In the build-up to Tuesday's do-or-die fixture at home to Poland, I will be running an England mini-series, looking at the talking points that have haunted the England side's preparations, and looking at their chances going forward. A few weeks ago, I gave my opinion on Greg Dyke's comments that England should be looking to reach the semi-finals of the Euro 2020 competition, and win the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar. This assumes that the groundwork is already in place for England to become a viable winner of trophies, as Spain's 'Golden Age' really began a decade or so previously, with the change of several rules regarding training of youngsters. Using the State of the Game report, as well as evidence from the current England squad and the lower leagues, I will examine just how much creedence can be given to Dyke's claims. I dismissed them a few weeks ago-was I wrong to?
However, I will begin with the stories that have hit the headlines over the last few days, perhaps affecting the run-up to what Hodgson himself has called his most important week in management. Earlier today I wrote about the plight of Joe Hart, one not entirely of his own doing. The reasons that Jack Wilshere has been in the headlines, however, is wholly the Arsenal man's fault. He hasn't had the best of fortnights, with allegations of smoking following a photo of him caught outside a nightclub with a cigarette, prompting widespread criticism, including from his manager. Then this. On Wednesday, Wilshere, in an interview, made his views on England (sort of) clear. He stated that only English people should play for England, making an implicit argument that FIFA's residency rules are wrong. This has led to widespread criticism of his remarks in the footballing world, and many comments (made both seriously and in jest) likening his comments to the racist rhetoric of the English Defence League and the British National Party.
Before we completely condemn Wilshere's comments, we really need to take a more detailed look at exactly what was said and what we can imagine was intended to have been said. Despite the complaints of many, labelling the Englishman a racist, I refuse to believe that was the intended message of his statement. Wilshere's statement of 'just because you've lived in England for 5 years, it doesn't make you English' doesn't help his cause much, as it certainly sounds off, but I think most reasonable people understand the intent behind his words. The idea that the finer points of a nation (being the cultural influences and lifestyle) can be picked up and internalised within 5 years is unlikely, and this is what I think Wilshere is referring to. He himself said that this was not a dig at any individual player (meaning the recent comments over Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj), nor was he saying that those born outside of the country should be instantly considered ineligable. The midfielder explained that the target of his comments were adults that arrived in this country, having been brought up and spent their formative years elsewhere, and therefore have an attachment to another county.
Being a Politics graduate, I hate it when sportsmen dip their toes into political waters, using terms and concepts that they don't wholly understand. The idea of nationality and nation is something far deeper than something you have on your passport, and, in this respect, I understand exactly what Jack Wilshere has said (albeit disastrously from a PR standpoint). Being from a specific country means more than just the specific rules and regulations. It is getting in touch with the nation, rather than the state. This means getting a real feel of English life (queuing, tea, complaining etc.), and really attaching themselves to the culture and heritage of England. In footballing terms, it is like making a transfer and then learning about the past legends and overall history of the club you have joined. However, unlike another club, whose history can generally be learnt in a couple of days, the history and culture of a state and nation is extremely difficult to learn, even more so to take on as your own. However, it could certainly be argued that a significant portion of the English culture is tolerance, with cultures from far and wide encouraged to add to the 'melting pot' style feel of British life. To that extent, I think that Jack Wilshire is wrong with his comments about Britishness, however I do understand the frustration that he feels over adults coming over and claiming to feel the same attachment to a country in five years that Wilshere has had to cultivate over 20. As a child, your formative years are generally when you form your strongest attachments, and begin to get a sense of who you really are. That is why Wilshere later made it clear that he had nothing against those who moved here from an early age, as they have had the experience of growing up in the country and gathering all the necessary national characteristics and feel an attachment to them. Perhaps the Arsenal player was simply attempting to question the FIFA eligibility rules. Nevertheless, a footballer getting involved in immigration policy, philosophy (yes, I do mean you Joey Barton) and politics in general is not advisable.
So does Wilshere have a point? By looking at FIFA's rules regarding eligibility, we can see there there are certainly areas that need tightening up. Whilst there is a rule that states that to play for any country, you must hold a passport from the state that you wish to represent. In order to gain a new nationality, you must either: be born in the country, have a biological mother, father or grandparent born in that country, or have resided in the country since the age of 18 for 5 years continuously. It is the latter that the midfielder was complaining about. I think he has a point. No-one can garner sufficient information of a nation's history and culture in 5 years to be able to strongly identify with it. I think that the rule would be far more accurate and appropriate if we said that anyone wanting to claim a new nationality must have lived in the country for 5 years before the age of 18, or 15 years over the age of 18. That should enable those that truly identify with the country, i.e. those that go through their formative years there, to represent the nation they want, whilst preventing those who simply want to represent a competitive team or, in the case of athletics, get better funding, with no concept of what it is to be 'British'. Wilshere should perhaps have said that the rules need changing-not by seeming to claim that only those that were born here are eligible. 'England for the English' is a headline often seen on BNP propaganda, and not an organisation that Wilshere will want to be associated with, especially if he is genuinely attempting to present a reasoned argument to change FIFA's rules.
However, if he is looking to change the rules, there will be many in this country wanting to oppose him. Now, I am by no means saying that any of the people mentioned do not feel a strong sense of attachment with England, merely that they were born in another country, and have now gone on to become highly successful at their sport. In many sports, England are heavily reliant on individuals that were not born in this country, and perhaps would not even fit the rules as I have suggested them to be. In cricket, both Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were born in South Africa. Both are now considered critical to the success of the batting lineup, and both were integral parts of the successful Ashes winning team this summer. In athletics, poster boy Mo Farah was born in Somalia, and he was one of the British faces of the 2012 Olympic Games last year. In golf, Justin Rose, like cricketers Pietersen and Trott, was born in South Africa. In both rugby forms, there are a multitude of names that are from Australasia and South Africa, with rugby union's Manu Tuilagi arguably the most high profile. Even in football, future talents like Saido Berahino (born in Burundi) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast), who are both widely considered English, were in fact born elsewhere. I dislike the idea that goes around, somewhat cynically, that 'if they are good, they can be English'. It seems too much like glory supporting. Personally, as long as those individuals truly feel like they identify with England, I am happy to have them representing us, however, this identification may be difficult to prove when determining whether someone should receive a passport.
