It’s important, when you’re doing something resembling day by day commentary on a Test match, to get your blog piece finished before the day’s play. Developments after play has resumed tend to render some of what you’ve written irrelevant, and you're left fiddling around and adjusting things to meet the changes in the match situation.
I’d spent a good hour and a bit on Saturday morning on a piece provisionally titled It’s Not Rocket Surgery, largely based around the question of what we were doing inserting England after winning the toss on a wicket that didn’t seem to be offering the usual reasons for doing so.
Around eight-ten I wandered out of the air-conditioned office, planning a shower, breakfast, and a wrap up of the piece before play resumed at nine-thirty.
I emerged to find The Supervisor engaged in gardening activities with a list of accumulated tasks that required my immediate attention. It was lucky I emerged when I did because otherwise I’d probably have been late for the resumption.
Day Two in Melbourne had delivered a fair bit to think about, and it was hard to see how we were going to get ourselves out of a substantial hole, and harder to think of ways we could afford a fairly crushing defeat, and you’d have to put most of the blame, up to that point in time, on the decision to insert the opposition.
Pondering those matters as I lay in bed that morning I kept coming back to that very useful and much-encompassing phrase It’s not rocket surgery.
I might have picked that up from Kerry O’Keefe, who announced his impending retirement as Australia moved inexorably towards nine-for, but that combination of rocket science, with its accompanying notions of physics, gravity and aerodynamics and the attention to fiddly detail that would have to be a key ingredient in successful brain surgery epitomises something about matters of cricket strategy.
It is, when you get down to tin tacks, a very simple game. Someone bowls, attempting to hit the wicket. Someone defends the wicket and attempts to score some runs along the way.
And long-held adages are long held because they tend, year after year, season after season, to work.
Take the notion that you win the toss and bat. Filter it through the wisdom of the well-known English master of gamesmanship W.G. Grace, which went something like this:
If you win the toss, bat.
If you have reservations, give them some consideration, and bat.
If you have serious concerns, discuss them with a colleague, and bat.
I spent a bit of time after Day One pondering why we won the toss and sent England in, and after a salutary lesson yesterday, spent some time overnight pondering what I could only see as a tendency to get too smart too soon.
That might seem like taking some credit off an English attack that managed to get things pretty right, but you can only play as well as you’re allowed to and the insertion, to a large extent, helped to set things up for them.
I’m not suggesting there aren’t situations where you won’t be inclined to send the opposition in after you’ve won the toss, but they generally don’t line up well against the reasons why you tend to choose to bat.
Let’s look at those for a moment.
First, in any game, batting first ends up reading we’ve got ‘em, they’ve got to get ‘em. Knowing the target, or the score, you’re defending gives you some room to manoeuvre with your tactics and general approach.
Second, and this particularly applies to a two innings game played over two-hour sessions, batting first means you’re probably guaranteed a full two hour session and a single start to the innings. Sure, it might rain, but unless it does, your openers are only going to start once.
From there, unless the final wicket falls immediately beside a break, the team batting second, third and fourth are likely to have to get themselves through two spells with the new ball. Yesterday illustrated that point perfectly.
England might have been bundled out fairly briskly, but they used up enough time to leave thirteen overs until the Lunch break, collecting Warner and Watson along the way. They got Clarke to the crease early, and had two goes at him, eventually claiming him fairly cheaply. We’d struggled to nine-for and the prospect of a substantial deficit leading into England’s second innings.
Which brings us to the third reason for batting first, namely, if you bat first that probably means they bat last, possibly on a deck where batting would be starting to present difficulties. By that point, if it’s going to take turn it should have something for the spinners. If not, it’ll probably be increasingly slow and low which tends to make batting rather difficult.
That doesn’t mean you’re never going to bowl first, but by doing so you’re forfeiting certain other advantages. That first day Melbourne deck definitely seemed to lack justification for insertion.
What we got on Day Three, from where I was sitting, right up to the lunch break, didn’t do much to change perceptions. Haddin and Lyon stuck around, scored at a reasonably brisk clip, and got us within reach of the England first innings total.
Good. Tick. But still not where we wanted to be.
With a bit over an hour to bat until Lunch, England progressed to 0-54 with Cook looking pretty good while Carberry did a Tavare impersonation. We got a slight turnaround in that middle session, with Cook going first, Carberry following not long afterwards, followed by the unfortunately-named Root and Bell in quick succession.
it’s possible something like the two brain farts that produced these two dismissals formed part of the decision to insert on Day One, but I’m inclined to dismiss that suspicion. Root seemed to forget that Johnson is a left armer, hit the ball to hit left and ran. Possibly England rate Mitchell’s fielding on a par with their perception of his bowling, but a direct hit did the business.
Bell then proceeded to hit his first ball straight down Johnson’s throat, presenting Lyon with the first of his five-for.
That made things look better, but with Pietersen at the crease with Stokes and Bairstow, Bresnan and Broad to follow before the tail emerged, at 4-87 you’d still reckon they’d be looking good for around 220, which with the fifty run first innings lead would make for a tricky run chase.
Stokes went at 5-131 and Bairstow at 6-173, buy even at that point you’d have been rating 220 as a reasonable par score. Counting Bairstow, they then proceed to lose 5 for 6. Remarkable.
Even more remarkable was the Lyon analysis. 5-50 off 17 thank you very much.
Of course, he was helped by having Johnson at the other end, and the speed of the England demise gave us a neat little eight over spell to reduce the target from 231 to 201 in circumstances that might have been tricky if the England bowlers weren’t (and I’m assuming this to be the case) rather shocked by the fact that they were out in the paddock again.
In any case, what could have been a rather tricky session added thirty, reduced the target and failed to bring the limping Watson to the crease.
And from there, Day Four unfolded pretty well according to the script. A century to Rogers after Warner went at the end of the 17th over, a gritty 83 to Watson, who looked committed to delivering the goods and a red ink 6 to Clarke and we were home and hosed at 4-zip in the five Test series.
So, Hughesy, surely that takes care of those concerns of yours?
Actually, it doesn’t. The decision to insert suggested we were heading off into what has been a tricky area for Australia when we start looking to toy with the opposition’s mental processes. We’re at our best when we keep it very simple and snarl and gouge our way through the opposition.
I took myself through the lap around town this morning pondering these matters further, and came to the conclusion that this whole turn around from the English half of the dual series has come down to the bowling quartet, and the fact that they’ve restricted England to a modest total every time they’ve batted, and sparked a few spectacular collapses along the way.
