Ashes 2013
Looking for confidence, or looking to avoid
a new disaster?
July 26th
[12:00 CEST]
The bookmakers tend to know a thing or two about where their money is safe. Their reaction to the 2-0
England lead in the Test series and Australia’s much-publicised problems has
been interesting: the odds have barely changed. England are warm, but not hot
favourites to win the 3rd Test and the odds on Australia winning
have increased slightly, but only slightly, to 5-1 and a draw seen as
increasingly likely. In other words, the way that the bookies see the 3rd
Test is that nothing has really changed and there is no sense that Australia
are nearing meltdown in the way that there was in the famous 2006/07 series,
when a whitewash seemed inevitable as soon as England threw away a strong
position in the 2nd Test.
After
several difficult weeks, David Warner’s 193 for Australia A against strong
opposition has led to his immediate recall to the main squad, with the
suggestion that he is almost certain to play at #6 in the 3rd Test
(the fact that South Africa A replied with 613-7
suggests that the pitch was not the most threatening).
This is the position occupied by Steve Smith at Lords but, quite possibly, Phil
Hughes is the batsman most at threat to accommodate him. Hughes is opening in
the current match – going back to his old position when he first burst on the Test
scene – with Ed Cowan. With Khawaja at 3, Smith and Wade at #5 and Faulkner at
#6, it is certainly a highly unusual and experimental line-up. Just what the
Australians expect to learn from it is highly uncertain. Certainly the side
seems better designed to reveal the bowling options for the 3rd Test,
especially as there are suggestions that Smith, batting a 4 in this game, is at
least one place too high in the order even at #6 in the Tests.
It is
almost as if Australia have decided how they want to address the batting
issues, but are totally unclear about the bowling options and have decided
that, more than a confidence boost, the batsmen need some rest. The situation
is so rarefied that were Sussex to have taken two or three quick wickets against
the Test batting XI, it would increase the pressure, not decrease it, so the
move to rest most of the batsmen is a defensive one. There is also a suggestion
that Michael Clarke’s back may be troubling again badly.
By accident
or design, Sussex have picked a fairly
strong team, with several players who have a real interest in doing well
against them such as Chris Jordan, Monty Panesar, James Taylor, all of whom will
hold serious ambitions about playing Tests in the next year and, possibly even Rory
Hamiliton-Brown, seen only a couple of years ago as a real England prospect,
who is now trying to establish himself again and may hope that he can get the
Lions interested. There are also though the usual hand of young and fringe
players, one of the most interesting being Chris Liddle, seen as a one-day
specialist, who would like to show that he can perform in the longer format
too.
One
thing that is striking though is the chronic lack of depth that Australia can
count on. They have taken the advice of many fans and gone for some solid
county pros who have made a reputation in the Championship such as Ed Cowan and
Chris Rogers, without realising that county pros get studied and the weaknesses
are well known. There are plenty of other players around English cricket who
they could use, but their quality is very much in question. A case in point is
Dan Christian, veteran of 17 ODIs and 11 T20s, playing for Gloucestershire: he
has taken three, expensive wickets, gone for a lot of runs (including 0-57 off
4 overs against Somerset, giving him an economy rate of 9.2 and 3 wickets at 76)
and scored just 88 runs in his eight innings. I am listening to the
commentators wonder why Gloucestershire are paying a huge sum for Christian,
while an honest county pro like Will Gidman, who would take more wickets and
get more runs, is being kept out of the side.
No comments:
Post a Comment