Today, for the first time, these two teams looked well-matched. Of course, only one of them is going to win this Test, and England’s batsmen, Ian Bell apart, are open to the charge that they have delivered when it is too late. But they could easily have crumbled again. Four years ago in Brisbane, their second innings amounted to 79 all out.
Instead we saw an intriguing battle, the latest chapter in an age-old duel – England v Shane Warne. Here, as in no other department of their game except Andrew Flintoff’s bowling, England managed to recapture the mood of 2005. In that series, they handed Warne loads of wickets, but refused to let him dominate. For years, Warne and Glenn McGrath had been both attacking and defensive at the same time, adding up to a quadruple whammy for their captains. Under Michael Vaughan, England’s approach said: we can’t stop you taking wickets, so we’re going to make you pay more for them.
Warne went for 3.15 an over last year, the first time he had been above three in an Ashes series. England took 797 runs off him in 252.5 overs, whereas 12 years earlier, in the wonderball series, they scraped only 897 off 439.5, at the ridiculous price of 1.99. Kevin Pietersen fearlessly laid into Warne; Flintoff played block-or-bash; Vaughan showed his usual flair; Andrew Strauss slowly learnt to survive; Geraint Jones managed better than usual against high-class spin. Only Bell and the tail were mesmerised.
In this match, England have again shown Warne a healthy disrespect. Pietersen sashayed down the track to him as if he was Mark Ramprakash on Strictly Come Dancing. Paul Collingwood, far less predictably, took the same route. He perished by it, but not before he had made far more runs than many people thought he was capable of at no.4. We knew he was a scrapper; we didn’t know he could be this fluent on a treacherous pitch.
Warne wasn’t at his best, sending down more bad balls than usual and letting that economy rate nudge up again, to three and a half. But he also showed the qualities of a champion. He nabbed Bell with the wrong'un, a delivery he discusses more often than he actually bowls it. He bagged Cook just the way he used to get Strauss in their first few meetings, with a big leg-break out of the rough. (Whether he will do the same to Strauss again, we’ll never know, if Strauss remains addicted to the hook.) And he lured Flintoff into one of those straight mishits of his which turn mid-off and mid-on into vital catching positions.
England helped themselves to a hundred runs off Warne, and yet he had the nous, the will and the resilience to end up with four wickets. Knowing him, he’ll be looking for a nine-for.
"We knew he was a scrapper; we didn’t know he could be this fluent on a treacherous pitch."
I don't think a pitch that yielded Australia 800+ runs for 10 wickets can hardly be deemed as treacherous. Collingwood did play well though until he put his own personal glory ahead of his teams.
Save for three daft dismissals, England could be going in to the last day with the draw still a distinct possibility.
Posted by: Henry Money at November 26, 2006 6:30 PM
Warne v KP is certainly the main contest as Tony Grieg has pointed out before. If KP dominates Warne and McGrath his actions galvanise the rest of the batsmen.
However I am going to have make my own take on this one and it is Harmson vs Austrailia. I am a huge believer in Harmison and I have always believed that he will fire in this series. For him it is all about how it goes on the day rather like english GCSE! I feel that he will go into the next test with little or no expectation on him and as a result less pressure. I am rarely probe to outburst of emtotion. But I have only one thing to finish with: YOU CAN DO IT HARMY.
Posted by: diablo at November 27, 2006 12:02 AM
Who writes these blogs ? Are you real ?
"Warne got Bell with a wrong 'un " ?
and
"treacherous pitch"
What game are you watching ?
Posted by: marcus at November 27, 2006 12:11 AM
Just a point about Warne- he has started going at 3+ quite regularly. If you look at his figures over the last couple of years this grows apparent. And just watching him yesterday, he was more like MacGill than Warne- making me wonder (again) why they don't play both and bat Gilchrist at 6. As for the Bell ball, IF that was the googly, it's the first one I remember him bowling that actually got a wicket.
Posted by: Peter at November 27, 2006 1:03 AM
Ashley Giles selected for his batting - 23 - Oh Boy! Monty MUST bowl.
Posted by: Josh at November 27, 2006 2:46 AM
Yes the Warne vs England battle has been just as fascinating as ever. I dont think that Pietersen can be given too much credit here- remember he was caught behind off Warne on 43 only to be incorrectly given not out by umpire steve. Warne turned many a ball past Pietersen and if thats the key match up of the Ashes then the Aussies should be confident.
