England struggles and Australia's capitulation

 

I've started to feel about this England cricket team like I did about the rugby team in 2002 - even when they're losing I keep thinking they'll fight back!   But for Cook getting out last night I would have been confidently predicting they'd bat day 5 out, but now I'm more than a little concerned!   Is it too much to hope for a Cardiff-esque 10th wicket stand between Anderson and Panesar?   I hope not!

 

So with that backdrop, it feels a little bit rash to criticise the Aussies, but I'm English so it's essentially my job (as it is there's to criticise us Poms).   So what is going on with their batting line up?   Only Warner (just) averages over 40 other than Michael Clarke.   It really is one of the weakest Australian batting line ups to have played in a couple of generations.  

 

Interesting then the way Australia handled (or mishandled) the older guys reaching the end of their career last year.   And that's not just the Australian selectors, it's the Australian public who were right on the backs of Ponting and Haddin prematurely.   It should never have been about whether they were as good as they once were - they didn't need to be.   As long as they were in the best Australian XI they should have been encouraged to carry on playing.

 

Ponting dominating Australia's domestic cricket this season with an average of nearly 90 is interesting.   And Haddin also had a dominant year.   Can Australia really say that they have a stronger XI without Ponting?   For one thing it's unlikely that their team ethic would have slipped with him there and Clarke wouldn't have found himself so entirely alone.

 

There's even been rumours of Hussey coming back for The Ashes, such is the current disaster.   Good luck getting that top 7 ship shape in the next few months Australia - even if England bat like they have in the 3rd NZ Test they'll still be big favourites....

Australia look shakey for 2013 and massively reliant on Michael Clarke

It sounds strange to say Australia are looking shakey for next year when they've just thrashed Sri Lanka inside two and a half days and when they're captain has scored more runs than any other Australian in one calendar year in 2012.   Particularly as they were very unlucky to lose their three match series against the number 1 Test team South Africa too.

But it's difficult to see how a side stripped of Ponting, Hussey and Haddin is going to go into the Ashes next year as favourites, despite the advances being made by in the seam bowling department.   Jackson Bird looks a great find and I think he'll be very dangerous on English wickets in swinging conditions, along with any of Siddle, Starc, Johnson and Pattinson.

But imagine if Michael Clarke was to go down injured...there's literally no-one that it's possible to pick out as a natural leader at this stage.   Clarke seems to get through without missing many games but the Aussies still have to consider what they would do in that circumstance - there's no other Test team so reliant on one player as Australia in 2013.   It's getting bad when you see that people like Warner and Cowan are being suggested as leaders - both are inexperienced at Test level and Warner's shot selection issues will make it hard for him to guide others, while Cowan averages less than 35 at the stage.

I can't believe that Australia would have wanted it this way.   If they'd known that Hussey was going to retire, I wonder whether Ponting might have continued, or whether Haddin might have been the better choice over Wade (who is now being touted as a number 6 despite averaging 36 to date)....Wade's certainly not set the world alight and Haddin's been in superb form in Australian domestic cricket.   Perhaps Wade was selected for his bowling - Haddin certainly doesn't proclaim to be able to bowl!

It'll be interesting to see how Australia shape up over the next 12 months and whether Michael Clarke can stay fit.   Without him they'll really be struggling....

Watson at sixes and sevens

Lots of coverage of the fact that Shane Watson thought Australia had an advantage from Wade batting 7 v Bresnan before the first ODI.   I thought it was strange as Bresnan has a better average than Wade in Tests and just 3 less than Wade on ODIs, but Wade has mostly batted 1-3 so has had far more opportunity.

My guess is that the England stats team have looked at how long there is to bat when number 7 gets in and assessed the importance of having a batsman in that position.   They've concluded that there's little point playing a batting all-rounder at 7.   I'm happy to support their analysis, particularly in the UK.
Irrespective of who bats 7, Watson seemed to be missing the fact that Australia have Steve Smith batting at 6.   So far he's flattered to deceive in international cricket....he may come good but at the moment Smith makes England's number 6, Kieswetter - someone who himself has hardly been an unquestionable success - look like a master.

Australia may win the series because they have the better team, but it certainly won't be because their 6 and 7 are stronger than England's.   The Aussies have made it harder for themselves - is there anyone in the world that really thinks that Ricky Ponting would not be superior to either Bailey or Smith?   He's a better fielder than Bailey and at a minumum a comparable batsman, and Smith - well he's not a batsman at all really....

Keep talking the talk Twatto.   How someone with so little brain can be vice-captain is beyond me!

Ponting's getting on a bit...

...as you can see here.

My new hero suffers

So Ed Cowan comes into the Test side at last and is given out caught behind when he didn't hit it and LBW when ball-tracker showed that it was missing. I expect he's wondering why he bothered.

