Whingeing Aussies and the Moral High Ground

Sounds like a band name... Anyway, yes, if there's one thing better than beating than beating the Australians, it's doing so in a way that really pisses them off. Jardine/Larwood, Illingworth/Snow, Brearley/Botham and now Vaughan/Pratt. Fantastic. Now I'm all for fair play (so I'm actually not unreservedly proud of what happened during the Bodyline series, although you have to hand it to old Douglas), but it is quite amusing to hear Ponting invoke the spirit of cricket. Clearly John Buchanan hasn't done "hypocrisy" as one of his words of the day yet. Is old Punter aware that it was his predecessors who first adopted the policy of not walking when they knew they were out? Even if not, then he was part of the team which, under Steve Waugh, took sledging to an extreme (or "mental disintegration", sorry John). And even if his memory is failing him, then I don't think slagging off all and sundry after being run out is really in keeping with the spirit of the game. Jones had his ankle in a brace for Christ's sake. OK, so the whole policy of having bowlers leave the pitch quite frequently is a little dubious, admittedly, but it's not that bad. They only have 8 minutes before they have to be back on again. Do they really gain that much of an advantage? Actually, Harmison might have even reached one catch which just cleared Pratt's head. Oh, and, if memory serves, which it does apparently, the first bowler to make a habit of leaving the pitch after bowling a spell was.... yeah, you guessed it, uber Australian Dennis Lillee, back in 1981, when he used to nip off to change his shirt (and his natty yellow headband, I bet).
Anyway, Ponting is seriously in danger of sounding like I did as an 8 year old whenever my older brother beat me in a game in the garden. I buried my new gloves once, blaming them for my defeat. Why I was wearing gloves, I don't know. We were playing with a tennis ball. I think they were new. Anyway, I was only 8. Ponting is 33 or something. He does look like Dubya doesn't he? Perhaps he shares a mental age. I digress. What I'm trying to say is that Punter and his crew clearly wouldn't be complaining about this nonsense if, as expected by almost everyone (me included, I must admit), they were 3 or 4-0 up at this point. They just can't believe what's happening. Nor can I. Isn't it great?
What is almost as unbelievable is that the Australians could still retain the Ashes if they win at the Oval. How cruel would that be? It wouldn't be much of a victory for them, I don't think, but nevertheless, it would be very annoying. If Jones manages to get fit then I'm not too concerned, because with him our pace quartet look champion (as Boycott might say). Obviously there's a good chance that he get better, because otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to put him in an oxygen tank, with assorted divers (I wonder what they talk about). Still, he must be a doubt, for the same reason, and if he doesn't play then the pressure created by the bowling won't be quite so relentless. Who would replace Jones? Tremlett, almost certainly. Gatting suggested Collingwood, but Gatting only managed to captain an Ashes winning team only because our team and Australia's were both absolutely rubbish at the time, so we can ignore his suggestion. Others have mentioned Caddick. Shiver. Is there anyone the Australians would rather see grimacing at non-existent footholes after he's just bowled another first innings half volley than Andy Caddick? I think not. If the selectors want to pick an old hand for one game only then they could do worse than select Dominic Cork who's doing pretty well this season, and who is always up for the occasion. I'm sure they won't though, and I don't think they should.
As for Australia, well... will they play five bowlers, as suggest by Waugh? Will they drop Hayden, as suggested by Roebuck (who will soon be admitting that he is English after all)? Will Tait be injured (his shoulder is sore)? Could we give a shit? No. The only important question about Australia is whether McGrath is fit or not. If he is, and Jones isn't... mmm... well, let's see. Only a few days to wait now. English boot is on Australian throat. Altogether now... press.

Never in doubt

I always thought that watching cricket was a great way to relax, but for the third time in four weeks, I've spent an hour or two this afternoon quite concerned that I might be about to have a coronary. I know that this series is very exciting, but here's hoping for a definite, clear winner at the Oval... or a lot of rain. Nah, not really. That was great. Again.
If Australia had got a lead of over 200 then yeah, England would have been in trouble. As it was, they bowled very well again, without Simon Jones this time, and with that bit of luck when Aleem Dar gave Katich out to Harmison. That was a shocker. Earlier, Hoggard had stepped into the breach, bowling a very tight spell before removing Clarke, and then, after lunch, Gilchrist. The latter, especially, was a great moment. I almost allowed myself to relax.
For years now, Hayden and Gilchrist have been the twin totems of Australia's dominance, bashing bowlers all over the place, humiliating them. Suddenly (at least in Gilchrist's case - Hayden has been out of form for a while), they're looking human. Hayden might even be dropped for the last Test and I hope he isn't. That's how edgy he's looking.
As for that run chase, well, what can I say? Is that the first time Hoggard has ever played a cover drive? In an interview afterwards, he joked that he'd played it with his eyes closed. At least, I think he was joking. Then there was Ashley Giles to finish things off. Good for him. England's isn't a team of superstars. Hoggard and Giles are two of its finest representatives.
I do hope Simon Jones is fit for the last Test. Not only has he been our best bowler, it would also be neat (especially given England's well documented, disastrous selection policy over the years) for the same eleven to play all the way through. He's got ten days to recover. Haven't we all?

