Our bowling was close to excellent. The experts will say we were a little short of the ideal length, but I suspect strangling dismissals is the best policy on that wicket. The morning session was painful to watch, with Australian openers batting like opening batsmen: letting anything short or wide of the stumps pass by harmlessly and plundering runs on the very few occasions that the England bowlers sent down a genuinely bad ball. Fifty five runs in an entire session? When was the last time that happened? Tavare and Boycott must have been at the wicket together!
But it so nearly worked for the Aussies until Hughes wafted at one he could and should have left and, bang, the whole balance of power shifted. I went to bed smiling, instead of worrying.
Mind you, it still didn't go exactly to plan. According to my script, Khawaja ( the first Muslim to ever represent Australia apparently) was going to follow very quickly. Instead he and Watson built another good platform, until bang, bang, bang, it all fell apart. And that again was down to superbly disciplined bowling that kept the Aussie scoring rate down to 2.29 runs an over, boring them into making poor shot selections rather than exploiting any great demons in the pitch. What a reversal! For two decades now, the Aussies have been hammering along in Test cricket, scoring at comfortably three an over and often at four or more. They changed the way the game was played. Well today, we turned the clock back!
Those who do not understand cricket would have found that first session the ultimate bore. But it was a brilliant tactical tussle, with both batsmen and bowlers sticking to a game plan and each daring the other to crack. Had Hughes kept his head until the end of that final over, I fancy the day would have ended with Australia in the ascendancy. But he didn't. And as the day bore on, so we bored out three more Aussies, all victims of frustrated impetuosity.
The test remains in the balance as Haddin and Hussey have been Australia's best players so far but if we get them cheaply, then the Test and the Series will be as good as won. And Haddin, for one, will not be trying to grind out an innings, he will go for his shots. It should be another interesting first session!
football blog?
ReplyDeleteMy blog?
ReplyDeleteDo you have one?
ReplyDeleteThink you'd get much traffic if you did?
ReplyDeleteSo you don't think the bowlers were killing off the game making sure it heads for a draw at the worst HF? Last thing you want is Australia winning this one and it being 2-2. In which case England would have in fact won nothing but only 'retained'. A last Test draw to leave the score 1-2 i.e a series win looks much better no? That's what I think the game plan was and not as you suggested that the bowlers boring the batsmen into poor shot selection. Of course, while this could have happened, I feel the intention and game plan in this game was to remove all possibility of an Australian win.
ReplyDeleteYou are a negative so and so Stani! Of course they weren't. It is extremely difficult to draw atest now unless the weather intervenes in a major way and the two batting line ups are too brittle for this to be a game strategy at opening. Of course, the Aussies wanted to move the game forward as quickly as possible so bowling tight lines encouraged them to take risks, which made it a wicket taking strategy. The fact they couldn't score shows how well we bowled! If a defensive move, Strauss wouldn't have posted and retained such attacking fields.
ReplyDeleteI think we missed two tricks though. We should have had a short leg in, we woulld have snaffled a wicket earlier had we done so. And the slips were a yard too deep. Two catchable chances fell a yard or so short of 3rd slip and gulley. Did you watch it live? A really, really good example of test cricket.
Correction, it is difficult to draw a test in England, Australia and South Africa!
ReplyDeleteIt aint negative in a sense. Why would you wanna even give 'em a sniff? Retaining with a series draw just isn't like winning HF. You want it to go down in the history books as a series victory.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite easy to draw a Test HF. Slow it down, set negative fields and you're off an running.
Na, didnt catch it at all. Got the highlights on rec though.
...and India? :)
ReplyDeleteCheck it out mate, we were bowling to win. We think we are the better team and want to win 3-1. It is payback time. Kick them when they are down mentality. We're already thinking about 2 year's time, like the Aussies USED to do!
ReplyDeleteThis Beer must be one hell of a spinner though - he bats eleven!
Beer has only ever played four first class matches before being selected. Not entirely sure what Hauritz has done to the selectors considering Beer who has done nothing in first class cricket domestically over here.
ReplyDeleteHF,
ReplyDeleteJust watched the highlights and the two balls that dropped short of slip you mentioned. To be honest, I dont blame the slips as the pitch looks like it has uneven bounce. I say this because there were a couple of leg before shouts where the ball was going way over the stumps i.e high bounce. For the two balls that dropped short of slip, the ball just happened to stay low after bouncing anyway. I now in Khawaja's case the commentators said it was 'soft hands' but I think it is exaggerated how much having soft hands when edging a ball in cricket causes it drop rather than carry.
