England v Australia: Third Test, Stokes Re-Kindles the Ashes as Australia Throw it Away

 

England v Australia: Third Test

Stokes Re-Kindles the Ashes as Australia Throw it Away

August 25^th 2019

 

England should now be 2-0 down with two to play and the destination of the Ashes, but not the series, decided. They are not, thanks to a series of extraordinary events that highlights the fragility of both sides.

An Australian collapse at Lord’s threatened to give England an unexpected chance to square the series after the heavy defeat at Edgbaston. That England were blown away in the 1^st Test, having dominated the match for the first three days, was a salutary lesson. Australia were fifteen behind with their top three dismissed, but England could not finish them off. Might it have changed the result if Jimmy Anderson had not hobbled off after bowling just four overs on the first morning? Just possibly, but a side should be able to overcome such handicaps. Would England have won the 2^nd Test had they not lost an hour on the final morning after so much play – effectively, two full days – had not been lost previously? Quite possibly! These though are simple imponderables: we do not know what would have happened and, both times, Australia rode their luck and battled through.

With Steve Smith, previously the difference between the two sides, out of the 3^rd Test, England had their Ashes 2005 moment. In that series, the freak injury to Glenn McGrath, when he trod on a cricket ball in the warm-up, changed the destination of the series. England revived. Steve Smith out. Jofra Archer causing mayhem. The momentum swinging, surely England had to win now, or lose the series?

Even more, Australia blinked first with selection. Apart from the enforced change to replace Steve Smith, with Labuschagne proving every bit as effective a stand-in as Jofra Archer was for Jimmy Anderson, Cameron Bancroft was the fall-guy for top-order failings. The change made no difference, with Australia 25-2 within forty minutes, but then it was England who lost the plot. An hour of buffet bowling and Australia were in a strong position when they could have been all out for under 100. Take away the 111 stand between a revived Warner and Labuschagne and twenty wickets fell for 145 between the first two innings of the match and the start of the third. For all the complaints that Chris Woakes has been underbowled, his arthritic performance on the first afternoon as two batsmen scored almost as many as the other twenty in the first innings, suggests that his knee is troubling him more than is being admitted. In conditions in which you would have expected him to make hay, his match figures were 25-5-85-2.

The less said about England’s first innings, the better. Jason Roy’s fourth consecutive single-figure score and the manner of his dismissals, show that he is not making a success of opening the innings. Against Australia, he has a sequence of 10, 28, 0, 2, 9 & 8. Joe Root is playing out of position to protect lesser batsmen around him and struggling. Root plays all three formats and has been flogged into the ground over the last couple of years, a fact that some of the more ungrateful fans who are calling for his head, forget conveniently. And Joe Denly is managing a positively James Vince-like sequence of getting a start and then failing to pass thirty. Below them, Bairstow and Buttler look a shadow of the counter-attacking players who can win a Test in session. The Australians were given good bowling conditions to use against a frail line-up and proved irresistible.

Australia, though, are not much better off. Their top order is no more solid than England’s and the middle order is struggling. There is speculation that Tim Paine may have to drop himself because he cannot buy a run and Matt Wade desperately needs a score. The Australia of Allan Border or Steve Waugh would have taken that first innings lead of 112 and sailed off into the distance. At 215-6, with the England attack struggling, they had a chance to push past 400 lead and kill the game but, just as England had failed to apply the killer blow at Edgbaston, Australia were not good enough to apply it here.

A better side than Australia would have taken their chances. When both openers fall to the new ball in under half an hour, with the opposition facing attaining the tenth highest fourth innings chase if they were to keep the Ashes alive and with the batsmen playing as if facing hand grenades, blindfold, with a moral victory for the bowlers at least once an over, the killer blow should have fallen. Yet it did not.

The lesson is that this is a series between two mediocre, inconsistent sides, both capable of moments of brilliance… and a lot of dross.

The key aspect of the partnership between Root and Denly was not the number of runs scored, but the fact that it gave their side belief that the match could be won. It also started to sow the seeds of doubt in Australian minds: a doubt that must have contributed to the frazzled state twenty-four hours later. Even when Joe Root fell early on the fourth morning, just before the new ball, rather than signalling the end, as the fielding side must have expected, the arrival of the new ball brought a flood of runs, as the previously stroke-less Stokes and the previously run-less, Bairstow, combined to reduce the number of runs required ever-closer to the hundred mark that was within reach of a single partnership.

