Sport Today

I see England have made a strong bid. Will Australia better it?

How different would the situation have been if that ball off the glove
from Kasper mhad evaded Jones and gone to the boundary?

Quite a bit, but perhaps not at all. Either way, it would have been a
travesty, because England have won many more sessions in this series
than Australia, and look like winning many more.

Nobody could have foressen how far Australia's fortunes were going to
fall, but it seems clear now that Australia is on the brink not just of
an historic defeat but a rout.

Good on you England.

Fran

I'm not sure that I wholly agree with this. It may be that 'that' ball is
the defining moment of the series as, to me, Gough's catch off Caddick to
dismiss Campbell against WI in 2000 defined the moment that England started
their renaissance into a professional team. However, I don't think that we
will be able to assess that until the series is over.

In T1 England came out over-confident, had 2 good sessions and then got
blown away.

In T2 England played much better than Australia and nearly lost the match.

In T3 after 2 days they have won 5 out of 6 sessions and, barring bad
weather, look likely to win the match.

So, we are basically half way through the series, one match each with
England ahead in the third.

However, as a long-suffering England fan, I still wonder if they can sustain
this for the rest of the summer. I have suffered too many disappointments in
the past to celebrate until they have actually won.

I cannot believe that Australia will continue to play as badly as they have
been. When was the last time that they dropped 4 catches in a day and the
opposition punished them? There are too many quality players in their
batting lineup for them all to fail time after time throughout the series.
At some stage they are going to score 400+ and put England under pressure.
Whether England can resist or normal service will resume may be the telling
moment in the series. I'd like to think that, now they've appeared to have
got the jitters (T1) out of their system, England will put up a good fight.

To say that Australia is on the brink of a rout is, I believe, premature.
They are a very good side with two of the premier bowlers of our time in
their side. They could quite easily win both of the last two tests (without
making any presumption as to the result of T3).  I, for one, am refusing to
count any chickens at this stage.

Cheers

Paul

I agree that Aus have been far too tough a side to count out at any
stage of a match or series. That said, not too long ago, we were
wondering whether Aus would ever fail to score 400+. Times have indeed
changed.

Far be it from me to cheer up Australians but I don't think it's that bad.
You haven't lost yet !

There were some fairly odd things about this test ; primarily, as with T1,
the difference between the sides has been the fielding ! England in T1I2
were awful, and Australia in T3I1 similarly ; dropping everything. McGrath
will never return such unrepresentative figures again I would think.

I think though there are tough decisions to be made at some point in this
series. One of the things that has surprised me is how badly the Aussies
have coped with pressure.

Time for Merv to stand up as a selector. Hopefully he will be
forthright in discussions to select teams in upcoming tests.

Failing the loss of 50 overs or more through rain/bad light I reckon
Australia's chances of saving this game are about 20-1.

*If* Australia can avoid the follow on and *if* the rain comes late in
the match then Australia's chances of avoiding going 2-1 down to Trent
Bridge are a little better, as England will probably bat so as to play
for the win with the draw in hand -- aiming to get 470 ahead and
someone like Langer or Martyn might dig in.

Let's see if he recovers from injury first. Had he been fully fit he
might have snaffled that c&b chance from Bell.

Not me. They've been reading their own propaganda and sledging for so
long they've forgotten it was supposed to mess with the opposition --
to be self-fulfilling -- not the truth. Like many in here, they are
assuming what is happening is aberrant, and that any minute, as a
number of posters in here put it "normal services will be resumed" --
and thus playing accordingly. The tone after play is "you have those
sort of days in cricket" as if there's some cosmic prank being played
on them by the cricketing gods.

Ignoring the aberrant is what rational people do when they have a good
plan. Being able to distinguish anomaly from a new pattern and to
respond accordingly, however, is essential in life as in cricket. This
is "normal service" now. It *is* now the case that England can compete
for half or more of a test match (rather than a session or even a day).
If Australia wants to win it must do more with its half and stop
England doing as much with its half, rather than assume it will all
work out because England will self-destruct on cue.

And there's a lot of dead wood in Australia's camp that needs a tidy
up. The odd thing is that they could have used Bevan at his peak out
there yesterday. It would have been perfect for him. He'd have taken
Giles and Jones apart. He's probably having a quiet ironic laugh right
now.

Fran

I think it's really quite astonishing that they risked McGrath, who didn't
bowl that badly, but clearly was not fit.

Australia only really have four bowlers ; the three ***s and Warne,
and one of them is off form by a lot. Playing with three bowlers is a
horrendous risk - which may yet still come back to haunt them.

But I also think it's a commentary on how desperate they are to keep
McWarne going ; I think that's why the comments about "700 for Warne" are
being made. The backup cupboard seems very bare, and with Gillespie out of
form as well ...... who replaces them ?