Kicking and screaming

That didn't exactly go to plan did it? England may have forced the follow on, but life remains in the Australian side and they're not just twitching. They're only 37 runs behind with 6 wickets left. Adam Gilchrist is due in next. It's unlikely that Simon Jones will be able to bowl and he's been England's best bowler. The rest have been bowling for over a day now. They're not going to be supremely fresh. England are now also favourites. That brings its own pressure, as was evident on that last day at Edgbaston. I wouldn't be surprised if England have to chase over 200 in the last innings. That wouldn't be easy, not with Shane Warne bowling on a wearing pitch and the Ashes in the balance. I'm preparing for another day of uneasy listening.
So was Vaughan right to enforce the follow on? He had to, really, I suppose, but there were risks involved. The opposition are harder to bowl out with bowlers who haven't been sitting around for a day. Runs are much harder to make in the fourth innings. If Ponting hadn't been run out then things could have been looking quite serious this morning. As it is, I think the game is still in the balance. Oh, for a couple of quick wickets...

Revisionism

Big word that... Not entirely sure what it means.
Still, the Australians would have had us believe that the momentum was with them after they'd managed to save the last Test. Did they really believe it? Could they? It would have taken a leap of faith, one which Flanders Buchanan may have been able to make, but I'm not convinced that the rest of the team were able to.
In fact (and here comes the revisionist bit), I'm now wondering whether England's failure to win the last test wasn't actually a good thing. Okey dokeley? Well, maybe not a good thing, but not such a bad thing anyway, because if England had won, they would have been 2-1 up, but the Australians would have been stung and would have come out fighting at Trent Bridge. As it is, they were able (just about) to dismiss Old Trafford as an aberration, to convince themselves that the situation wasn't too serious, and crucially, to allow themselves to think that if the series scoreline remains as it is, then they would end up retaining the Ashes. They stuck with four bowlers. They were very quick to go on the defensive in England's first innings. Yesterday, the field was spread for Flintoff and Jones almost from the off. No pressure was applied, when one wicket then would have meant that they were on top. It was as if the Australians were already playing for a draw.
Still, I doubt whether this defensive mentality had anything to do with Australia's top order being blown away, once again. England's bowling attack has become pretty special. Simon Jones has developed control to compliment his swing, and Hoggard, in conditions which suited him, finally, backed himself, stepped up to the plate, held his hand up and came to the party (still on a plate, arm raised, moonwalking). The Australian lower order are going to have to bat pretty well to get out of this one. Here's hoping that they're blown away this morning, England enforce the follow on and wrap it up by the end of the day. The one thing England have lacked so far is the killer instinct. Oddly, this may have worked in their favour up until this point, but now it's time to put the boot in.

Cracking up

I imagine that some of those Australians are feeling a little uncomfortable this morning. Of course, McGrath will still be feeling a little soreness in his ankle and the injury to his elbow won't help him look any less than the medium pacer who got belted around in the second innings at Old Trafford. Otherwise, the discomfort will largely be mental. Warne's been having a go at the groundsman (quite rightly, probably). Gilchrist (or his ghost) has written how he must do better. Langer has been writing about how great it has been to get away from it all. His article, in particular, seems quite revealing. It's all very well being relaxed on a golf course, but today must feel like judgement day to quite a few of those Australian players. It's not just the Ashes that are at stake. Their reputations are on the line. There have been quite a number of mutterings about their dominance over the past few years being due to the lack of quality in the rest of the teams around the world. Hayden, for example, who must have thought that he had booked his place amongst the greats, is suddenly being questioned. For such a big man, it must feel odd to be seen as one dimensional. I'm not sure about this idea that bowling around the world is weaker than it has been for a long time. West Indian batsmen during the eighties, for example, would only really need to get concerned about Imran, and perhaps Hadlee, whose record isn't as good as Pollock's is now anyway. There were no decent spinners back then, not really, certainly none as good as Muralitharan, Harbajan and Kumble. Still, Hayden did appear susceptible to extreme pace early in his career. Shoaib got him out a few times in the Australian summer, and at Old Trafford, Flintoff made him look very average. Is he starting to think that it might all be over? Is he reflecting on his career? It looks that way to me.
Apart from worrying about their reputations, a few of the players will be noticing Shaun Tait and wondering about their own futures. Gillespie, who is younger than most of them, may have played his last Test. What will happen if they do lose the Ashes? Will they replaced en masse? Certainly, questions will be asked.
Of course, Ponting could win the toss and, if the reports of a flat pitch are accurate, Australia could end the day at 350-2, and, if so, all will be well in their world again. Should the reverse happen however, the cracks in the Australian psyches will be widened. One Test under the cosh could be dismissed as an accident, a temporary blip. A second one, and the idea that the Australians are a team in decline may take hold in the heads of the players and become a self-fulfilling analysis. It's time to see what these Australians are really made of.