Jack Wilshere's comments were ill-concieved and poorly delivered. He did not say exactly what he intended, and as a result left himself open to wild accusations of racism from the PC brigade and sections of the media, and more reasonable criticism from the majority of the footballing world. That being said, I do understand where he was coming from, as there do appear to be faults with the current residency part of the FIFA rules of eligibility. I have set out what I believe to be better to satisfy both criteria, to allow those that genuinely have a connection with a country from a young age to play for the country to which they have become attached, whilst denying those adults that have no concept of being part of the nation that they compete for. However, when applying any rules over nationality, we run the risk of alienating people who genuinely feel a strong connection to a nation. Therefore, perhaps it is best to have rather broad rules, as I would rather let 10 people who don't care about England represent us than deny a single person who really does identify. On a very basic level, people who value and identify with the shirt that they are playing for will perform to their potential. This will eventually show who cares and who doesn't, and bring the best performers to the top. I think that is how Wilshere should have prefaced his statements.
Analysis of sporting events, talking points and controversies.
Showing posts with label Pietersen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pietersen. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 October 2013
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
The Ashes 2013: 4th Test, Chester-le-Street: Aussies Broad-Sided By Stuart Demolition
Just four days had passed since the end of the 3rd Test at Old Trafford, and still there seemed ample time for bickering and controversy around this Ashes series. The major story broke on an Australian TV channel, which claimed that England batsman Kevin Pietersen was using some form of silicone tape to prevent the thermal imaging part of the Decision Review System (DRS) picking up nicks, thereby stopping Pietersen being given out caught behind. Understandably, the English batsman and his colleagues reacted angrily to these claims, as accusations of cheating are rarely taken in good spirits. Cue several character references from fellow team-mates, including his captain Alastair Cook, who claimed he 'would never do something like this'. This means little to me, as how many times have we heard glowing character references from fellow sportsmen, only to to discover that they were guilty as accused? The debacle involving the spot-fixing with the Pakistan cricket team is a good example of this, as all were defended vehemently, but still convicted. The argument that makes me certain the accusations were untrue, apart from the Australian team's clear lack of outrage, is that putting tape on his bat would not actually help him avoid getting out much. Whilst it would aid him avoiding the caught-behind claims, it would hinder the third umpire in cases of lbw, as the smallest nicks on the bat would should that the decision should be reversed. Unless Pietersen was certain that he was not going to be trapped lbw, which he could not have been, then to put tape on his bat would seem a ridiculous thing to do.
As per usual, not a week goes by where the DRS system isn't questioned or queried. This four day break is no exception. After the dismissal of Usman Khawaja in the first innings of the 3rd Test, where the ball was clearly shown not to have hit his bat, the Australian PM tweeted his disapproval of the decision. The lack of trust of the DRS system has become so bad amongst the players that they are even starting to walk instead of reviewing. A case in point would be Tim Bresnan, who was equally shown to not have hit the ball in replays. However, due to what can only be imagined as a lack of faith in DRS, and its ability to reverse the decision, he opted to walk instead. These incidents led ex-England captain Michael Vaughan to call for the immediate removal of the DRS system, a move supported by many ex-cricketers. I think that any technology in sport is a good thing. Notice that in cricket, the errors are not being made by the technology, they are being made by the human operating it. A more sophisticated, or trusted system is certainly needed to ensure that human error is reduced to a minumum.
Moving onto events in Durham, Day 1 began with England winning the toss and electing to bat. However, after five days of Australian dominance at Old Trafford without reward, the Aussies got off to a similar start in the north east. Joe Root, who has failed with the bat on all but one occasion this tour, fell for 16 as England toiled. Cook and Trott began to anchor the innings, taking them to 107-1 by 2:30. Then, just as it seemed that a half-century was on the horizon, Trott edged Nathan Lyon to Usman Khawaja. The Australian spinner would prove to be a thorn in England's side for the rest of the day. Cook and Pietersen then continued to pile the runs on, taking Cook past 50, only for Pietersen to get himself in and then out, for 26. With England on 149-3, in form Ian Bell came to the crease to partner Cook. At first glance, this appeared a partnership that would take England to a very respectable total. In reality, it last a matter of moments, as an lbw shout on Cook handed Jackson Bird his maiden Test wicket. Bell lasted little longer, chipping a simple delivery to Harris at long on, leaving England with the tail exposed at 155-5. Prior and Bairstow set about their recovery effort, with both needing to find some kind of form. Instead, Prior only managed 17 before perishing to Siddle, whilst Bairstow accrued 14, before an lbw to Lyon got rid of him. Broad went for a duck in the following over, and with England on 197-8, there was a real possibility that they wouldn't make it past 200. Tim Bresnan and Graham Swann began bringing the run rate up, pushing England past the 200 mark, before Swann eventually had to go for 13. The final pairing remained firm until the close, leaving England on a perilous 238-9. Not bad considering they had a middle order collapse, leaving them at 197-8.
England's batting order did not last long on Day 2, with the pair failing to add to their overnight score, and Anderson losing his wicket to Bird in the second over. Australia's response started badly, with David Warner gone early for just 3, before Usman Khawaja swiftly followed for a duck. That brought Michael Clarke to the crease. After a couple of shots to get himself set, it appeared as though England would be in for another tough afternoon. But then we witnessed something that rarely happens: an error from the Australian captain, gifting Broad his wicket for just 6. Australia were rocking at 49-3, but Chris Rogers's innings was the anchor for the Australian team. Gritty and, at times fortunate, the opener remained composed as others lost theirs. Steve Smith had the briefest of cameos before departing for 17, bringing former opener Shane Watson to the crease. This partnership proved to be crucial to the success of the Australian batsmen. As Rogers edged Broad repeatedly, he managed to scramble his half-century, with Watson keeping a positive strike-rate at the other end. At tea, Australia had dragged themselves to a respectable 148-4, and put themselves within striking distance of England's first innings total. The onslaught continued after the break, but both batsmen remained firm, with Watson eveuntually bringing himself to a half-century, and Rogers putting himself on the cusp of three figures. When Watson did go to the bowling of Broad for 68, Australia had managed to get themselves to within 35 of England's total, and with 5 first innings wickets still in hand, they looked well placed to give themselves a good lead. A nice moment followed, with all sides of the ground rising to salute Chris Rogers's maiden Test hundred. His tenacity and determination had prevented the seemingly inevitable collapse of the Australian batsmen, and had led his side to 222-5 at the close of play, just 16 runs behind.
