It’s pretty flat in western Australia, but England can turn most surfaces into a rollercoaster. After soaring yesterday, they slumped today. Perth is a very particular place to bat. Whenever Australia have had a decent attack, it has been a graveyard for English batsmen, because the bounce and carry turns the typical English ploy of propping forward on off stump into catching practice for the cordon.
Some distinguished players have made hardly any Test runs at the WACA. Graham Gooch managed 116 (spread over 17 years), Alec Stewart 120, Mike Atherton 100, Ian Botham 92, Mike Gatting 92, Nasser Hussain 76, Michael Vaughan 43, Marcus Trescothick 38, Keith Fletcher 26. In modern times, only three types of Englishman have consistently been able to cope: left-handers (David Gower 471, Chris Broad 178), extreme technicians (Geoff Boycott 319, Mark Ramprakash 187), and South African exports (Allan Lamb 200, Robin Smith 101 in one match) – men who grew up an ocean away, rather than a whole world. The present England team don’t have any technicians, so today was all about representatives of the other two breeds: Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen.
Strauss has had a weird series – always in form, never in the runs, thanks to a combination of bad hooking and bad luck with decisions. He has made runs almost every time in the warm-ups, as if he was a dead-match bully, which he very definitely isn’t. This is not a man who wilts under pressure, or who worries when he starts a series poorly, as he did in the 2005 Ashes. Today he controlled his temptation to hook, and looked like getting his first major score on Australian soil.
The square drives were pinging through extra cover, which is quite an achievement at the WACA. The mood music was upbeat. He made a quick start, then consolidated, then came out of his shell again. He spanked a cover drive off Stuart Clark, only to fall for the obvious follow-up, the one pushed wider. But he missed it. There was no edge, and he was still given out by Rudi Koertzen, a man whose mode of dismissal is so stylish – a gunslinger’s glare and the left arm coming up in super slo-mo – that he likes to give it plenty of airings.
On past form, England wouldn’t have got many more than Australia’s 244, but Strauss was the man most likely to make a hundred. Pietersen was kept quiet by tight bowling, then by super-defensive fields and the stifling presence of Matthew Hoggard, the deadest deadbat in world cricket. Pietersen showed glimmers of his genius and an ability to adapt, but that does not as yet include the ability to marshal a tail like Steve Waugh or Mike Hussey. He is too much the showman to be a good shepherd.
England lost the first Test because they only had half a bowling attack. Having finally fixed that problem, they now find they only have half a batting line-up. Everybody except Strauss, Pietersen and arguably Collingwood, is at least one place too high. Alastair Cook, as predicted, has become this year’s Ian Bell. At number three, Bell is confirming that he is a gifted number six.
At six and seven, the overstretched Flintoff and the out-of-form Jones have become an awfully soft underbelly. They are fine in those slots when they are at the top of their game, as at Trent Bridge 2005, but that’s a long time ago now. They find themselves so high up because of England’s dogged belief in the fifth bowler, and as one of them is captain and the other is on the management committee, they are partly responsible. So it was cruelly ironic that the man they handed their wickets to, like a couple of Christmas presents, should be Australia’s fifth bowler, Andrew Symonds.
Flintoff, who started the series as the leader of the pack, trying to be captain on the side, is now more of a captain who bowls a bit and bats hardly at all. He hasn’t even held a catch. The widespread assumption has been that if he gets injured, England are sunk. As it is, he has just about stayed fit, and they are sinking fast. If he were to miss a Test, it might not be the worst thing, for him or for them.
Posted by: Richard Woolley at December 15, 2006 12:20 PM
Is Flintoff really that important? England beat Pakistan without him, he hasn't batted well in the Ashes and although he has bowled quite well he hasn't been a matchwinner with the ball.
Maybe he's an overrated cricketer or his ankle is causing him problems?