No one can legislate for a batsman chancing his arm and it coming off. In 1981, Ian Botham did it, memorably, both at Headingly and at Old Trafford. These things happen. But you can make it easier for the batsman. Stokes should have been out early in his innings: the chance went begging.

Australian fans will, however, forever believe that they were cheated of victory. Ben Stokes should have been given LBW with 2 runs needed to win, but Joel Wilson gave him the benefit of someone’s doubt. Australia would have won by one run – shades of the Border/Thompson stand in the 1982/83 Ashes – but it should have never got to that. Australia totally lost the plot.

When David Warner dropped Stokes on 34 in the morning session, it did not look so costly. With 17 needed to win, Marcus Harris, who has had a pretty forgettable match, missed a more difficult chance. Then Jack Leach committed suicide, charging down the wicket and should have been run out by yards, but Nathan Lyon dropped the ball and Leach scrambled back. That was symptomatic of scrambled minds that were making mistakes under pressure. A lot of that pressure was being applied by a crowd that never stopped believing and cheered to the echo every four, every six, every single and every forward defensive.

How else do you account for the way that, over after over, Stokes was allowed a comfortable single from the fifth or sixth ball? Australia never pinned him down at one end so that they could attack at the other. How else do you account for the fact that even when they had Leach in their sights, the bowlers could not produce the match-winning delivery? Leach never even looked uncomfortable. How else can you explain the way that none of the bowlers managed to deliver a single Yorker in the block-hole to either Stokes, who was swinging away and thus vulnerable to one, or to Leach? Supposedly, limited-overs cricket as taught bowlers the knack of bowling that lethal, block-hole delivery at the death, but that skill went missing during the frenetic, frantic, last wicket partnership. Or that when Leach was facing early in what proved to be the final over, he was allowed to nudge the single that got him off the mark and levelled the scores?

And, Australia would have won had they not wasted already their review on a quite desperate attempt to remove Jack Leach. When they actually needed a review, six balls later, they had none left.

The English, being the English, will feel guilt that victory was tainted by an umpiring error. Many Australian fans will feed that sense of guilt and make out that they were cheated. Had the roles been reversed, the Australians would have just said “tough mate! You should have taken your chances.” You make your own luck and Australia deserved no better.

The truth of the matter is that, when put under pressure, the Australians cracked. The match should never have been allowed to depend at the very last moment on an umpire who was under extreme pressure too, a good part of it due to the fielding side appealing for everything; it should have been settled long before then.

Ben Stokes’ innings was extraordinary, as was his calmness and awareness, but no less extraordinary was Jack Leach’s calm under extreme pressure, with half the Australian side close enough to touch him and chatting away. Most #11s would have thrown it away: Leach did not.

The 1^st Test was won by an extraordinary batting performance by Steve Smith and the 2^nd Test saved thanks in great measure to another. The 3^rd was won by an extraordinary batting performance by Ben Stokes. With the bowlers holding sway, the series will be decided by which of the two sides manages to produce such innings more often.

Both sides have chronic problems. The top three of both teams has the solidity of wet tissue paper. With a week and a half between Tests, there is time to reflect and take decisions after mature reflection. While Rory Burns has earned himself the full series, the time has come to end the experiment with Jason Roy: he may ride his luck and make a score in the series, but he does not suggest permanence. Similarly, time is running out for Joe Denly. He has reached double figures in every Test this summer, yet passed 30 just once. And Joe Root must drop back down to #4.

England already have a perfect excuse to make changes. Assuming that Jimmy Anderson has shown no reaction to his 2^nd XI outing and is considered fit, he will enter the side at his home ground. It could be that he replaces a bowler – presumably, Chris Woakes – but there is also the possibility that he could replace a batsman and that Sam Curran could replace Chris Woakes. People will look to the heavens at that suggestion but, with the form of some of the batsmen, the depth of the batting will hardly be weakened, but there will be an extra bowling option to keep control. Or England could take the opportunity to refresh both batting and bowling without it looking like panic.

One batting solution would be to bring in Dom Sibley. A look at Sibley’s numbers this season shows that he has not only scored huge numbers of runs, but his strike rate in the low 40s shows that he has had a lot of patience and is willing to grind out an innings. This is just what England need at the top of the order. Sibley, though, had a double failure against Somerset in his only First Class outing since mid-July and will not get another innings before the 4^th Test. Sibley may regret that he timed his one, poor match of the season badly. The ECB should regret the ludicrous scheduling of the feeder competition for the Test side.