Unfortunately for Australia, Day 3 is where the momentum shifted. Just as England lost a wicket in the second over of the second day, Haddin went to Swann in the second over of the 3rd. An even bigger wicket fell just moments later. With England still leading by 5, Chris Rogers nicked Swann to Matt Prior (after a neat bit of work from the keeper). After such a fantastic innings, it was a shame to see such a soft dismissal. Not that England cared. With the tail now exposed, Siddle, Lyon and Harris all went before lunch, finishing the Australian innings on 270 all out, with a lead of just 32. England's response was once again checked by terrific Australian bowling, with Ryan Harris the key man. After dispensing of Root for just 2 with a stunning delivery, the seamer then got rid of Cook and the dangerous Trott in quick succession. With England on 49-3, a partnership was desperately required if they were to stand any chance. Pietersen and Ian Bell were that partnership, securing the innings and taking England to tea on 123-3, with a lead of 91. The pair stayed firm after the interval, leading Bell to yet another half-century. Pietersen looked set to follow the Warwickshire man to 50, but a poorly played shot to a Lyon delivery left him nicking through to Haddin, bringing an end to the 106 run partnership. The out of sorts Bairstow was next in, and he got off to a positive start, making it to 18 before a bizarre decision. Despite the light looking perfectly fine, the umpires decided that it wouldn't be safe to continue, and took the players off for a farcical 7 minutes. After the restart, Bairstow managed to add a further 10 runs before he perished, but Bell, like Rogers the day before, had to wait until into the evening to secure another century in this Ashes series. This fantastic innings enabled England to get to 234-5, 202 runs ahead. This set the final two days up nicely to be a close contest.
Day 4 proved to be the pivotal one, and ensured that England would not just retain the Ashes, but win the series. It did not start all that well, with overnight hero Bell having to depart for 113, before Prior went the very next ball for a golden duck, leaving Harris on a hat-trick. After defending that delivery, Broad could only make 5, before Harris did for him. Tim Bresnan added valuable runs as England moved past 300, and closed in his own personal half-century. However, he eventually fell just 5 runs short c&b to Lyon, but left England handily placed. Swann added the final few runs before Anderson was bowled by Lyon, meaning that England's innings came to a close on 330, setting Australia a target of 299 to win the 4th Test. In response, Australia started well, with both Warner and Rogers passing 30 comfortably. At 100-0, Australia looked to be in pole position, with Warner past his half-century, and Rogers on the brink. However, on 49, Rogers clipped a Swann delivery off his legs and into the hands of Prior. At tea, Australia seemed firm on 115-1, however few could have predicted the collapse that was to unfold. Even immediately after tea, Australia were adding the necessary runs, getting to 147-1, nearly half-way to their target. Swann then took the wicket of Khawaja, before Bresnan took the big scalp of Warner for 71. This set about an incredible turn of events, with one particular man taking the fore.
That man was seamer Stuart Broad. After an impressive first innings 5-fer, the bowler continued his form into the second innings. He began with the biggest wicket of them all, with a stunning delivery getting rid of the pivotal wicket of Michael Clarke. Next over, Steve Smith pulled back onto his stumps from another outstanding Broad delivery. After Bresnan took the wicket of Watson, Broad polished off the tail with no mercy. After Haddin was trapped lbw for 4, Harris went for 11 for the same reason. At 199-8, it seemed only a matter of when and not if England would reclaim the Ashes, meaning that Broad could bring up an incredible 10 wicket haul. He even managed to better that, taking the wickets of both Lyon and Siddle, to finish off the Test with a career-best 11 wickets, and sending the Chester-le-Street crowd into delirium.
This Australian collapse will also worry coach Darren Lehmann, and the entirety of the population down under. With the return Ashes series just a matter of months away, there will be much work for the Aussie staff and players to do if they are to stand a chance of reclaiming the urn on home soil. For me, I think that the Australian years of dominance are emphatically over, and though I do not expect a 5-0 victory down under like many commentators, I full expect the England side to retain, at least, the Ashes when they make that long journey this winter.
As per usual, not a week goes by where the DRS system isn't questioned or queried. This four day break is no exception. After the dismissal of Usman Khawaja in the first innings of the 3rd Test, where the ball was clearly shown not to have hit his bat, the Australian PM tweeted his disapproval of the decision. The lack of trust of the DRS system has become so bad amongst the players that they are even starting to walk instead of reviewing. A case in point would be Tim Bresnan, who was equally shown to not have hit the ball in replays. However, due to what can only be imagined as a lack of faith in DRS, and its ability to reverse the decision, he opted to walk instead. These incidents led ex-England captain Michael Vaughan to call for the immediate removal of the DRS system, a move supported by many ex-cricketers. I think that any technology in sport is a good thing. Notice that in cricket, the errors are not being made by the technology, they are being made by the human operating it. A more sophisticated, or trusted system is certainly needed to ensure that human error is reduced to a minumum.
Moving onto events in Durham, Day 1 began with England winning the toss and electing to bat. However, after five days of Australian dominance at Old Trafford without reward, the Aussies got off to a similar start in the north east. Joe Root, who has failed with the bat on all but one occasion this tour, fell for 16 as England toiled. Cook and Trott began to anchor the innings, taking them to 107-1 by 2:30. Then, just as it seemed that a half-century was on the horizon, Trott edged Nathan Lyon to Usman Khawaja. The Australian spinner would prove to be a thorn in England's side for the rest of the day. Cook and Pietersen then continued to pile the runs on, taking Cook past 50, only for Pietersen to get himself in and then out, for 26. With England on 149-3, in form Ian Bell came to the crease to partner Cook. At first glance, this appeared a partnership that would take England to a very respectable total. In reality, it last a matter of moments, as an lbw shout on Cook handed Jackson Bird his maiden Test wicket. Bell lasted little longer, chipping a simple delivery to Harris at long on, leaving England with the tail exposed at 155-5. Prior and Bairstow set about their recovery effort, with both needing to find some kind of form. Instead, Prior only managed 17 before perishing to Siddle, whilst Bairstow accrued 14, before an lbw to Lyon got rid of him. Broad went for a duck in the following over, and with England on 197-8, there was a real possibility that they wouldn't make it past 200. Tim Bresnan and Graham Swann began bringing the run rate up, pushing England past the 200 mark, before Swann eventually had to go for 13. The final pairing remained firm until the close, leaving England on a perilous 238-9. Not bad considering they had a middle order collapse, leaving them at 197-8.