Posted by: SYED AHSAN ALI at December 15, 2006 2:53 PM
EACH AND EVERY WORD WAS SPOT ON. RUDI KOERTZEN DESERVES MORE FOR HIS FOLLIES,BUT THAT WAS WELL DONE TIM KEEPING IN MIND THE RESPECT FOR ICC ELITE PANEL.
Posted by: greg at December 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Flintoff is important, but only because he is a world class bowler who should add depth to the batting order. The emergence of Panesar has changed everything, but doubts about Flintoff's ankle have led to them gambling on the wrong things. The only gamble that was worth taking (picking him as part of a four man attack has not been contemplated).
Oh and Mark Butcher should have been there. A genuine quality batsman, still with plenty to offer, who would have relished batting on this pitch. The inexperience is England's top order is clear, and players like Butcher are discarded at your peril. Youth and inexperience can be integrated into successful and stable batting line-ups - England have too many people still trying to establish themselves, and only one (Pietersen) who seems to have shown a real willingness and capability to adapt according to conditions and take on board weaknesses and opposition plans.
If the opposition thinks it will get you out driving (Cook) don't! Hooking (Strauss) don't!
Posted by: Peter at December 15, 2006 10:14 PM
Oh, poor Straussy , poor England... a couple of dodgy decisions so far huh? Nothing compared to what the Aussies had to put up with in 2005 - Damien Martyn's were glaring, but there were plenty of others as well. Did Aleem Dar give Warne any lbw decisions in 2005? Or this Test? Couldn't get his finger up quick enough to fire out Ponting and Lee though, both brave decisions that most umpires would have given in favour of the batsman. It's a pattern with Dar that should be looked at - he has an obvious bias against Australia, especially with lbw decisions - going back to the last Ashes, and then again in South Africa earlier this year - brave, and sometimes shocking decisions in favour of the opposition, but refusing to give out batsmen that are plumb when the Aussies are bowling. At least Rudi makes mistakes both ways - he gave McGrath out on the last ball of the over in the first innings, which denied Hussey the chance to belt Pannesar around next over and maybe farm the strike for a while...
Posted by: Paul Clarke at December 15, 2006 10:38 PM
Your summization seems fine, but you aren't really giving the whole picture.
Englands win in 2005 was more about the support bowling and the support batting than it was about the first three in either department.
Simon Jones bowling was absolutely vital in 2005 - his ability to come on and take a wicket or two quickly time-after-time was the reason Australia posted so few big partnerships - yet he was the 4th bowler.
Giles bowled a good containing role, and the Aussies had talked him down so much that they effectively jinxed themselves ("Can't get out to this bloke now we've said how poor he is - better not risk it at all then")
Batting the same - you mention Flintoff and Jones, and they were the reason more than once that England stayed in matches.
Jones is now DEFINATELY Welsh - his name seems to have changed to Jones0 (or so it has been on so many scorecards this tour).
Fletchers folly is to try and copy this formula no-matter-what.
He didn't have the same tools (No Vaughan, no Jones and Giles had not bowling a ball in anger for months)
Add to that the insistence on fielding a second woefully undercooked bowler in Anderson (A skidder - like Jones in an attempt to make the old plan work I think) - well England never stood a chance.
New tools in the box should have meant a new plan, using the best tools available in the best way.
No way has Fletcher done that - and that's his folly.
Posted by: Ron at December 15, 2006 11:08 PM
It's always curious to hear a team bleating about an incorrect decision by the umpire as in Andrew Strauss yet they never mention the plumb LBW not given against Harmison.Harmison's partnership was the best as well !
Posted by: John at December 15, 2006 11:59 PM
England is overrated, Flintoff is overrated and so too Pieterson. The entire set of players today are just wallowing in money and nothing else. Give me a Gavaskar instead of a Tendulkar, a Richards instead of a Lara, a Border instead of a Ponting. None of the so called top three batsman would have survived against Roberts, Holding, Imran, McDermott, Kapil, Botham, Hadlee not to mention some of the great spinners. Its a joke when every test match ends by some captain spouting about it being the greatest test match he played in not to mention cricket sites and magazines talking about the greatest series that has just been played including the "great" (I don't think so or in current AOL language, NOT) Richie Benaud. Money changes everything.
