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!
No comments:
Post a Comment