Fifth Test, Day 1 – Australia Restore The Art Of Batsmanship

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fifth Test, Day 1 – Australia Get it Right, but too late.

 

August 20^th 2015

 

In 2013, England shuffled their pack for a dead rubber at The Oval and were roundly condemned. Although Chris Woakes has come back from that humiliation, the story of the Test was of a young spinner who had being causing havoc around the country in county cricket and who, sadly, has never been the same again after the experience: Just look at Simon Kerrigan’s returns: 58 wickets at 22.0 in 2013, 44 wickets at 35.4 in 2014 and 30 wickets at 29.4 in 2015.

For The Oval 2015, England have resisted the temptation to blood a young spinner. Had Adil Rashid played – and the evidence on the first day’s play is that he would have been more valuable than a fourth seamer – any success would have been dismissed with the words “it’s only a dead rubber”. Similarly, with a more relaxed Australia likely to turn up, England knew that there was a danger of doing enormous damage to the confidence of a bowler who they know that they will need in the UAE.

Of course, nothing changes the fact that, like Adam Lyth, he should have played at least the 3^rd Test in the Caribbean early in the year.

First signs in this Test are not promising. It is already beginning to look uncomfortably familiar to The Oval 2013 and to Lord’s 2015. Australia building up a huge 1^st innings score against an England side that has visibly turned the intensity down a notch or two. It would not be an enormous surprise if, by the 3^rd Day, we are talking about a potential follow-on.

Alistair Cook’s decision to bowl was presumably based on the idea that in overcast conditions the Australians would bat like lemmings again. What no one could imagine was that Rogers and Warner would take care and self-denial to such extremes that Stuart Broad’s first six overs would go for just eight runs. It was if the Fred Boycott of Twitter (widely rumoured to be a former opening bat for a county the other side of the Pennine’s to Boycott’s own) had spent the intervening week and a half after the 4^th Test teaching the Australian openers two new shots: the block and the leave.

Given the way that the Australian batting line-up played against Northants, Alistair Cook could be forgiven for asking “why me?” It does seem a bit unfair that they suddenly start to apply proper, Test-match batting just to make his bowl-first decision look stupid when, at Trent Bridge, even Stuart Broad thought that the right decision was to bat.

Australian surprises were not limited to batting properly When it was taken as read that, despite a very lack-lustre display at Wantage Road, Pat Cummins was going to replace Josh Hazlewood, almost definitely bringing down the curtain on Peter Siddle’s career, it was Siddle who was picked. The fact that this was another grassy pitch and Clarke wanted to bowl first may have had a lot to do with this decision. For Cummins it is yet another set-back. A career already four years long has featured just seven FC matches, including one Test. Will he ever become a Test regular? Or will his career be restricted to ODIs and T20s when his body allows him to do even that?

The fact that the Marsh hokey-cokey continued, with the two brothers swapping again in the side was no surprise to anyone. The sequence has been “Mitch, Shaun, Mitch” – no prizes for guessing which of the two will play the 1^st Test v Bangladesh in a few months, but expect Mitch to be back for the 2^nd Test!

The one player who has not benefitted from the end of term feeling and the lack of intensity in England’s play has been Michael Clarke. Having arrived at the crease to a great ovation from players and crowd, there was a lot of talk about whether or not he would score the 172 needed to get his Test average over 50: realists would have noted that that would have required more than doubling his series aggregate in just a single innings. Another innings of a man horribly out of form was ended by Ben Stokes. Having edged behind, Clarke reviewed. Although there was only a feather, not picked up by HotSpot, the guilty look behind and the sound of a snick convinced most even before RealTime Snicko confirmed the noise.

At 186-3 there was a real chance that England could shake off their laxity and dismiss Australia for under 300. Steve Smith though is looking like a #1 batsman in the world again and Voges like a batsman. With the new ball due 2 balls into Day 2, England will need to split these two quickly or they could be facing a huge follow-on target.

Looking Back at the 2013 Oval Test

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fifth Test, Preview.

 

August 19^th 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.]

3-1. Thanks For Coming.

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fourth Test, Day 3: Quick and Clean, 3-1.

 

August 8^th 2015

 

It was brief and it was clean. Australia were in no mood for a fight.

Even before play started the reaction was happening.

Ricky Ponting reported that as many as eight of the touring party will never play for Australia again. Apart from Harris and Rogers, Watson, Shaun Marsh and Haddin look unlikely to be picked again. Voges and possibly even Mitch Johnson are other likely candidates, as is Peter Siddle (if he did not play here on a seamer’s pitch, where will he play?) Various other of the squad have been tried and found wanting.

Then Jim Maxwell reported that Michael Clarke had been taken aside last night by the selectors and told that he would not be in the squad for Bangladesh. Clarke asked around how to make a dignified exit in advance of his imminent sacking and announced his retirement as soon as the Test ended. It was good to see Michael Clarke being treated with the utmost respect by players and crowd. This Test series has been played in the right spirit, unlike the often very unpleasant 2013 and 2013/14 series.