Posted by: Ralph at December 16, 2006 12:41 AM
As you suggest, it is patently obvious that England should not be playing 5 bowlers. Firstly, there is absolutely no case for Jones to be playing ahead of Read. None at all.
Secondly, Flintoff is no longer realistically a matchwinner with the bat - Pieterson has taken over the role of prime aggressor with greater aplomb than Flintoff ever could. That's not to denigrate Flintoff - Pieterson I think will turn out to be one of the absolute batting greats, on a par with say Viv Richards for pure character. But the England selectors need to face up to the fact that Flintoff's role has changed - when fully fit, he is a world-class bowler, pure and simple, and should be treated as such. His batting should be regarded as a bonus, an ideal number 7.
We have talented young batsmen in abundance - if Joyce is the best of the lot, better than Shah and Key, then the selectors should have plenty of confidence in him - stick him in at 6.
Posted by: KevininChina at December 16, 2006 1:27 AM
I can accept that England are getting beat by a much better team in Australia. I accept that selecting a team is often difficult, albeit I find some of England's selections so far "strange". But one of the biggest questions to come out of this Ashes series so far is how a man who has questionable wicketkeeping ability, is at best an average batsmen, is not considered worthy of a central contract and continually gets out to irresponsible shots at crucial moments is put on a so called management committee with some input into team selection.
When the inevitable post mortems begin, we should ask why, if Duncan Fletcher is the autocratic, single minded coach that is claimed, such a clique mentality has been allowed to form within the England camp.
Posted by: Yogesh at December 16, 2006 1:46 AM
Peter
Not to get into a slanging match but thinking that a wrong decision to Strauss is balanced by one for Mcgrarth is a very "Aussie" wasy of looking at things. With neutral umpires, at least nowdays all the Aussies victories are more or less clean. More power to the team then and the supporters should rejoice instead of cribbing.
Posted by: Don at December 16, 2006 2:56 AM
I tend to agree with Peter, Cricket is a game where there is human error with players and umpiring, this year England has got a couple go against them and I'm sure Australia has too, in 2005, Australia (esp Martyn) had some shockers - I'm refering to Martyn smashing the ball into his pads and still being given LBW. Whilst we as supporters get frustrated and annoyed with these decisions we have to live with them. Look in todays paper: Strauss ct Gilchrist b Clark...
Posted by: Hamza at December 16, 2006 7:40 PM
I am sure England would completely be a different side if Simmon Jones and Michael Vaughn were not injured. England really missed the fourth seamer. Anderson and Mahmood couldn't do the same job what Simmon Jones had done in 2005. And then not picking up the Panesar in the first two tests was also a big mistake. Panesar is much better than Giles.
Posted by: DFC at December 18, 2006 12:11 AM
To be honest all you silly poms deserve all you get!
Your lot, JUST won the ashes with EVERYTHING going your way last time. And to whinge about some decisions going the wrong way, well BOO WHO!!
Do you really believe you really had a chance in hell in Australia!? You had buckleys! All the ifs or maybes cant save you lot now. All i read is you lot whingeing about selection and IF your supposely matchwinners had toured it would have been different, yeah right! Please give credit where credit is due, the Aussies are kicking your ass! Fair and square!
Posted by: Nicholas at December 18, 2006 1:35 PM
Enough about this..."oh, I'm sure England would be better if we had Vaughn, Simon Jones, etc", the fact is that we do not live in a world of 'if's.' I'm sure had Glenn McGrath not rolled his ankle in 2005, Australia would have retained the urn, but no one complained about that. The fact remained that England beat Australia, because they played better. It is a two way street, this time around, Australia beat England because Australia played better, much better. It remains obvious that the world champions are still very much the top of the world.
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