"Scream it like you hate that bitch"

Such was the advice given to a pre-Pixies Black Francis by a minor South East Asian pop star. Nothing to do with cricket there, but if John Buchanan can use Lao Tzu to motivate his fellas, then I'd like to suggest that Duncan Fletcher try invoking Black Francis' mentor. If a few shared drinks have softened the attitudes of the England lads to their opponents, a quick perusal of some of the pearls that John Buchanan deigns to share with the general public now and again might put them back on track. On second thoughts, those pearls might just make them laugh, especially that revelation near the end about how John has encourage his players to learn new words. Opportunity there for some creative sledging methinks.
Anyway, just a couple of days now until the next test and it seems that quite a number of people might be getting that gearing-up-for-a-test-match feeling for the first time. The press since the last test has been chocka with a broad gallimaufry (hey John, maybe that idea of yours wasn't so bad after all) of articles about cricket's new popularity. My favourite was this one, by a woman who's developed an interest in the game. Maybe the next time I tell someone that I like cricket then I won't feel the need to do so apologetically. I always try to explain that's what great about it are the characters and the way you can dip in and out of it, and that it goes on for five days, and can change suddenly, and you can do all the housework while listening to the commentary, which is great in itself (the commentary, not the housework), but I don't think I've ever convinced anyone. I've never expected to, truth be told. Now it seems as if a combination of a great ashes series and Simon Jones' torso may have achieved the apparently impossible. That's OK by me. I'm not bitter. Lust will become love soon enough. Of course, it's also great that loads of kids have been getting into the game too. I've even been practicing my creaky bowling action. As a result, my back hurts and I will stop.
Whether all of this lasts is a different matter. By the time that Sri Lanka arrive next May then this Ashes series will be a distant memory and the papers will be full of speculation about the state of David Beckham's linguistic skills (cunning) in the build up to the next World Cup (the World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup, which is one day cricket anyway and therefore crap). Now part of me isn't too bothered about this. Frankly, selfishly, I want to be able to get tickets to watch several days play of both Lord's Test matches. On each of those days, after tea if not earlier, I'll go sit in the Mound Stand, square of the wicket, to enjoy the evening sun with a beer and then probably another. I'm dreaming about it already, the honey light, the Lord's murmur, heaven on earth, or quite close to it anyway (unless Graeme Smith is making a very ugly double century, which he won't be, because the second test is against Pakistan). But if cricket remains popular then my chances of acquiring said tickets will be minimal.
The authorities have done their bit to help me out by selling the television rights to Sky. Oh dear. When I first heard the news, back whenever, I felt like I had when Dubya was reelected: gutted and disbelieving that anyone could sanction such a ridiculous decision? Without wishing to sound too prejudiced (or, as David Houghton might say, "No disrespect, but..."), one does half expects such idiocy of our friends across the pond, but of the ECB? Mmm... Well, anyway, it does mean that if I'm back in the UK next summer, I'll have to shell out for a satellite dish and subscribe to line Murdoch's pockets, even though I'd rather do lots of other nasty things instead. To confirm the hint of leftiness given in my reference to Dubya up above, yes, I do believe Murdoch is a force of evil (as does his son perhaps, but I digress). So I might just continue to make do with the radio.
It is a bit annoying that people are only really kicking up a fuss now, when the deal was done months ago. I've also read that Channel 4 didn't even offer as much this time as they had for the previous set of rights, so I guess that the ECB were put in a difficult decision. It is a shame though. Worst of all, watching the cricket will mean having to listen to Botham, Willis, Allott... What is David Gower doing with that lot?
Still, for the time being, all is good in the world of the English cricket fan. I'm trying to enjoy it while it lasts. Old Punter may call correctly come Thursday morning, and the ball may not reverse swing (Trent Bridge having a relatively lush outfield) meaning that a couple of days in the field for England's new heroes wouldn't be out of the question. Then we'd get beat by an innings and... I'd have no problems getting tickets for the Lord's Tests next year. I can't lose.

