Well, it seems the cautious optimism I displayed in my Ashes Preview post was justified: England have thumped Australia in the first test mainly due to their batsmen being able to withstand the Australian bowling attack and the Australian batsmen being crap.
A word which used to get bandied about a lot during the good times under Andy Flower was “businesslike” or “workmanlike”. England’s success came mainly off the back of serious, concentrated, graft rather than displays of brilliance or raw talent (KP was the exception, hence his reputation). These terms sum up well the demeanour of the English players during the first test in Cardiff: at stumps at the end of Day 2, Australia were 264/5 in reply to England’s 430 all out. England had taken wickets at steady intervals all afternoon, putting in considerable effort for each, rather than having one of those moments when Broad or Anderson gets you 3 or 4 in a single spell. When they interviewed one of the English players as they were walking off the pitch (I forget who it was, mainly because I saw most of the team interviewed over the course of the match) he said they still had a lot of work to do. Again at the end of Day 3, when it was known they would need to bowl Australia out for under 411 to win the match, the English player interviewed talked of the work ahead. For the English players, they take the professional aspect literally by talking of each task ahead as a piece of work that they need to get done, in the same way you or I would in the office. They realise that winning a test match against Australia will require serious work and effort. This work ethic was evident in the first test, and it paid off.
As I had implied in my preview post, Australia appeared to hit England’s shores believing the media hype that a 5-0 win would be a mere formality. That they snapped out of this by lunchtime on Day 1 was encouraging, but what surely must be more worrying for them is that they had no Plan B from that point on. Their whole battle-plan was to rely on Johnson and Starc intimidating the opposition batsmen into giving up their wickets while Siddle and Harris block the scoring from the other end, and it’s been this way for years (with some names changing). Their batting plan has been to be ultra-aggressive and “get on top of the bowlers” and if this results in a low score, meh the bowlers will make sure we still win. This approach has been personified by Darren Lehmann whose aggressive style has been lauded by practically everyone, probably because in Australia it works well.
The problem is, Australia are now in England. It became obvious that the aggressive style wasn’t going to work when the pitch didn’t bounce and England scored 430 in their first innings. For the first time in a long time Michael Clarke seemed clueless as to what to do, and Lehmann even more so. Australia were shown to be extremely one-dimensional, and unable to cope with things not going their way. It is all very well to be snarling, aggressive, and in-your-face when you’re on top, but even a half-decent side needs to be able to dig itself out of a hole when things are going against them, and they failed to do that in this test.
If I was Australian, this is what would worry me the most. England showed in their 5-0 drubbing that a team can be very much less than the sum of its parts, and Australia will now need to make sure they become a team once again. This being Australia, you would count on them to do so: they are not half the hardened sportsmen they make themselves out to be, but they are not a bunch of girls’ blouses either. So you can expect a response from individuals and some better performances at Lord’s this week. But Lehmann’s comments, summed up below, ought to cause some concern:
Australia’s coach Darren Lehmann has described England’s big victory in the first Test as a “minor hiccup”, and has effectively challenged the Lord’s ground staff to produce a quicker pitch for the second match from Thursday.
Lord’s will be a faster and bouncier pitch that will suit Johnson and Starc more than that of Cardiff, but if he thinks that a slightly better pitch is all that is needed for Australia to claw back the opening loss he is surely mistaken. England, he might have noticed, also have some reasonably good fast bowlers in Anderson, Broad, and Wood. A quicker pitch is not going to make them any easier to handle, and is not going to remove the requirement for his batsmen, at some stage, to knuckle down and spend several hours at the crease. One would hope that Lehmann has realised this.
Many said the first test in Cardiff would be crucial, and it was. But the second test at Lord’s will be even more crucial for Australia: if things don’t go their way for long periods in this match, and they again don’t come up with a Plan B for how to deal with it, they will have been dangerously exposed as a one-dimensional side who can do hyper-aggression and nothing else and achieve success only when conditions suit. The series will then be effectively lost.
