I was wrong...

Dear Australian selectors,

Please disregard my previous blog post (Watson in, Hughes out). For having a go at your decision to bring Shane Watson in for struggling opener, Philip Hughes, I am sorry. 

For a long time I have been a big fan of Shane Watson, of his fantastic batting technique, his steady bowling and his feisty temperament. I have always thought that he has been a very good all-round prospect for Australia. 

I'm not sure what had gotten into me, to be honest. Maybe it was the fact that we were 1-0 down in the series, and that I was really at a loss as to what we were to do go regain some momentum after the loss at Lords. After seeing what Phil Hughes did in South Africa (losing momentum was not a word Hughes understood!), dropping him, to me, was simply out of the question. 

Maybe, it was the fact the you have messed around with Australia's one day and 20/20 line-ups so much, that, you have tried so many different openers in recent years in the shorter format of the game, which in my humble opinion, has lead to our great decline. I have seen what makeshift openers have done in our 50 over sides, the likes of Marsh, Warner, Ronchi, Haddin, Clarke, Hayden and even Watson himself. I have seen most of them fail, so surely you can forgive me for thinking that bringing in this "specialist batsman" for a specialist opener would be a big mistake.

Or maybe, it was just due to the fact that, there have been a lot of cases over the last two years, when Australia have been in a "rebuilding phase", where you have simply made the wrong decisions. Like when you decided that Cameron White could do the job as a frontline spinner in India... one had to question your motives after that series. And how about all those times in 08/09 when you continued to stick with Matthew Hayden, even though he was horribly out of form and hence letting the side down? And what about when you kept Brett Lee in the side against South Africa, even when injured and playing poorly, and you had a fine replacement in Doug Bollinger waiting in the wings? Or how about when you dropped McGain off the cotract list after one bad game, or axing Krezja after failing in Perth, or getting rid of Beau Casson even after he performed so solidly in the Caribbean, which has ultimately lead to his demise as a bowler? All this past decision making ultimately lead to me thinking that bringing in Watson would be yet another mistake, and so again, I apologise. 

Please forgive me, but also please take into account what I have said. You have done a fine Job for this Ashes series, not being afraid to ring the changes and play the inexperienced guys, which is something you have definately shied away from in the past. I also understand that you selectors are in a rebuilding phase yourselves, it must be hard to pick a side which once had everything, and now has nothing. I totally understand where you are coming from, desperately trying to stick with your tried and trusted players, your Lees, Clarks, Pontings etc... 

And so all I can say is, as I end this letter, to not be afraid of losing. Don't be afraid of slipping down in the test match rankings a bit, and don't be afraid of getting rid of some of the more experienced players in order to develop a young squad.

Keep making the tough decisions, yours sincerely, Chris.

Watson in, Hughes out.

Well, today I am in shock. I have just heard the news that Shane Watson will be replacing Phil Hughes in Australia's line-up in the third test starting in Birmingham tonight, and I am less than impressed...

In what looks to be a batsman friendly but heavily rain effected match, the selectors focus should have been on fixing Australia's shaky bowling attack. With Johnson spraying it around more than a garden hose, and Siddle bowling more inconsistently then I've ever seen him bowl, the selectors needed to make some drastic changes in that department more than any other. Instead they have decided to break up a very settled opening partnership to bring in a guy who will probably break down in the first session of the first day.

I'll say it once, and I'll say it again... makeshift openers have no positive effect on any cricket team. And unless the selectors are thinking about permanently entrusting "Watto" with the opening position, what's the point of bringing him in? If they want the extra pace bowling option, what is so wrong with dropping one of the struggling middle order batsman and leaving Hughes up top to further develop his game? 

And what is so wrong, if they are not happy with the way Hughes is developing, with bringing in a specialist opening batsman like Chris Rogers (averaging over 45 in county cricket this year) or Phil Jaques (who's test batting average is touching upon 48)?

I may (and will probably) be proved wrong, but at this very moment, it just doesn't make sense...

A Tale of Two Cities.