On the other hand Hussey (three times) and Ponting (once) survived because the umpires review system was not available - a major contribution to Australia's win.
Statistics are supposed to show that use of the review system increases accuracy of decisions from 95% to 97% - how they prove that I've no idea but Cowan's experience seems to be a fairly strong contra. But India don't want to use it because it's not perfect (I can't think of anything that is) and so it's not used in their Test matches. But there seems to me to be no reason why you shouldn't allow their opponents access to it even if India don't have such access in the same match and I bet that would bring them round quickly.

Aussies new and old guard

As always, there's speculation about the retirement or a clamour for dropping of elder players when they're not performing. And Ricky Ponting's not performing - no doubt about it. There's been plenty of pieces like this one on All Out Cricket by Reverse Sweep's David Green that push the point that the current Test v South Africa needs to be Ponting's last. Another on Cricinfo suggests it's "Time for Ponting to Walk".

But equally, even the detractors recognise that the prolonged slumps of the likes of the great Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid, along with Mike Hussey, have all ended with run gluts. Who is to say that Ponting won't help Australia to a glorious win batting in the 4th innings at the Wanderers v South Africa tomorrow? Personally I think Ponting has more Test cricket in him and without anyone obvious to come in to replace him, I'd expect him to be given at least another series (at home) to regain his form. Not only is he a class fielder, but opposition team's fear him in a way they don't fear David Warner or Usman Khawaja.

What about Gautam Ghambir - do you see him as at risk of being dropped and slipping into Test match obscurity? No, I doubt it. And yet Ponting and Ghambir's recent records are very similar as this piece points out. Ponting deserves an extended period playing under Clarke.

On the other side of the coin, Pat Cummins looks a fantastic prospect. Sky keep replaying the ball that hit Kallis' gloves shortly before he then fenced at one outside off stump and was caught at first slip...it was a good ball, but Cummins will probably admit that the ball lept from short of a length at Kallis' chest. Quite rightly, Kallis didn't expect the ball to bounce that much. But nonetheless, the 18 year-old Cummins took the wicket of a true great of the game and it will surely one of several hundreds by the time his career ends, if he can stay injury free.

If Australia have a batsman as good as Cummins is a bowler in the wings, then they should drop the weakest batsman. If that's Ponting, then that's Ponting. But for now they don't so it will be interesting to see if the chat about Ponting's form becomes a self-fulfilling proficy, or if he comes through and dominates again as Hussey did very recently.

The Australian's and journalists piling the pressure on their best batsman since Bradman seem to have very short memories.

Aggression and frustration from SA

Having thought they got the worst of the umpiring (in the absence of the UDRS) in the 2nd Test, South Africa seemed to get really hot under the collar today. Tendulkar was out caught behind in the first over of the day for 49 but he wasn't given (in fairness to the umpire, not even the bowler Steyn went up for it). Then they thought they got Tendulkar caught behind later on, although from the replays I saw it didn't look like that was the case.

And finally they acted like small children when a Steyn delivery to Harbajan clipped the outside of off-stump quite hard and they mistakenly thought it was an outside edge. To have seen that the ball hit the stumps but didn't disloge the bails was a brilliant piece of umpiring by Gunner Gould. I'm surprised the match referree hasn't taken any action for the way that South Africa reacted to that one.

It's no excuse for players openly questioning the umpires decision, but wouldn't it be simpler to replay and demonstrate to players and crowd alike that it wasn't out...or in the case of Tendulkar in the first over of the day, that it was out? Unless of course you have someone like Ponting who ignores the video evidence and goes off on one anyway!

Age on Ponting's side

I was amazed to read that Peter English believes that Ricky Ponting has played his last Test for Australia. Although it would not be the norm for an Australian ex-captain to continue as a player, if Ponting is sacked as skipper it would be in Australia's best interests to retain him as a player. The fact that Australia's next Test after Sydney isn't until August shouldn't impact that at all - Ponting will still be a few months off 37.

He hasn't scored runs in the Ashes and those wanting to force him out will point out that he's been struggling for a while. By his standards he has - rather than the lofty standards of his career average of 53.5, he averaged 45 I read over the 12 months leading up to the Ashes. If Australia have 6 batsmen who can average 45 in Test cricket and are equally good in the field, both at slip and diving around in the covers, then indeed they should drop him. They don't though!

It would be interesting to think about the Indian batsmen reaching the end of their careers when considering Ponting's position. Laxman is the closest to Ponting's age, although still older, and has just played the match-winning knock against South Africa. Tendulkar was ICC player of the year last year by some distance and has just scored his 50th Test hundred. Only Dravid, who is the oldest and like Tendulkar is closer to 38 than 37, could be described as a qualified success, having struggled a bit with the bat recently but taking a brilliant 200th Test catch in his last match.