Which way will it go?

It's been a few days now since the end of the last test match. It's going to take a lot longer than that for me to forget it. When those DVD's of the Edgbaston Test were rushed out with the title "The Greatest Test", I did think "mmm... (I even "mmm..." in my head), that may be a little premature. I mean, they're going to look pretty silly if the next one is even better." Of course, I didn't think that the next one would be even better, and it wasn't, not from a neutral standpoint, but personally, I enjoyed it more.
As I said in the last post, I had been expecting a draw, because the wicket was flat, it hadn't broken up and the Australian batting line up is rather strong. To win, I thought that we would need at least 3 wickets by lunch, 6 by tea, and, of course, all 10 by the end. In each instance, we were one short. Even so, at the end of the first two sessions, I was very happy with England's performance. It sounded like they'd been bowling well. In particular, Flintoff's bolwing sounded special (I was listening to the radio) first to Hayden in the morning, and then to Katich and Gilchrist in the afternoon. Hayden was made to look very ordinary, playing and missing repeatedly before being bowled around his legs, and when did Gilchrist last score just 4 in 30 balls?
After tea though, I thought that Vaughan got it wrong. Earlier even, before tea, after Flintoff had finished his afternoon spell, I was thinking that the obvious choice to replace him was Jones, who had taken 6 for 53 in the first innings, and is the other bowler in the England team who can make the ball reverse swing. After tea, I was sure that he would be brought back. Instead, Giles bowled a few more innocuous overs from one end (his success may depend on batsmen going after him) while Harmison banged it in from the other (please, please pitch it up, for Christ's sake). What was going on? Why wasn't Jones bowling? It seems like I wasn't the only one wondering (see the comment in the 73rd over). Anyway, just to prove that I am one hell of a smart ass, when Jones was finally brought back, he took a wicket in his second over after, making one go back in to Clarke like a particularly bendy banana. When Hoggard dismissed Gillespie with a straight one in the next over, I thought that the end was nigh. But no, with the old ball reversing nicely and Freddie getting ready for a final spell, they took the new ball. Big mistake, fellas. What the hell were you thinking of? The old ball was moving. The new one didn't, allowing Warne to bat for ages with Ponting. Shit.
Anyway, I'm just being picky, because overall England were great, and Vaughan has to be applauded for his captaincy. I just hope that he's been reading what the Australians have been saying about the difficulty they're having in playing reverse swing. Reverse swing is the difference. Flintoff and Jones have been down to the crossroads at midnight, or whatever is the cricketing equivalent (around the pavilion at tea time?).
By the way, does anyone know (as if anyone is reading this) the physics behind reverse swing? There's a good article about its history over on cricinfo, but I'm yet to read a comprehensible and convincing explanation of the phenomenon. From those I have read, I've got the idea that it happens because air sliding past a ball which is travelling at over 80 mph actually goes around the rough side quicker. Why this happens though, is not entirely clear. Does the air just give up trying to go through the rough bits because the ball is travelling so quickly? I'm not a physicist, as you may have guessed. Also, does bowler actually do something different when trying to make a ball reverse swing, or does he just try to bowl a ball in the same way that he would an outswinger/inswinger and then watch it go the other way? Not many people seem to know. Call Sarfraz!!

