Out of The Oval

What with the weather and all we’ve had the predictable amount of navel-gazing from people who have to write something to keep the pay cheques rolling in. Given the fact that I’m partial to a sleep in when I can manage it (and I actually did on Saturday and Sunday mornings) I figured it was an opportune time to leave the blogging alone and pursue other matters, but, at the end of the Test series we need to stop and consider a few matters, so here we go.

We could, of course, continue to blather on about The Niggle, and one notes a rather interesting bit of pot and kettle in the statement from the ECB discussed here. Uncle Fester’s remarks are supposed to constitute incitement, but one wonders exactly how far you’d get if someone was silly enough to start up a chant at The Gabba on the morning of November 21.

Hughesy has fond memories of consistent chanted sledging of the South Australian side during That Historic Sheffield Shield Final in 1995, and wonders what would happen if someone were to start up just one chant every time Mr Broad takes guard with the bat, walks back to his mark to bowl or handles the ball in the field.

Actually, if I was going to the ground that day I might be inclined to see what could be arranged, but you’d have to expect to be tapped on the shoulder by someone from Security and, more than likely, ejected from the ground to the accompaniment of orchestrated jeers from the Barmy Army.

One notes the following remark in the ECB statement: The ECB, in supporting its players, management support staff and their families, believe no one in the game condones incitement of any kind and leaves the topic muttering about pots, kettles and Barmy Armies...

Count the drinks, not the runs, wrote Brydon Coverdale a couple of days back, and we’ll probably get a little more pot and kettle action from irate England supporters claiming to be hard done by after Michael Clarke took his time towards the end of an intriguing run chase.  England took their time on Day Three, obviously out to ensure they couldn’t lose. They picked up the rate this morning, since they reckoned they were safe, ended up all out 377 and ended up being given a very gettable target in an extremely generous declaration that would have gone right down to the wire if they hadn’t gone off for bad light.

One notes their run chase started fairly brightly, and when Root departed it was 1-22. I wasn’t awake at the time, but a scan of the ball by ball doesn’t reveal anything exciting between then and Cook’s departure at 2-86 in the twentieth. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened if Clarke’s venture into spin (he had Lyon on to bowl the 9th, and bowled the 13th and 15th before trying Faulkner) had paid off with a wicket or two.

I’m quite sure, under those circumstances Pietersen would have had the same tonk he ended up having, but if he’d then got out reasonably cheaply they’d have shut up shop.

There was a bit of to and fro about England’s scoring rate on Day Three here, particularly from Faulkner, and it’s interesting to look at the comments under a fairly even handed summary of the day’s play here. I don’t usually head in that direction, and based on some of the blather there won’t be in a hurry to go back.

Because, in the end, despite the 3-0 score line, we’ve had a much closer series than most people anticipated. There seems to have been a certain amount of pooh-poohing of the story headlined Arthur reveals two-series strategy, which looks to me like a case of someone needing something to fill the column inches.

We wanted to try to push England really hard in England, but we wanted to win in Australia, Arthur told ABC Radio. Really? And this is supposed to be news?

So what have we got out of the end of this series?

First up, we’ve got a bowling attack that should be able to take twenty wickets in Australian conditions. It’s obvious the wickets we’ve just played on were tailored to suit Swann, but it’ll be a different kettle of fish when hostilities resume, assuming we’ve got a battery of fit quicks with Harris as a key player.

Second, you can probably be reasonably confident about more than half the batting order. Having chopped and changed, I’d like to see Rogers and Warner at the top, Watson at Three or Four, Clarke at Four or Five and Smith at Five or Six. Throw in Haddin, Harris if fit and Lyon and there’s eight out of the eleven with spaces for two quicks, one of whom will be Siddle and a gap at Three or Six, depending on what you’re going to do with a fit Watto.

Third, as pointed out here, England’s batting can be vulnerable if things are planned correctly, and while Australia's players - and selectors - lack resilience if tested for extended periods (good point) that batting order noted above looks to be close to as good as it’s likely to be unless Clarke’s back starts playing up again.

There’s the opportunity for someone (Hughes, Cowan or Khawaja, for starters) to claim back the Three with good scores in the early rounds of the Sheffield Shield, and the possibility of a younger bloke (Doolan is one possibility, though there are others) claiming a berth at Six with Watto staying at Three.

I like it, anyway.

There will, of course, be plenty to look forward to, though transmission from here won’t be resuming on a regular basis until mid-November, and may not be back thereafter, depending on travel arrangements and such.

The forthcoming one dayers and T20s? Push me to one side and call me a fuddy duddy with other fish to fry.