England's batting order did not last long on Day 2, with the pair failing to add to their overnight score, and Anderson losing his wicket to Bird in the second over. Australia's response started badly, with David Warner gone early for just 3, before Usman Khawaja swiftly followed for a duck. That brought Michael Clarke to the crease. After a couple of shots to get himself set, it appeared as though England would be in for another tough afternoon. But then we witnessed something that rarely happens: an error from the Australian captain, gifting Broad his wicket for just 6. Australia were rocking at 49-3, but Chris Rogers's innings was the anchor for the Australian team. Gritty and, at times fortunate, the opener remained composed as others lost theirs. Steve Smith had the briefest of cameos before departing for 17, bringing former opener Shane Watson to the crease. This partnership proved to be crucial to the success of the Australian batsmen. As Rogers edged Broad repeatedly, he managed to scramble his half-century, with Watson keeping a positive strike-rate at the other end. At tea, Australia had dragged themselves to a respectable 148-4, and put themselves within striking distance of England's first innings total. The onslaught continued after the break, but both batsmen remained firm, with Watson eveuntually bringing himself to a half-century, and Rogers putting himself on the cusp of three figures. When Watson did go to the bowling of Broad for 68, Australia had managed to get themselves to within 35 of England's total, and with 5 first innings wickets still in hand, they looked well placed to give themselves a good lead. A nice moment followed, with all sides of the ground rising to salute Chris Rogers's maiden Test hundred. His tenacity and determination had prevented the seemingly inevitable collapse of the Australian batsmen, and had led his side to 222-5 at the close of play, just 16 runs behind.
Unfortunately for Australia, Day 3 is where the momentum shifted. Just as England lost a wicket in the second over of the second day, Haddin went to Swann in the second over of the 3rd. An even bigger wicket fell just moments later. With England still leading by 5, Chris Rogers nicked Swann to Matt Prior (after a neat bit of work from the keeper). After such a fantastic innings, it was a shame to see such a soft dismissal. Not that England cared. With the tail now exposed, Siddle, Lyon and Harris all went before lunch, finishing the Australian innings on 270 all out, with a lead of just 32. England's response was once again checked by terrific Australian bowling, with Ryan Harris the key man. After dispensing of Root for just 2 with a stunning delivery, the seamer then got rid of Cook and the dangerous Trott in quick succession. With England on 49-3, a partnership was desperately required if they were to stand any chance. Pietersen and Ian Bell were that partnership, securing the innings and taking England to tea on 123-3, with a lead of 91. The pair stayed firm after the interval, leading Bell to yet another half-century. Pietersen looked set to follow the Warwickshire man to 50, but a poorly played shot to a Lyon delivery left him nicking through to Haddin, bringing an end to the 106 run partnership. The out of sorts Bairstow was next in, and he got off to a positive start, making it to 18 before a bizarre decision. Despite the light looking perfectly fine, the umpires decided that it wouldn't be safe to continue, and took the players off for a farcical 7 minutes. After the restart, Bairstow managed to add a further 10 runs before he perished, but Bell, like Rogers the day before, had to wait until into the evening to secure another century in this Ashes series. This fantastic innings enabled England to get to 234-5, 202 runs ahead. This set the final two days up nicely to be a close contest.
Day 4 proved to be the pivotal one, and ensured that England would not just retain the Ashes, but win the series. It did not start all that well, with overnight hero Bell having to depart for 113, before Prior went the very next ball for a golden duck, leaving Harris on a hat-trick. After defending that delivery, Broad could only make 5, before Harris did for him. Tim Bresnan added valuable runs as England moved past 300, and closed in his own personal half-century. However, he eventually fell just 5 runs short c&b to Lyon, but left England handily placed. Swann added the final few runs before Anderson was bowled by Lyon, meaning that England's innings came to a close on 330, setting Australia a target of 299 to win the 4th Test. In response, Australia started well, with both Warner and Rogers passing 30 comfortably. At 100-0, Australia looked to be in pole position, with Warner past his half-century, and Rogers on the brink. However, on 49, Rogers clipped a Swann delivery off his legs and into the hands of Prior. At tea, Australia seemed firm on 115-1, however few could have predicted the collapse that was to unfold. Even immediately after tea, Australia were adding the necessary runs, getting to 147-1, nearly half-way to their target. Swann then took the wicket of Khawaja, before Bresnan took the big scalp of Warner for 71. This set about an incredible turn of events, with one particular man taking the fore.
That man was seamer Stuart Broad. After an impressive first innings 5-fer, the bowler continued his form into the second innings. He began with the biggest wicket of them all, with a stunning delivery getting rid of the pivotal wicket of Michael Clarke. Next over, Steve Smith pulled back onto his stumps from another outstanding Broad delivery. After Bresnan took the wicket of Watson, Broad polished off the tail with no mercy. After Haddin was trapped lbw for 4, Harris went for 11 for the same reason. At 199-8, it seemed only a matter of when and not if England would reclaim the Ashes, meaning that Broad could bring up an incredible 10 wicket haul. He even managed to better that, taking the wickets of both Lyon and Siddle, to finish off the Test with a career-best 11 wickets, and sending the Chester-le-Street crowd into delirium.
This Australian collapse will also worry coach Darren Lehmann, and the entirety of the population down under. With the return Ashes series just a matter of months away, there will be much work for the Aussie staff and players to do if they are to stand a chance of reclaiming the urn on home soil. For me, I think that the Australian years of dominance are emphatically over, and though I do not expect a 5-0 victory down under like many commentators, I full expect the England side to retain, at least, the Ashes when they make that long journey this winter.
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
The Ashes 2013: 3rd Test, Emirates Old Trafford: Rain Retains Ashes
Typical Manchester. Hailing from the city myself, I am all too aware of the daily potential for rain, with the weekly forecast rarely completely absent of the dark clouds and two drop symbols. However, after the recent heatwave, my hopes were initially high that we would see a result at Old Trafford, with a full 5 days play looking on the cards. After the result at Lord's, it appeared as though five days would not even be necessary, with the English rampant, and looking to wrap up a series win, pushing on to achieve a home whitewash. Once again though, this rollercoaster of a series threw up another surprise, with the rain eventually coming to the aid of the home side, ensuring that England retained the Ashes.