Looking forwards, you’d have to fancy our chances in South Africa and beyond, but only as far as this particular bowling quartet (with Watson hovering on the periphery) are in action. Remove one element, and things are going to be substantially different.
The key here is Johnson and the important issue as far as he is concerned is the fear factor. A while back there were suggestions he would drop his pace back and bowl line and length the way his mentor and chief sponsor Dennis Lillee did in the later part of his career.
Don’t even think of it. He’s there to scare, particularly if the opposition aren’t inclined to rate him. End of story.
And when he goes, whatever the reason for his departure, he needs to be replaced by someone who has genuine pace and aggression. Not by someone who bowls dry. We’ve already got two blokes who do that. We don’t need a third. Go in with three dries and a spinner and the spinner might get among the wickets as the opposition look for runs where they can get them. They’re equally likely to sit back and wait until the quicks tire and then take their toll on a flagging attack.
That’s not rocket surgery either.
The beauty of this Australian attack is the balance. Two workhorses, one wild card and a spinner who learned his trade bowling in circumstances where everybody down to Eleven is inclined to Slap, particularly when the bowler is a slightly-built bloke bowling finger spin.
Harris and Siddle will keep trundling in and bowl their guts out for you. They’ll take wickets and keep things tight, Johnson has the left armer angle, and genuine pace, Lyon does what he does and if Watson bowls you’ve got a fourth medium pacer with The Genuine Quickie Mentality.
It’s handy. It’s working at the moment. Don’t tinker with it too much, and if you must tinker, don’t mess with the basics.
Watson and Harris must have question marks over the fitness going into Sydney. Possibly you rest one or both of them.
If it’s Watson, replace him with Faulkner and bat Clarke at Three. Give Faulkner a decent workout with the ball and hope to get Harris through relatively unscathed.
Rest Harris and it’s a different matter. The first question then becomes whether Watto is there and whether he’s going to bowl. He probably isn’t, so you're going to be looking for a workhorse. Coulter-Nile? Bollinger? Cutting?
Cricinfo will be providing some very interesting reading over the next day or two…
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Melbourne Day One
Having managed to sleep in, which ruled out a morning walk, and with plenty of writing backlog to work on it took a while to turn my attention to the events of Day One in Melbourne.
An hour’s walk would have provided something to hang England’s 6-226 on, but on a slow day you’d have to dig fairly thoroughly if you were going to avoid being overly negative. You could, after all, make a fairly solid case for watching paint dry as more interesting than the English run crawl.
Record chase more entertaining than run chase was one headline that caught the eye on the ABC News website, and wasn’t far off the mark. The so called world record for attendance, of course, probably isn’t. There have almost certainly been larger crowds at Kolkata’s Eden Gardens, and there have definitely been many more entertaining Day Ones.
The key issue, having missed Adelaide and Melbourne, has been the decision to insert the old enemy after winning the toss, when the natural inclination in almost every set of circumstances is to win the toss and bat.
Clarke certainly didn’t seem that sure it was a good idea, but there are two angles that might be worth pondering.
First, of course, there might just have been something in the pitch, and it was good luck rather than good management that got Root through to the Lunch score of 1-71. Cook lasted an hour or so, and with an extra break through in that first session England could well have gone into a downhill slide. Three catches would have helped in that regard as well, and it’s interesting looking at the day’s play to ponder how much damage has been done to the English esprit de corps.
They’re not quite broken. Yet. But it might be close.
One thing that did disturb me was the lack of an aggressive response to blatant time wasting by Kevin Pietersen towards the end of the day’s play. Maybe he was just out to do what he could to get his side through to Stumps without further damage, but I suspect there was an additional bit of Niggle in there. It wasn’t what you’d call subtle time-wasting.
I would have liked to see a rather aggressive approach to the umpires, something along the lines of making sure he has to pay if we get slugged for slow over rates. The consensus in the commentary box seemed to be a belief there was very little the umpires could do about it, but I’d have been interested in seeing what would have happened if a protest about time-wasting had been followed by an appeal for Obstructing the Field.
To quote the first sentence of Law 37: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
You’re not going to get it, of course. But you ask. And, just maybe, by repeating the appeal ad nauseam when the fielding side is in position and ready to go, and KP is wasting time you’re underlining the fact that you’re onto what he’s up to.
And a bush lawyer would be able to make plenty out of those words willfully attempts, obstruct or distract and action.
The other thing with the decision to insert might have been a degree of interest in seeing how we go when the coin falls the other way and the opposition decide to bat. Given the notion that the coin falls fifty-fifty you’d possibly want to see how things run in that sort of situation when the coin fails to co-operate.
But there’d also be a degree of seeing how close to broken they are, matched with the knowledge that we’re in for a much more competitive series in a month and a half’s time.
Juggling my attention between the resumption of play and the attempt to fill in the commentary, at thuds point, having just seen Johnson strike twice, with Pietersen as the second victim, let’s just turn our attention to the screen.
An hour’s walk would have provided something to hang England’s 6-226 on, but on a slow day you’d have to dig fairly thoroughly if you were going to avoid being overly negative. You could, after all, make a fairly solid case for watching paint dry as more interesting than the English run crawl.
Record chase more entertaining than run chase was one headline that caught the eye on the ABC News website, and wasn’t far off the mark. The so called world record for attendance, of course, probably isn’t. There have almost certainly been larger crowds at Kolkata’s Eden Gardens, and there have definitely been many more entertaining Day Ones.
The key issue, having missed Adelaide and Melbourne, has been the decision to insert the old enemy after winning the toss, when the natural inclination in almost every set of circumstances is to win the toss and bat.
Clarke certainly didn’t seem that sure it was a good idea, but there are two angles that might be worth pondering.
First, of course, there might just have been something in the pitch, and it was good luck rather than good management that got Root through to the Lunch score of 1-71. Cook lasted an hour or so, and with an extra break through in that first session England could well have gone into a downhill slide. Three catches would have helped in that regard as well, and it’s interesting looking at the day’s play to ponder how much damage has been done to the English esprit de corps.
They’re not quite broken. Yet. But it might be close.
One thing that did disturb me was the lack of an aggressive response to blatant time wasting by Kevin Pietersen towards the end of the day’s play. Maybe he was just out to do what he could to get his side through to Stumps without further damage, but I suspect there was an additional bit of Niggle in there. It wasn’t what you’d call subtle time-wasting.