If Charles Dickens was to witness the first two Ashes test matches of 2009, he could have forgotten about his classic and just written about the cricket. Australia, dominating the first test at Cardiff, and just not turning up to the second at Lords, and England, off with the fairies down in Wales but suddenly in sparkling form in London. It truly was a tale of two cities, and the end result? 1-0 England after two.

You might say it was the occasion, or that the venue, the home of cricket overawed them, or that they are a young side that is undeniably still in a transition phase. But these factors didn't hinder the Australians in the first test, nor in South Africa in their previous series. They simply just didn't turn up, and were subsequently bounced by the English, boosted by their great escape in Cardiff. 

It was Australia's turn to be off with the fairies in the Lord's test. This time, it was Ponting who was gazing gloomily up to the dark English skies praying for rain, it was their bowlers who were ineffective and lacked zing, and it was their batsman who were out playing unnecessary shots and getting out cheaply. 

But the test will be most remembered for the umpiring, Rudi Kortzen and Billy Doctrove created massive controversy when in England's second innings, Nathan Hauritz claimed a low catch and it was referred to the third umpire after Ravi Bopara decided to question Hauritz's honesty. Then in the Australia's second innings, batting to save the match, Strauss claimed a similar catch at second slip after Andrew Flintoff found the edge of Philip Hughes' bat. Hughes asked Strauss if it had carried, and after the England captain claimed it had, Hughes began to walk. Ricky Ponting, watching from the non-strikers end, ordered his younger counterpart to stand his ground. This time however, Doctrove and Kortzen decided not to refer the decision, instead taking Strauss' word and sending Hughes on his way.

 The umpiring situation was already in question after Simon Katich had been caught off a clear no-ball in the previous Flintoff over, and was further put under pressure when Michael Hussey was given out, caught at first slip when a Graeme Swann delivery had hit the rough and turned past the outside edge. 

So, three clearly wrong decisions, and three wickets lost that, if not given out, could have easily meant an Australian world record victory, after Brad Haddin and Michael Clarke but together a fighting rearguard partnership on the fourth day. 

Understandably, the Australians are looking for answers after the 100+ run loss. Mitchell Johnson is first in the firing line after a well below par performance at Lords, and he is followed closely by young opener Philip Hughes. Both have been inconsistent to say the least, and both have far from recreated their world beating form they showed earlier in the year on the tour of South Africa. 

The Australians should be inclined to stick with the 28 year old fast bowler, who has taken over 100 wickets in 24 matches. Bowling coach Troy Cooley and coach Tim Neilson have both stated that they are going to keep faith in Mitchell Johnson, and to work on the chinks in his bowling armor over the next week. Philip Hughes should also hold the faith of the Australian people, however, many are talking of a possible exchange with "specialist batsman", Shane Watson.

These claims, in my opinion, are extremely unwarranted. Hughes has not looked badly out of form, and has had the wrong end of a couple of umpiring decisions. The opening batsmen have a tough job in England, the ball swings, and failures are inevitable. Hughes needs to develop, and unless you have a capable replacement opener in the squad, then there's no point replacing him. Australia don't, instead, they have the option of including Watson, the injury prone all-rounder, or even pushing Mike Hussey or Marcus North up the order, which, at test level, is not the right thing to do.

Australia have a practice game starting Friday which well determine where they are at before the Edgbaston test, which starts next Thursday.

Thoughts from the first test.

It was 2:08 in the morning, but I was as wide awake as I had been all day. My heart was pumping, my underarms were moist with perspiration, and my whole body was shaking; whether it was caused by the cold or the nervousness I could not be sure. It had taken to the final session of the final day for me and everyone who was watching to realise, that this year's battle for the Ashes would live up to all the hype and excitement of the corresponding 2005 series.