The slips take their position from the keeper. Bearing in mind the keeper near enough takes around half the balls he has the best idea of where to stand in relation to the bounce and pace. The reason slips dont come up regardless is because they try to gain every millisecond they can as the ball obviously travels very fast there.
I felt it was worth taking the risk of bringing fourth slip and gulley closer Stani. Sure, one may have sailed over their heads but the Aussies weren't flashing hard as they were in such a defensive frame of mind. When the first one dropped short I would have moved them up, and the second one would have been taken.
ReplyDeleteStrauss is in the slips so I'm sure they would have moved up if they felt it was needed. Plus, when a catch is short to slip, I'm certain the first thing the slips ask themselves is are we too far back.
ReplyDeleteCricket field placing does leave you with a lot of 'what ifs' though. There's always the thought of what if a certain player was just a bit there and you can always do with just one more fielder.
How poor were the Aussie shots though!? Giving it away they were.
Not as bas as Pietersen's!
ReplyDeleteCareless ego maniac he is.
ReplyDeleteEngland are doing well because he gave up the captaincy apparently.
Guess who I met today? Ravi Bopara. He used to go to my primary school. His brother was in my class. Had a nice chat and took a photo. How he hasn't been persisted with like the likes of Cook, Bell and Collingwood is a travesty.
Ravi may yet come again, though I doubt it. Flat track bully perhaps?
ReplyDeleteTo compare him with Cook is absurd! It's like comparing Green and Upson! Bopara can't open the innings and Cook can! Have you checked out the guy's average?
ReplyDeleteNo HF. I was comparing the chances given to Cook and those given to Bopara. I wasn't comparing them as opening batsmen. Even though Ravi can open though.
ReplyDeleteStill, at the time Ravi Bopara was dropped from the Test side, his batting average was better than Alastair Cook's. I looked this up at the time. It's a fact.
Yeh, I'm not sure he'll get another chance either. He'll probably go the same way as Owais Shah, whose Middlesex coach John Emburey stated that the only reason he wasn't given a fair crack was because "his face doesn't fit".
Oh I see. Bopara's average of 33.46 from 10 tests means he should stay in the team does it? He enjoyed one good series on very flat West Indies wickets. He was found out very badly against both Sri Lanka and Australia. He was given a very fair chance.
ReplyDeleteAs for Owais Shah, I understand your implication now. It is because of the brown skin! Nothing whatsoever to do with Shah's average of 26.9 from 6 tests?
They were racist towards Ramprakash too weren't they. Average of 27.32 from 52 tests! But then, he may not be a Muslim or a Sikh. So let's quote Monty instead, 39 tests taking wickets an an average of 34.37.
Bloody racist these England selectors aren't they? Wake up Stani. Claiming racism where none exists is a form of racism in itself. Why argue the case for players just BECAUSE of the colour of their skin?
First of all, that is a very good average for a youngster in Test cricket. Nevertheless, you don't make a judgement on averages after 10 Tests. Cook had less than that average during the Ashes Tests that Bopara was dropped. Cook stayed in the team. Explain your logic. Secondly, his record of 3 centuries in 10 Tests is excellent. This is very rare amongst youngsters, to start off scoring big so early. Thirdly, just 10 Tests proves he was not persisted with or given the chances his clear talent deserves, and chances others got. I'm sure you're comparing his average to the likes of Cook, Collingwood who have built their averages over a number of games and not just 10. Both of them have played in 114 innings and over 60 Tests. Their averages were certainly not after 10 Tests what they are now.
ReplyDeleteFlat West Indies wickets? He made two century here in England HF. And Windies wickets are no really flat.
My implication? Those are John Emburey's words HF! And I agree with him. Whether the selection panel do it consciouslu or subconsciously, it happens. And please dont quote Shah's average after 6 Tests! On his Test debut he helped England win in Mumbai with scores of 88 and 38, when most the other batsmen failed, and then was dropped for no reason. He continued to be overlooked. Cricinfo says "Despite the continued failings of England's top 6, he was but a spectator and drinks carrier for the Test tours of Sri Lanka and New Zealand." Why?