Jones and Jones

For a moment, I felt sorry for the Australians this afternoon. There is something sad about age catching up with top sportspeople. It's a reminder of mortality. "Time like an ever rolling stream bears all its sons away". And then I thought, "Bollocks". How arrogant were they for all those years? How much did they patronise the English teams put up to face them? How annoying are they when they go on about "executing their skills"? VERY. And how often did they say they wanted a real challenge? They don't really look up for it right at the moment. I'm sure that right now, they'd quite like to face a few pie throwers.
I think a draw is the most likely result tomorrow, but it's a reflection of how well England have been playing that I wouldn't be too bothered if they don't manage to force the win. Of course, the Australian batsmen may suddenly find form and manage a record winning total. The pitch does look as if it's playing quite easy, although that was when the Australians were bowling on it (ouch). Anyway, perhaps the most heartening aspect of England's performance is that everyone (nearly) is contributing. Strauss got runs today (when we would have been vulnerable if bowled out for less than 200), Bell was very gutsy in the first innings (even I felt the pressure when he spent so long stuck on 18), Ashley Giles' successes have been well documented, and finally Simon Jones' bowling was deservedly rewarded with a few wickets. I like the way he bowls now, at a full length, swinging it both ways at a good (if not express) pace. He's so much better a bowler than he was even 6 months ago. As for Hoggard, well, apparently it will swing at Trent Bridge.
So what about the other Jones? Chris Read's name has been mentioned, again and again and again. Good wicket keeper. Shit batsmen. He's not as a good a batsman as Ashley Giles. Do we really want Ashley Giles coming in at 7? If Jones is to be replaced then I think it would have to be with another genuine no.7. Prior is the leading candidate, I reckon, but apparently his keeping is worse than Geraint's. So, I say "stick with the Welshman from Papua New Guinea". Hoorah. The success of this side, and in particular the bowling unit, has been achieved by picking players and then sticking with them. It took Harmison, Flintoff and Simon Jones a number of tests each to become as good as they are now. GO Jones clearly has the batting talent. Jack Russell thinks he's a decent keeper. Alec Stewart started as a stopper and ended up as a decent gloveman. GO Jones will get there. And in the meantime, let's be thankful that the bowling attack is good enough for his mistakes not to have been too expensive. He caught that catch at Edgbaston when it mattered.
Anyway, didn't anyone notice Gilchrist miss 2 catches in the first innings and 2 stumpings today. Even good keepers miss chances (not that I'm suggesting Gilchrist is great with the gloves). Pressure does strange things and England are currently applying it, magnificently.
One of the ways in which they're doing so when bowling is by keeping very defensive fields. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this is helping Harmison too much. It's encouraging him to bowl short, with the odd yorker, a la Flintoff, but the transformation in his performances first occurred when he started bowling a good, fullish length (ie not halfway down the track). He should be bringing people forward and having them caught in a packed slip cordon.
Anyway, I'm being picky. The defensive fields do exploit the principle Australian weakness, which is the urge to dominate. Vaughan is the new Brearley, or the new Nasser. Of course, it helps to be a captain with fairly decent bowlers.

Australians pray for rain

What the hell is going on? I feel like I've slipped into a parallel universe. In the real one, Australia are 250-1, cruising towards 600, with Warne licking his lips and laughing at Merlyn. I thought that England had scored enough in their first innings up at Edgbaston, but I didn't think so today. I thought that Flintoff had thrown it away. The wicket at Old Trafford looked like such a good one, with enough bounce to make Australian batsmen feel at home. I imagine that those batsmen are feeling pretty uncomfortable right now.
As I pointed out in my last post, they could claim to form the strongest ever batting unit. So what went wrong? Well, they've been out of form for a while now. Gilchrist has been bailing them out. I thought that he was about to do so again today, especially after he was dropped twice in an over. My own mental scars were opening up. But then in ran Simon Jones to dismiss those big ears with the first ball of his second spell, and suddenly the commentators were starting to talk about the possibility of England enforcing the follow on. It's a bit surreal.
Where did Jones and Flintoff learn to bowl like that? I guess that Darren Gough may have instructed them in the art of reverse swing, but he was never quite so good at it. The way Flintoff dismissed Katich was brilliant. Can there be any greater humiliation for a batsman than having his stump knocked out by a ball which he has left alone? How about being bamboozled by the King of Spain? At this rate, the King is in danger of losing his "a".