In 2013 Australia could look to “doctored pitches”, a couple of marginal umpiring decisions and some bad luck with rain and some very uninspiring cricket from England as consolation. They could claim the moral high ground of having played the imaginative and innovative cricket and could suggest that the better side had not won.

In 2015, they do not have that comfort. Pitches at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge that, before the series, 95% of fans would say were tailor-made for the Australian seamers, have seen the Australians blown away. Man for man the unanimous opinion was that Australia were the better side in all departments yet, save at Lord’s where things did run to script, they were outplayed time and again.

After the disastrous winter, few people were willing to bet on any result better than a 3-0 defeat and most thought that it would be 5-0 unless rain saved England. What no one imagined is that the Australian batsmen would be so fallible against the moving ball and that their seamers would be so totally unable to exploit helpful conditions.

Before the series pundits looked at all the players that Australia had not selected and compared them with England’s threadbare reserves. A common statement was “heaven help England if Jimmy Anderson gets injured”: we he has and England managed their biggest win of the series without him. With four bowlers taking a 6-for in consecutive matches, England suddenly have an embarrassment of options. The decision on who gets dropped to accommodate Jimmy Anderson can be avoided by “resting” him for The Oval. Anderson, Broad, Finn, Wood and Stokes are certainties for the winter tour. This leaves three bowlers who lost their place through injury – Plunkett, Woakes and Jordan – fighting for probably just one tour place and even they have to watch for Footitt and Rushworth who are both very much in the mix too.

In contrast, Australia look at their reserves which, a few short weeks ago looked limitless, and wonder who, if anyone, might have done better. Pat Cummins has a fearsome reputation, but has not played a single match on tour – just 6 First Class matches in his career. Peter Siddle has barely played and looks likely not to tour again. Could Faulkner, Coulter-Nile and Pattinson have done better? One suspects, not.

Australia A are playing in India and doing well, but many of the squad have been tried at the top level and not convinced. Is Khawaja better than Clarke? Are Maxwell and Wade good enough? Many Australians seem to fear that they simply are not. The question of where Australia go from here, who leads their attack and who will fill the shaky middle order is as uncertain as it can be.

England still have uncertainties. The opener spot that has gone from hand to hand like a hand grenade with a dodgy pin since Andrew Strauss retired still has no owner. There are still doubts about Moeen Ali as spinner. And both Ian Bell and Jos Buttler have their critics, but at least nine places in the team look pretty well tied down for now. Moeen has not been hit out of the series and has taken some useful wickets as well as providing a formidable sting in England’s lower middle order. Buttler has improved tremendously as a wicket-keeper, even if he has struggled with the bat. Bell has come good and Bairstow has taken his chance.

All in all though things look so much better than they did and, wonder of wonders, Alistair Cook, who was perhaps two Tests from being sacked, has suddenly looked like a positive and innovative captain who has totally outthought Michael Clarke. If we cheer one thing from the series, that should be it. Cook’s revival has been amazing.

Fourth Test, Day 2: Australia Hang On... Just

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fourth Test, Day 2: Australia Hang On... Just

 

August 7^th 2015

 

Probably only bad light, a No Ball and a couple of missed chances stopped Australia from losing by an innings. The good news was that Australia had a much better second day. The bad news was that it still was not very good and only delayed the inevitable.

And we got the lunchtime declaration that I predicted yesterday. It was an eye-opener from Cook who was, perhaps, adding his own little piece of sadistic revenge for the indignities suffered in Australia.

We saw a microcosm of the series and, indeed of the 2013 series. Australia produced some very good passages of play but, as in 2013, these were not sustained. Although Australia will go home with a win under their belts in the Lord’s Test, they have been singularly incapable of sustaining the effort. Starc and Hazlewood produced a spectacular example again.

When England were 269-3 late on the first evening it must have felt like the end of the world: the Australian version of events that they had been caught on an unplayable pitch was looking more untenable with every boundary. In just 14 overs 269-3 had become 332-8 and the more optimistic Australian fans thought that there might be a way back. There was a spring the step of the fielders. The lead would be a still massive one, but well under 300 and if David Warner and Chris Rogers would give them a good start and knock off 150 or 200, who knows?

The bad news was that Moeen Ali was still there and, thanks to the use of the nightwatchman, also Stuart Broad. Not too many Australians had thought that Stuart Broad could inconvenience them in this series: certainly not with the bat anyway. Unfortunately for the visitors, some chickens are coming home to roost with the institutional abuse campaign that he suffered in Australia, which went far beyond anything acceptable or justifiable. Fours and sixes rained down in half an hour of mayhem. Moeen scored 34 of his 38 in boundaries, Broad 14 of 24*. A partnership of 58 in 45 balls and the Australians almost visibly gave up on the match.