The likes of Khawaja need to find their way in Test cricket with the likes of Hussey and Ponting around them - time will tell if the Australian selectors agree. With Ponting only about 3 months older than Hussey it would be a strange decision to have one rule for Ponting and another for Hussey.

Ponting Out

It is possible Ponting has played his last test match after being left out of the squad for Sydney due to his broken finger. This means Clarke has been named captain. What worries me a little about this scenario, however is that Usman Khawaja is going to slot straight into the number three position. There is no doubt he is a talented player, he's leading this seasons Sheffield Shield runs tally, but I don't think you should be throwing a rookie sraight into the number three position. Some may argue that its a dead rubber (its not, we can still draw the series) lets see what the kids made of, but I would rather see him eased in at number 5. Throw Hussey up to number three. Not many players, no matter how talented, are expected to come into a test side in the pivotal number three slot.........even the great Ponting himself served his apprenticeship at number 6.

Ponting out of luck, not form

I always read what Ian Chappell has to say, but generally with growing agitation as I get through his pieces as I disagree with 95% of what he has to say. He likes to say things that will get him exposure and with that as his objective, rather than worrying about whether his assertions are correct, he's always going to rub a few people up the wrong way.

In his piece on Cricinfo about Ricky Ponting - typically entitled provocatively "Ponting's captaincy is hurting Australia", I found a snippet I agree with entirely. To celebrate the rare occasion of agreeing with Chappelli, I thought I'd repeat the offending sentences:

"He's currently a batsman out of luck rather than out of form. In this series he's either got a good one early or he's edged to the keeper down the leg-side - a batsman's worst nightmare. Ponting's footwork is still intact and this generally means, for a player of his calibre, a big score is just around the corner."

Couldn't agree more Chappelli. More of the same please, rather than headline grabbing rubbish.

Australian and England selection dilemmas

Having pretty much ignored cricket news for a couple of days (due to work), it's been amazing to catch up. Australia seem obsessed with the idea that they need a left-arm spinner to get Kevin Pietersen out...that's surely the only conclusion given the inclusion of Michael Beer, a man with an average first class record over just 5 matches. Nathan Hauritz has again been mysteriously overlooked, despite a very decent home Test bowling average of under 30. He produced a good allround performance for his State last week where he took 3 second innings wickets and scored a hundred. The match before, he took 7 wickets in the match at next week's Test venue, the WACA. The only conclusion can be that the selectors fear they will look stupid if they recall someone only 2 matches after they jettisoned him. But then again there is Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus who have been recalled after just one match out.

While I've found myself defending Ponting and Clarke this week, I think Hauritz has suffered from muddled captaincy from Ponting and a lack of selection consistency from the Australian selectors. The likes of England and South Africa have demonstrated what needs to happen when you don't have a world-beating spinner available. Ashley Giles and Paul Harris are/were no world-beaters but their role in their sides was/is well thought out. Australia need to do the same with Hauritz.

Marcus North's time has run out and presumably Brad Haddin will move to 6 with Steven Smith will bat 7. There's huge pressure on Smith's bowling though and it will be interesting to see how he responds after he was taken apart when England played Australia A earlier in the tour. Introducing him as the side's one spinner would be very risky but that could be the direction the selectors are going in?

England on the other hand have just one spot to sort out and none of their second-string seamers have exactly covered themselves in glory during the latest tour match. While he may not be a world-beater I think I agree with Jonathan Agnew who thinks that England should pick Bresnan. Bresnan has been in and around the side for a while now and represents the more logical selection choice, rather than Tremlett who has only joined the current squad at the start of this tour. Needless to say, Bresnan's batting will be useful at 8 too. I wonder how many readers of Cricket Burble realise that he averages over 40 in Test cricket (admittedly over just 5 matches), compared to Broad's 27.

England have also selected the ODI squad this week, where Bopara is out and Chris Tremlett and Chris Woakes are in. I still find it hard to believe that a trier like Luke Wright gets the nod over someone with so much talent as Ravi Bopara, but it's no doubt the right call for now and hopefully Bopara will come back in a better player for this. I still see him as the long-term successor to Paul Collingwood (in the ODI team at least) - I'd love to know if the likes of Geoff Miller and Andy Flower feel the same.

Enough about ODIs for now. The far more important and interesting action starts again at the WACA next Thursday and it will be riveting. If England can win the toss and score 500+ in their 1st innings they will feel they have all but retained the Ashes, no matter what they might say publicly until they've completed the job....

Weather could come to Australia's aid

Sadly (for England supporters) the rain yesterday in Adelaide meant that the mouth-watering prospect of watching Kevin Pietersen, already with a double century to his name, and Ian Bell, who looked in sumptuous form, step on the accelerator prior to a declaration that would have left Australia an awkward few overs to see out at the end of the day, didn't become reality. It seems a shame that England will now almost certainly have to declare, having scored 1,068 for 5 over their last 2 innings given the Adelaide weather forecast.

