After all the predictable hyperbole and hogwash of an Ashes build up (myself included) comes the predictable hyperbole and hogwash that follows the first Test. It makes little sense to deny that this trend will continue until after the series reaches its conclusion but it is useful to remember that the only “fact” in Ashes reporting is that the true facts will be trumped up, overanalysed and examined to the point of nonsense as we contemplate what is surely one of the most celebrated draws in sporting history.
Admittedly this analysis is something of a wet fart and two fingers up to a stunning turnabout by Andrew Strauss and his team, ending up with something of a points victory after five days when defeat seemed an almost certain outcome after three.
The captain, Trott and double centurion Cook gave a physical and most notably mental masterclass over the course of the last two days as records tumbled at the Gabba, a ground that England have more often than not left 1-0 down in the series. The pitch was admittedly placid; a batting paradise but anyone who has tried to bat through even fifty overs on a Sunday would have to doff their respective hat to the marathon that took England past 500 at the cost of just one wicket for the first time in history.
It was undoubtedly a body blow to Australia, a side who have for the last six months been dogged by accusations of failure to kill of sides in the manner to which cricket lovers and followers have grown accustomed in recent history. That said, just as the Australian expectation of victory after Hussey and Haddin’s wonderful stand was shown to be vastly flawed, so delighted analysis of England’s fightback should be tempered by a sense of place in the series.
The match provided wonderful moments. Siddle’s birthday hat-trick, Strauss’s lionesque roar upon reaching three figures in the second innings after failing in the first, not to mention the undeniable symmetry of Hussey and Cook’s innings, both producing big scores when questions were raised about their place in the side. Beyond that though, not much has been learned that wasn’t known before.
The basic fact seems to be that without much more helpful conditions that those offered on the last three days in Brisbane, neither side (in their current incarnations) seem to have the ability to take 20 wickets to win the game without relying on batsmen errors. As Swann struggled more than he has at any time in his England career to date on a pitch that admittedly held little for him, their lack of bowling depth was exposed once more. I have no doubt that Swann will get better (he had a similar first Test in Cardiff) and although England will be delighted by Steve Finn’s wicket haul neither he nor anyone else in the bowling lineup can be expected to take six wickets every innings in the hope that the rest can claim the other four.
In spite of this, I expect England to be unchanged for Adelaide. Stability has been been as much a hallmark of the Strauss/Flower reign as intensity and preparation, and with England having gained (at best mental) superiority in the series there is no call for change.
Australia on the other hand have much to contemplate before announcing their line up for Adelaide. With questions over his fitness, the selectors have an excuse to drop the out of form Michael Clarke but they won’t take it. Despite showing a startling lack of fluency for a player so great to watch at his best, and shelling Cook before he had even reached his century, the selectors will be loathe to drop their vice captain and he will surely be given another shot.
The player most under threat is Mitchell Johnson. Although Ben Hillfenhaus also looked largely toothless, he at least showed an ability to stick at the task in hand, remaining under three an over. In contrast, Johnson’s 42 wicketless overs cost over 4 runs each. Although the big hearted bowler is willing to fight, there doesn’t seem to be much fight left in him, as evidenced by his duck, dropped dolly and missed run out. He is a man it is difficult to not like but he didn’t help himself by predicting that he would bounce out Strauss and terrifying the rest with his pace and bounce only to wind up as safe to face as a Swiss army general on leave. The selectors (who themselves are under scrutiny following a recent reshuffle) will know that should they select him and he fail, or worse England take a lead in the series then the decision may be one that haunts them. With this in mind I, like most expect him to miss out in favour Doug Bollinger who has performed with a level of consistency that Johnson has found almost impossible to find over the last year.
The quick turnaround to Adelaide certainly favours England. As the side with the momentum going into the series they have the momentum thus far within it, but if the first Test taught us only one thing it is that the next match, day, delivery will be an arm wrestle, and these two evenly matched will have to fight tooth and nail to secure any victory. Both sides are capable of getting into winning positions. Both have players capable of producing wonderful individual performances. But both sets of players would trade the centuries, the wickets and the records for a 1-0 lead and neither side showed in Brisbane much evidence of having the tools to dominate the only scoreboard that counts. All that the first Test means now is nothing, and rest assured that both captains and coaches will be reminding their charges of that every day before the first ball is bowled in Adelaide.
No comments:
Post a Comment