You call that analysis? This is analysis

Hello and welcome back to my blog

After 2.1 overs of the Adelaide test Australia were 3-2 with Katich, Ponting and Clarke all gone for ducks and Englishmen might have remembered what it felt like when they fell to such as score in South Africa in 1999. Here is the footage of that collapse where the tourists were quickly 4-2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaJ8-4jrCWQ

The keen observer may notice a couple differences between that day in Johannesburg and the beginning of the test in South Australia last week. For instance the bowler was Allan Donald at his best, the deliveries were swinging square at pace and the conditions were very much in favour of the bowler. Thus the English camp should be filled with pride and ambition and those next door with green caps, quite the opposite; 260 may have been an acceptable score on Day 5 of the Adelaide Oval test but not Day 1 and after this happened only rain stood in England's path to victory.

Before I get into my musings on how Australia might try to move forward and whether England will let them, I have to bring up the following article which I found while reading up on other opinions. This is from the New Zealand Herald this week about the fall of the Australian cricket team (a cliched topic in itself):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10692320 by Christopher Rattue and apparently not read by an editor. I thought this was a terrible piece on several levels which I will now run through by order of appearance:

• Right first of all although I can see why he needs to diminish England at the beginning to support his argument, that doesn't give him the right to prop them up again later in the article - you can't have it both ways!
• If memory serves me Australia were only narrowly beaten in the first test of the recent India tour (a mistake I have noticed in other publications) - don't just look at 2-0 and think you know what happened
• As for the picking of Xavier Doherty, I think it was quite clear they simply panicked in the face of Pietersen, a stupid move but not entirely without logic (perhaps they forgot the word 'good' in front of 'slow-left-arm-spinner' but there we are). The real reason this selection was indicative of poor planning is mentioned below and is certainly not in Rattue's piece (nor could you expect it to be)
• The mentioning of Test Cricket's eminent death seems to be the sports journalist's little toy they carry around these days. They drop it in there to try and seem all-knowing. I'm starting to think it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy - but I don't have space to go into that today sadly
• The obvious turn around in Ashes fortunes bares a better resemblance to that of the 1980s than a boxing reference. The article paints a picture of an author not well versed in Ashes history...
• ...as he proves again when talking about England's lack of significant victories in the 15 years before 2005. It wasn't that England barely won a match - there was just one victory between 1987 and 2005 (where the series was still alive) and it was Edgebaston in 1997 - a much better point of reference for comparisons and analysis (see below)

Do you see the collapsing scenery yet? Not quite well that was just the first half of the article.

• The second part is simply bizarre with no coherent structure as statements are simply dropped in without much explanation.
• "The boot is not only on the other foot, but planted firmly on Australia's throat" - a simple sigh at this point (cliche, as you know, should be avoided like the plague)
• Lastly, I don't think it wise to trust the seriousness of any writer that uses the word 'yonks' as a measure of time

I realise that by the end I was having a bit of fun at Rattue's expense but there is a serious consequence to poor analysis like this. The discussion needs to begin with more background knowledge and less knee jerk, cliche enveloped writing is required to get people thinking. Without it the public settle for questions like 'why is Brendon McCullum being so lazy?' instead of 'why don't we have a competent keeper-batsman to pick from any of the six domestic teams?'


Now for MY Ashes analysis

The scoreline reads 1-0 to England after two tests and Australia appear toothless with the ball and overpowered with the bat. Earlier I mentioned that England only won 1 Ashes match between 1987 and 2005 (while the series was alive), that match was in 1997 and that series looked the same after two tests with a 1-0 lead to the hosts (England). Australia came back to win that series 3-2 and the main thing that may prevent the same thing happening again is the absence of Steve Waugh (who made twin centuries in the crucial third match of 1997), Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne - the greatest match winners of all. I know the absence of these two is ALWAYS trumped up as the excuse for any Australian loss these days but in this case it is a singular example of the cost their retirements have on the team. Australia needed to draw this game as much as England needed to avoid defeat in Brisbane, now I fear England have the momentum but Australia may have one last hope
Australia require a bold and risky strategy of attacking England in the next test at Perth. This will likely come from the batting which still has some stability in the middle (of all places given form up until this series) and thus Philip Hughes is essential to replace the injured Katich and attack the bowling before Swann can come on. North may be dropped as well - if only because he seems weak to spin in the same way Martyn and Katich were to reverse-swing in 2005 (and weren't dropped to Australia's detriment) - a new face in the middle is needed.

Stuart Broad is out for the series for England and his place will be taken by one of Bresnan, Tremlett and Shahzad. These three will play this weekend in a tour game in Melbourne - I would recommend that Tremlett play as the most natural replacement (Bresnan is more in the mold of the all-rounder but England don't really need more batsmen and Shahzad may be more useful at the MCG come December 26th). Whichever bowler is selected, Australia will fancy their chance against a different attack and on a different wicket
Speaking of the pitch, for about the fifth season in a row the word is that the WACCA will be hard and fast like the days of Lillee and Thomson. This shouldn't be believed for a second given that for the last four seasons the 'word' has been wrong. However the pitch should still have more bounce than Adelaide and Brisbane but I doubt anyone will lose their head.
Australia have to throw everything at England in the first few hours and either score 300 on day one or knock them over for less than 300. You may have noticed that Australia must avoid defeat in the final three games and win at least two of them. This seems a difficult task for any side and when you consider that England just destroyed them by an innings... suddenly 4-0 isn't a crazy bet. Perth is where the scoreline may be decided
Now there have been some suggestions of strange selections for Australia like Brett Lee and Brad Hodge - both of which are supposed to be playing in the HRV Cup 2020 in New Zealand. Another is the strange notion that Shane Warne should play and 'save' Australia. I think we can laugh that idea into submission in round one can't we? How is a retired, 40+ spin bowler meant to help win a test in Perth of all places? The most cricket he has played since has been 4 over spells in the IPL - and anyone who has actually watched those matches (as I have) will notice that he bowls with the shoulder and not his whole body. There is no way he would be fit to bowl even 15 overs of quality per day (let alone the 30 that would be required). Besides, grant you that he is fit enough to make a contribution - why didn't they do that in 2009?
Having said that, the spin bowling is a big problem for Australia and poses the biggest selection dilemma over the next week. Do you persist with Doherty? I don't think so, I mentioned above that his selection was purely to try and take down Pietersen - the main problem with this is that they don't seem to have plans for Cook, Trott and Bell. This is stupid because the same plan will work for all three and that is to slant the ball across them to the slips - using right-arm quicks against Cook and Bell while employing Johnson (if in form) against Trott - this is their best hope to negate them

I suppose I can hardly lambast Rattue of the NZ Herald and not front up myself so I hope this has helped improve the discourse a little better than his effort; I let you, my readers be the judge

Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now