Okay, the Ashes are upon us again with the first test kicking off tomorrow. As is customary around these parts, I will weigh in with my uninformed, narrow views as and when I think I have something to add.
Many Australian pundits (including former players) are predicting a 5-0 stroll as per the last series in Australia. This is monumentally stupid if for no other reason than the English weather can normally be relied upon to force a draw somewhere. What I have yet to figure out is whether this is the usual Australian media and public gobbing-off, or whether this is what the actual team members believe. If the latter, then Australia are in deep trouble already: cricket is a funny game, and has a habit of knocking some reality into those who demonstrate undue hubris. Look at the expectations of the English team in the last Ashes, for example. Supreme confidence shattered permanently after a single morning at the Gabba. Test cricket is good like that. I was watching some Ashes re-runs the other night on Sky, and one thing caught my attention: even the great Australian team of the early 2000s used to spend sessions being pummeled, with Shane Warne bowling pies, full-tosses, and wides and Glenn McGrath pitching short and wide from the other end and being dispatched to the boundary with ease. But in other moments of the game, they pulled it all back. In other words, even the best teams need to work pretty hard for a win, not just turn up on the back of a reputation.
So let’s assume the Australian team is a bit more sober than its fans and is going to put some effort in. What can we expect?
First England. Facing Tim Southee and Trent Boult at their very best with the red ball last month will have done the English batsmen no harm whatsoever, even if some – Ballance and Bell – didn’t cope with it too well. In terms of preparation for facing potentially devastating spells of fast, swing bowling this was probably as good as it gets. For reasons I’ll explain in a minute, this area is where the Ashes will be lost or won for England. Our batting line-up is packed with talent right down the order; the only questions are whether they are good enough to handle the Australian bowling and whether Ballance and Bell will regain their previous form. You would back Bell to score some runs at some point in this series, even if he isn’t as consistent as he was in the previous home Ashes when he single-handedly kept in England in the contest. He has too much talent and experience to keep getting ducks, although the selectors might lose patience if he’s not produced the goods and England are 2-0 down going into Trent Bridge. Ballance is more of a worry: if he cannot reliably bat at No. 3 he will find himself sent back to County Cricket in pretty short order and a replacement drafted in or Root pushed up the order. On Ballance (see what I did there?), he is probably England’s most worrying link in the batting chain. I am confident Cook will score runs, as will Root, and as will everyone else down the order at some point. Stokes, Buttler, Ali can all swing a bat. But these guys will not win matches on their own, and it is crucial for England that these explosive players arrive at the crease when there are at least 250-300 on the board. And for that, we need Cook, Lyth, Ballance, Root or Bell to score at least a century with two of the others making substantial contributions.
You would back them to do that – if they can force the Australian bowlers into fifth and sixth spells. And that’s a big “if”. Australia have had very little practice at the long form of the game of late: fresh from a World Cup and IPL, they cruised through two pathetically truncated test matches against the West Indies before coming to England where they have faced county teams for their warm-up matches. As New Zealand showed when they arrived on English shores, it takes a test or two to adjust to the Duke ball and the longer spells. The Australian bowlers will surely adapt, but it is vital that England keep them out long enough to force them into longer spells and late-session bowling against set batsmen. England have tried to do this in the past by blocking for eternity, waiting out maiden after maiden, but this proved to be disastrous in the last Ashes. England simply have to score runs off the Australian quicks, or the series will be over before we know it. It is a daunting task, but not an impossible one. Ryan Harris will not be playing, Mitchell Johnson has struggled a little in the warm-up games and doesn’t have a great record in England, and the hype being placed on Hazelwood as the new McGrath after only a handful of games might prove to be his downfall if he starts getting clubbed around a bit. All eyes are on Mitchell Starc, who is capable of destroying an entire batting line-up in a single spell, but there will be periods where he hasn’t quite found his line and length and England need to take advantage of these and force Clarke into a more defensive field. If England can somehow tire the Aussie bowlers, and put on 300+ runs each innings, they’ll be in with a real chance.