Day 1 began brightly, with the Australians winning their first toss, and electing to bat. This appeared to be an important moment, as the pitch seemed perfect for batting, and was only likely to worsen over the course of the Test. Chris Rogers and Shane Watson set about the English bowlers in the early overs, with Rogers looking particularly impressive. As has been the case recently, Watson got in, and then got out, managing just 19. At 76-1, Australia had got off to a good start. However, a moment of enormous controversy followed soon after. Having defended well since coming to the crease, Usman Khawaja was given out caught behind off the bowling of Swann. The batsman instantly reviewed the decision, standing his ground. As the TV began relaying the pictures, it became more and more obvious that Khawaja had not touched the ball. No mark on Hotspot, the thermal imaging used, no sound as the ball passed the bat, and even more convincingly, clear daylight between the bat and the ball. Despite this overwhelming evidence, unbelievably the decision was upheld, and Khawaja had to walk for 1. This drew criticism from fans, pundits, and even the Australian Prime Minister on Twitter, calling it 'one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever witnessed'. As captain Michael Clarke came to the crease, there was a sense of injustice amongst the Aussie ranks. This propelled Rogers and Clarke to put a good partnership together, before the opener eventually fell for 84, leaving Australia on 129-3. However, if England thought they had created a good platform for themselves, they were wrong. In a stand lasting the rest of the day (a full four hours), Clarke and Steve Smith put on a further 174 runs, leaving Australia at 303-3 at the close, with Clarke on an unbeaten 125, swinging the balance Australia's way.
Day 2 started in the same vein as the first, with Australia, and mostly Clarke, on top. Quickly bringing up his 150, the Aussie captain, aided by Smith, pressed on to put the Australians in a commanding position. With a century seemingly guaranteed, Smith was also beginning to play with increased freedom. However, this freedom eventually came back to bite him, as he played a loose shot to a Swann delivery on 89, putting Australia on 343-4. After such a fantastic innings, the 24 year old will be bitterly disappointed he couldn't manage his first Test century. Further misfortune for Smith was that David Warner was the next man in. This meant that rather than the rapturous applause he deserved, the pitch was alive to the sound of boos in the direction of the new man. After his 'unprovoked attack' on England batsman Joe Root, it was unlikely to be any different! His panto villain cameo was appropriately brief, with the Aussie being caught at slip by Trott on just 5. This brought about the largest cheer of the day from the English fans, who up until then had had precious little to cheer about. Brad Haddin's solid start led the Australians to 392-5 at lunch, putting them in a commanding position for the rest of the Test, and, with reports of poor weather on the horizon, leaving Clarke with a dilemma of whether to declare. Clarke's mammoth innings came to an end roughly a day after it started, playing onto his stumps to give Stuart Broad his 200th Test wicket. A fantastic knock from the captain, who Australia are often too reliant on for success. When Siddle fell just a couple of overs later, it looked as though the tail would be mopped up fairly easily. But an 8th wicket stand between Haddin and Mitchell Starc saw the Australians past 500, and handing the pair half-centuries. At 527-7, Clarke declared, decided that this would be sufficient to get the 20 wickets required. The next 40 overs seemed to prove him right, as England started poorly. After captain Cook got off to a positive start, Joe Root fell cheaply to Siddle for 8. Tim Bresnan was then sent out as night-watchman, only to perish for 1, leaving England in real trouble at 52-2 at the close, and in desperate need of a large score.
After two days of Australian dominance, Day 3 needed to be the day that England fought back. And when Trott fell to Harris for just 5, it looked as though England were in deep trouble. However, in came Kevin Pietersen. With the new spinner Nathan Lyon not performing as well as expected, Cook closed in on his half-century. However, similarly to Steve Smith, after looking good for a century, he fell, managing just 64. This put England on 110-4, still needing 218 to avoid the follow-on. Just like Australia, the middle-order then proved vital. Pietersen and the in-form Ian Bell then took England away from trouble, and towards that follow-on target. When Bell lost his wicket to a fantastic delivery from Harris for 60, England were looking altogether more secure on 225-5. Pietersen quickly brought up his maiden Test century at Old Trafford, playing some expansive cricket, and victimising the spinner Lyon. Jonny Bairstow had a brief cameo, making 22 before he fell to Starc. Pietersen went to the same bowler a couple of overs later, after an lbw review failed. With England at 280-7, they could ill-afford a collapse. Fortunately for England, Prior and Broad steadied the ship, taking England to 294-7 at the close, needing 34 to avoid the follow-on.
England's objectives for Day 4 would have been as follows: 1) avoid the follow-on 2) set a respectable target 3) attempt to skittle the Australians out in their second innings and 4) do several rain dances throughout the day. Number 1 was achieved fairly comfortably, with the capable Broad and Prior batting well to take England towards 350. Broad fell for a well-played 32, with Lyon finally taking his first wicket, after a miserable day the day before. Swann came in and went out very quickly, scoring a run a ball for his 11. A period of frustration for the Australians followed, as the English batsman attempted to while away overs and time. With the impending rain, the Australians knew that every over was crucial, and therefore getting the final wicket quickly was critical. The wicket of Prior eventually fell an hour and a half into the first session, leaving the Aussies to rush off and get themselves ready to bat. Treating the rest of the Test as a one-day game, the Australians set off at a decent pace, with Warner and Rogers opening. Rogers quickly fell for 12, but the scoring continued at a good rate with the partnership of Warner and Khawaja. When Warner perished on 41, who was there to take the catch? Joe Root, who else! Khawaja followed quickly, leaving the Australians at 99-3, with a lead of 258. Just four runs later, Watson had to make the walk back to the pavilion, having made a valuable 19 for his team. The last thing England would have wanted to have seen was Steve Smith striding out to meet Michael Clarke at the crease after the events of Day 1. However, a gift of a run-out managed to keep the run count down (lead at 300), and got rid of the dangerous Smith. Haddin and Starc both followed before tea, leaving the score at 172-7, with an Australian lead of 331. Another moment of controversy came soon after, as the players were taken off for bad light. Cue furious protests from the Australian players, spearheaded by Clarke, who recognised just how crucial this time may be. This proved even more critical as the rain prevented any further play after tea, and, with little signs of improvement for Day 5, it seemed as though the Aussies would run out of time and overs.
This proved to be the case in Day 5. After the decision by Clarke to declare at their overnight total of 172-7, with a lead of 331 to defend, England got off to a terrible start. Cook, who has looked fairly consistent throughout this series, went for a duck. Things went from bad to worse, as both Trott and Pietersen lost their wickets, leaving England in trouble at 27-3. Cue torrential Mancunian rain, which lasted for the rest of the day, eliminating any chance of the Australians winning the Ashes. This meant that only 20.3 overs were bowled in the day, but that did not prevent fans staying in the ground to chant their approval at the result.