England, on the other hand, will be unlikely to get ahead of themselves and will retain the workmanlike approach in dealing with the immediate task at hand and then moving onto the next. England supporters will be hoping Cook scores some runs, Lyth, Ballance, and Bell show more consistency and longevity, and the rest keep on doing exactly what they did in Cardiff.
At the risk of being proved hopelessly wrong, I will stick my neck out and say that an England which is more consistent and familiar with the conditions will beat an improved but still brittle Australian side whose 1 or 2 personnel changes didn’t address the underlying problems.
Finally, thanks to Michael Jennings for the comments, it’s been good! Anyone else is free to join in.
UPDATE
One of the other things I forgot to mention is the poor manner in which the Australians have managed their wicket-keeping situation. Despite Brad Haddin’s advancing years, which could hardly have come as a surprise, there appears to have been no effort to groom a replacement. Normally, one would expect Haddin to have hung up the gloves in the ODI format allowing a successor to be found and prepared for test duties, but Australia continued with Haddin right through the World Cup. This is nice for Haddin, and his form may have warranted his selection, but with Haddin’s withdrawal from the squad due to “personal reasons” Australia now have the NSW second choice keeper (Haddin is No. 1) making debut when 1-0 down in an overseas Ashes. Even Australia’s most ardent supporters must agree that this isn’t ideal. I can’t help but feel sentiment and Haddin’s popularity with other senior team members kept him in the ODI and test squads at the expense of grooming a successor.
“Minor hiccup”?
One nil down at the start of a series you were expected to walk and you call it a minor hiccup?
I suspect I’m going to have to buy a VPN service to see live coverage after the third test at this rate as Channel 9 will cut the feed and put re-runs of Gilligan’s Island on instead.
Indeed, and I’m fairly confident that these are words to soothe the fears of the Australian public and not the players. If he really does think losing the first test of this Ashes series is a minor hiccup, he’ll be out of a job before the end of it.
Leonard Bruce Watson has been dropped.
Haddin has a four year old daughter with neuroblastoma – a very nasty form of childhood cancer. When he has missed matches due to “personal reasons” in the past, it has been to do with this, and this is almost certainly the case again now.
In the past, the selectors have allowed him to take back his place in the side immediately after declaring himself available again after such absences. They probably would not have done this had the “personal reasons” been more frivolous. This probably has messed up planning for his succession, though.
On the other hand, Australia has a bit of a history of not planning wicket-keeper succession well. Certainly after Rod Marsh’s retirement in the mid 1980s (a long time ago, now, I guess…) they went through about five or six keepers for short periods before eventually settling on Ian Healy. They had some luck in that Adam Gilchrist then came along and was obviously Healy’s successor. (Both Healy and Gilchrist had shorter careers than they might have due to the overlap). Since then they have been back to not really knowing what to do, although they have not had anybody as good as either Healy or Gilchrist, alas.
It’s a good deal more than a minor hiccup, but it is not a disaster yet. Win at Lord’s and we are back where we started. Lose at Lord’s, however, and it is close to being all over So they really need to focus on winning at Lord’s.
Haddin has a four year old daughter with neuroblastoma – a very nasty form of childhood cancer. When he has missed matches due to “personal reasons” in the past, it has been to do with this, and this is almost certainly the case again now.
Absolutely, I was aware of that, and suspected this might be the case this time around. But that aside, his age alone should have had somebody else covering ODIs for the past 2-3 seasons.
It’s a good deal more than a minor hiccup, but it is not a disaster yet. Win at Lord’s and we are back where we started. Lose at Lord’s, however, and it is close to being all over So they really need to focus on winning at Lord’s.
Exactly.
>Australia now have the NSW second choice keeper (Haddin is No. 1)
>making debut when 1-0 down in an overseas Ashes.