Why? Because the Australian batting looks vulnerable. In the previous Ashes, the Australian 5th batsman was exposed to the new ball in almost every innings, the top order having collapsed. Each time they relied upon the tail wagging and the bowlers cleaning out England’s batsmen cheaply, which they duly did. But this is a risky strategy, especially away from home. Warner doesn’t cope well with sideways movement, Rogers is dangerous but is pushing on a bit and can normally be relied upon to get himself out cheaply every other innings, and the rest – especially Watson and Marsh – are inconsistent. Clarke is a class act but has been injured lately, so he perhaps shouldn’t be relied upon to shore up a collapsing innings. Haddin doesn’t do so well in England as Australia and, like Voges, is also pushing on. The real dangerman is Smith, who is young, fit, and extremely talented (as well as being extremely likeable). In previous series, Australia’s bowlers have been so effective that their batsmen have only needed 250-300 or so each innings to secure a match-winning total. If England can somehow get even a modest 300+ total, especially if batting first, it will be interesting to see how Australia’s batsmen cope. They are simply not used to facing down massive scoreboard pressure, and this is where they are most vulnerable.
That said, there are a few other worrying signs for England. First and foremost among these is our lack of an international-standard spinner. Much as though I like Moeen Ali, and also Rashid, neither are (yet) match-winning spinners of the sort that would trouble Australia. Lyon isn’t particularly good, other than the fact that he has amassed more wickets than any other Australian off-spinner and has had England’s number for quite some time. In other words, he’s plenty good enough. He’ll not be the difference between the two sides, but he’ll certainly contribute to it if England’s spinners cannot get into their game. England’s seam bowling looks good, but if past performances are anything to go by we are far too reliant on Jimmy Anderson. Broad is brilliant about once every three matches, which is just not good enough. If he fails to back up Jimmy, we’ll lose. Mark Wood is an exciting prospect, but is unproven and his pace might quickly drop off as the sessions, matches, and series grind on. But if he picks up some big wickets early on, he might end up having a storming series. Next, England really need to once and for all figure out how to deal with a tail. Time and again English fans have watched their bowlers reduce a side to 190-7 using good-length bowling targeting the top of off stump and then seen the last three batsmen plunder another 180 runs of short-pitched rubbish. If Trevor Bayliss can manage one thing in his first few weeks in the job, it ought to be teaching the English bowlers how to remove a tail, or at least stop them from scoring like it’s a T20. By contrast, the Australians usually skittle the England tail for about 15 runs. Finally, England need to get a grip of their catching. They are excellent in the field in terms of balls chased down and getting it back into the keeper, but they have put down a lot of slip catches in their recent tests against New Zealand and the West Indies. This might not be a problem against the likes of Watson and Warner who can be relied upon to give you another chance in the next over, but against Clarke or Smith this will be fatal. Bayliss needs to address this pronto.
Regarding Bayliss, I expect we will see his influence more in Tests 3-5 rather than the first two or three. He will need time to figure out the team in the same way Lehmann did when he took over Australia 4 years ago. Hopefully he will at least have instilled a new mentality in the England team, similar to that adopted by the ODI side with impressive results. England have some positives: Root, Wood, Stokes, Buttler should all be worth watching. Of Cook’s captaincy, the less said the better.
So what do I think? Australian’s better bowling, captaincy, and and overall experience giving them the series 3-1, with 1 game drawn and England winning the 4th or 5th test. That’s the realistic view. The optimistic view is England winning unexpectedly in Cardiff due to Australia’s bowlers not being able to find their rhythm, and going on to win the series 2-1. Whatever happens, I am sure England will at least win sessions this series: we didn’t even manage that last time.
From an Australian view, the thing I find most worrying is that the Australian players were tweeting from Arkady Novokov’s London restaurant immediately upon arriving in the UK.
http://www.cricket.com.au/news/australia-ashes-arrival-london-uk-england-camp-spain/2015-06-19
5-0 results are very rare, and always extremely unlikely. The fact that there have been two of them in recent Ashes series is a fluke, and Australia was playing at home in both cases. So yes, that is most unlikely to happen.