As I mentioned in my last post, I wanted to see a little more fight from the Australians, particularly with the bat. I am pleased to say that the next two Tests look as though they will be highly competitive, with all three results realistically possible. No 5-0 whitewash for England, nor an Australian Ashes win is possible, but pride is still to play for, and I think that (provided the rain stays away), we are still in for an interesting couple of weeks of cricket.
Day 1 began brightly, with the Australians winning their first toss, and electing to bat. This appeared to be an important moment, as the pitch seemed perfect for batting, and was only likely to worsen over the course of the Test. Chris Rogers and Shane Watson set about the English bowlers in the early overs, with Rogers looking particularly impressive. As has been the case recently, Watson got in, and then got out, managing just 19. At 76-1, Australia had got off to a good start. However, a moment of enormous controversy followed soon after. Having defended well since coming to the crease, Usman Khawaja was given out caught behind off the bowling of Swann. The batsman instantly reviewed the decision, standing his ground. As the TV began relaying the pictures, it became more and more obvious that Khawaja had not touched the ball. No mark on Hotspot, the thermal imaging used, no sound as the ball passed the bat, and even more convincingly, clear daylight between the bat and the ball. Despite this overwhelming evidence, unbelievably the decision was upheld, and Khawaja had to walk for 1. This drew criticism from fans, pundits, and even the Australian Prime Minister on Twitter, calling it 'one of the worst cricket umpiring decisions I have ever witnessed'. As captain Michael Clarke came to the crease, there was a sense of injustice amongst the Aussie ranks. This propelled Rogers and Clarke to put a good partnership together, before the opener eventually fell for 84, leaving Australia on 129-3. However, if England thought they had created a good platform for themselves, they were wrong. In a stand lasting the rest of the day (a full four hours), Clarke and Steve Smith put on a further 174 runs, leaving Australia at 303-3 at the close, with Clarke on an unbeaten 125, swinging the balance Australia's way.
Day 2 started in the same vein as the first, with Australia, and mostly Clarke, on top. Quickly bringing up his 150, the Aussie captain, aided by Smith, pressed on to put the Australians in a commanding position. With a century seemingly guaranteed, Smith was also beginning to play with increased freedom. However, this freedom eventually came back to bite him, as he played a loose shot to a Swann delivery on 89, putting Australia on 343-4. After such a fantastic innings, the 24 year old will be bitterly disappointed he couldn't manage his first Test century. Further misfortune for Smith was that David Warner was the next man in. This meant that rather than the rapturous applause he deserved, the pitch was alive to the sound of boos in the direction of the new man. After his 'unprovoked attack' on England batsman Joe Root, it was unlikely to be any different! His panto villain cameo was appropriately brief, with the Aussie being caught at slip by Trott on just 5. This brought about the largest cheer of the day from the English fans, who up until then had had precious little to cheer about. Brad Haddin's solid start led the Australians to 392-5 at lunch, putting them in a commanding position for the rest of the Test, and, with reports of poor weather on the horizon, leaving Clarke with a dilemma of whether to declare. Clarke's mammoth innings came to an end roughly a day after it started, playing onto his stumps to give Stuart Broad his 200th Test wicket. A fantastic knock from the captain, who Australia are often too reliant on for success. When Siddle fell just a couple of overs later, it looked as though the tail would be mopped up fairly easily. But an 8th wicket stand between Haddin and Mitchell Starc saw the Australians past 500, and handing the pair half-centuries. At 527-7, Clarke declared, decided that this would be sufficient to get the 20 wickets required. The next 40 overs seemed to prove him right, as England started poorly. After captain Cook got off to a positive start, Joe Root fell cheaply to Siddle for 8. Tim Bresnan was then sent out as night-watchman, only to perish for 1, leaving England in real trouble at 52-2 at the close, and in desperate need of a large score.
After two days of Australian dominance, Day 3 needed to be the day that England fought back. And when Trott fell to Harris for just 5, it looked as though England were in deep trouble. However, in came Kevin Pietersen. With the new spinner Nathan Lyon not performing as well as expected, Cook closed in on his half-century. However, similarly to Steve Smith, after looking good for a century, he fell, managing just 64. This put England on 110-4, still needing 218 to avoid the follow-on. Just like Australia, the middle-order then proved vital. Pietersen and the in-form Ian Bell then took England away from trouble, and towards that follow-on target. When Bell lost his wicket to a fantastic delivery from Harris for 60, England were looking altogether more secure on 225-5. Pietersen quickly brought up his maiden Test century at Old Trafford, playing some expansive cricket, and victimising the spinner Lyon. Jonny Bairstow had a brief cameo, making 22 before he fell to Starc. Pietersen went to the same bowler a couple of overs later, after an lbw review failed. With England at 280-7, they could ill-afford a collapse. Fortunately for England, Prior and Broad steadied the ship, taking England to 294-7 at the close, needing 34 to avoid the follow-on.
England's objectives for Day 4 would have been as follows: 1) avoid the follow-on 2) set a respectable target 3) attempt to skittle the Australians out in their second innings and 4) do several rain dances throughout the day. Number 1 was achieved fairly comfortably, with the capable Broad and Prior batting well to take England towards 350. Broad fell for a well-played 32, with Lyon finally taking his first wicket, after a miserable day the day before. Swann came in and went out very quickly, scoring a run a ball for his 11. A period of frustration for the Australians followed, as the English batsman attempted to while away overs and time. With the impending rain, the Australians knew that every over was crucial, and therefore getting the final wicket quickly was critical. The wicket of Prior eventually fell an hour and a half into the first session, leaving the Aussies to rush off and get themselves ready to bat. Treating the rest of the Test as a one-day game, the Australians set off at a decent pace, with Warner and Rogers opening. Rogers quickly fell for 12, but the scoring continued at a good rate with the partnership of Warner and Khawaja. When Warner perished on 41, who was there to take the catch? Joe Root, who else! Khawaja followed quickly, leaving the Australians at 99-3, with a lead of 258. Just four runs later, Watson had to make the walk back to the pavilion, having made a valuable 19 for his team. The last thing England would have wanted to have seen was Steve Smith striding out to meet Michael Clarke at the crease after the events of Day 1. However, a gift of a run-out managed to keep the run count down (lead at 300), and got rid of the dangerous Smith. Haddin and Starc both followed before tea, leaving the score at 172-7, with an Australian lead of 331. Another moment of controversy came soon after, as the players were taken off for bad light. Cue furious protests from the Australian players, spearheaded by Clarke, who recognised just how crucial this time may be. This proved even more critical as the rain prevented any further play after tea, and, with little signs of improvement for Day 5, it seemed as though the Aussies would run out of time and overs.