It was a fantastic game of cricket in Cardiff, even if it took me a while to get over the disappointment of  helplessly watching Jimmy Anderson block out the final over. I sort of sat there in my chair, stunned, and in awe of what had just happened. England had somehow played out a draw, after being completely outplayed by Australia for four of the five days. It was a game Australia probably should have one, with only 8 wickets to take on the final day, but looking at it again, there was a lot going against the Aussies: The rain in the final session of day four when England were reeling at 2-20, the amazing determination of Paul Collingwood and probably most of all, the extremely batter friendly, flat and oh-so-slow Cardiff pitch. But anyhow, here are a few lessons to be learned coming out of the first test:

1) The Australian Pacemen: 

In the end, the pressure of test cricket got the better of the inexperienced Australian bowlers. However, with only 35 tests between Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, and Hauritz, I thought they bowled extremely well to take 19 wickets on the flat deck (flat is a bit of an understatement!). Ben Hilfenhaus was probably the pick of all the bowlers throughout the test. He was the shock selection over Stuart Clark, but he deserved his place after his performance in South Africa, and his selection was certainly justified as he continuously swung the ball throughout and with great accuracy, took 5 wickets for the match. 

Peter Siddle, though expensive in the first innings, was extremely impressive. His spell in the middle session of day five, with an old ball and no juice in the pitch whatsoever, was one of the best spells of pace bowling I have ever seen. He hustled and bustled in, fired up, and was extremely aggressive, hitting Graeme Swan on the body three times in one over. 

Mitchell Johnson was very disappointing. He clearly lacked rhythm and form, his arm was low and slingy, he seemed to struggle to get to the crease, and ultimately sprayed the ball all over the place. The good news is, even when terribly out of form, he still picked up five wickets in the game (with what I like to call "the Johnson factor"). He is a rhythm bowler; he gets better and better the more he bowls... look out England in the coming tests!

2) Nathan Hauritz and England's spinners: 

"He's no good. He can't bowl". These were the kinds of things the English and Australian press were saying about Nathan Hauritz before the test. "Graeme Swann is a far superior bowler". I didn't see that in this match. Graeme Swann, and Monty Panesar were incredibly poor, taking one wicket between them. They bowled typically English; too flat, too fast and just put it in the wrong areas. Nathan Hauritz, although not ripping through the England batting, varied his pace, length and flight, and consequently got more out of the deck, taking 6 wickets. Nathan Hauritz should be looking forward to another test cap at Lords, whereas it will be a nervous wait for Monty and Swann; one of them will be dropped for a seamer for the second test. 

3) Paul Collingwood:

Colly is probably the most boring player I have ever seen bat. But god, I can't help but admire the guy. I think he batted for something like 4 hours and 270 odd balls on the final day, and single handedly carried England to an unlikely draw. He plays with the slightest back lift, sometimes it looks like he just holds his bat vertically and lets the ball hit it. He doesn't have the attacking range of a Flintoff or Pietersen, but what gets me to really like the guy is his application and determination. He didn't score, but not once in his innings did he panic, or loose concentration. If you want to use the old cliche, if you wanted anyone to bat to save your life, it might just be P. Collingwood. 

4) Preparation and application: 

There were notable major differences between the sides. On the field, Australia looked fresh, fired up and determined, ready for an Ashes battle. England, on the other hand, were constantly joking around, having a laugh, or off with the fairies, looking more like they were taking on the West Indies or Bangladesh. Australia's inexperienced bowling attack was well prepared, and fit. Not once did any of the bowlers show signs of injury or lack of fitness, and they continually got the ball to swing around... and when it wasn't swinging, they worked hard and reaped rewards (this was well represented by Siddle's spell in the middle of the fifth day). England's bowlers all had spells off the ground, with Stuart Broad having a calf problem on the second day and Jimmy Anderson becoming dehydrated and dizzy on the third. Apart from the burst from Anderson with the new ball on the third morning, they hardly got one ball the swing all game. And prehaps worse, they were helpless to stop the rampaging Australians when the ball was not moving in the air (Anyone for Steve Harmison?) 

