Hello and welcome back to my blogI apologise for a lack of activity on this blog over the last few weeks. An increase in other work that required large periods of typing diminished my ability to focus on cricket writing. I hope to return to a regular pattern of blogging for the next few months. However, despite a lack of postings, I have still been acquiring information and opinions on interesting topics and I intend to form entries about these soon.
One topic which I have failed to finish is the ASHES 2009 and I will rectify this mistake now:
ENGLAND REGAIN THE ASHES!!!
This time it did not take a generation to achieve, as the oldest contest in international cricket enters a more balanced era where home-advantage will be the norm and away-victory the sign of increasing dominance. I can express this opinion because, for 2 batting collapses, Australia might have won this series 2-1 instead of losing it the other way around – such was the even nature of the battle. David Lloyd, excited to the point of allowing his better judgement to depart his usually sound mind, announced the end to an ‘epic’ series – I don’t know about that, but the contest was at least fascinating at every turn.
Here is a quick overview of the test matches:CARDIFF
A shaky construction of 435 as a total was negated by a determined Australian batting line-up that grafted its way to 674-6 declared. The effort was impressive and in the end only matched by Collingwood’s best effort in the series (74 off 245 balls) before some good tail-end batting saved the test. Having said that, Australia should have won this test (this will be expanded on later)LORDS
The momentum obtained from the dominance in the first test was reversed in just 4 hours on day ONE at Lords. The worst bowling seen in an Ashes test in years allowed a 196 run partnership between Strauss and Cook – England never looked back. Some swing from Anderson and Co knocked over Australia for just 215 and not even a brilliant 136 from Clarke could save their record at the Home of Cricket.EDGBASTON
The continuing quality of swing-bowling by the Englishmen restrained Australia to just 263 and Flintoff then rescued England from 168-5 to set up pressure that Clarke and North negotiated well on Day 5. If not for the weather this match may have provided an interesting finishHEADINGLY
England could not win this test after crashing to just 102 all out on Day One. The contest was horribly imbalanced as the likes of Clark and Siddle bowled a nice full length while Anderson and Onions, seemingly perfect bowlers for Headingly, bowled short and wide. The test should also be noted for Johnson’s best effort for the series.THE OVAL
Despite some charitable captaincy from Strauss (an attempt to take the game into a Day 5 showdown?) England took the series with a fine win. A good total of 332 was followed by a great coming-of-age spell from Broad (the 2nd batting collapse by Australia). Chasing 546 to win looked interesting until the runout of Ponting and Clarke by Flintoff and Strauss respectively
THE CRITICS
There has been plenty written about this series already as every blogger, critic, commentator and has-been raced to highlight similar opinions. I will highlight a few here:Much was made of the even nature of the contest but Ian Chappell commented on the overall reason for England’s success as being their bowling attack. Although both teams were not great sides, the English attack was more balanced and Chappell gives them credit for bouncing back after conceding 674 runs in Cardiff.He was also impressed by England’s batting, despite being the less experienced of the two teams, they overcame the loss of Pietersen and even their tail-enders battled to save the first test. The former Australian captain then praised the master-stroke of including Trott in the deciding test.
Surprisingly, his criticism of Australia was restrained for a commentator whose distaste for his national side has grown in the last two years. Like others, the main mistake by the Baggy Green team was to leave out their spinner at The Oval. This decision was defensive, stupid and revealed a complete misinterpretation of the pitch. However, Chappell uniquely queries the tour selection of only Watson as a back-up opener and only Hauritz as a spinner, fuming over the exclusion of McGain after just one horrible test in South Africa.
Geoffrey Boycott naturally agreed with the point about only using pace at The Oval, but stresses the importance of the toss in the fifth test as going far to deciding the game and the series. The former England opener also destroyed any notion of this series being anything like the success of 2005 due to the plain fact that the teams on show in 2009 were shadows of those which battled last time. In support, I would draw attention to Flintoff’s bowling at Lords where he ripped out 5 wickets in an aggressive display – but this was how he bowled in FOUR of the 2005 test matches!
On the topic of Flintoff, Boycott maintains that it will be his character and ability to lift his team mates that will make up his legacy not his stats (which are decidedly average) but in Stuart Broad England may have their next great all-rounder.
Of all that has been written, Peter English summed up the flow of the series best with his 5 turning points:
- The draw at Cardiff was crucial and thanks must be given to Anderson and Panesar for this
- The Australian bowling at Lords was terrible and negated their advantage (he particularly blames Johnson for this)
- The batting of Clarke and North balanced the series in the middle and while they could not win it at Lords, they saved the match at Edgbaston
- This advantage was exploited perfectly at Headingly
- However it took just a little rain and 47 balls from Stuart Broad to rest the momentum back to England at The Oval
English concludes that, for Australia, the problem was their inability to maintain momentum after winning a test or a session or an over – problem that didn't trouble their team a decade ago. I suggest that perhaps they can sympathise with Black Cap fans on this point
CRUCIAL MOMENT
In retrospect the draw at Cardiff was the key result because Australia will feel they SHOULD have won this game. Lords and The Oval were in England’s control from near the beginning and likewise for Australia at Headingly (Edgbaston was rain-affected) but Ponting’s men failed to capitalise on their advantage in the first game. Boycott was surprised that two tail-enders could survive 11 overs on this occasion. Chappell cited Ponting’s obvious desire to bowl a large quantity of overs on that crucial 5th day over quality – he bowled part-time spinners to speed up the over rate.
What interests me about this result is that it was the one type of victory that the superior 2005 English team was unable to pull off when they lost by 239 runs at Lords and put up very little fight to save or win that game. In 2005 they got 20 wickets to win at Edgbaston and then chased a small total to win the Trent Bridge test but the ability to save a test like Cardiff is also a crucial part of excelling at test cricket (often forgotten in this age of 2020)
PREDICTIONS FALSE AND TRUE
Before I conclude this review I think a humble look back at my own predictions for this series is in order:
My guesses as to the individual tests were largely correct:
- Australia should have played a leg-spinner in the series given English weaknesses against them (supported by Ian Chappell)
- If Clark had played at Lords he would have provided the control that was lacking on the crucial first morning
- If it hadn’t been for the weather, England had the better of the game at Edgbaston
- Although Ponting did not score a century at Headingly this time, his aggressive innings was crucial to their large, match-winning total
- My hope that The Oval test would decide the series was answered
As for specific players:
- Bopara and Collingwood struggled just as I predicted
- Swann did not meet my expectations in terms of wickets
- Broad’s success was unforeseen by me (and many others). Although I did warn of his bounce (which did for Ponting at The Oval)
- Hughes’ troubles against the short ball were confirmed and Flintoff’s effect on him was crucial
- The failure of Hussey and Katich to stabilize the innings was a disappointment for me and my predictions on this point were wrong
- Also the success of Peter Siddle was less than I expected
Overall, my prediction of 2-1 to the victor was spot on even if my predictions of a Lord’s win for Australia and an Edgbaston win for England were both off the mark.
CONCLUSIONS:
I want to congratulate England for winning a series that perhaps they shouldn’t have. I mean no sarcasm or cynicism here, simply the contest was even on the surface and statistically weighted comfortably to Australia:
- The top 3 wicket takers were from AUS plus 4/5 of the top scoring batsmen
- Amazingly, England overcame a 6.49 run deficit per wicket to win 2-1 – an achievement that a blogger on cricinfo rightly pointed out had not occurred before
David Lloyd also pointed out that the series was exciting and the grounds were filled to capacity – just what Test cricket needed.
I look forward to the series in 2010-11
Well that’s it from here and I hope to see you again
It’s good bye for now