An indicator of selectorial thinking is that Ollie Pope was called-up as cover for Jason Roy, after Roy’s blow to the head in the nets, making it far more likely that, at least at Old Trafford, Pope will play instead of Sibley. Doing this allows too a re-jig of the top order. There is a case for Joe Denly to be asked to open with Burns at Old Trafford, with Ollie Pope at #3 and Joe Root at #4. This is a risky solution as, despite his unbeaten double century, Pope has, apart from that single innings, played only T20 since his early season injury and Denly’s experience as an opener is mainly limited to ODIs and T20s for England, ten years ago. However, Denly seems far more likely and prepared to see off the new ball than is Jason Roy: one thing that he has been doing is to stick around, even if the runs have not accompanied. If the coach says to him, “Joe, we are happy to see you bat out a full session for 20”, he is the one player in the top 4 who you can see capable of doing it and of relishing the challenge.

At the same time, Australia will make further changes. The bowlers have been rotated and will continue to rotate. Space will be made for Steve Smith, unless his outing against Derbyshire is a disaster. Marnus Labuschagne will keep his place. David Warner’s innings has probably saved his place, but Matt Wade and Tim Paine’s places are certainly under threat. It is far from impossible that Australia could make as many as three or even four changes.

Both sides will go to Old Trafford thinking of what might have been. England know that they let slip a big first innings lead at Edgbaston and, with a little more luck in the 2^nd Test, could now be 3-0 up. Australia will know that they dodged the bullet in the 2^nd Test and were the better side for most of the game at Headingly and should be 2-0 up and retaining the Ashes. With their talisman back, Australia will expect to put things to rights at Old Trafford. However, if yesterday was a flashback to Headingly ’81, Australia would be wise to recall that Ian Botham produced another extraordinary match-winning innings in a crisis at Old Trafford later that same summer.

Bottom line: expect the unexpected. Both sides are capable of great things… and of producing dross.

England v India: 3rd ODI, Dorabelle Believe

 

England v India: 3^rd ODI

Dorabelle Believe

January 22^nd 2017

It has taken a long time coming. A win in an international on this tour, although not, as some have stated falsely, the first win of the tour (England did win the first 50-over warm-up against India A). It has been a tough tour, first in the Tests and then in the ODIs as a very strong Indian side has consistently produced that bit of magic that turns an even contest into a one-sided one. England have competed in the Tests (their average first innings score was 390 – the previous winter South Africa’s was 150, albeit on more difficult pitches). In the first two ODIs England had threatened to win both games, but fell just short.

In this series England have scored 350-7, 366-8 and 321-8. They have shown the cynics that the matches would not be a series of mismatches, with England’s batsmen floundering helplessly against the Indian spinners. Instead the matches have turned on small moments: one or two big overs, India taking a key wicket at a key moment while England could not. The differences between the two teams have been small.

It was a phenomenal effort from both teams to amass 637 runs on a pitch on which India must have hoped to limit England to 220 with their “A Game” and probably not much more than 260 with their “B Game”. It took fourteen deliveries at the start for a batsman to lay bat on ball, as deliveries bounced and hooped around. Right from the start if the bowler landed the ball on the right spot it was well-nigh unplayable. It was a situation in which England could so easily have slipped to 30-3 and left the game almost over when it had barely started. Despite that, Jason Roy and Sam Billings rode their luck, hit the bad balls when they came and generally punished India for not quite being on their game.

Even when a batsman fell – and armchair critics foamed at the mouth at some of the dismissals – someone else came in and stepped up to the mark. After an England wicket fell to a poor stroke, one particular critic explained to all on one particular forum that batting properly was not rocket science. Having the advantage of actually being a rocket scientist, I can say that if batting were as easy as the armchair critics believe, I would be an international batsman too and not a rocket scientist. Batting is all about making the correct decision in the 0.6-0.8s between the moment that the ball leaves the bowler’s hand and the moment that it reaches the bat. The bowler is trying to get you to make the wrong choice in guiding the sweet spot of the bat (which is at a different point for each bat) to its encounter with the ball. Pressure. The crowd. All are trying to make you make the wrong decision. The greatest batsmen are able to make the highest percentage of correct decisions and adapt best to all the variables that affect how the ball reaches and leaves the bat.