I would have liked to see a rather aggressive approach to the umpires, something along the lines of making sure he has to pay if we get slugged for slow over rates. The consensus in the commentary box seemed to be a belief there was very little the umpires could do about it, but I’d have been interested in seeing what would have happened if a protest about time-wasting had been followed by an appeal for Obstructing the Field.
To quote the first sentence of Law 37: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
You’re not going to get it, of course. But you ask. And, just maybe, by repeating the appeal ad nauseam when the fielding side is in position and ready to go, and KP is wasting time you’re underlining the fact that you’re onto what he’s up to.
And a bush lawyer would be able to make plenty out of those words willfully attempts, obstruct or distract and action.
The other thing with the decision to insert might have been a degree of interest in seeing how we go when the coin falls the other way and the opposition decide to bat. Given the notion that the coin falls fifty-fifty you’d possibly want to see how things run in that sort of situation when the coin fails to co-operate.
But there’d also be a degree of seeing how close to broken they are, matched with the knowledge that we’re in for a much more competitive series in a month and a half’s time.
Juggling my attention between the resumption of play and the attempt to fill in the commentary, at thuds point, having just seen Johnson strike twice, with Pietersen as the second victim, let’s just turn our attention to the screen.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Resuming the Commentary
While I was always confident we’d be retrieving The Ashes from foreign interests by the end of this series I didn't expect to be sitting down two days out from Boxing Day contemplating a five-nil whitewash.
The Inquisitive Reader may have been wondering at the lengthy silence following the win at The Gabba, something that stemmed from the fact that Hughesy wasn’t in the country. We were still part way through the English half of the two part series when I heard about a run of four Elvis Costello Spinning Songbook concerts in Japan. That looked like a reasonable excuse to head across to ride around on bullet trains.
The Interested Reader will find details of those shows over on The LHoC Music blog, or the LHoC web site but in between concerts and shinkansen excursions I was actually following the scores. Things would have been better if the feed from the Cricket Australia app on the iPad wasn’t geoblocked, but you can’t have everything.
And even with the prospect of a whitewash there’s no room for complacency because from what I’ve read it looks like we’re still only operating around 95%.
The important thing to remember before we get down to gloating is that this is a side that has been assembled to complete a task, and while we’re well on the way to doing that, a couple of issues will need to be dealt with on the way to reclaiming that #1 Test ranking, which is what we’re after.
Look at the current side and we’ve got Rogers, Haddin and the pace bowling trio that's the heart of what may well be the best attack going around at the moment (Australia's attack 'best in the world' - McDermott) all needing to replaced in the medium term, and we also need to build up the spin bowling department for future tours to spin-friendly environments on the subcontinent.
We’ve also got the prospect of a three Test Series in South Africa in the New Year, and one notes recent developments that suggest we’ll need to be firing on all cylinders if we’re going to win that one. We’re still ranked #5 on 101 with South Africa well ahead of the pack on 131 (India 119, England 116, Pakistan 102). They’ve got de Villiers, Amla and Smith at 1, 2 and 9 in the batting rankings (Clarke 5) and Philander and Steyn at 1 and 2 in the bowling (Harris and Siddle 5 and 6).
And while it’s rather pleasant to watch the wheels start to fall off the much vaunted England line up one notes suggestions of burnout as a significant factor. They’ve kept a fairly tight core of players together through a lot of cricket, and the strain is going to show eventually. We don't want to end up in the same pickle.
On our part, we’re looking for a long term replacement for Rogers as The Steady Opener, cover for Watson as The All Rounder (or, if you prefer, The Batsman Who Bowls), Haddin behind the stumps and depth and variation in the spin bowling department (Backup Offie, as well as a leftie and a left arm orthodox). Throw in another top order bat and someone who can bat in the middle and you’d have the makings of a decent medium to long term prospect.
Those players need to be identified and brought on, with a degree of rotation involved when we play the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangla Desh, the West Indies and New Zealand.
The fast bowling department looks reasonably good, with plenty of depth coming through, but there are two questions over that way. The first, of course, is getting them on to the park, something that we haven’t quite managed to do consistently. If you’re not convinced of that, take a squiz at the injury list.
Then, assuming you’ve got the resources fit and ready to fire, it’s a question of getting the right mix. In many ways, this current attack reminds me of the bowling group that got us home against the West Indies back in 1995. That attack went into a Test series having just lost McDermott to injury, and while it included Warne and an emerging McGrath the other two quicks (Reiffel and Julian) aren’t going to end up being ranked along Australia’s all-time greats.
That lineup, however, offered a blend of talents that gave options to attack the West Indies batting order, and, just as importantly, weren’t afraid to ruffle the West Indian tailenders who were used to monstering the opposition without getting a great deal of retaliation when they batted.
One notes some of the same thing happening here where Messrs Anderson and Broad are concerned.
So when it comes to replacing Johnson, Harris and Siddle it might not be a case of a straight like for like swap. Johnson may be The Leftie With the Terror Factor, but that doesn’t mean he can be replaced by, say, Starc, who may be The Leftie, but mightn’t fit into the Terrifying Pace side of things.
No, it’s a matter of getting the right combination, and that’s not necessarily going to be a matter of selecting the three most obvious choices.
The other matter that needs to be commented on is, of course, the rapid depletion of English resources in this series, and I’d direct The Argumentative Reader’s attention in that direction if he or she thinks I’m getting a little over the top in the comments above.
The first point to be made here is that we’ve turned on the aggression and the verbals, and one notes a report in this morning’s ABC News digest where Graeme Swann’s granny is blaming unwelcoming Australians for the lad’s decision to retire.
There are two telling comments in that report.
"I do not think they have been (made) very welcome, the team. He is not easily upset, there is something nasty happened.”
Well, you don’t (or shouldn’t) expect to be welcomed with open arms when you’re looking towards a four-series drubbing of your hosts. One doesn’t get the impression there are open arms when our blokes step onto the paddock over there. The words Barmy and Army spring to mind here.
She’s also reported as saying "When the team went down to Australia and that young lad [Jonathan Trott] came back, there was something going wrong then,” which moves the debate over the verbals into a whole new ball game.
Now, you might think that what I’m about to say is heartless, and you may be right, but both Trott and Swann came into this series with their own issues.