The Australian batting did the same thing in the West Indies that it did in the last Ashes series. In both tests, all of the top order players bar one got out fairly cheaply, and that one player (Voges in the first test and Smith in the second) hung in there with the lower-middle order and tail to get Australia to a decent score. If the West Indian bowlers had been good enough to get out the tail, then Australia could have been dismissed cheaply in the first innings. Australia would probably still have beaten the West Indies had this happened (the Australian bowlers had no trouble getting the West Indians out, and one thing the Australian batsmen are good at is doing whatever is necessary in the second innings) but if England can get Australia into the same position and dismiss the tail (or the last top order batsman) then England have a chance.
Australia’s pace trio of Johnson, Starc, and Hazlewood were terrific in that series, and are an absolutely splendid pace attack. Harris was brought along as a brilliant and injury prone bowler who might deliver a couple of match-winning spells somewhere if he was fit, and that is sadly not now going to happen, but the pace attack is still terrific. Lyon is a reasonable spin bowler, but Australia are nothing special in the spin department – either bowling it or batting against it. So I think Australia are strong and will probably win, but there are obvious targets for England to attack.
Michael,
From an Australian view, the thing I find most worrying is that the Australian players were tweeting from Arkady Novokov’s London restaurant immediately upon arriving in the UK.
Indeed, the Australian team swanning about London like film stars before a ball has been bowled is possibly the best news the England team could have had.
Australia’s pace trio of Johnson, Starc, and Hazlewood were terrific in that series, and are an absolutely splendid pace attack.
It is, but Johnson has been banging it into the deck of late, without generating the same terror he did in Oz. Johnson and Starc might present a lot of scoring opportunities, if they have an off-spell. Hazlewood is good, but I think the Aussie media might (as usual) be getting a little ahead of themselves. There will be spells in this Ashes where he is getting clattered, and at the end of the series we’ll really see whether we have a good test bowler or not. One thing this pace attack has not yet been subject to is things not going their way.
I am actually quite positive about Mitchell Johnson’s recent form. In both the World Cup (where he took 15 wickets at 21.73 in 8 games) and against the West Indies (where he took 8 wickets at 18.62 in the two matches) he bowled well without being the guy who bowled the devastating spells. In the past he has been either the guy who bowled the devastating spells or the guy who sprayed it all over the place, without ever being anything in between. Recently, he has been (dare I say it) consistent.
It’s true that both Starc and Hazlewood are relatively inexperienced and we don’t really know how they will react when things don’t go their way. If this happens, Mitchell Johnson has to be the experienced old hand who holds things together. Can he do that? I’m not sure, but it might be possible, and I wouldn’t have said that a couple of years ago.
Of course, the player who probably won’t play in the first test is Peter Siddle. He is the sort of very experienced, solid, consistent, bowls a lot of overs and gives his all but isn’t ever devastating bowler that would hold a place in most sides but isn’t in the Australian first eleven right now due to an embarrassment of riches. I would almost like to see him the team ahead of one of the other three, as he is the sort of player one likes to have around when things go wrong. I suspect he will play at some point in the series, either due too an injury, a loss of form for someone else, or something.
I am very happy about the Australian pace bowling. I can see weaknesses elsewhere. Not terrible weaknesses, but weaknesses.
The other thing that makes me feel positive about Australia, though, is that their catching and fielding has also recently been very good. I am positive about this series, although cricket is a funny game.
Michael,
You are quite correct, especially about Siddle. That little sod will run in at 100% effort, day-in day-out, regardless of whether things are going his way. He may not bowl brilliantly, but he rarely bowls badly. That’s why I’m probably more afraid of him than Hazlewood.
Yes, I’m scratching around for crumbs looking for weaknesses in the Australian bowling. My main hope is Johnson tries to hit the deck and nothing much happens (other than the ball sitting up nicely for the batsman), but if he bowls his best we’re in trouble. But then again, if Anderson and Broad bowl their best, Australia are in trouble: both players, when and if on form, can skittle that whole line-up in two sessions. When and if.
You’re also right about the fielding and catching. Plus there’s Clarke’s captaincy: he is tactically pretty good, although Cook makes him look like some kind of genius.
You’re right to be positive. I’m just looking for positives. Game on!
It’s bowlers as wins matches.
After two sessions, I think we have to say one session each. Also, it would be really nice if Peter Siddle was bowling right now.