Ian Healy was the 2nd choice Queensland keep (and the first choice Queensland keeper was not the Australian keeper) when he was selected to make his debut in an away test against Pakistan. That turned out to be a great selection. However, he did not have a regular first-class gig when he was picked for Australia. The nature of the wicket-keeping job, and the fact that Australia is geographically huge and has only six first class teams (meaning that moving from one first class team to another can be difficult) means that only one tiny selection error is necessary for the best keeper in the country to be not playing first class cricket. It has happened before.
Australia have an excellent history at Lords, the last two tests excepted. The crowd will be next to bloody useless too compared with some of the more feral regional grounds.
I’m very much looking forward to this one, it’s going to be a cracking contest.
The last time I was there was 2009, day five. I’d arrived at Heathrow after seeing the Lions win the third test in “Alice Pork”, went home, jumped on the Triumph and zipped off to the match to witness Flintoff smashing up the Aussies despite him being held together by bits of sellotape.
I was in such a hurry to get there that I parked with about 2 centimetres of tyre on a white line on the road by mistake and picket up a parking ticket. Still worth it.
The nature of the wicket-keeping job, and the fact that Australia is geographically huge and has only six first class teams…means that only one tiny selection error is necessary for the best keeper in the country to be not playing first class cricket.
With respect, I can see that happening in the Ian Healy era but not now. Any wicketkeeper eligible for national selection would be smashing runs as a batsman in the lower ranks and become noticed for that. Only then would anybody look at his keeping abilities. And any international-standard keeper/batsman in Australia who was not getting a look-in at state level would high-tail it to England with his granddad’s British birth certificate in his kitbag.
Credit to Australia, we are now seeing some proper test-standard batting from Smith and Rogers here, and they are putting Australia in a very powerful position. They ought to be looking to get 450+ by close of play tomorrow and giving England a mountain to climb. Naturally, I can’t comment without mentioning Warner’s slapdash 10 runs off Ali before getting out.
I think they would be looking at 600 for a declaration half an hour to an hour before the close tomorrow, personally. That’s still a long way off, but that’s what I would be looking at.
Yes, you’re probably right: Australia will be looking to bat once in this match. This will either be a heavy defeat for England or an extremely high-scoring draw.
What’s the weather forecast?
“I think they would be looking at 600 for a declaration half an hour to an hour before the close tomorrow, personally. That’s still a long way off, but that’s what I would be looking at.”
Yup, I reckon that’s a fair call.
It’s down to England’s batting line-up to save the match now.
As Australia got found out in Cardiff, this will be a serious test to see if the English batsmen can perform when things haven’t gone their way. The first target will be to avoid the follow-on (assuming Australia do pile on a huge score here). If England collapse for a low-score, the series momentum will swing back towards Australia considerably. But if England perform, and manage to save the match with several hundreds dotted through the batting order, then you’d say England would be very much on top in the series. So all to play for, which is exactly as it should be in the second test of an Ashes.
I’m flying to Thailand tomorrow (Saturday 18th) and so won’t be able to keep up with the day’s play or commentary on here. So if England are 34/4 at Lunch and I’ve gone quiet on here, it’s not because I’m hiding!
This morning, I see a lot of people on social media are using phrases such as “normal order restored” and “first test was a blip”. Bear in mind that so far we have seen only 2 of the Australian team perform well, and they were two of the more reliable players anyway. Doubtless the rest of the team will make hay on the back of the efforts of Rogers and Smith and probably win the match, but I can see a scenario whereby Australia win big in this test thanks to two men, assume therefore that the whole team is absolutely fucking brilliant again, and struggle in the third test.
When a side bats first and scores 600+, it is usual for the other side to score a lot less than that in response and lose the match (just as it is usual for sides chasing 400+ in the fourth innings to get nowhere near it). This is true regardless of the perceived playing strength of the two sides – it is what usually happens. Fighting back from such a position is extremely hard. If anything, it is more true than it used to be, as the numbers of draws being played in total is much less than it used to be (due to a combination of less time being lost to bad weather and changes in tactics).