With Trott the psychological issues were, to some extent, known, and how much the Australian side knew about his actual mental state doesn’t matter. He was known to be a stickler for routine, fussy about his preparation for each ball he faced and that makes him liable to a little hurry up.
If I’d been on the field when he was batting I’d have been making fairly pointed comments about time wasting, particularly if it was the morning of Day One and I was looking to get through thirty overs before lunch.
As far as any damage inflicted is concerned, in this context I’m reminded of a sequence of photos I saw somewhere years ago.
Taken at what may have been a County match they showed a batsman, possibly Colin Cowdrey, lying on the ground after being struck by an Andy Roberts bouncer. There were a number of concerned individuals clustered around the figure on the ground, but Roberts wasn’t one of them.
Roberts was standing at the top of his run, ready to steam in for the next delivery.
Apparently, questioned about what might be interpreted as a heartless attitude, Roberts said something like “It’s my job to bowl it. It’s his job to deal with it.”
Go down the track and take a look at the damage you’ve done and you may lose some of your effectiveness. Using the short ball to get a batsman moving onto the back foot, then spearing in the yorker to clean him up is a fairly standard strategy. If the batsman’s technique of dealing with the short stuff has him swaying back and being hit by a ball that follows him, it isn’t the bowler’s fault.
No, if he’s batting Three he has to expect pressure, and it’s the opposition’s job to deliver it.
In Swann’s case, elbow surgery had already reduced his effectiveness, and Lehmann is on record as saying the plan was to attack him in an endeavour to force Cook to bring back the quicks (and, more than likely, bowl them to the point where they’re increasingly susceptible to injury).
What is interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is that Swann opted to come on tour knowing he wasn’t going to be able to deliver the lengthy spells he had been used to, and then, faced with the prospect of a five-nil drubbing with a major question mark over whether Broad will take the field and turn out to be fully effective, chose to make an early departure from a side that had already been considerably weakened.
But, for all that, now I’m in a position to resume watching, roll on Boxing Day…
The Inquisitive Reader may have been wondering at the lengthy silence following the win at The Gabba, something that stemmed from the fact that Hughesy wasn’t in the country. We were still part way through the English half of the two part series when I heard about a run of four Elvis Costello Spinning Songbook concerts in Japan. That looked like a reasonable excuse to head across to ride around on bullet trains.
The Interested Reader will find details of those shows over on The LHoC Music blog, or the LHoC web site but in between concerts and shinkansen excursions I was actually following the scores. Things would have been better if the feed from the Cricket Australia app on the iPad wasn’t geoblocked, but you can’t have everything.
And even with the prospect of a whitewash there’s no room for complacency because from what I’ve read it looks like we’re still only operating around 95%.
The important thing to remember before we get down to gloating is that this is a side that has been assembled to complete a task, and while we’re well on the way to doing that, a couple of issues will need to be dealt with on the way to reclaiming that #1 Test ranking, which is what we’re after.
Look at the current side and we’ve got Rogers, Haddin and the pace bowling trio that's the heart of what may well be the best attack going around at the moment (Australia's attack 'best in the world' - McDermott) all needing to replaced in the medium term, and we also need to build up the spin bowling department for future tours to spin-friendly environments on the subcontinent.
We’ve also got the prospect of a three Test Series in South Africa in the New Year, and one notes recent developments that suggest we’ll need to be firing on all cylinders if we’re going to win that one. We’re still ranked #5 on 101 with South Africa well ahead of the pack on 131 (India 119, England 116, Pakistan 102). They’ve got de Villiers, Amla and Smith at 1, 2 and 9 in the batting rankings (Clarke 5) and Philander and Steyn at 1 and 2 in the bowling (Harris and Siddle 5 and 6).
And while it’s rather pleasant to watch the wheels start to fall off the much vaunted England line up one notes suggestions of burnout as a significant factor. They’ve kept a fairly tight core of players together through a lot of cricket, and the strain is going to show eventually. We don't want to end up in the same pickle.
On our part, we’re looking for a long term replacement for Rogers as The Steady Opener, cover for Watson as The All Rounder (or, if you prefer, The Batsman Who Bowls), Haddin behind the stumps and depth and variation in the spin bowling department (Backup Offie, as well as a leftie and a left arm orthodox). Throw in another top order bat and someone who can bat in the middle and you’d have the makings of a decent medium to long term prospect.
Those players need to be identified and brought on, with a degree of rotation involved when we play the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangla Desh, the West Indies and New Zealand.
The fast bowling department looks reasonably good, with plenty of depth coming through, but there are two questions over that way. The first, of course, is getting them on to the park, something that we haven’t quite managed to do consistently. If you’re not convinced of that, take a squiz at the injury list.
Then, assuming you’ve got the resources fit and ready to fire, it’s a question of getting the right mix. In many ways, this current attack reminds me of the bowling group that got us home against the West Indies back in 1995. That attack went into a Test series having just lost McDermott to injury, and while it included Warne and an emerging McGrath the other two quicks (Reiffel and Julian) aren’t going to end up being ranked along Australia’s all-time greats.
That lineup, however, offered a blend of talents that gave options to attack the West Indies batting order, and, just as importantly, weren’t afraid to ruffle the West Indian tailenders who were used to monstering the opposition without getting a great deal of retaliation when they batted.
One notes some of the same thing happening here where Messrs Anderson and Broad are concerned.
So when it comes to replacing Johnson, Harris and Siddle it might not be a case of a straight like for like swap. Johnson may be The Leftie With the Terror Factor, but that doesn’t mean he can be replaced by, say, Starc, who may be The Leftie, but mightn’t fit into the Terrifying Pace side of things.
No, it’s a matter of getting the right combination, and that’s not necessarily going to be a matter of selecting the three most obvious choices.
The other matter that needs to be commented on is, of course, the rapid depletion of English resources in this series, and I’d direct The Argumentative Reader’s attention in that direction if he or she thinks I’m getting a little over the top in the comments above.
The first point to be made here is that we’ve turned on the aggression and the verbals, and one notes a report in this morning’s ABC News digest where Graeme Swann’s granny is blaming unwelcoming Australians for the lad’s decision to retire.
There are two telling comments in that report.
"I do not think they have been (made) very welcome, the team. He is not easily upset, there is something nasty happened.”
Well, you don’t (or shouldn’t) expect to be welcomed with open arms when you’re looking towards a four-series drubbing of your hosts. One doesn’t get the impression there are open arms when our blokes step onto the paddock over there. The words Barmy and Army spring to mind here.