McGrath IS a robot

For a long time people have been describing McGrath's bowling as metronomic, robotic even. How does he manage to land the ball on that same spot ball after ball after ball? Almost inhuman, isn't it? As are his powers of recovery, it seems. Apparently he had a grade 2 tear of the ligaments in one of his ankles. I don't know what "grade 2" means, but I'm assuming there's a least a grade 3, which would suggest that the injury wasn't trivial. I though it was doubtful whether he would take any further part in the series. But I log on this evening and what do I find: McGrath has been bowling off a full run. Shit. I can only conclude that McGrath is indeed a robot. Rather than waiting for the ligaments to "heal", the physio (who lists amongst his hobbies "animatronix") just whipped out the old, synthetic set and fitted a new pair. He can't really play tomorrow, can he? I doubt it, but still, he's scary.
So what about England? Well, despite all the calls for changes after Lord's, I thought the selectors should stick with the same team, and they did, thankfully, but the time to change a team is when it's winning, and there appear to be mutterings that the selectors may actually replace Hoggard with Tremlett. What England really need is a stock bowler, a reliable seamer who can bowl 20 overs a day for 60 runs (if such economy is still possible) and maybe chip in with the odd wicket or two (actually, I wouldn't mind a devastating pace bowler who can bowl 15 overs and take 7 for 2, but still...). This was supposed to be Hoggard's role in the team, when the ball isn't swinging. When it is, Hoggard can be very dangerous, as he proved in SA during the winter. When it isn't though, he doesn't seem able to contain. Vaughan was hiding him at Old Trafford. Still, I've just checked out Tremlett's first class stats it doesn't look like he's a particularly economical bowler anyway. Plus there is a chance that Hoggard will swing a couple back in to the left handers (remember how he bowled Hayden in the first innings at Lords). So perhaps the selectors should keep faith with Hoggard after all, as they did with the King of Spain, with spectacular results (5 big wickets, or 4 big wickets plus Warne). If the King of Spain had been hit out of the attack, then the pressure to replace Hoggard (and his majesty) would have been greater.
Talking of greatness, Ian Chappell seems to think that this Australian team is just a good one, with two great bowlers (can't find the link now). Gee, you lose one test, by just two runs, and the critics turn on you. Now I reckon Pakistan in the late 80's and early 90's were a good side with two great bowlers (Imran and Wasim, followed by Waqar and Wasim), as were South Africa in the mid-90's (Donald and Pollock), but this Australian team probably have the best top 7 ever. If you added up their averages, I wouldn't be surprised if they exceeded those of the top 7 of the Invincibles, even with Bradman's 99.4. Some of them are just out of form at the moment. What's more worrying for the Australians is that they're all starting to get on a bit, at least in cricketing terms, meaning that this might actually be the Australians best chance of winning the Ashes for the next however many years. They don't appear to have any special young bowlers coming through. Nearly all their batsmen, and all those who they might call upon (Hodge, Hussey, etc) are over 30. Are Australians going to find out what it's like to be repeatedly hammered during the next 18 years? Will we be drawing parallels with the relative fortunes of the Conservative and Labour parties in British politics? Am I getting way ahead of myself? Errr... yes.
Win the toss Vaughnie. Bat. Make a ton. Calm Bell down as he approaches his. Then, on Friday afternoon, unleash Flinters and Harmison. Those Australians, they don't like it up 'em.

All Change

What's that clattering sound? Journalists jumping on a bandwagon perhaps? A couple of weeks ago the criticism of the England team following the defeat at Lords was really rather vicious. It was articles like this one, in particular (spectacularly ill-informed, ignoring England's recent record run of victories) which made me want to start this blog. OK, so I really didn't expect England to win at Edgbaston, but I did think it was way too early to write the team off. The criticism of Ashley Giles was particularly harsh (does David Houghton really think that he's not showing disrespect for the King of Spain by saying that he's a waste of space?!). It was interesting to see an article by Justin Langer this morning, with the title "Giles is the key to home success". Even I think he may be exaggerating with that one.
I imagine that old Ashley is probably getting pretty excited about the prospect of a raging turner up at Old Trafford, but it seems that the pitch might actually turn out to be hard, fast and bouncy, favouring pace. How good would that be? The Australians will be reinforcing their helmets. Not that I have a bloodlust, you understand, but there's no more thrilling sight in cricket than fast bowling, as far as I'm concerned, and Warne might not take ten wickets, although bounce would favour legspin too, of course.
Following my comments about the respective merits of Botham and Flintoff, it was good to see one journalist (at least) agree with me, complete with stats (Botham's career actually tailed off mmore than I thought it had).
Viv Richards, however, seems to think that Roger Harper and Eldine Baptiste were better bowlers than Shane Warne. Oh dear.
Finally, just in case this linktastic post has given the (very false) impression that my favourite newspapers are the Times and the Telegraph (only the cricket, only online), then here's proof in the Guardian, if further proof were needed, that Ray Illingworth's brain really is made of cheese. I can't really believe that the Test against Pakistan at Headingley in 1971 was quite as amazing as the one we've just seen.