Yes, I’d say Australia won the first session, England the second, and the final one about even with perhaps Australia edging it with the late wicket of Buttler. If Australia can restrict England to 350-360 today they’ll have done well, if England make 380-400+ then I think it will have been England’s innings.
But I think I’ve been vindicated in predicting that Australia’s bowlers would not have it all their own way. Johnson finished up wicketless, Starc was more wayward than accurate, and Watson trundling more than usual. Even Warner ended up bowling. Not that Australia bowled badly: Hazlewood was good, as was Starc (when his radar was working) and Lyon too. They picked up wickets, and at times did well, but it was a long way from the devastating attack that would blow England away within 2 sessions that some were predicting. Of course, everyone is now blaming the pitch but there is no way the pitch in Cardiff will behave like the pitch at the WACA, and I don’t know why everyone is blubbering that England have “doctored” the pitch: when Australia bowled the right line and length they took wickets. When the were spraying it around and pitching short, they conceded runs. This is nothing to do with the pitch.
And yes, you’re right: they’re missing Siddle. He knows what to do when things don’t go their way.
I’m happy enough with this. Win the toss on a flat track on the first day of a series, and what you want to do is bat off into the distance and score so many runs that your opponent is out of the match. Australia likely prevented England from doing this, which is enough for a bowling side on the first day. Still, Haddin dropping Root when he was on zero was very expensive. The Australians let themselves be rattled by this, which was a little disappointing from their point of view. Well played Root for punishing them for this though.
Yes, agreed: batting first on a flat track, you don’t want to be 43/3. Although we’ve recovered, we’ve recovered to a final score of 350+ and not 450+. Regarding Haddin’s drop, you might be paying the price of bringing an elderly wicket-keeper. It’s a bit disappointing from an Australian POV that there appear to be so few youngsters snapping at his heels. That said, our young keepers drop catches too.
Right. The Australian top order has again disappointed, and we have one of the top six still in with the middle order and tail. If the England bowlers can get through this quickly, England should win the match. Sides in these sort of positions against Australia recently have failed to do this. The first hour this morning will be interesting.
Watson wouldn’t be my choice of batsman for this, but he is good enough – just horribly inconsistent.
If the England bowlers can get through this quickly, England should win the match. Sides in these sort of positions against Australia recently have failed to do this.
Indeed, the first hour will be key. What I am most interested to see is whether Johnson’s failure with the ball will affect his batting. Johnson’s big knocks have come when he’s taken a hatful of wickets and his confidence is up, and many have noted the link between batting/bowling performance and bowling/batting performance (as well as things like slip catching). It’s one thing for a tail-ender to smash a tired bowler who is defending a small total, another to chase down 150+ runs with the tail and one established batsman. To a lesser extent, we will see how Haddin’s drop will play on his mind during his batting.
Australia have quite a lot riding on this next session, and how they handle it – and the remaining 3 days of this test – might well determine how they play the rest of the series.
It’s often the other way round, too. His best bowling has often come after he has managed some heroics with the bat. So if he were to bat well here and give himself something to bowl at, he may well really bowl at it.
The question of whether Haddin is past it comes up here with his batting, too. (He was very good indeed in the last Ashes series, but hasn’t done much since). On that dropped catch, it wasn’t so much the dropped catch that bothered me – catches are sometimes dropped, regardless of anything else – but the reaction and lack of follow up from the Australian team. They let the dropped catch get to them, and then Root seized that lack of concentration to punish them for it.
Although, of course, if Haddin had taken the catch, there is a strong change Australia would be strongly on top in the match right now. Catches that are sometimes dropped can none the less be crucial.
I am enjoying the insight in to the game you guys are displaying. Waiting for the kick off now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still reckon that Cardiff ground totally reeks though.
And England got through the Australian tail quickly in that first hour, so very likely England’s game now.
And no, I am not a big fan of the Cardiff ground either.
You’d think this was England’s to lose from here, but I’m not counting any chickens yet.
I don’t much like Cardiff as a test ground. The test grounds for me are: Lord’s, Trent Bridge, Old Trafford, Headingly, Edgbaston, and the Oval. Plus Chester-le-Street occasionally. Rose Bowl and Cardiff are limited over grounds.
Oh, it clearly is England’s to lose from here. It is not impossible that they will lose it, though. Not that likely, though.