Also Collingwood's innings did surprise me, I am one who has been calling for him to be at least dropped to 5/6 if not out of the side. The 96 was well deserved, however it was not made on a "treacherous pitch" as you have suggested. If we look at this match in hindsight, 3 of the 4 innings have been won by the batsmen. 600* in the first, 1 for 200* in the third and 360 odd in the 4th. Only in the second innings total of 157 did the pitch look "treacherous", and that is owed to McGrath's uncanny ability to hit the cracks...
Posted by: andrew schulz at November 27, 2006 3:30 AM
the whole article is irrelevant, because it really doesn't matter what you do when there is only one possible result. Big deal if you lose by 277 or 477. Collingwood coming in at 2-40 in Adelaide with the ball relatively new is still a terrible option at number 4. Significant thing for me on the last day was: why were Giles and Jones playing so many stupid loose shots (for which they were being raucously applauded by ignorant fans) when there was a very big chance of rain coming by 2.00pm?
Posted by: Brad Young at November 27, 2006 3:33 AM
England will definately need a quality spinner for the Adelaide test, and the bowler closest to warne's calibre in the england side is panesar. ashley giles is pathetic. if fletcher sticks with him then he WILL lose his job as england coach after the series
Posted by: Michael Barker at November 27, 2006 4:47 AM
The pluses for the English were the way Pietersen and Collingwood played Warne. For at least the last 2 yrs, Warne has slowed appreciably through the air giving quick footed batsmen ample time to come down the track and play him on the half volley or on the full. The fact that Collingwood perished this way (obviously the tension of being in the 90's got to him) doesnt in any way detract from this excellent approach to playing Warne. As it was, the bottle blonde spinner was forced to come round the wicket and bowl what amounted to 'leg theory' to negate Pietersen's aggression. Warne remains a threat to England but these two batsmen showed he can be got to and hit, consistenly by batsmen prepared to use their feet. McGrath's dickey ankle is also of some comfort to the English, clearly he will have to be nursed through this series and may not bowl anywhere near the number of overs Ponting would like him to. But the bottom line for the English is how will they get Australia out? Their bowling was woeful, especially Anderson who sprayed it everywhere (an unconscionable crime in my book for someone of his pace) and as for Harmison, England's great 'hope', where to now? His form and confidence are shattered and I see no way back for him. Mahmood will have to be drafted in. England might be able to score runs going forward from here but bowlers win matches. At the end of this series the horrificaly 'slow out of the blocks' start at Brisbane by the English could be the defining moment
Posted by: Dharmesh Bhardwaj at November 27, 2006 8:48 AM
I do not see any hope for England. Flintoff does not have any plan. I agree he is "overrated and overhyped" player of this century but you can not expect a good captancy from him.
We need a captain who can take decisions. unfortunately, Flintoff is no good in doing that. KP, Bell are impressive but what about whole team?
Its high time England MUST stop dreaming about Aheshes and treat all other compitions as important.
Enland's one day team is as good as a high school team and now .....we saw it all in last test match.
Posted by: Sanchit at November 27, 2006 8:53 AM
Warney, the old warhorse is in the thick of things. His 4-wicket haul would have sent the message in the English camp loud and clear - it's a mountain to climb in the 4 tests to follow! KP and Collingwood showed the only way to play Warne but will they and the rest of the guys be able to do it in a pressure cooker scenario is anybody's guess. Come the square-turner of Sydney, dancing down the pitch to the genius would be asking for trouble. By that time, England could well be playing only for pride.
Posted by: Tim de Lisle at November 27, 2006 11:15 AM
Thanks for the posts everyone. A few have homed in on two things I said - that Bell was out to Warne's wrong 'un, and that the pitch was treacherous. I thought I saw that ball to Bell jag in a bit, but it's looking as if I was wrong and it was the slider. By treacherous, I meant that the pitch, by the fourth day, couldn't be trusted. Some deliveries from the seamers were hitting the cracks and deviating like offbreaks. It wasn't a bad pitch, but it wasn't a trustworthy one either.
Post your comment
Tim de Lisle is a former editor of Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack, Wisden.com and Wisden Cricket Monthly, where he won an Editor of the Year award in 1999. He is now a cricket columnist for The Times and Cricinfo. A former feature writer on The Daily Telegraph and arts editor of The Independent on Sunday, he writes about rock music for The Mail on Sunday and was shortlisted for Critic of the Year in the British Press Awards 2005. He plays cricket in the park with his children, bowling mediocre offbreaks.
RSS Feed