She’s also reported as saying "When the team went down to Australia and that young lad [Jonathan Trott] came back, there was something going wrong then,” which moves the debate over the verbals into a whole new ball game.
Now, you might think that what I’m about to say is heartless, and you may be right, but both Trott and Swann came into this series with their own issues.
With Trott the psychological issues were, to some extent, known, and how much the Australian side knew about his actual mental state doesn’t matter. He was known to be a stickler for routine, fussy about his preparation for each ball he faced and that makes him liable to a little hurry up.
If I’d been on the field when he was batting I’d have been making fairly pointed comments about time wasting, particularly if it was the morning of Day One and I was looking to get through thirty overs before lunch.
As far as any damage inflicted is concerned, in this context I’m reminded of a sequence of photos I saw somewhere years ago.
Taken at what may have been a County match they showed a batsman, possibly Colin Cowdrey, lying on the ground after being struck by an Andy Roberts bouncer. There were a number of concerned individuals clustered around the figure on the ground, but Roberts wasn’t one of them.
Roberts was standing at the top of his run, ready to steam in for the next delivery.
Apparently, questioned about what might be interpreted as a heartless attitude, Roberts said something like “It’s my job to bowl it. It’s his job to deal with it.”
Go down the track and take a look at the damage you’ve done and you may lose some of your effectiveness. Using the short ball to get a batsman moving onto the back foot, then spearing in the yorker to clean him up is a fairly standard strategy. If the batsman’s technique of dealing with the short stuff has him swaying back and being hit by a ball that follows him, it isn’t the bowler’s fault.
No, if he’s batting Three he has to expect pressure, and it’s the opposition’s job to deliver it.
In Swann’s case, elbow surgery had already reduced his effectiveness, and Lehmann is on record as saying the plan was to attack him in an endeavour to force Cook to bring back the quicks (and, more than likely, bowl them to the point where they’re increasingly susceptible to injury).
What is interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is that Swann opted to come on tour knowing he wasn’t going to be able to deliver the lengthy spells he had been used to, and then, faced with the prospect of a five-nil drubbing with a major question mark over whether Broad will take the field and turn out to be fully effective, chose to make an early departure from a side that had already been considerably weakened.
But, for all that, now I’m in a position to resume watching, roll on Boxing Day…
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general
With fairly definite views regarding The Sledge, The Niggle and Gamesmanship in general, it’s safe to assume Hughesy will be scanning the press reports over the next few days.
What follows is an exercise in gathering content that might be relevant at some point down the track, a compendium rather than a commentary, though one can’t help commentating from time to time.
The thrice daily news bulletin from the ABC that arrived this morning pointed me towards The Ashes: Chris Rogers comes to David Warner's defence over Jonathan Trott criticism. You might find a statement like no-one in the Australian team knew about Trott's condition, and the remarks were not meant to be hurtful a trifle difficult to swallow, but that’s what he apparently said. We’re obviously looking for short term tactical advantage, not long term psychological damage. There’s also a comment from Peter Siddle along the lines of Anderson brought Clarke's sledge/threat on himself, which I’m inclined to see as a reminder that all this stuff is a two way street.
Don’t, in other words, get all holier than thou if you’re inclined to dish it up yourself.
THere’s a comment along those lines in The Ashes: James Anderson threatened George Bailey before Clarke sledge, says Shane Warne along with the comment from a tight-lipped Bailey that Anderson must have been just a bit upset about the way the game was going, which also suggests that whatever remarks George was chirping from under the lid were hitting home.
Turning the attention to the regular items in my Safari Top Sites, I headed over to the Cricket page on ABC Grandstand for The Ashes: Kim Hughes labels David Warner comments about Jonathan Trott as 'disgraceful', where Hughes admits The Sledge is part and parcel of the game. I don't know why. They say it is, it shouldn't be. But you don't do it off the field. That's just deplorable and unacceptable in any field of endeavour.
Point taken, but see previous comments about those without sin, and consider Hughesy’s long-standing belief that what transpires on the field shouldn’t be affected by organised denigration from the other side of the boundary.
The question of who fills the vacancy created at Three for England has Mike Atherton advocating Joe Root because he played Mitchell Johnson well, ... looked compact, ... got a nice stride into the ball and also dealt with all of the verbals (Here).
Nasser Hussain and Ian Chappell tend to favour Bell, and candidates to fill the vacancy caused by either of them moving up the order are Jonny Bairstow, unless Zimbabwean-born Gary Ballance or all-rounder Ben Stokes, who, according to Atherton gives the option of bringing Monty Panesar in and playing a second spinner, with Stokes as the third seamer if the pitch looks as flat as has been suggested.
Updates in the ICC Rankings are covered in The Ashes: Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon in ICC top 20 bowlers, Michael Clarke number four batsman. Johnson is now ranked 19th with the ball and 78th with the bat, Lyon 18th with the ball and Clarke up to 4th in the batting. In other moves Cook moves into 10th, Warner to 17th and Haddin 42nd with the bat, Broad and Tremlett are now 7th and 32nd with the ball).
Full rankings are here, where one notes Broad rates 4th in the All-Rounders list with Watson and Johnson 7th and 8th respectively.
Further down the page The Ashes: Jonathan Trott receives support from England players past and present after leaving tour reveals Michael Vaughan expressed regret for questioning Trott's performances in the media.
As the content increasingly disappears behind the Murdoch paywall I’ve given The Australian the flick, moving, instead to The Guardian, where, this morning Australia have no intention of changing their aggressive approach to the Ashes. Click there and you’ll find the main points are Darren Lehmann sees no reason to be less vocal and his county side Warwickshire always knew of Jonathan Trott's illness.
I may have cause to refer back to Ashes: England must learn the lessons they started studying a long time ago: Andy Flower and his team have been here before. It's not that England's chances are dead, just that the contest is alive, which is why I’ve stuck it in here.
Glenn McGrath’s Trott was right to go home, an Ashes tour is no place to sort out problems is another one I may well be referring back to on the basis of Pigeon’s suggestion that West Indian comments of Let's kill him, man. Let's kill him as he walked in to bat weren’t too far removed from Clarke’s go at Anderson.