An Australian win is very likely here, particularly given that Australia’s bowling is stronger than it’s batting. As to what it would mean for the rest of the series, I think it means that Australia is not going to be pummelled by England. Do I think it will make the players overconfident (regardless of what the fans are saying)? No. They remember losing the last three series in England a little too well for that.
If Australia wins the series 3-1 or 4-1, it is then okay to say the first test was a blip, or a minor setback. Not until then, though.
When a side bats first and scores 600+, it is usual for the other side to score a lot less than that in response and lose the match (just as it is usual for sides chasing 400+ in the fourth innings to get nowhere near it).
Yes, it will need a monumental effort.
Do I think it will make the players overconfident (regardless of what the fans are saying)? No.
Yes, I think it’s the difference between what the players think and what the fans are saying. What we saw in Cardiff was an alignment of the two, one would hope they have diverged by now and will remain so for the rest of the series.
Just one final thought – that statement that sides usually fail batting second after the first side bat first and score 600+ is not really true about sides batting second chasing 450 – this is much less intimidating. Scoring 450 is nice, but you haven’t batted the other side out of the match. So if England can bowl Australia out by lunchtime, this game becomes very interesting. Not easy to do, but probably easier than what England have to do to save the game if they don’t do it.
On a similar subject, it is interesting that low, 4th innings run chases can be very tricky. I’ve seen a lot of sides – especially England – chasing 180 to win and find themselves at 80/4.
Australia were absolutely terrible chasing small targets in the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. The most famous example was Headingley in 1981, but the other one that gives me the horrors is Sydney 2003-4 against South Africa. Shane Warne managed one of the greatest pieces of bowling I have ever seen (even from him – it was truly breathtaking) to take 12 wickets for the match, and Australia then managed to be bowled out for 111 chasing 117. There were a few more such games in that era, too. Memories are so strong that you still hear people occasionally say that “Australia have a horrible record chasing small totals in the first innings”, when they actually got over it around 1995 and none of the current players have particularly bad records in that department, at least compared to players in any other side.
Chasing targets in the fourth innings is tough. Pretty much full stop.
And then there was this match, which was one of the most bizarre I’ve ever seen.
England have done much better today and taken the rest of the wickets relatively cheaply (it’s 536/7 now). You’d think the damage was done, but I’d back England to avoid the follow-on, which would be around 400, at least on paper.
Given that they are now 40/4 (which was completely predictable after Australia declared on 566) I wouldn’t. Australia are unlikely to enforce it, though.
Australia did not bat as effortlessly as they did yesterday, but they still did what was necessary. A big victory for Australia is almost certainly coming here.
Oh yes, it’s all over now. Once Lyth’s wicket fell in the first over, you knew the Australian quicks had found a different pitch to bowl on. Now it’s effectively batting practice for those in the England team who might still be picked for the next match.
I took off from Charles de Gaulle with Cook and Stokes batting freely and landed in Bangkok to find Warner and Rogers batting freely. This is the precise situation for which Warner is perfectly suited. The best we can hope for here is at least two English batsmen score centuries in a losing cause; I didn’t see any of the late-order batting to judge it, but Stokes appeared to be embarrassing his higher-order team mates and not for the first time. I’ll probably watch what remains of this test from Patong’s Aussie Bar, which is by far the best sports venue here. I’m sure I’ll be copping some flak right from the get-go.
Well, at least the flak from the Aussies can’t have lasted very long…
Seriously, that was a horrendous defeat that England suffered there. A little bit of fight with the ball on the second day and the bat on the third, but in both cases completely nullified by Australian fightbacks at the end of the day. And a feeble collapse on day 5. Fairly common when sides are chasing targets that big, though.
And I hope Chris Rogers is okay.
Pingback: Ashes 2015: Second Test | White Sun of the Desert