 balls, of which, just 8 would have hit the stumps. The batsmen played at a lot of deliveries that they should have left. No one was willing to sell his wicket dearly. It could have been even worse: both Marsh and Clarke (twice) had close calls.

Had Hazlewood and Lyon not gritted out 33 deliveries to edge Australia past 50 and up to 60, England could well have had the lead by Lunch.

Michael Clarke later said that they were incredibly difficult conditions. Maybe they were, but if so, the Australian bowlers could not exploit them. You need a really devastating response when the opposition is starting its reply before Lunch on the first day – apparently only the fourth time in Tests that a side has been bowled out before Lunch on the 1^st Day – but with England 13-0 at Lunch, that chance had been and gone. There was a wobble at 34-2 that could have seen Australia put some real pressure on and limit the damage, but the attack was not designed for such conditions. It was a day when Peter Siddle was indicated, when suddenly Mitch Marsh looks like a Richard Hadlee without the sideburns just thanks to the fact that he is not playing.

Before the series, pundits analysed the Australian attack and came to the conclusion that it would be superior in all conditions: the canny Australian seamers would exploit English conditions if offered, that the low, slow pitches of 2013 would be suicide for England, turning pitches would allow Nathan Lyon and Fawad Ahmed to outbowl Moeen Ali and any quick wicket would be a gift to Mitch Johnson. Man for man, back in May, Australia seemed to be superior all down the line. Combined sides tended to break 7-4 or 8-3 to Australia in the best of cases, with the more radical fans suggesting that maybe Jimmy Anderson would be the only England player who might actually strengthen their side.

England, it was concluded might, if they got lucky with the weather, limit the damage to 4-0 or maybe even 4-1 if they played out of their skins in one match.

What we have seen is that if there is any movement on offer, the England attack exploits it far more successfully and the Australian batsmen, unlike their English counterparts, cannot cope with it. Here, it was not big movement like at Edgbaston – the ball usually did just enough to take an edge. Similarly, throughout the series, even when the Australian attack breaks through with the new ball – almost inevitably Adam Lyth has gifted them a start – there is at least one England batsman in the middle order (usually Bell, Root or Moeen) who has the discipline to hold the time and then start to counter-attack.

Typical of this change of paradigm is Stuart Broad. He struggled in the winter after more surgery and was also looking too high in the batting order at 10. A lot of fans were furious that he seemingly had a guaranteed place in the side while rarely performing to justify it. Broad has been re-born in this series. Thirteen wickets in the two Tests v New Zealand and scores of 46 and 23 with the ball hinted at a revival of his “strike bowler who is a useful bat” role. 34, 7-84 and 50 against Yorkshire in his only County Championship match this season suggested that both aspects of his game were coming together again. Now, in less than three and a half Tests, he has 20 wickets @ 17.2 and 99 runs @ 19.8, including a wonderful counter-attacking innings in partnership with Moeen Ali at Edgbaston that helped set up England’s win. Stuart Broad has a real chance of ending the series with a highly creditable 25 wickets and 150 runs.