McGrath makes the most important point when he writes:
But there is a line – it's fine as long as it doesn't get too personal. When I played, an opposition bowler (or batsman for that matter) could call me any name under the sun, I had no issue. But if they started to bring in family members, or personal issues, then that's different. That is why I thought the treatment Mitchell Johnson got on the tour of England in 2009 was a bit rough, when you start to bring in what is happening on a personal front.
Cricinfo has:
Root most likely solution for No. 3 while Australia to conserve pace resources focusses on the three day turn around between Adelaide and Perth, raises the suggestion Faulkner may come in for Bailey in Adelaide, and suggests Coulter-Nile, Bollinger, Sayers and Cutting as possible replacements should one of the current line up break down.
There’s nothing particularly new in Lehmann rejects sledging summit but
Fun turns to fear for Jonathan Trott offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Trott issue that prompts Hughesy to make two points.
The first is that while Australia might not have known of the mental issues that prompted Trott’s return home they would have been aware of issues that seem to verge on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The second is, of course, to emphasise that players do actually need a break from time to time.
Time for Trott to seek new truths quotes an unnamed England player whose identity will remain secret because his assessment went to the heart of England's approach. "It can feel as if there is no escape," he said. "It as if everything you do is being assessed, as if every little thing you do is being marked and analysed and stored away. If you are not careful, it can wear you down. It's incredibly difficult to come to terms with it."
That comment, mind you, is about the England approach to the game. The opposition, of course, will be operating in the same territory as they set out looking for things that can be exploited.
Cognitive behaviour consultant Brett Morrissey, who has worked with Michael Yardy who left England's 2011 World Cup campaign is interviewed for The expert view - Big strides have been made and 'You just can't take any more' - Trescothick cites another high profile casualty.
There’s some interesting reading there to keep you going while you wait for the two squads to wend their way to Adelaide.
What follows is an exercise in gathering content that might be relevant at some point down the track, a compendium rather than a commentary, though one can’t help commentating from time to time.
The thrice daily news bulletin from the ABC that arrived this morning pointed me towards The Ashes: Chris Rogers comes to David Warner's defence over Jonathan Trott criticism. You might find a statement like no-one in the Australian team knew about Trott's condition, and the remarks were not meant to be hurtful a trifle difficult to swallow, but that’s what he apparently said. We’re obviously looking for short term tactical advantage, not long term psychological damage. There’s also a comment from Peter Siddle along the lines of Anderson brought Clarke's sledge/threat on himself, which I’m inclined to see as a reminder that all this stuff is a two way street.
Don’t, in other words, get all holier than thou if you’re inclined to dish it up yourself.
THere’s a comment along those lines in The Ashes: James Anderson threatened George Bailey before Clarke sledge, says Shane Warne along with the comment from a tight-lipped Bailey that Anderson must have been just a bit upset about the way the game was going, which also suggests that whatever remarks George was chirping from under the lid were hitting home.
Turning the attention to the regular items in my Safari Top Sites, I headed over to the Cricket page on ABC Grandstand for The Ashes: Kim Hughes labels David Warner comments about Jonathan Trott as 'disgraceful', where Hughes admits The Sledge is part and parcel of the game. I don't know why. They say it is, it shouldn't be. But you don't do it off the field. That's just deplorable and unacceptable in any field of endeavour.
Point taken, but see previous comments about those without sin, and consider Hughesy’s long-standing belief that what transpires on the field shouldn’t be affected by organised denigration from the other side of the boundary.
The question of who fills the vacancy created at Three for England has Mike Atherton advocating Joe Root because he played Mitchell Johnson well, ... looked compact, ... got a nice stride into the ball and also dealt with all of the verbals (Here).
Nasser Hussain and Ian Chappell tend to favour Bell, and candidates to fill the vacancy caused by either of them moving up the order are Jonny Bairstow, unless Zimbabwean-born Gary Ballance or all-rounder Ben Stokes, who, according to Atherton gives the option of bringing Monty Panesar in and playing a second spinner, with Stokes as the third seamer if the pitch looks as flat as has been suggested.
Updates in the ICC Rankings are covered in The Ashes: Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon in ICC top 20 bowlers, Michael Clarke number four batsman. Johnson is now ranked 19th with the ball and 78th with the bat, Lyon 18th with the ball and Clarke up to 4th in the batting. In other moves Cook moves into 10th, Warner to 17th and Haddin 42nd with the bat, Broad and Tremlett are now 7th and 32nd with the ball).
Full rankings are here, where one notes Broad rates 4th in the All-Rounders list with Watson and Johnson 7th and 8th respectively.
Further down the page The Ashes: Jonathan Trott receives support from England players past and present after leaving tour reveals Michael Vaughan expressed regret for questioning Trott's performances in the media.
As the content increasingly disappears behind the Murdoch paywall I’ve given The Australian the flick, moving, instead to The Guardian, where, this morning Australia have no intention of changing their aggressive approach to the Ashes. Click there and you’ll find the main points are Darren Lehmann sees no reason to be less vocal and his county side Warwickshire always knew of Jonathan Trott's illness.
I may have cause to refer back to Ashes: England must learn the lessons they started studying a long time ago: Andy Flower and his team have been here before. It's not that England's chances are dead, just that the contest is alive, which is why I’ve stuck it in here.
Glenn McGrath’s Trott was right to go home, an Ashes tour is no place to sort out problems is another one I may well be referring back to on the basis of Pigeon’s suggestion that West Indian comments of Let's kill him, man. Let's kill him as he walked in to bat weren’t too far removed from Clarke’s go at Anderson.
McGrath makes the most important point when he writes:
But there is a line – it's fine as long as it doesn't get too personal. When I played, an opposition bowler (or batsman for that matter) could call me any name under the sun, I had no issue. But if they started to bring in family members, or personal issues, then that's different. That is why I thought the treatment Mitchell Johnson got on the tour of England in 2009 was a bit rough, when you start to bring in what is happening on a personal front.
Cricinfo has:
Root most likely solution for No. 3 while Australia to conserve pace resources focusses on the three day turn around between Adelaide and Perth, raises the suggestion Faulkner may come in for Bailey in Adelaide, and suggests Coulter-Nile, Bollinger, Sayers and Cutting as possible replacements should one of the current line up break down.
There’s nothing particularly new in Lehmann rejects sledging summit but
Fun turns to fear for Jonathan Trott offers a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the Trott issue that prompts Hughesy to make two points.
The first is that while Australia might not have known of the mental issues that prompted Trott’s return home they would have been aware of issues that seem to verge on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The second is, of course, to emphasise that players do actually need a break from time to time.