"Claiming racism where none exists is a form of racism in itself. Why argue the case for players just BECAUSE of the colour of their skin?"
ReplyDeleteYes HF, but ignoring it and using the above to ignore it where racism does exist is WORSE than racism. Because we are the ones that then allow it. The racists being racist is bad, but when we accept it or think there is nothing wrong, we are worse. Evil happens when the good do nothing. It's very dangerous to always assume that someone is just playing the race card.
I dont want to think like this but it's obvious to me in my lifetime of following the game. Then there is John Emburey's words. And only I know what Bopara told me (that will remain private). There's also the clear manner in which Asian players are given less of a chance. Ajmal Shahzad was first replacement as pace bowler during when Bangladesh were over here. Come the Ashes, both Bresnan and Tremlett went ahead of him. How? Not only that, he is the only one that reverses the ball and bowls a different style to the others but he was still not turned to. Now Bresnan and Tremlett have been given the chance against a struggling Australian batting line up, they've taken some wickets and now God knows when Shahzad will get a chance because the selectors have all the excuses they need.
Kabir Ali was the leading fast bowler in the county game for some three seasons in a row but he was continuously overlooked. Why? You tell me what it is HF, I'll be glad to say yep, it's not because his name's not John.
Let me make it clear, I'm not saying they are doing it consciously, they could be doing it subconsciously, it is embedded and latent, but there is a clear link. Racism is not always so obvious HF. It can be complex and subtle and not even unknown to the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteOrder this book HF. Just as a general thing. I'm not saying you have to read it for me. Generally for you. Like how you talked of before about growing up with racism and how you wanted to learn and make your own mind up about things. It's a good read:
# ISBN-10: 1405184531
# ISBN-13: 978-1405184533
Lots to address here. Firstly, and most importantly, "His face did not fit" is a saying that relates to white faces in white organisations. It means somebody is unpopular. I don't know Shah but maybe he is obnoxious. Or maybe there was a feeling - and I seem to remember this after a very slow 50 - that he plays for himself rather than the team. Boycott was dropped after a century for that reason and Pieterson was dropped when he began upsetting the team spirit. Let's look a little closer at Shah. Her was retained in the one day team and Twenty20 team to give him a chance - the route followed by Collingwood who had to serve a long apprenticeship in the one day format before the selectors were convinced he had what it takes to make it at test level. In 71 ODIs - that is SEVENTY ONE - he averages 30.56. Collingwood averages 36 in ODI s- that's 6 more than Shah - and 42.18 in tests. In addition, Collingwood has taken 106 wickets in ODIs (Shah nil) and a further 18 wickets in test cricket. As has been shown in this test, he is a useful bowler when you have a 4 man attack to give the front line bowlers a rest. Collingwood is also the BEST slip fielder in the team and a very good outfield cricketer too. Catches win matches and we have won a lot of tests and ODIs because of Collingwood's fielding contribution. Shah's fielding, in contrast, is considered a weak aspect of his game.
ReplyDeleteTo compare Shah and Collingwood is absurd as these stats show. If Collingwood was a Pakistani and Shah a white bloke from Durham, you would see things very, very, very differently. And that is daft and, I will say it, racist. And 71 ODIs is certainly a fair number on which to make a comparison between the two!
I think Tremlett and Bresnan have answered your question Stani with their performances. Tremlett looks the find of the tour and Bresnan was key to our victory in Melbourne and is having a decent test in Sydney too!
ReplyDeleteI think any suggestion that the selectors are racist is absurd. Look at the opportunities given to Devon Malcolm and Chris Lewis! For a while, being black was a passport into the team! He's fast and he's black so he must be brilliant!
First ten tests? Compare Trott's average with Bopara's! Bopara recorded three ducks in his first four innings didn't he? To get a second chance after that is remarkably generous!
As for Cook and Bopara, you are making the same crass error. Cook is an opener, Bopara is a number four batsman. Name me a worthy replacement for our openers at the moment! Meanwhile, Morgan can't force his way into the test team showing that we have quality for the middle order without Ravi.
As it happens, as an Essex fan, I was desperate for Bopara to succeed and was delighted when he made his tons against the West Indies, but sadly the Aussies had his number - as they did with Bell to be fair. Bell was dropped too remember.
I hope Bopara "comes again" but an average of 28 from 51 ODIs suggests he lacks the quality necessary to succeed consistently at the highest level.