It’s the lack of a game at Headingly that annoys me. So many dramatic things have happened in Ashes tests there over the years.
I’m late to this, been travelling.
Two observations; if I’d offered odds on Johnson having figures of 111 without wicket at the end of England’s first innings I reckon I’d have made a killing, and is Starc’s injury the 2015 version of the 2005 McGrath touch rugby incident?
Regardless, it’s looking like it will be a fun series!
Is Starc’s injury the 2015 version of the 2005 McGrath touch rugby incident?
No, not at all: Starc bowled much better in the second innings injured than he did in the first uninjured, and just as fast. I’m also not a fan of the “Had McGrath not twisted his ankle Australia would have won the series” idea. Cricket is a funny game, and the exclusion of a very good player from a very tight game doesn’t mean his inclusion would have been the difference. I can see why the Aussies cling to this incident, though: they’re busy clinging to the “bad pitch” idea in this game, despite 30 wickets being taken and over a thousand runs being scored by the end of day 3 and a result almost certain.
It’s the lack of a game at Headingly that annoys me. So many dramatic things have happened in Ashes tests there over the years.
Yes, one of the TV pundits pointed out that the most northerly game this series is in Trent Bridge: no Old Trafford, Headingly, or Chester-le-Street. I’m not too happy about this either.
Regarding the actual game, you’d think a lead of 411 will prove too difficult for Australia to chase down. You’d be foolish to write them off because they have good batsmen and plenty of time, but you’d have to back England’s bowlers to take the wickets on this pitch, particularly as there was plenty of swing and surface grip yesterday. I thought England made a few rash shots yesterday and had a mini-collapse, but Wood’s contribution has put them up where they probably should be. I don’t see much difference between 411 and 450 anyway: Australia will either chase these down with time and wickets to spare, or they’ll fall miles short.
On the subject of grounds for fixtures, have you seen the fixtures for the next Lions?
Auckland gets 2 of the 3 tests. If anything tells you why NZ must never host the World Cup again, that does.
It’s not a bad pitch. It’s a good pitch. Australia let England score slightly too many, and didn’t bat that well. Most of the top order players made a start, and none of them went on with it. It was also a good toss for England to win, and Australia dropped a crucial catch. I have been following test cricket for 35 years, and in that time Australia have never successfully chased a target that big, although they have lost when they have set a target this big. England will very likely lose here, particularly given that Australia’s batting isn’t that good. For people who think Warner is just a slogger, he has a surprisingly good history of batting sensibly in cases like this. Smith and Clarke are class. Two of those three batsmen need to make centuries, preferably including at least one big one. If not, Australia will lose. Even if they do, Australia may lose. So I am expecting an easy England win. I do of course have a glimmer of hope, but I always do.
(In 2005, Australia didn’t bowl badly as much as their batsmen didn’t live up to their reputations – perhaps they had read too much of their own publicity).
I meant to say “England will very likely win here”, not “lose”.
Michael,
I know we’ve disagreed on Warner in the past, but I think my criticism of him still stands. He is good technically – far from just a slogger – and great when his team are on top. But I think he lacks the mental concentration to survive more than a couple of hours at the crease. Sure, he can destroy you in that time because he scores so quickly, but if you have runs in the bank you can just wait until he gets out – like he duly did today. In fact, the only members of the Australian team I could see batting for hour after hour are Rogers, Smith, and Clarke (Voges is untried). The rest can score runs but can’t occupy the crease for hours in the way Amla, Cook, Sangakarra, Root, Du Plessis, etc. can.
Warner batted sensibly today but nowhere near long enough: Australia needs players – batsmen and bowlers – who can play for a long time when things aren’t going their way. Unfortunately, the ones who look most likely to do that are due to retire!
We like to point to his 123 not out in Hobart in 2011 in a losing cause as an innings that might refute that, but it was a while ago, now. His recent form has not been good. I fear I jinxed him today – He brought up 50 and was batting well, I started thinking about how he might play like that innings, I left the comment above, and then he immediately got out. (That’s the point that my little glimmer of hope died, too).
Australia’s batting isn’t much good. That’s the issue, really.
Pingback: Ashes 2015: First Test | White Sun of the Desert