Time for Trott to seek new truths quotes an unnamed England player whose identity will remain secret because his assessment went to the heart of England's approach. "It can feel as if there is no escape," he said. "It as if everything you do is being assessed, as if every little thing you do is being marked and analysed and stored away. If you are not careful, it can wear you down. It's incredibly difficult to come to terms with it."
That comment, mind you, is about the England approach to the game. The opposition, of course, will be operating in the same territory as they set out looking for things that can be exploited.
Cognitive behaviour consultant Brett Morrissey, who has worked with Michael Yardy who left England's 2011 World Cup campaign is interviewed for The expert view - Big strides have been made and 'You just can't take any more' - Trescothick cites another high profile casualty.
There’s some interesting reading there to keep you going while you wait for the two squads to wend their way to Adelaide.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Developments since the close of play…
I guess it comes down to how you like your scripts.
In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.
To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.
It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.
I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.
You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.
One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.
All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?
If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.
If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.
Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.
And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.
The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.
Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.
As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.
The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.
Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.
Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.
The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.
I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).
You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.
Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?
Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.
I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.
Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.
In an old theme that’s predictable as hell, you come up with the odd new twist, and we’ve got a few of them coming into play in and around the announcement that Jonathan Trott is heading home suffering from a Stress-related illness.
To me, it’s all part of The Ongoing Niggle that was always going to feature as a key element in the series.
It has been obvious for a while that Trott had some issues with short-pitched fast bowling, as most mortals would, and David Warner’s description of his second innings at The Gabba as weak might have been better left unsaid, but, to me at least, didn’t rate as “unprofessional”.
I may have the timing wrong, but the use of the latter term by Alastair Cook preceded the he’s going home announcement and looks an awful lot like part of the approach you’d take to limit the damage inflicted in the psychological Niggle War.
You’d have to assume that the England management team were aware of the deeper issues (at any rate they claim to have been) and had adopted an array of measures to handle the problem. Some of those would have been negotiated with the batsman. Others, on a less official try it and see how it goes basis, put in place by the coach and support staff.
One way of handling those issues is to deflect scrutiny away from any perceived weakness by changing the subject. Don’t, in other words, talk about the man’s problem, divert the attention onto someone else’s unprofessionalism.
All of which, of course, depends on your definition of professionalism, doesn’t it?
If they knew there was an issue and the coach and support staff failed to take action, they’d be unprofessional.
If someone in the England camp happened to let slip that Jonathan had a problem, to do something they’d be unprofessional.
Equally, if you’re out to induce doubts about technical issues and you suspected there was a weakness there that could be exploited, you’d be unprofessional.
And once that comment had been made if the management failed to respond by describing the comment as unprofessional, they’d be unprofessional themselves.
The main point here is that by making the announcement and talking about stress-related illness in this environment you’d reckon they’ve effectively ended Trott’s international career as far as playing against Australia and his native South Africa are concerned. That doesn’t mean his actual career is done and dusted.
Marcus Trescothick went home under similar circumstances, and is still playing for and captaining Somerset at the age of 37 (he turns 38 on Christmas Day) and is looking to play on until he’s forty. A glance at the recent matches here suggests he’s not scoring heaps of runs, but he’s there, playing on and probably enjoying it.
As far as Trott is concerned, the Australian team would have spotted what they thought was a weakness and have been busily probing away since the suggestion that there was one was raised.
The other Niggle-related issue that has come into the spotlight is the Clarke-Anderson imbroglio, and the decision to fine the Australian captain 20% of his match fee.
Hopefully Channel Nine, or whoever left the effects microphone on will pony up with the dosh, because if they were handing out the equivalent penalty every time someone used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match we’d probably have most of the English and Australian squads paying for the privilege of representing their country.
Seriously, over five days, if everyone got pinged 20% of their match fee every time they used language or a gesture that is obscene, offensive or insulting during an international match you’d expect most international players would end up playing for nothing.
The key issue here isn’t whether obscene, offensive or insulting remarks are made it’s more a question of whether they’ve been disseminated.
I watched the whole thing unfold, and it was obvious that there was a fair degree of Niggle flying back and forth between Anderson and George Bailey at short leg. Whether those exchanges included a wish to punch Bailey in the face as alleged by Clarke’s mate Shane Warne, in neither here nor there (as far as I’m concerned).
You can see the whole thing through a link to the Channel Nine footage here and, for mine, there was no reason why that microphone needed to be on at the time.
Unless, of course, you’re looking for material to spice up the coverage and give commentators something to talk about. If that’s the case, and your decision is largely responsible for the matter receiving the attention it did, it’s your responsibility to come up with the readies, isn’t it?
Actually, read a bit further down that ABC News article and it’s obvious that there’s a long standing issue between Clarke and Anderson. One would suggest that neither of them are Robinson Crusoe as far as longstanding animosity towards other members of the international cricket community are concerned.
I guess what’s said on the field stays on the field only applies until commentators need something to talk about or players need something to add spice to the old autobiography or tour diary.
Look at it that way, and you’ve got the beginnings of a sustainable industry as various individuals use their memoirs to deliver their versions of events and their reactions to them.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
After the Gabba: 85%
The Critical Reader might feel Hughesy’s being a trifle harsh when he rates a victory by 381 runs with a full day to spare around 85%, but cast your mind back to 6-153 at the tea break on Thursday with Haddin on 24 and Johnson on 12, and you may agree.
That partnership went on to add a further 93, and much of what followed as the bowling side of the game ran according to the script was only possible because Six and Seven dug us out of a hole.
Still unconvinced? Check the fall of wickets. 1-12 (Rogers), 2-71 Watson, just before lunch), 3-73 (Clarke), 4-83 (Warner, when we needed him to carry on), 5-100 (Bailey) and 6-132 (Smith).
Hardly what the doctor ordered, and it wasn’t as if England's bowlers were bowling particularly well. They weren’t bowling badly, but this trio of quickies with Swann as backup isn’t firing as well as the battery they had, say, three years ago. Tremlett looked to be the weak link, and you can't bank on him being there again in Adelaide.
Warner scored runs in both digs, but we really needed him to go on in the first. Clarke came good in the second, but Rogers and Watson were disappointing. Bailey needs to do more to cement his place in the side. If he does Smith will need more than his first innings 31 to hold on to Five, particularly if we start moving into batsmen who can bowl at Six or Haddin at Six with a bowler who can bat (Faulkner as one possibility) at Seven.