Towards the heart of an impenetrable darkness

"The horror, the horror," whispered Colonel Kurtz. For a while there, I was starting to think that I was about to find out what he felt like, as the runs required slipped away like sand through an hour glass. The England players wouldn't have been the only ones left with mental scars. I started trying to tell myself that it didn't really matter, that really, it's only a game. And then in those last few minutes, as the loss began to seem inevitable, I started to feel a strange sense of calm. Dread was becoming resignation, and meanwhile, desperately, I was trying to hold on to the memory of the last couple of times Australia had been in a similar situation, against England, in Melbourne, 1982, and then again against the West Indies in the early nineties, when the last wickets had fallen, right at the death. Please, I thought, let history it repeat itself.
And what if the ball had made fuller contact with Kasprowicz's glove? And what if the umpire hadn't raised his finger? Best not go there, I reckon. Along that path, madness lies. Look. I can just about make out Colonel Kurtz at the end of it.
It has to be said that Flintoff and Harmison bowled pretty shit this morning. Brett Lee's hands might now look like raw steak, but line and length would surely have induced a mistake or two far earlier. The last two wickets could have been something like caught at slip and LBW, not hit wicket and caught down the leg side by the keeper (and if you'd dropped that one Geraint, even I would have lost faith in you).
And I agree with the press: Flintoff's really was an amazing performance. Is he really the new Botham? No, I don't think so. Botham never bowled at over 90 mph. Botham never hit the ball quite so hard. Botham played a lot against Packer ravaged sides early in his career (for some reason, I always remember Haroon Rashid). The Australians he conquered weren't nearly as good as the current bunch. And let's face it, Botham was a bit of a prick, a show off, a yob, who never really made the most of his extraordinary talent, who never performed against the best team of the time. Flintoff, on the other hand, is like Desperate Dan, or Obelix without the weight problem. He's genuine. He tries bloody hard, I reckon. So far, throughout his career, he's been improving. How much better can he get? I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of room for improvement. Maybe, he could learn how to read Shane Warne, but then maybe he should just carry on belting the crap out of the ball.
For once, thank god for back to back tests, meaning that there are only 3 more days until it all starts up again. Can England put in a repeat performance? Will Australia bounce back? Has a sporting event ever made so much build up seem so justified?
The football starts again next week. I wonder which sport people will be thinking of now when someone mentions Old Trafford.

All hail the King of Spain

No, not him. That's right, "targetted" Ashley Giles bowled 26 of the match's least expensive overs and, while doing so, took 3 vital wickets. Good plan Buchanan. I suggest you try plan B.
Of course, Warne's dismissal of Strauss right at the end was a little like the moment in a horror movie when the demonic character, apparently dead, does something truly horrible, but I'm going to stick my neck right out (mmm... can feel the blade already) and say that things are looking pretty good.
Well, aren't they? I really thought that Gilchrist was going to blast away and score 150, and he might have done, had Jones and Flintoff not blasted away the tail at the other end, swinging the ball like they were Waqar and Wasim. Our bowling attack looked pretty handy, I reckon. For a man who doesn't like hitting batsmen, Harmison seems to do so with amazing regularity. Jones has improved remarkably (check out the lovely straight seam on the slow motion replay) and when did Flintoff develop those inswinging yorkers? Shame about Hoggard, but as for the King of Spain... well, I hope commentators the world over consumed extra large portions of humble pie this evening, no condiments allowed.
Now if Warne could just tread on a ball while warming up tomorrow morning...

Divine Madness

So McGrath injured himself during the warm up. Hard not smile, wasn’t it? I may have even laughed a little. After Lord’s, the thought did cross my mind that England’s best chance of regaining of the Ashes would be to get someone to knobble McGrath and Warne, and if only one then the former. Now he’s done the job himself. Or did he? After mentioning Mr Jardine this morning, I did wonder this afternoon whether the England team might have got out the ouija board at the hotel last night and evoked the wandering, restless spirit of the old enforcer with the Harlequin cap. Was that ball there before McGrath put his foot on it? What was it doing there anyway? Jardine may have devised a radical tactic to combat one member of the Australian team (Bradman), but in the intervening years he probably reached the conclusion that it would have been a hell of a lot easier just to knobble the bastard at the beginning and be done with it.

The incident, I think, also represents justice (of a poetic variety) being served. Over the years numerous England players have suffered injuries both prior to and during Ashes series. Recently, in 2001, we lost Hussain, Thorpe and White (who was actually quite important at the time, having cemented his place in the side as a useful batsman who bowled at over 90 mph). Then in 2003 Gough, Flintoff and Thorpe (again, although not because of a physical injury in this instance) were unavailable. On each occasion the media (both Australian and English, strangely) insisted that injuries were a poor excuse for getting hammered, which was bollocks as far as I was concerned: no team loses three of its more important members without suffering a little. So I hope that the media aren’t going to make allowances because of McGrath’s absence this time.