This proved to be the case in Day 5. After the decision by Clarke to declare at their overnight total of 172-7, with a lead of 331 to defend, England got off to a terrible start. Cook, who has looked fairly consistent throughout this series, went for a duck. Things went from bad to worse, as both Trott and Pietersen lost their wickets, leaving England in trouble at 27-3. Cue torrential Mancunian rain, which lasted for the rest of the day, eliminating any chance of the Australians winning the Ashes. This meant that only 20.3 overs were bowled in the day, but that did not prevent fans staying in the ground to chant their approval at the result.
As I mentioned in my last post, I wanted to see a little more fight from the Australians, particularly with the bat. I am pleased to say that the next two Tests look as though they will be highly competitive, with all three results realistically possible. No 5-0 whitewash for England, nor an Australian Ashes win is possible, but pride is still to play for, and I think that (provided the rain stays away), we are still in for an interesting couple of weeks of cricket.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
The Ashes 2013: England Expects?
In my relatively short cricket experience, I have never before seen an Ashes series where the weight of expectation is so on the English. In the run-up to this summer, all the talk has been the extent of an English victory. All previous Ashes series that I remember has had an air of hope rather than expectation, where a Warne and McGrath-inspired Australia ripped through the English batting in the 90s and early 2000s. More recently, the English record against their great cricketing rivals has improved dramatically, with home victories in 2005 and 2009, before an historic series win in Australia in 2010/2011. These recent victories, and the depletion of the great Australian team of the 90s, has led the press and the public to conclude that, for the first time in my recollection, the English side are the overwhelming favourites going into the test series. This blog post will investigate why this is the case, and outlining who will be the ones to watch in this summer's series.
The first question I would have to ask when considering why people consider England the favourites is: does English cricket suffer from the same over-exaggeration as ails many other sports? For example, before every football World Cup, we recieve a barrage of (tabloid) press coverage stating that England are certainties to win the competition. Optimism bordering on stupidity. As with most competitions in my memory, England progress out of the group, before perishing on penalties in the second round or quarter finals to the likes of Portugal or Argentina. In terms of cricket, the more recent successes, in both the Test format, (Number 1 in the world for a while last year) and the shorter forms (T20 World Cup victors in 2010) suggest that the English cricket side are one of the top teams in the world, and as such should be considered favourites in many of the test series they contest. In terms of the Ashes, whilst predictions such as Sir Ian Botham's 10-0 guess in the next two series may be a touch ridiculous, there is certainly no reason why the English side cannot retain the Ashes on both home and foreign soil. As a result, at first glance, whilst we may naturally be biased, and thus over-exaggerate slightly, it is certainly not to the extent that we see with football.
Momentum plays a significant role in all types of sport, and often can indicate the favourites for an event. Cricket is no different. Whilst England have had a relatively serene run-up to this Ashes test, with the controversy over the dropped (and slightly bitter) Nick Compton being the only newsworthy piece to come out of the English dressing room, the Australians have had a rather turbulent last couple of months. The major controversy of the build-up to the Ashes series featured star batsman David Warner. In what was described as an 'unprovoked physical attack' on English batsman Joe Root after a drunken night, Warner put his place in the Ashes side in doubt, and threatened to derail the Australian warm-up to the test series. He has since been confirmed as part of the Australian team to take part in the tour, but one can't help but wonder whether that will cause rifts in the dressing room. I know that I certainly wouldn't be happy to know that a friend of mine had not been given a place over a team-mate who has committed assault! Any cracks in the armour of the Australians will be exploited to the full by the English, and as a result the 'favourites' tag may be justified.
Another bizarre decision by the Australians occurred just weeks before the beginning of the Ashes. The removal of head coach Mickey Arthur, replacing him with Darren Lehmann, will do little but destabilise the Australian side, especially as the Aussies will take a while to change their regimes to fit the new man. To compare this to another sport, this is like a football owner removing their manager a week before the Champions League final and expecting his team to play to their optimum capacity despite this. It is always an unrealistic expectation, handing the English further inertia and momentum going into the opening test in Nottingham.
If we look at the two teams, we can see further evidence of why England are considered the favourites. The Australian bowling attack promises much, with the dangerous Peter Siddle spearheading the swing bowling. With promising, but inexperienced Ashes bowlers in Pattinson and Starc, we can certainly see how the Aussies can take wickets. The 'mystery' bowler Ashton Agar, making his Ashes debut at the tender age of 19, will either prove to be a master stroke by Michael Clarke, or one that England will take full advantage of. Certainly, the Australians will miss Mitchell Johnson, who would have made a considerable difference to their attack. In terms of batting, once again we see much inexperience in the top order. Whilst opener Shane Watson is well recognised as a top batsman, and Michael Clarke will star further down the order, the rest have been shown to be inconsistent in warm-up matches, and this will undoubtedly be exploited by the English bowlers. Should David Warner make a significant appearance, he will play a vital role in anchoring the Australian innings, being a dependable number 3 or 4. With this team, the Australians are more looking to build for the future than relying on now. Gone are the big names like Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee and McGrath, leaving the Aussies with gaping holes in their team sheet. This has seen a series whitewash at the hands of India, and could see them toil in England.
Looking at England, we see many of the established names that we have become so accustomed to over the last few series. We have not suffered quite as much as the Australians in terms of retirements, and as such can still boast names like Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Trott, Swann and Anderson. This gives us an undoubted advantage over the Aussies, and with relatively established youngers like Broad able to help the likes of Finn and debutants Bairstow and Root, the English side seems to be far more cohesive than their Australian counterparts. The bowling attack looks particularly damaging, with Anderson, Broad and Swann all capable of taking wickets at will. Finn too looks a prospect, and will benefit massively from the experience of the next few weeks. In terms of batting, England have a good attack, but we have seen that when one wicket falls, we often find it difficult to prevent a collapse. Batsman like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior will look to anchor the innings, allowing the more flair players like Pietersen and Root to play their shots and make quick runs.