You don’t expect everyone in the batting order to fire in every innings, but most of them should be able to manage a decent score in one innings out of two.
The batting wasn’t the only area where there was room for improvement. We missed two run outs due to poor positioning by the bloke who was taking the return at the bowler’s end. As it turned out, neither proved particularly expensive.
But if we see fielders breaking the stumps before the ball arrives (Bailey) or taking the ball in front of the stumps and removing the bails while doing so (Lyon) there's a need for solid remedial work in the fielding drills.
Dr Hughesy would prescribe at least an hour’s rundown, throw down, underarm for the first instance, and a repetition with a relentless workout on the underarm for the second.
The bowling, on the other hand, worked very well, backed up by savvy field settings and some rather productive verbals, which is the area where I expect to hear a fair bit of Soap Dodger bleating over the next day or two.
I spent the first bit of the morning walk pondering the verbals, and came to the conclusion the Anderson sledge (the one about broken arms) may have verged on the intimidatory, but was fair enough.
With the field that was set at the time, you wouldn’t have been expecting too much that was pitched up but you want the batsman going back so when you do pitch it up you’ve got a chance of a yorker or LBW. Comments that suggest the use of limbs to protect the head are a way of getting the batsman into the right mindset to cooperate with your game plan.
That’s fair enough in my book.
It’s much fairer than the Barmy Army’s attempts to manipulate the result by taking down key players on the Australian side.
Their main target last time around out here (and the previous series over there) was, of course, Mitchell Johnson, and given what they deliberately dished out once a degree of fragility was found they have no right of reply in this instance.
In fact, given the fact that they were still in fine voice after the second resumption yesterday afternoon I’m inclined to mark our performance down further on the grounds of insufficient dominance.
I won’t really be satisfied until they’re reduced to total silence by repeated thrashings of their precious little batch of fresh-faced provocateurs.
That’s not likely to happen when the proceedings resume in Adelaide in ten days’ time, and I doubt they’ll have been given the treatment prescribed by Dr O’Keefe on their way out to the tour game in Alice Springs. A two day trip on a Greyhound bus with faulty air-conditioning is a nice concept, but one doubts the ability to con them into it.
The new drop in pitch at the Adelaide Oval is by all accounts I’ve stumbled across, close to a feather bed, and we’ll need to score big runs in both innings to ensure the draw that is the worst desired result.
A win in Adelaide would be better, but the last thing you want is to be heading into Perth with the series level. You never know, by the time they get to Perth the Soap Dodgers might have gotten their bowling sorted out.
But even if they don’t there’s a good deal of work to be done before we head off across the Indian Ocean to face quality opposition in South Africa.
That partnership went on to add a further 93, and much of what followed as the bowling side of the game ran according to the script was only possible because Six and Seven dug us out of a hole.
Still unconvinced? Check the fall of wickets. 1-12 (Rogers), 2-71 Watson, just before lunch), 3-73 (Clarke), 4-83 (Warner, when we needed him to carry on), 5-100 (Bailey) and 6-132 (Smith).
Hardly what the doctor ordered, and it wasn’t as if England's bowlers were bowling particularly well. They weren’t bowling badly, but this trio of quickies with Swann as backup isn’t firing as well as the battery they had, say, three years ago. Tremlett looked to be the weak link, and you can't bank on him being there again in Adelaide.
Warner scored runs in both digs, but we really needed him to go on in the first. Clarke came good in the second, but Rogers and Watson were disappointing. Bailey needs to do more to cement his place in the side. If he does Smith will need more than his first innings 31 to hold on to Five, particularly if we start moving into batsmen who can bowl at Six or Haddin at Six with a bowler who can bat (Faulkner as one possibility) at Seven.
You don’t expect everyone in the batting order to fire in every innings, but most of them should be able to manage a decent score in one innings out of two.
The batting wasn’t the only area where there was room for improvement. We missed two run outs due to poor positioning by the bloke who was taking the return at the bowler’s end. As it turned out, neither proved particularly expensive.
But if we see fielders breaking the stumps before the ball arrives (Bailey) or taking the ball in front of the stumps and removing the bails while doing so (Lyon) there's a need for solid remedial work in the fielding drills.
Dr Hughesy would prescribe at least an hour’s rundown, throw down, underarm for the first instance, and a repetition with a relentless workout on the underarm for the second.
The bowling, on the other hand, worked very well, backed up by savvy field settings and some rather productive verbals, which is the area where I expect to hear a fair bit of Soap Dodger bleating over the next day or two.
I spent the first bit of the morning walk pondering the verbals, and came to the conclusion the Anderson sledge (the one about broken arms) may have verged on the intimidatory, but was fair enough.
With the field that was set at the time, you wouldn’t have been expecting too much that was pitched up but you want the batsman going back so when you do pitch it up you’ve got a chance of a yorker or LBW. Comments that suggest the use of limbs to protect the head are a way of getting the batsman into the right mindset to cooperate with your game plan.
That’s fair enough in my book.
It’s much fairer than the Barmy Army’s attempts to manipulate the result by taking down key players on the Australian side.
Their main target last time around out here (and the previous series over there) was, of course, Mitchell Johnson, and given what they deliberately dished out once a degree of fragility was found they have no right of reply in this instance.
In fact, given the fact that they were still in fine voice after the second resumption yesterday afternoon I’m inclined to mark our performance down further on the grounds of insufficient dominance.
I won’t really be satisfied until they’re reduced to total silence by repeated thrashings of their precious little batch of fresh-faced provocateurs.
That’s not likely to happen when the proceedings resume in Adelaide in ten days’ time, and I doubt they’ll have been given the treatment prescribed by Dr O’Keefe on their way out to the tour game in Alice Springs. A two day trip on a Greyhound bus with faulty air-conditioning is a nice concept, but one doubts the ability to con them into it.
The new drop in pitch at the Adelaide Oval is by all accounts I’ve stumbled across, close to a feather bed, and we’ll need to score big runs in both innings to ensure the draw that is the worst desired result.
A win in Adelaide would be better, but the last thing you want is to be heading into Perth with the series level. You never know, by the time they get to Perth the Soap Dodgers might have gotten their bowling sorted out.
But even if they don’t there’s a good deal of work to be done before we head off across the Indian Ocean to face quality opposition in South Africa.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)