There are many players in this series who have no real counterpart in the opposing team. Geraint Jones doesn’t bear much resemblance to Adam Gilchrist. Kevin Pietersen has little in common with Mike Hussey. And Shane Warne couldn’t easily be mistaken for either of England’s slow left-armers. But there are two players whose career paths have been quite similar: Michael Clarke and Ian Bell.
They’re both boyish, blondish right-handers who know what it is to be the great white hope of their country’s batting. Clarke is the only young cricketer in Australia who has been a regular in the Test team. At 25, he has played 24 Tests, scoring 1324 runs at an average of 40. Bell, a year younger, has played 20 Tests, making 1423 runs at an average of 45, which comes down to 38 if you discount the bonanza he enjoyed against Bangladesh in 2005.
Behind the similar stats lie two different approaches to handling young players, partly dictated by the different stages the two teams have reached. Australia, with a powerful and experienced top order, have kept Clarke out of the deep end. He has never batted in the top three. At four and five, he has done modestly – three fifties in 18 innings and an average of 30. But at six and seven, he has been a star: also in 18 innings, he has three hundreds, two fifties and an average of 52. Tomorrow, he moves up to five again.
For Bell, against Australia, five would be a luxury. He batted at four in the last Ashes and has been at three in this one. In India last winter, he even opened in a Test. His average, like Clarke’s, rises with his position: 13 as an opener, 36 at three, 44 at four (inflated by Bangladesh), 45 at five, 93 at six. Maybe England should drop him down to eight.
Both men have made neat, consistent starts to their one-day international career, averaging in the low forties. But where Bell has 26 caps, Clarke already has 91, so he has far more experience of the pressure-cooker. England are not good at giving their bright young things one-day experience, as Alastair Cook (two caps) is now discovering.
Clarke and Bell have both done well in this series. Bell has come in every time at about 30 for one, and has scores of 50, 0, 60 and 26, which doesn’t sound much but is about twice as good as he was last time. Clarke has come in at 407 for four, 257 for four, and 121 for four, and has yet to fail, making 56, a stealthy 124, and 21 not out. He has shone in all of Australia’s last three wins against England, going back to Lord’s 2005, when he shared an excellent stand with Damien Martyn. Bell has made four Ashes fifties, yet none of them has led to a win.
Clarke is still the baby of the Australian side. They call him Pup and look out for him. During the Adelaide Test, Warne had dinner with him and told him they were going to add 100 together the next day. They did. It must have been like getting an injection of pure confidence.
Bell isn’t England’s youngest player any more – Cook is two years younger. He finds himself in a dressing-room where hardly anyone is old enough to be a father figure. Ashley Giles, perhaps, when fit and not feeling too Eeyorish; Matt Maynard, the batting coach, perhaps. Someone must be doing something right because against Pakistan last summer, Bell was a revelation at number six, adding a touch of Greg Chappell to his familiar Mike Atherton impression. Now, pushed up to three by Marcus Trescothick’s troubles, he has been able to survive but not to dominate. When he faces Warne, it’s like watching a siege.
I made the following point in a post recently, but unfortunately, it was not put up by Tim.
I think the major difference between Australia and England is the way that youngsters are dealt with as they rise through the domestic ranks.
Australia's domestic competition is tough. There is sledging and intimidation aplenty. BOTH forms of the game are contested equally as keenly. The conditions range from mild to freezing in Tasmania, dry windy and boiling in Perth and sticky oppressive humidity in Queensland. In the past this has impacted on the variable bounce, pace and turn of Australian pitches - each with it's own unique trips and traps.
And for good measure, add into the mix a sport frenzied media who bay for your blood if you show even the slightest weakness. Generally not as bad as the Fleet Street crowd, but approaching that same level when the bat and ball are in question.
One might be tempted to then ask the question: if it is so tough, how do the young players manage to make it?
The answer: mentoring from old cricketers who've been there and done it. These are guys who have experienced the attacking form of the game that has developed over the last two decades. This form of the game has been taken up readily in the domestic competition as the older guys (cast offs from "Dad's Army", so to speak) spend out their twilight years. Darren Lehmann is just one I can think of.
This also explains why the national team holds onto its tried and true players even when they are suffering form difficulties. It is because they have already been blooded and do not (and have never been permitted) to hang their heads. One senses at any minute that the next 100 or 5-for is just around the corner.
I do not profess to be an expert on the English domestic competition. However, what I DID see of it was not exactly inspiring. Whether this is because the sport has been on the wane in the UK for so long (until 2005, at least) or because not enough hardness is instilled into the young guys, I could not tell you. But what does remain true to any observer of the game is that there is a massive gulf between each nation's proving grounds.