Most of the initial analysis has been proven to be in operation when looking at the opening day at Trent Bridge. Whilst the Australian bowling attack has looked threatening, with Peter Siddle the pick of the Aussie bowlers (taking a five-fer), the more inexperienced bowlers have looked good but inconsistent. The English batting once again suffered from a tail collapse, going from 213-6 to 215 all out in double quick time. The batting collapse continued into the Australian innings, with both Watson and Clarke falling cheaply before the close, leaving the Aussie innings perilously poised at 74-4. The first session of today's play will be a crucial one for this test series, allowing either side to get their foot on the throat of their opponent early.
In terms of the test series, whilst 10-0 seems a completely ridiculous over-exaggeration, I have to admit that England are looking good to retain the Ashes on home soil. This is unusual coming from me, as I am usually such a pessimist about English sport, refusing to believe the hype that all too often surrounds our national teams. In this case, I have to agree with the evidence, and whilst a whitewash seems a step too far, a series win is certainly not out of the question. I look forward to the rest of the Ashes, and hope that rain plays no part in this summer's contest!
The first question I would have to ask when considering why people consider England the favourites is: does English cricket suffer from the same over-exaggeration as ails many other sports? For example, before every football World Cup, we recieve a barrage of (tabloid) press coverage stating that England are certainties to win the competition. Optimism bordering on stupidity. As with most competitions in my memory, England progress out of the group, before perishing on penalties in the second round or quarter finals to the likes of Portugal or Argentina. In terms of cricket, the more recent successes, in both the Test format, (Number 1 in the world for a while last year) and the shorter forms (T20 World Cup victors in 2010) suggest that the English cricket side are one of the top teams in the world, and as such should be considered favourites in many of the test series they contest. In terms of the Ashes, whilst predictions such as Sir Ian Botham's 10-0 guess in the next two series may be a touch ridiculous, there is certainly no reason why the English side cannot retain the Ashes on both home and foreign soil. As a result, at first glance, whilst we may naturally be biased, and thus over-exaggerate slightly, it is certainly not to the extent that we see with football.
Momentum plays a significant role in all types of sport, and often can indicate the favourites for an event. Cricket is no different. Whilst England have had a relatively serene run-up to this Ashes test, with the controversy over the dropped (and slightly bitter) Nick Compton being the only newsworthy piece to come out of the English dressing room, the Australians have had a rather turbulent last couple of months. The major controversy of the build-up to the Ashes series featured star batsman David Warner. In what was described as an 'unprovoked physical attack' on English batsman Joe Root after a drunken night, Warner put his place in the Ashes side in doubt, and threatened to derail the Australian warm-up to the test series. He has since been confirmed as part of the Australian team to take part in the tour, but one can't help but wonder whether that will cause rifts in the dressing room. I know that I certainly wouldn't be happy to know that a friend of mine had not been given a place over a team-mate who has committed assault! Any cracks in the armour of the Australians will be exploited to the full by the English, and as a result the 'favourites' tag may be justified.
Another bizarre decision by the Australians occurred just weeks before the beginning of the Ashes. The removal of head coach Mickey Arthur, replacing him with Darren Lehmann, will do little but destabilise the Australian side, especially as the Aussies will take a while to change their regimes to fit the new man. To compare this to another sport, this is like a football owner removing their manager a week before the Champions League final and expecting his team to play to their optimum capacity despite this. It is always an unrealistic expectation, handing the English further inertia and momentum going into the opening test in Nottingham.
If we look at the two teams, we can see further evidence of why England are considered the favourites. The Australian bowling attack promises much, with the dangerous Peter Siddle spearheading the swing bowling. With promising, but inexperienced Ashes bowlers in Pattinson and Starc, we can certainly see how the Aussies can take wickets. The 'mystery' bowler Ashton Agar, making his Ashes debut at the tender age of 19, will either prove to be a master stroke by Michael Clarke, or one that England will take full advantage of. Certainly, the Australians will miss Mitchell Johnson, who would have made a considerable difference to their attack. In terms of batting, once again we see much inexperience in the top order. Whilst opener Shane Watson is well recognised as a top batsman, and Michael Clarke will star further down the order, the rest have been shown to be inconsistent in warm-up matches, and this will undoubtedly be exploited by the English bowlers. Should David Warner make a significant appearance, he will play a vital role in anchoring the Australian innings, being a dependable number 3 or 4. With this team, the Australians are more looking to build for the future than relying on now. Gone are the big names like Hayden, Hussey, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee and McGrath, leaving the Aussies with gaping holes in their team sheet. This has seen a series whitewash at the hands of India, and could see them toil in England.
Looking at England, we see many of the established names that we have become so accustomed to over the last few series. We have not suffered quite as much as the Australians in terms of retirements, and as such can still boast names like Cook, Pietersen, Bell, Trott, Swann and Anderson. This gives us an undoubted advantage over the Aussies, and with relatively established youngers like Broad able to help the likes of Finn and debutants Bairstow and Root, the English side seems to be far more cohesive than their Australian counterparts. The bowling attack looks particularly damaging, with Anderson, Broad and Swann all capable of taking wickets at will. Finn too looks a prospect, and will benefit massively from the experience of the next few weeks. In terms of batting, England have a good attack, but we have seen that when one wicket falls, we often find it difficult to prevent a collapse. Batsman like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior will look to anchor the innings, allowing the more flair players like Pietersen and Root to play their shots and make quick runs.
Most of the initial analysis has been proven to be in operation when looking at the opening day at Trent Bridge. Whilst the Australian bowling attack has looked threatening, with Peter Siddle the pick of the Aussie bowlers (taking a five-fer), the more inexperienced bowlers have looked good but inconsistent. The English batting once again suffered from a tail collapse, going from 213-6 to 215 all out in double quick time. The batting collapse continued into the Australian innings, with both Watson and Clarke falling cheaply before the close, leaving the Aussie innings perilously poised at 74-4. The first session of today's play will be a crucial one for this test series, allowing either side to get their foot on the throat of their opponent early.
In terms of the test series, whilst 10-0 seems a completely ridiculous over-exaggeration, I have to admit that England are looking good to retain the Ashes on home soil. This is unusual coming from me, as I am usually such a pessimist about English sport, refusing to believe the hype that all too often surrounds our national teams. In this case, I have to agree with the evidence, and whilst a whitewash seems a step too far, a series win is certainly not out of the question. I look forward to the rest of the Ashes, and hope that rain plays no part in this summer's contest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)