On the morning of Day Four…

On the morning of Day Four, The Inquisitive Reader may be a tad bemused by the absence of lengthy prognostications from Hughesy after Days One and Two.

I didn’t have much to add to this looks to be our best Top Six, so let’s see how they go prior to the commencement of play. Instead, I got my teeth into a lengthy Republican rant about the significance of that Ashes Test back in 1882 on the morning of Day One.

That was the only Test played on that particular tour, and a quick look at Wikipedia and Cricinfo failed to reveal any details about the rest of the tour, but then I recalled I’ve got a shelf full of cricket reference books. Suffice it to say I then spent the rest of the time before the toss and through to the start of play reading Jack Pollard, taking notes and thinking of returning to the piece I’d started on the morning of Day Two.

Day One also happened to have some personal significance, and was celebrated with some good bottles, so I was late out of bed on the morning of Day Two, skipped the morning walk and generally took it easy until the start of play.

That Republican rant will have to wait, and the content relating to WG Grace’s gamesmanship and the start of the Ashes will probably emerge at some stage, but since the subject got a bit of coverage on the ABC Radio coverage, that stage may be well into the future.

Commentary on the actual play on Day One would have been along the lines of This looks like our best Top Six, but thank goodness the lower order can bat, which could have veered off into further discussion of all-rounders, batsmen who can bowl and bowlers who can bat. We have, of course, been over that ground in reasonable detail, which is why the veering didn’t eventuate.

Yesterday morning saw me looking back at recent batting history with a variation on this is our best six and today’s the day for them to consolidate their places in the eleven intended. Tracking back over the entrails of 2009, 2010-11, India early this year and the first half of the two part series kept me going through the morning up to the resumption, and subsequent events put the kibosh on that line of thought.

On a day where Rogers and Watson could have cemented their places for the rest of the summer and Smith and Bailey needed to consolidate it would have been nice to have at least one of them put their hands up. Instead, it was Warner and Clarke, wasn’t it?

Figures.

The interesting part, for me, has been the weaknesses that seem to be emerging in the English side, something I don’t usually spend too much time on, but there are definite implications for our blokes that emerge from that sort of analysis.

The first one is that most of them don’t like it up ‘em, which means I hope we’ve seen the last of suggestions from Mitchell Johnson about slowing down and bowling line and length in the latter stages of his career. He needs to be bowling chest and throat music and extracting significant lift off a length at pace, and as long as he does that he’s worth persisting with.

Provided he’s getting bounce at pace he can afford to be slightly wayward, particularly if he’s got someone bowling dry at the other end. Siddle and Harris both managed to do that, as did Lyon, whose work with the ball should have ensured he stays on board through the rest of the series.

With Lyon as a long term Eleven, it’s up to the likes of Smith and Agar to work on their bowling (Smith) and batting (Agar, and any other contenders for a bowler who can bat spot at Six or Seven).

There’s an interesting contrast between Lyon (9-4-17-2 and 3-1-3-0, match figures 2 for 20 off 12) and Swann’s 53 overs 2 for 215. Swann, one notes, currently sits on equal seventh in the ICC Bowler rankings (with Siddle), just behind Harris at #6. Lyon will get a lot of work over the next two days, and should move upwards from his current #21 ranking.

Actually, having found them, it’s worth looking at those player rankings:

#6 on 782 is Harris.

#7 on 760 are Swann and Siddle.

#10 on 741 is Anderson, just ahead of Broad, who is #11 on 740.

#15 on 659 is Hilfenhaus, which is interesting, as is the ranking for Finn (#20 on 580).

#21 on 576 is Lyon, Johnson is #23 on 537, #24 on 524 is Bresnan, #26 on 518 is Pattinson, Tremlett #35 on 460 and Watson #40 on 423.

I’m not sure what those numbers mean, but for those who are playing in this game the rankings total 97 (Australia, including Watson, 57 if you don’t) versus 63 (England’s four specialist bowlers, this game. On the other column, with the numbers that determine the rankings you’ve got Australia 2655 (without Watson, 3078 with) versus England 2701.

Look at the figures for the four main bowlers and you’ve got a fairly tight series, much tighter than a recent 3-0 scoreline might suggest.

Based on those figures I went over to the batting list, looking at the first seven in the two batting orders, without Bailey and Carberry. The ranking totals, with lower scores being better read England 99, Australia 221. Understandable since there’s a substantial gap from Clarke (#5) to Watson (#32), Warner (#36), Smith (#43), Rogers (#46) and Haddin (#59).

The English order ranks #10 (Bell), #11 (Cook), 13 (Pietersen), 16 (Trott) and 17 (Prior) with a jump down to #33 (Root).

All of which stems from Hughesy’s attempt to get a form line between Swann and Lyon, so you can see what I mean about being sidetracked.

And it’s a good point to leave things since there’s a garden that needs some attention as the clock sneaks past seven-fifteen. Play, of course, resumes at ten, with England looking to bat two days and save the game. At 2-24 chasing another 537 to win I think we can rule out an England victory.

With an 80% chance of rain, between 2 and 8mm likely and a forecast of showers and the chance of a storm, the draw is an obvious threat, which makes for an interesting two days.