Fortunately, for England, after 2005 the time is ripe for it to attract more youngsters into the game. Unfortunately, it is probable that the ECB will do little (aside from importing the odd international coach or two) to find ways to strengthen its domestic competition.
I'm not saying emulate Australia. I'm just saying find something that will work for your youngsters to help make them stronger. By the way, I'm not only talking here about physical hardness, but mental toughness, too.
Bell's horrible block and stop game on the last day in Adelaide is an excellent example of where some mental toughness would have played a part. 20 runs from 100 plus balls, while the tail was crumbling, was not good enough. A youngster with some game nouse and a carefully attacking mindset would have sensed that 50 more runs would have put Australia out of the win. Bell didn't see that.
Also, don't fall into the trap of branding as inconsequential your woeful ODI performances. Australia figured out a long time ago that one-dayers provide an excellent pressure cooker environment to test and develop the character of its players. This experience transfers directly into the mindset by which its players approach their test matches. Despite what the purists would have you believe, the two are linked.
Living in Perth and getting ready to spend a leisurely day watching the third test, I really hope that England put up a fight. I fear, however, that they won't...or perhaps, that they can't.
Posted by: matt at December 14, 2006 4:50 PM
Well played England. Just think how the first 2 test s would've gone if they'd stuck with their winning team from the English summer??? But from reading the above comments your still thinking wit h a defeatist attitude. Think posistive!!! Bat positively tomorrow build a lead and its game on. Finally you've got an attack that can take 20 wickets...make the most of it!
Posted by: Jim Preece at December 19, 2006 1:04 AM
The England team were well beaten even before they arrived in Australia - not so much by the talent of the touring players, but more by the way the whole tour has been managed.
Trescothick should have never been included in the first place - bad management decision number one. Harmison homesick? why bring him England were already two down in the series before he showed any sort of form - bad management decision number two. Pick Jones for his batting instead of Reid for his wicketkeeping, gee that really worked - bad management decision number three, Pick Giles for his batting instead of Panesar for his bowling, another gem - bad management decision number four.
Add to this a ridiculous test schedule - first two test only four days apart leaving no time to regroup etc.
Don't get me wrong Australia man-for man is a better team than England and fully deserve the results achieved so far, but in terms of skill it is not that far ahead of England.
Matthew Hayden hasn't been outstanding and apart from one innings neither has Justin Langer. Ponting is in a class of his own as is Mike Hussey and Michael Clark is beginning to fulfill his potential and will only get better. Strauss had a bad rub of the green on more than one occasion, Alistair Cooke is young and looks to have the making of a quality opener and although Ian Bell is dogged and has performed reasonably - I don't believe he's the man for the future. Collingwood is brave, but limited in ability and Pietersen is all class.
In the end Australia has regained the Ashes, because they have the players with ability to perform under pressure, backed up by a management that has a clear view of what is required and the resources to implement its plan.
Posted by: jason organ at December 20, 2006 7:50 AM
The truth about australia's taking back of the ashes rests in three points, two of which have been identified by previous comments.
1. australia has had the mental strength and drive to overcome difficulties, remain focused, and beleive in themselves.
2. the older players have supported the younger, and given the team a performance based security with which the younger players have emulated with success.
3. And this is not mentioned in any other posts. The australian govt. has kept secret technology found from alien spacecraft crash sites and used it to enhance the genes of our senior cricketers for many years now to achieve spectacular results.
Example ....how else does Warney remain fit at his age to play cricket and yet seem to have so many dalliances with women and alcohol? the answer is alien derived technology that grows his hair, with the support of party androids that mimick an idiot but look like him. These androids can party with the chicks whilst warney stays in bed eating beans and looking at his new hair. The offshoot of this new android technology is that, due to the limited time the Aus Govt has had to develop the technology, some of the warney androids have difficulty using mobile phones and understanding how to wear clothes properly.
For England to win back the ashes, it seems certain that the govt needs to look at its own alien technology, or perhaps the top secret experiments with ancient druidic powers, to find a way enhance english cricket.
My personal preference would not be androids, as the press would notice these slip ups like the antics of drunk nurses. Rather an intensive research team dedicated to the understanding of futuristic weapons that can bring Australia to its knees is in order. Then a successful invasion which can reannex australia under the britain wing, will result in the australian team being called the english team. Problem solved and wlcome back the ashes
cheers.
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