They should, of course. Without McGrath, Australia’s pace attack looks pretty ordinary. Would any of them get into the England team? I don’t think so. Lee’s record is no better than Hoggard’s, Gillespie isn’t the bowler he was even a couple of years ago and Kasprowicz is just a steady seamer. Apart from missing his bowling ability, his loss will have a psychological impact. Without him (and Warne) the Australian attack was flayed all over the park(s) in Australia by the Indians a couple of years ago. Meanwhile the England batsmen must have felt like the school bully had been expelled. They played like they did. Either that or someone had stirred something into their morning tea. Meanwhile, spare a thought for Ian Bell.

I’m surprised by the suggestion in some parts of the media that 407 might not be a good score. Over 400 is a decent score pretty much anywhere, I reckon, especially after being put in. OK, so we were 290-4, but we were also 180-4 when Flintoff’s first scoring shot just cleared mid off. Had that been caught we would have been luck to make 300. As it is, 407 isn’t bad, not on a pitch like that, which is likely to deteriorate. Batting last on it won’t be too much fun. Of course, the true value of those runs won’t become apparent until tomorrow, after Australia have batted for a while. I hope someone has told Flintoff and Harmison not to bother banging it in.

Ashes in the mouth

There's an article that's just appeared on cricinfo about "the Real Douglas Jardine": http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/213701.html. It sounds like he was a pretty uptight kind of guy. I remember watching that mini series about Bodyline back in the early eighties. The article says old Doug was portrayed as a cross between Bertie Wooster and Hyde. I reckon he came across more like a close relation to Darth Vader, one who had been to public school, unforgiving of both the opposition and his own men, and yeah, very cool. I'm sure that the viewer was supposed to sympathise with the poor Australians, Bradman and all, but Jardine was a great anti-hero.
Clearly Vaughan isn't an ex-public school boy, but he did appear to be trying to adopt a bit of Jardine's aloofness when telling Ponting where to stick his suggestion that players be trusted to be the judges of whether they'd caught a ball cleanly or not. On the first morning at Lord's, it even seemed a bit like Bodyline, with Harmison very satisfying clanging the helmets of each of the Australian's top three. Then I read afterwards a quote in which Harmison said he didn't like hitting batsmen. What would Jardine have done had Harold said such a thing? Threatened to send him back down a coal mine I imagine. Obviously Vaughan doesn't have this option, but perhaps he should sit Harmison down and show him videos of Lillee and Thomson terrorising our lot back in the 70's, and then a few minutes of Merv Hughes trying to do the same in the early 90's (just for some light relief). If that doesn't work then someone should remind him that some of us have had to watch the likes of Neil Foster and Phil Defreitas opening England's bowling for the past 20 odd years. Botham? Medium pacer. Gough? Too short. Let 'em have it, Stephen, knocking their f*cking heads off.

Edgbaston predictions

I'm with Ashley Giles. There's been a whole load of crap written during the last ten or eleven days about how England are useless and they need to change this or that. It was like being in a time warp. I'm sure a lot of journalists just cut and paste large chunks of articles first written in the eighties and nineties. This England team isn't at all bad. It's certainly the best that I've seen since I started watching back in the late seventies. They won a lot of test matches before losing one to Australia, who are possibly the best team ever (although it would have been interesting to see them face up to Marshall and Garner). And that one loss wasn't exactly a humiliation either. It was like a 3-0 scoreline in a football match: sounds like a drubbing but the second and third goals were scored in the last ten minutes. So I'm relieved that the selectors have stuck with the same team (even though they should never have discarded Thorpe, but that's history now) and I'm guessing that their faith may be repaid, a little at least. The atmosphere at Edgbaston will suit England. The pitch may do also. I reckon that Vaughan will score a few, I hope that Bell does and the bowlers must be feeling pretty confident, Giles excepted. So come on, Ash, roll up, twirl, remember bowling Lara at Lord's last year, be our Shane Warne equivalent.
OK, yeah, odds on that Australia will win again, but you never know...

Mentally tough?

I read an article today about how the Australians were thinking that they might go home if there's another terrorist attack in the UK. Are these the same players who came to be so mentally tough, who visited the battlefields of Gallipoli four years ago and those of France earlier this summer in order to gain inspiration from the bravery of their forefathers? Their reaction might be understandable if they had actually been targetted by terrorists, or even if they had to travel on the tube everyday, but they don't, do they, no. Come back, Kim Hughes, all is forgiven.