Cook’s declaration was calculating. He wanted 3 overs before Lunch. Broad and Finn were allowed to bat on for 12 balls for the addition of just one run. Lead 331 and suddenly he waved them in after two balls of a new over. Message: you cannot even bowl us out in this Test and I want to win in under two days. It was a bit sadistic. Cook has suddenly grown-up in this series and now no longer simply reacts passively to events.

This time Rogers and Warner set about their task positively, but with a little more discrimination and the magic was not quite there for England. Knowing that the game was as good as over the tension was not quite there. Poor Jim Maxwell on the radio was bewildered when a huge ovation interrupted the game: it took him a few seconds to realise that it was because Australia had reached 61 and passed their first innings total – it was that sort of afternoon.

However, you knew that the magic was not there for Australia. Even if England had got themselves into this position, you just knew that the 2013/14 Australians would wriggle out; despite their huge win at Lord’s, the 2015 Australians do not project the same sense of insulting omnipotence. Everyone, including Darren Lehmann, knew that it would just take one wicket to open the floodgates because the opening pair have been just about their only reliable card all series. Broad bowled superbly, but things did not quite happen. Cook dropped one catch. Bell a very difficult one. Root took a brilliant catch off Wood only for the umpires to check the No Ball and find a marginal overstep, called by Sir Geoffrey who had a clear opinión, as usual, even when his fellow commentators were celebrating the wicket, that the foot was on the line, but not behind.

Enter Ben Stokes. His bowling has barely been needed and, when he has bowled, he has taken just two expensive wickets. He was not even needed in the first innings. His brief bat came in the middle of the England collapse. Now though, there was just a danger that another hour and Rogers and Warner could start to think of an incredible escape.

Suddenly we were back to the first innings. Rogers reached his 50. Last ball of over. Ball outside off. Grope. Edge. Flying Root. Breakthrough for Stokes.

Wood to Warner: 2 6 . 2 4 1

15 off the over and you know that Australia’s restraint has gone. Five balls, only one of which was defended. Short ball. Warner takes a swing without engaging brain. Stuart Broad takes the catch. Two in two overs for Stokes. Both off the last ball.

Marsh joins Smith. Sixth ball of Stokes’s next over… Marsh prods, Root receives. The experiment of playing Shaun Marsh instead of his brother has probably ended there.

One ball from Broad, left by Smith. Next ball pitched up and a fraction wide. Smith is convicted of dangerous driving and Stokes stayed in the game by taking a good, low catch.

31 balls before Tea Australia were 113-0 and starting to hope. At Tea, it was 138-4 and the question was one of whether or not those with third day tickets would see any play at all.

As it happened, although Clarke and Nevill hung on for a while, it would have been kinder to put Clarke out of his misery quickly. His 12 overs at the crease were of a man who awakes thinking that he is having a nightmare only to discover that it is all real.

With another pair of quick wickets for Stokes before the Close, had bad light not intervened, Alistair Cook would have had the option of the extra half hour. The suggestion is though that the bowlers wanted a night of rest and to come back and finish the job quickly in the morning in front of a large and excited crowd.

The only remaining question is whether or not England will make it 4-1 at The Oval and get a measure of revenge for 2013/14. For several of that ill-fated England expedition, it was career-ending. This series is like to end the careers of several of this Australian team. Harris and Rogers are gone. Haddin is likely to join them. And doubts hang over Voges, Shaun Marsh and several others. Sides will also know that if the pitch has some life in it, Steve Smith looks helpless: this news will interest South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies in particular who can prepare suitable pitches easily.

For England, 2013/14 caused a generation change.

For Australia, 2015 is likely to produce another.

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.

Fourth Test: Who Is Going To Crack?

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Fourth Test: Which Side Will Crack?

 

August 5^th 2015

 

Three Tests. Three easy wins. Both sides have looked fallible and both have severe weaknesses that have been revealed at different times. Both sides will make changes.

For England, Mark Wood will almost certainly come in for the injured Jimmy Anderson. With the bowling of Ben Stokes only making a testimonial appearance so far in the series (in 3 Tests he has combined figures of 1-199) and Moeen Ali’s wickets expensive, having to replace Jimmy Anderson with a player who would be only making his fifth Test appearance is a huge handicap to overcome. The onus will be on Stuart Broad and Steve Finn to keep the pressure on Australia.

However, that is far from the end of England’s problems. Adam Lyth has managed 6, 37, 0, 0, 10 & 12 so far and Jos Buttler 27, 7, 13, 11 & 9. England are losing far too many early wickets and are prone to middle-order mini-collapses.