Batting (and international cricket in general) is very similar to rocket science in many respects. You have a battery of highly-trained individuals, each with their own tasks, trying to work together as a team, making a series of highly-pressurised split-second decisions and trying to get every one right. Get a decision wrong and the results are disastrous and, sometimes, catastrophic. A small error at a critical juncture can lose you your mission (in cricket, read “match”, “tournament”, “series”, …), cost a huge amount of money, cost you your job and be mercilessly replayed time and again in slow motion for an audience of millions on the evening news. The fact is that the armchair critics can watch time and again in slow motion and without pressure, while the poor beggar in the middle has to do it at full speed in a split second with no second viewing.

Television and Internet are becoming merciless. When Jason Roy was out, the talk was not that he had scored 65 from 56 balls and given England yet another fast start (his scores on the tour have been 62, 25, 73, 82 and 65), it was of him “giving it away”, of “Joe Root Syndrome” (50s not becoming destructive centuries). Roy has taken England away at 6-an-over for the first twenty overs in each game, setting the platform for the middle order.

When India finally got the ball (and the front foot) in the right place – getting Jonny Bairstow with a sucker punch only to find that you have gone well over the line was sloppy – suddenly batting looked much harder, especially with turn on offer as well as extravagant movement for the seamers. England can feel indebted to Ben Stokes’s resurgence as a limited-overs player now that he has a set role in the side at #6 and Chris Woakes’s injection of self-belief when almost everyone questioned why he kept getting chances. To get to 321 when they were 246-6 with only 7 overs to go was a superb effort. Even when there is a mid-innings squelch, more often than not the lower middle order helps to set things right.

Today was one of those days when the finishers hung around. This is what lost England the 2^nd ODI: while India had an established batsman at the crease at the death, England’s fell a few overs earlier, robbing the innings of critical momentum and taking maybe twenty runs off the total compared with what it might have been. To add 73 in 39 balls of bombardment from Woakes and Stokes set a total that England knew that they could defend. It also gave England the vital factor of momentum.

To win, India needed the breaks to fall their way. England certainly made things ruinously hard for themselves at times. First ball of the innings Chris Woakes bowled a vicious lifter, Rahane gloved it cleanly to Jos Buttler… and no one appealed. How did India reply? The last two balls of the over sailed to the boundary for a six and a four. Willey  bowled a fine over and removed Rahane: would India be cautious? Not a bit of it! Kohli’s response to a superb delivery from Woakes was to hammer the next two balls for boundaries. It seemed that the Indian tactic was to intimidate. Willey bowled a nine-ball over with three wides and then walked off holding his shoulder.

India were either playing and missing or hammering boundaries. There was no concept of “safety first”. Even when Jake Ball dropped Kohli India the frenetic activity did not reduce. India seemed to be betting on everything falling their way and England cracking, but with the Required Run Rate rising steadily, he who chances his arm will inevitably run out of luck in the end. England needed to stay calm and play to a plan, which was what they did, despite being a bowler short and with Pandya and Jadhav putting a century stand and seeming to provide a case of dejá vú. With Morgan forced to bring back Stokes for the slog and Indian fans gloating in memory, first Pandya then Jadeja took one risk too many. Ashwin came and went. Suddenly things were level again when India must have thought that the match was won with something to spare. 27 required from 18 balls. 23 required from 12. 16 from the last 6 and Jadhav on 80* on strike? The match still provided twists and turns, but showed how much Woakes and England have grown. Ten taken from the first two balls of Woakes’s over. Six needed from four. Surely India’s game? Dot ball. Dot ball. Six needed from two. Jadhav swings. Billings takes the catch and Woakes finishes with another dot for good measure.

In a pressure finish, with cool heads needed, England showed just how much progress they have made. The side are far from the finished article, but can compete with the best now. It is only a consolation win, but any win in India is hard-earned.

When Harry Houdini died he had promised to try to contact his adored wife from beyond the grave. To ensure that she was not conned by a fake, he gave his wife a phrase that he would use in any message from the beyond: “Dorabelle believe”. Houdini might well have approved of the escape engineered by England when it seemed that another victory had slipped their grasp but, instead of directing his message at his wife, he might well instead direct it at England’s fickle fans “just believe”. This side will win some and lose some, but have come so far since the last World Cup.