Day 4: Sad Australian Surrender

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Day 4: Sad Australian Surrender

 

July 12^th 2015

With rain threatened for the fifth day, the simple task for Australia on Day 4 of the Test was to bat solidly, not give wickets away and either get into a position to save the draw with the help of the rain, or strike out for the win on the final day during what play was possible.

In the BBC poll at the start of play, although two-thirds of respondents thought that England would win, the number, which had started at over 70%, dropped steadily as Warner and Smith rebuilt after the early loss of Rogers. A surprising 1 in 6 respondents – 16% - felt that Australia would manage the third highest successful fourth innings chase in Test history. There is still a large minority of fans who believe in their hearts that Australia are invincible.

Eleven wins for Australia in their last sixteen Tests suggests that they are a side with some real steel. The fact that England have only won one of their last five series did not give much room for hope. However, there is another number that Australians tend to forget: in the last three Ashes series in England, Australia have won just 2 matches, have drawn 6 and lost 7. Their recent record in England is poor and the 2010/11 result went against the recent trend of each side dominating Ashes series at home. Similarly, Australia’s recent away record is poor, with heavy defeats to England, India and Pakistan.

It looks very much as if, in this Test, the Australians paid the price for a touch of arrogance. They rolled up thinking that all they had to do was say how great they are and England would turn belly-up. With very much the same side as had dominated England in 2013/14 taking the field at Cardiff, the Australians really did not think that anyone who the English could put in front of them would give them many problems. Now the Australian side know that the series is going to be a battle and perhaps are being reminded that they have not won in England since 2001.

Fans have seen this scenario once before in the not too distant past – in 1997, when they showed up, took England as a bit of a joke, had minimal preparation for the series and lost the 1^st Test. England lost the series 3-2 though against an exceptional Australian side (which the 2015 tourists are not), albeit winning the final Test to make the scoreline more respectable. Coincidentally, that was also the last time that Australia have won after falling behind in an Ashes series. A staggering statistic is that 13 of the last 15 Ashes series have been won by the side who went 1-0 up: the only exceptions are 1997 and, of course, 2005.

There have been two key moments in this Test. Two deliveries that decided the outcome. Had Brad Haddin not dropped Joe Root on 0 in the 1^st innings England would have been 43-4 and would have got nowhere near 400. The second was just before Lunch today. Moeen Ali had taken fearful punishment in his first, two over spell as the Australians marked him a threat who needed to be removed from the attack. Alistair Cook brought him back for the last over before Lunch, presumably hoping that the batsmen would allow him to bowl six dots that would get him back into the groove for the afternoon. If Cook’s orders were something like “OK Moe, keep it tight for six balls”, Moeen failed to listen because David Warner, who was looking ominously solid up to then, completely missed a straight ball and was judged LBW. Had Australia gone into Lunch at 97-1 they could well have set a really solid platform for a victory push after Lunch. As it was, Moeen was supercharged again after a difficult few months and England came out after Lunch looking for the kill. 97-1 to 106-5 in 36 balls. Match over as a contest.

One of the big stories of the match has been the rejuvenation of Moeen Ali. Apart from first innings runs, he has dismissed Warner, Smith and Clarke – not a bad trio – for match figures of 31.3-5-130-5. Not only could he play in a holding role, but he struck out the opposition’s major batsmen.

Another marginal pick for many of the England fans was Stuart Broad. He responded with match figures of 31-7-99-5 and was certainly not flattered by them. Broad opened up the Australians like a can opener on the 3^rd morning and dismissed three of the top four in the second innings. He was nowhere near fit after injury in the World Cup, but has got better and better since. England supporters rarely give Stuart Broad the credit that he deserves as a very fine bowler when fully fit.

While the Australian media have taken defeat remarkably well and have been gracious and generous with the victors, a glance at social media will show that the defeat has caused massive shockwaves and rejection among those fans who have not reacted with stunned shock. Words such as “aberration” and “lucky” have been used to explain the defeat of their heroes. It will not be long before we are talking about doctored pitches and biased umpiring again, because to many of the Australian equivalent of the Barmy Army, a defeat cannot possibly have been due to other than ridiculous amounts of luck, or to foul play. It is one of the problems of the Australian system that, at times, it finds it difficult to give credit to opponents as being worthy rivals.

