Ashes 2015
Fifth Test, Preview.
August 19th 2015
With the final Test about to
start, the whinging has begun. When, just a few months ago, we were told that
there was no surface that England could prepare that would not play into the
hands of the Australian attack, the British media are quoting back reports from
the Australian camp of the fury of the Australian players that they have been
forced to play on doctored pitches aimed at ensuring that England would win at
any price. Pundits who saw England losing 4-0 at best are back-peddling. Whereas,
in March, an Australian side that had beaten England 5-0 at home and then
defeated South Africa looked to have no cracks and certainly not in English
conditions,
the whole Australian side
now seems to be creaking at the seams and the flow of talent that, six months
ago seemed limitless, suddenly looks far less obvious: there are few good,
young batsmen banging at the door to replace the likes of Rogers, Clarke and
Haddin and it is not obvious that the bowlers currently in India with Australia
A would have done any better.
Part of the problem has been in
the personnel picked. Bowlers expected to thrive in English conditions such as
Peter Siddle and Shane Watson have been marginal figures, playing bit parts at
most. It seems unlikely that either will play again for Australia. Siddle is
the type of bowler who would expect to play havoc on a pitch with some life in
it, yet even with Josh Hazlewood out and doubts about the staying power and
health of other bowlers, Peter Siddle cannot get a game.
Too many of the Australian team
seem one-dimensional. Mitch Johnson is a particular case in point: much of the
hype about him is down to just two series when he got pitches to his liking.
Experience shows that a good fast bowler can be dangerous anywhere because he
generates problems through pace and accuracy, hence the West Indian quicks were
almost as deadly on flat, Indian pitches as on Caribbean trampolines. Contrast
though Mitch Johnson’s figures in the countries where he has played most of his
70 Tests: he averages 24.5 in Australia, 25.3 in South Africa, but 38.4 in
England and 40.1 in India. Compare that with Dennis Lillee who, despite first
time out with Kerry Packer and then when injury forced him to reduce his pace
and concentrate on movement and accuracy (although he was still pretty brisk in
England in 1981, even recovering from pneumonia). Lillee averaged around 20 in
England, Australia and New Zealand, while his only significant blip was in
Pakistan.
That brings us back to The Oval
and the 5
th Test. In 2013, England had largely dominated the series
and went to The Oval 3-0 up. A couple of experimental picks and, popular belief
is that the momentum in the series changed completely and set up the defeat
that winter. Certainly, the Australian spin is that they played exciting,
attacking cricket, set up a great finish and were unfortunate to lose the Test
and the series having been the better side and having played the better cricket
overall.
Like many things related to the
2013 Ashes, the spin placed on the events and the actual events themselves do
not bear too much comparative scrutiny.
The Test suffered badly with the
rain. Much of Day 2 was lost, as was the whole of Day 4. By late on Day 2
Australia had declared at 492-9, made at an impressive 3.8 runs an over. Watson
and Smith both made big hundreds and, famously, the first spells of both Simon Kerrigan
and Chris Woakes came in for some fearful punishment, mainly from Shane Watson.
England, conscious that they
could not win the game, but could lose it if they failed to save the follow-on,
set out to secure the draw and batted four sessions at a painful crawl of 2.1
runs per over. By the end of Day 3, 247-4 meant that the follow-on target was
only 46 away.
When Day 5 started, it seemed as
if the only conceivable interest was whether or not England would make those 46
runs. If they did, all logic suggested that the match would be dead.
Logic though, had a bad time… as
it has had much of the time in this current series. Forgotten in the later
events was the fact that England’s batsmen came out and blazed away until Lunch,
aided by innings of 47 from 57 balls by Matt Prior and 34 from 24 balls by
Graeme Swann. The Follow-On target was left far behind in a hail of boundaries.
130 runs came from 28.4 overs.
4.53 runs per over in the session.
Without this positive cricket
from England, what came after would never have been possible.
With the game suddenly moving
along more rapidly, Michael Clarke responded in kind. Australia went for quick
runs too. 111 from 23 overs, at 4.8 per over, although 4-43 from Stuart Broad
ensured that Michael Clarke probably scored fewer runs more slowly than he had hoped.
With overs to be made up,
Australia could declare at Tea, offering a target of 227 from a nominal 44
overs.
Not many sides score even 150 in
a session of a Test, even a long session. The assumption was that Australia
would go all-out for quick wickets and brownie points and that there would be a
5 o’clock handshake with England maybe 50-3 and no result possible either way.
What no one could have expected
was to see England come out and play positively, but not rashly. 14 from the
first two overs.
Even the early loss of Joe Root
did not stop the flow of runs. After 13 overs England were ahead of where
Australia had been in their innings, both in runs and in wickets. A couple of
quiet overs followed and then, Jonathon Trott cut loose. Consecutive overs went
for 10 and 12 and suddenly England were 85-1 and cruising.
When Cook fell, Australia’s
problems just got worse. In came KP with a licence to enjoy himself. The 50
partnership came in 48 balls, with 45 to Pietersen and just 7 of them to Trott.
KP’s 50 took only 36 balls.
While the plaudits were for
Michael Clarke’s adventurous/daring/attacking/brave (delete to taste)
declaration, people singularly failed to appreciate was that everything Michael
Clarke did that last day, England did just a little better.
Of course, the denouement has
become famous. With 4 overs to go and shadows lengthening. With England ahead
of the run rate and needing just 21 from 24 balls, the umpires called the
players off for bad light.
How you saw that decision
depended very much on your colours. The crowd were furious. The Australians saw
it as natural justice
because to lose
would have been unjust after their positive play.
Less comment has been made of
the desperate efforts to waste time as the target approached, the constant
claims from fielders that they could not see the ball and a careful “Ooops!
Sorry! Lost my run-up” that almost certainly denied England at least one more
over as it contributed to an interminable over that featured also a no ball, a
run out (the fielder saw the ball then), an appeal against the light by Michael
Clarke and a careful – and extremely slow – field re-organisation.
While there is certainly a case
that, in a contrived finish, neither side really deserves to lose, legend has
it that it was Australia’s 111 runs in 23 overs that made the exciting last
day. That conveniently erases from the record the fact that, on that last day,
England scored 336 runs in 68.4 overs, at a rate of 4.89 per over (three times
as many runs at a slightly faster rate than the much-lauded Australian second
innings).
Would that this Test at The Oval
give us such an exciting finish.
[PS: Of course, having said that
Pat Cummins would replace Josh Hazlewood, Australia have thrown a surprise by
playing Peter Siddle instead. This is his first Test for a year.]