I think there's some deliberate woofing going on here in us Poms. I find
it difficult to accept that Australia have suddenly started doing England
at their worst impressions ; stupid injuries, weird captaincy decisions,
bowlers unable to hit the cut strip, batting collapses and so on with so
*little* pressure being put on them.

I really struggle to accept that it isn't freakish. Sure, England are a
hell of a lot better than they were even two years ago, and apart from the
one point where T1 really got away from them, have competed, but
man-for-man Australia should still win. Really, I didn't expect England
to win this series (though maybe the next one !) - though McGrath's
puffing was always nonsense.

Is there a possible viewpoint here that it might be good for Australia if
England do win this series, or at least give them an almighty scare ?

I saw this with the West Indies. Time and again Ambrose and Walsh papered
over the cracks in the team and got them competitive, and Lara got runs
(the perfect example is the 2-2 in WI in 1998 (?)) while the rest of the
team did very little. That result in particular was touted as evidence
that things were okay, even though WI got bowled out for 50 and Lara won
the two matches more or less single handed (in the batting department)

Then those two great bowlers retired, and suddenly they couldn't get
anyone out, and Lara couldn't bat at both ends. There was a taster of this
when McWarne were both injured at the end of the last tour of Australia.

Would a series loss actually help this process ? If Australia won, might
that be used to "paper over the cracks" in the team, everything is normal,
the Poms weren't up to much etc.

Do the likes of Hussey need to be given their head before they reach their
mid-30s ? Is Tait going to learn how to be a test bowler if he can't bowl
with the security of McGrath and Warne about ?

There's so many parallels. At the time every County Team had a
West Indian player, usually a quick bowler, nowadays they've all got
Australians :)

Well, yes, except that he'd never have got near them, because Harmison and
Flintoff would have bombarded him as Gough especially did four years ago.

[snip]

I think the first 3 tests have proved that they may need some shaking up,
although I certainly wouldn't go so far as Fran, they need to make 1,
possibly 2 changes and they need to get their heads right and make sure
the practice regimes are right, its all very well to broaden the players
minds as Buchanan has tried to do but perhaps they just need to go back
to basics.  

[snip]

Exactly. It underlines their lack of confidence in the remaining
resources. Had they thought these adequate, they'd have kept McGrath
back and put in someone else, perhaps Bichel or Clarke, or maybe both.
That would have to amount to two hungry bowlers.

Yes and if McGrath now isn't available in the second here and also
perhaps at all at Trent Bridge ... They have the same problem and
they're one test down. At least they'd have had McGrath fully fit for
Trent Bridge and they'd have looked at two other bowlers out of which
they might well find one for a crunch situation. Objectively, their
chances of losing weren't much different, and if they'd have got
something out of it, a look, then they salvage something.

Hubris and blindness ...

Yes. It's still my wish for it to be decided in the last session of the
series.

More later

Fran

SNIP

You are already conceding this one?
I am beginning to wonder whether you aren't a cupboard pom! :-)

Gerrit

No, it was just a shot at the assumption that having McGrath would
ensure an Aussie win. Obviously if they pick him and he breaks down
during the match with the same injury, they are down a bowler and a
fielder and if he's the difference then they are one down.

When I wrote this there was an obvious chance that Australia would
follow on and that there would no be significant loss of playing time
due to rain/bad light. Australia have followed on 28 times, losing 75%
of the time and drawing often with the assistance of the rain the rest
of the time. Now that Australia has avoided the follow on and rain has
taken a substantial section of the playing time and possibly ensured
that batting last won't be as hard as it might have been, there chances
of a disadvantageous draw are pretty good. If Australia can keep
England in the field long enough to pass 320, I think they'll scare
England enough for England to delay their declaration until it's too
late to bowl them out -- meaning that they'll have a 50-50 chance of
getting the draw or, alternatively, they might even get a peep at a
win.

Had they followed on, the chance of a match aggregate of 500 was
realistic (keep in mind that Langer and Clarke are the Aussies premier
contributors so far and Clarke is inconvenienced. Hayden, Ponting,
Gilchrist are all scratchy, and Xavier is a wild card) and then even a
Fanie DeVilliers style performance could not have saved Australia -- it
would have been England by at least seven wickets. And with McGrath
under a cloud, it would have had to have been Lee doing the damage --
there'd have been no chance to swing Warne into the attack and
approximately 20 of the total would have gone behind point off the edge
or over the slip cordon.

No, an out in the open cricket supporter and closet Australian. I'm
hoping for a last session result in the series. For the record, I did
predict iot would be close -- 3-1 or 2-1 to the Aussies with one very
close match which Australia maybe snatched. England snatched it instead
so now 3-2 either way or 2-2 are realistic series prognoses, especially
as the Aussies are playing quite a bit worse than I figured. I'll be
sorry if I don't see a big knock from Gilchrist though. He's a far
better player than he's shown in this series so far.

Fran