However, Australia’s problems are also important. The top three have scored plenty of runs so far, but Michael Clarke and the middle order have struggled. The bowling has also looked extremely hot and cold: lethal in the 2^nd Test, at times in the 1^st and 3^rd it looked really toothless. Australia seem almost certain to drop Adam Voges, but as many as four places could be under debate.

The pitch and conditions will be closely scrutinised. If it is a classic Trent Bridge seamer, England will want to exploit it effectively: Australia have not looked good against the moving ball, but then England looked pretty awful at Lord’s on a pitch from which only the Australian bowlers extracted any life at all.

England have, since March, alternated good matches and awful ones. Australia have been consistently awful away from home for a couple of years.

No one knows which England and which Australia will turn up at Trent Bridge. Barring a lot of rain there will be a result, but the series could just as easily be poised at 2-2 after the match as it could be 3-1. Either way, Australia know that if they lose this match, they lose the Ashes. If Australia win, they will oblige England to win at The Oval to re-gain the Ashes.

Third Test: A Dose of Realism About Extraordinary Results

 

 

Ashes 2015

 

Third Test: A Dose of Realism

 

August 2^nd 2015

 

England’s chase of 121 led to a host of statistics to say that it might not be an easy target. Chief among them was to quote the failure to chase 144 in Abu Dhabi in 2012.

Another number that was mentioned a lot was just how many times England have been bowled out for under 100 since 1990. It was rather a lot. England in the 1990s though, were a side at their very lowest ebb. What about since the year 2000? That is a quite decent time base and is, conveniently, the 21^st Century, so it is a natural time period to look at.

It shows that England are actually the side with the third best record of the big eight. Only India and, surprisingly, the West Indies have been dismissed for under 100 on a smaller percentage of occasions in the 21^st Century.

Side	Times Dismissed Under 100	Total Test innings	Percentage
West Indies	2	257	0.8
India	3	274	1.1
England	4	337	1.2
Australia	4	310	1.3
South Africa	2	151	1.3
Sri Lanka	5	240	2.1
New Zealand	6	214	2.8
Pakistan	10	225	4.4

The long and the short of this table is that we can expect England to be dismissed for under 100 just once in every 80 Tests innings or, in other words, once in every thirteen series of 3 Tests. It happens, but far less often that some people suggest.

What about the Edgbaston target itself? How about being dismissed cheaply in the fourth innings of a Test?

At first sight, this looks far more hopeful for fans who wanted to see a tight finish. 118 times in Tests England have been set a 4^th innings target and have failed to reach it. In 17 of those chases England have been dismissed for fewer than 121. No less than 3 times in 1994 against three different opponents, England were dismissed for fewer than 100 in a 4^th innings chase.

However, in most of these chases, a battered side was facing already a massive defeat and was defeated before starting the chase. Have a look at some examples: England lost by 405 at Lord’s in 2015, by 384 at Brisbane in 2002, by 356 at Lord’s in 1994, by 295 at Melbourne in 1994.

At Edgbaston England were facing a modest chase in a Test that they had bossed. It was a complete different match situation. There was no prior bombardment from Ian Botham to turn the tables. No massive fightback preceded the Australian defence of the total. Despite the fight from the tail, England were always in control, even a major bowler short with the injury to Jimmy Anderson. Even with the knowledge that there was no Anderson to torment them, that Ben Stokes’s two wickets in the series have cost 199 and that Moeen Ali’s nine wickets have come at around 45 each, it never really looked as if Australia would start to put real pressure on England.

One number that was out around was how many times England had been set a target smaller than 125 and lost: exactly 3. “Yes, it can happen”, people said, without looking at the small print that the three instances were in 1882, 1888 and 1902! In other words, the most recent was over a century ago. However, all three defeats were inflicted by Australia and all three were in England.

Batting	Opposition	Target	Score	Ground	Year
England	Australia	85	77	The Oval	1882
England	Australia	124	62	Lord’s	1888
England	Australia	124	120	Manchester	1902

What about losing a Home Test when set 121 or fewer to win?

That too has happened just three times and, again, all three instances have featured Australia.

Batting	Opposition	Target	Score	Ground	Year
England	Australia	85	77	The Oval	1882
Australia	England	111	97	Sydney	1887
Australia	South Africa	117	111	Sydney	1994

The classic case being when an England side containing W.G. Grace failed to chase 85 at The Oval in 1882 leading to the original Ashes. Only one of the three instances though has happened in the last 128 years.

Extraordinary results require extraordinary circumstances to come about and, in reality, are extremely rare.

Pundits, like fans, forget this simple fact and see exciting finishes everywhere. A side can dream of being the first to chase 500 to win, or of defending under 100 to win (which the West Indies did actually succeed in doing against Zimbabwe in 2000, when Zimbabwe were set 99 to win and were dismissed for 63), but such feats so rarely happen in reality. There have been 2174 Test matches so far, but look how short those lists above are.