5) The Batting:

It is hard to gauge the batting of the two sides on the performances of this game, as the wicket was extremely (and I mean extremely) batsmen friendly. I thought both sides were reasonably evenly matched throughout the test. Although England lost 19 wickets compared to Australia's 6 in the match, and none of them making centuries, they have plenty of talent, and plenty of experience. Once again, it was the application of Australia's batsman that really made the difference. Australia smartly and steadily ground their way towards England's first innings total of 435, and then blasted away with Brad Haddin to gain an almost match winning lead. England were ok, the openers didn't put up much resistance, which will happen from time to time with openers (it is their job afterall!). Pietersen was pretty decent in the first innings, but is still lacking form, Collingwood was brilliant in a gritty way, and Flintoff and Prior looked dangerous. If they hit form and get their decision making right, some big totals will be not far away. 

6) The Captaincy: 

Strauss needs to be more proactive in the coming tests. After winning the toss, it was almost as if he expected to make a big total, and then to bowl the inexperienced Australian's out cheaply setting up and easy win. But when Ponting, Katich, North, Clarke and Haddin decided to stick around in Australia's innings, and England needed wickets, instead of being creative with fields and bowlers, Strauss was having a laugh at slip and gazing at the gloomy Cardiff clouds, hoping desperately for the rain to come and wash away their misery. Ponting, in contrast, with runs under his belt, was determined for every ball in the field. He produced innovative fields, made risky decisions and lead the team brilliantly, a stark contrast to Strauss. 

So there you have it. Australia played well in the test but, it was a case of so close, yet so far. The sides go into the Lords test 0-0, but the psychological blows were dealt by Australia. England may have stopped Australia gaining all the momentum leading up to Lords, but they still have a lot of thinking to do in terms of side selection. I'm thinking they will drop Panesar (although he probably bowled better than Swann, England love the extra batting  strength Swann provides) and replace him with Steve Harmison, and maybe bring in Onions for Broad. Australia will look to develop this young side and go in unchanged (barring injury), and although I would love to see Andrew McDonald, there is certainly no place for him. Depending on the fitness of Brett Lee, the three pacemen will be playing for their places for the Edgbaston test, so keep and eye out for that little contest within a contest. 

Ok, that's it from me. Sorry about the length! Will keep you posted about any thoughts I have between now and the start of the second test on Thursday evening. Have a good one!

Lee injury, disaster or blessing in disguise?

The wait is finally over. Judgement day for all Australian and English cricket supporters has finally arrived. After the three warm up matches played so far, it is still impossible to pick a winner for the 2009 Ashes series...

It's less than three hours out from the first ball of the first test in Cardiff, Wales, and as usual, both captains are holding their cards close to their chests. Both sides have one big decision to make; England must decide weather they want to play two spinners, Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar, or go with the more conventional single spinner and play the miserly Graham Onions. 

From Australia's point of view, the side strain injury to Brett Lee, who was Australia's best bowler in their warm up game against the England Lions in Worcester, has sorted out one selection headache and created another; will they still decide to go in with four quicks, with Ben Hilfenhaus replacing Lee, alongside Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle? Or will they play the spinner Nathan Hauritz along with the latter three pacemen mentioned?

Although the Lee injury may have made the team selection for Cardiff somewhat easier on the selectors, it had certainly made Australia's hunt for victory a hell of a lot more difficult. Brett Lee bowled brilliantly in the England Lions match, bowling consistently over 150 kph and reverse swinging his way to seven wickets in the match. 

But losing Lee may not be as big a problem as many may think. With the main strike out for at least two matches, it will be up to Mitchell Johnson to again lead an inexperienced and somewhat under prepared bowling attack. 

As he showed in his last two test series, when given the huge task of leading Australia's bowling attack, Mitchell Johnson thrives. With only the 21 tests to his name, he was Australia's leading wicket taker in the home series against South Africa, and with no Stuart Clark or Brett Lee, pretty much single handedly demolished the Proteas in the return series in South Africa. When given the toughest of challenges, history suggests that Johnson obliges. 

And so it begins again. Australia vs England. The Ashes. The biggest series on the cricketing calendar. Three things come to ming when I think back to the corresponding 2005 Ashes series: thrilling, brilliant, heart breaking. It was arguably the most exciting and memorable series in cricket history, and although the sides look completely different, the resulting series should evoke the same kinds of emotions. Let's pray the gloomy English weather stays well away, and as they say, may the best team win. I just hope with all my heart, that that is Australia!