The suggestion though is that the pitch at Lord's is expected to be much more to the liking of the Australian attack and the slope will aid them. This would mean England missing a trick because it would give Australia a real chance to come back immediately to 1-1, throwing away immediately the benefits of winning the 1^st Test so convincingly.

What's interesting is how before the series everything was about the incredible strength in depth of the Australian squad and how they would have to leave out players that England would die for. Serious analysts found them stronger in almost every position such that the proposed pre-series combined side was heavily weighted to Australians. To my surprise though, when I picked my Fantasy side in the ECB Fantasy Game and was comparing the English and Australian option, usually I found that the English player seemed to be a better bet in English conditions.

In fact, now it is the Australian side who have the problems and appear not to have too many genuine options. As many as four players may be under scrutiny for the 2^nd Test.

Much of the opprobrium has fallen on Brad Haddin, who is soon to be 38. His drop of Joe Root probably cost Australia the match. To drop Haddin and bring in Neville after one Test would smack of panic and that is not very Australian. However, it does look as if the Australian selectors and the Australian fans are losing patience with him.

Shane Watson too is under massive scrutiny. They wanted him to spell the quicks, particularly if the batsmen got after Lyon and to provide middle-order stability with the bat. They got neither one thing nor the other. 30 and 13 with the bat, two starts, two LBWs playing around the pad, two failed reviews. Shane Watson’s failings with LBWs and reviews are becoming a figure of fun. With the ball, 13-0-47-0 in the match was not what the selectors wanted either, especially with Starc injured and Johnson ineffective, hence Michael Clarke even turned to David Warner at one point because he did not get what he needed from Watson. Maybe Australia will bring in Mitch Marsh for Lord’s, but many Australians do not seem to rate him very highly either, despite his good form in the warm-ups. Shane Watson may keep his place due to the uncertainty about the form and staying power of the bowlers more than his batting ability but, if he does, he should not be surprised if he finds his name printed on the scorecard as S.R. LBWatson.

With Mitch Starc limping badly and still taking on a huge burden, getting him ready for Thursday will be a big job, although Australia get the extra rest day for treatment (an advantage of losing so badly). If they take a risk on him and he breaks down completely, they could lose him for the rest of the series, quite apart from handicapping their side seriously in the Test. The likely replacement would be Peter Siddle with, most likely, Mitch Johnson moving up to taking the new ball again having lost it to Starc and Hazlewood in this Test. However, we saw in 2013 that Siddle, fine bowler that is, simply doesn't pose the same level of threat as Ryan Harris or Mitch Johnson. Siddle started the 2013 series well, but faded badly and left Ryan Harris with little support. Australia could take a punt on Pat Cummins, but he is made of glass, he hasn't played so far on the tour and, with his injury record, it would be a huge risk to play him. Pat Cummins has played just 1 Test and 26 ODIs/T20s in 4 years. A total of 1 Test and 5 FC matches in a career of four and a half years says a lot about his vulnerability to injury.

Mitch J. will probably survive to play at Lord's with the selectors reasoning that (a) he's got some runs, so his confidence will be rocketing, (b) he can't bowl that badly again in the series and (c) that he could turn in a series-turning spell at any moment, probably without warning. However, if he also under-performs at Lord's his place may come under real scrutiny. Little more than 3 months short of his 34^th birthday, he knows that time is running out for him anyway as an out and out quick bowler.

Mitch-watch: 25-3-111-0, 14, 16-2-69-2 and 77.

Mitch J showed some real fight today and there was a point where the two Mitches were batting comfortably, the England attack looked toothless and the target was under 200 and coming down too rapidly for comfort. At that point Australians started to believe in miracles.  The Australian fans will point out that when Mitch J. bats well his confidence goes up and he tends to bowl well too. England fans will hope that his performances with the ball do not improve!

Day 4 to England… the margins have just got bigger day by day.
Very definitely "mae syndod Cymraeg" boyo!