If the weather was decent I'd be wanting to get a lead of over 450 because England won't want to bat again, but second guessing how much play there will be over the next two days will be tricky for Strauss. As a pessimist I fear a draw as Ponting will dig in second time round, and Australia won't gift England two wickets with schoolboy running again. But there is just a little optimistic streak in me that says that Anderson might be helped by cloudy and humid conditions and, more importantly, that Swann could turn it big, take a 5 for, and take England to victory. Fingers crossed!

Ponting right but arguing with the wrong person

It was interesting to see Ricky Ponting in animated discussion with Andrew Strauss as the players left the field on day 1, after England had faced just one over. They were meant to face 2 to complete the 90 overs for the day, but the time had just gone past the latest the players are allowed to be on the field. That's not Strauss' fault.

He is however right that a complete absence of common sense from those organising the game meant that the paying public were left short of one over. Sun out, enthralling contest, an over still to be bowled that will take a maximum of 5 minutes.....and yet it's the end of the day's play. It's insanity of course and Ponting has every right to be upset, but Strauss wasn't the right person to vent his anger on.

Ponting is spot on...

No, not in his field placings obviously. In expressing his frustrations about low catches not being given because of the way that technology is currently being used. I think he's 100% right, but he offers no solution other than to reach a gentleman's agreement with other captains. If you scroll to the comments at the bottom of this piece on The Roar you'll see my proposed solution to the problem of adjudicating on low catches - it's ultra simple - and the same solution I've burbled about before.

Surely the ICC have to see sense eventually?

Ponting v Pietersen?

If Pietersen does challenge Ponting as top run scorer in the series then England will be onto a good thing. My money is on Strauss eclipsing both but then, as this piece in The Independent says, Ponting's apparent downturn has seen him averaging 47 - I'd hate to see him hit a run of form!

Ponting has support in some quarters

You'd think that Ricky Ponting would be sacked or resign if Australia lose The Ashes but if I were him I wouldn't be resigning unless there was a better man for the job. Whether as captain or not, I find it hard to believe that he won't be playing for a couple of years yet. This piece in The Guardian delves into his background and mentions that they thought about getting him to play State cricket at 14, he was so good. He might not be a great tactician, but if I was Australian I'd be gravely concerned about what might happen when he stops playing international cricket....

Unswerving loyalty (and stupidity) from Mike Hussey

Captaincy isn't easy and it's important the players understand that no captain can make the right call every time. But Mike Hussey really has taken loyalty to an extreme when he says: "who better to learn under then Ricky Ponting?"

I could try to list the huge number of people that make up the answer, but time is short so instead perhaps it's best to ask the question the other way round. "Who is worse to learn from than Ricky Ponting?" In recent cricketing history, that's easy. Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen and Mohammad Yousuf. Apart from that Ponting is inferior to all other international captains.

But that doesn't mean I think Australia should make a change either - I still think he's best for the Aussie job for the moment.

Warne to return

Shane Warne may be backing Ricky Ponting to lead Australia in The Ashes but I loved this post on The Roar suggesting Warne should come back and captain the side himself! After 4 years out of international cricket even a legend like Warne may struggle with that.

As a Pom it's great to see Australia struggling before The Ashes and it can only benefit England that Ponting's captaincy is being called into question and they're losing repeatedly to India....

Warne backs Ricky

Even though I think Ricky Ponting is a pretty poor captain, it amazes me that there should be any discussion about whether he is the right man to lead Australia into The Ashes. Of course he is. You can't change the captain now and expect it not to have a negative impact....and Clarke isn't exactly nipping at Ponting's heals suggesting he'd be better.

Shane Warne has used his own blog to tell us that Ricky is best to lead despite his shortcomings in the India Tests and once again I find it difficult to disagree. It's worrying agreeing with Warne this much....

Difficult to blame Warne for his criticism of Ponting's captaincy

I've got every sympathy with Shane Warne's tweeted complaints about Ricky Ponting's fields yesterday. I didn't watch it ball by ball but watching an hour of highlights there were some crazy fields set to all the bowlers (i.e. no slips early on when you need 10 wickets?), but the fields for Hauritz really did take the biscuit. How can you possibly have no saving one fielders on the off side?

Ponting's defence? Apparently all the fields Hauritz bowled to were requested by Hauritz himself. That's a complete non-defence - if that's the case then there's little point having a captain Ricky....you're meant to over-rule your bowlers as necessary because you're (in theory) tactically superior!

I do have a tinge of sympathy for Ponting because how anyone is meant to set fields to bowlers like Johnson bowling both sides of the wicket, I'm not quite sure. But there is certainly a lot he could do to help himself - sensible fields and bowling your best bowler (Hilfenhaus) for more than 7 overs might help a bit....