Why did Australia lose the Ashes?

Perhaps the Australian side would like to have a look at this, just to remind themselves of what their predecessors could do.

It may seem an obvious question, and there are certainly more answers than the few I’ve drivelled out here, But this seems a good place to start:

1. Because they didn’t adapt to the conditions.

Apart from Lord’s, where the Australians found a little bit of home waiting for them, neither the batsmen, nor the bowlers, could get their heads around the business of playing cricket in England. The bowlers consistently bowled too short to let the ball do anything. I lost count of the number of times I heard Glenn McGrath tell them on TMS that they needed to pitch it up and let natural variations do the rest. But none of them could manage it. Mitchell Johnson couldn’t attack the left handers from over the wicket with his variation on bodyline, Mitchell Starc bowled occasional inspired spells but much dross, Josh Hazelwood was expected to bowl tightly but lacked control. And Nathan Lyon did exceptionally well on tracks that were never designed to spin. Interestingly, Mitchell Marsh was pretty successful with the ball in hand, but was dropped for the last game to ‘stiffen’ the batting.

One reason for their lack of discipline was the small totals they kept being forced to defend. If you’ve got no runs on the board then patience is in very short supply, and bowlers resort to trying to make miracles happen, which lets batsmen off the hook as often as not.

The batsmen even more obviously failed to adapt, especially when England began the policy of bowling round the wicket to all left-handers, all the time. Only eight out of the 111 balls in the first innings at Trent Bridge would have gone on to hit the stumps, but the Australian batsmen couldn’t work out which ones to leave (partly because of that confusing new angle. Not only that, but they didn’t play straight (out of all those caught behinds in the first innings, only one went to Jos Buttler, which suggests a lot of angled bats. Also, if you look at the footage of the dismissals, almost all the batsmen have both sets of toes pointing down the wicket, meaning they are swivelling their hips and playing across the line. Cricket is a sideways game, and the back foot has to stay parallel to the crease if the bat is to come down straight. (Try it if you don’t believe me.) Cricket is also a game where you need to play the ball as close to you as possible, which means moving your feet, watching the ball, playing it right under your eyes with your hands close to your body. The Australians kept pushing forward with hard hands without getting any forward foot movement in. That’s going to led to a lot of what Nasser Hussein likes to describe as ‘nicking off’.

Perhaps they also felt the need to dominate the bowlers (Michael Clarke in the first innings. Steve Smith in the second) and play big shots.

This is being suggested as a result of T20, but might have also been a result of feeling like they were never properly ‘in’ and wanted to get on with it. (Davy Warner spoke about that after the 60.)

2. Because the selectors consistently picked the wrong team.

First it had Shane Watson in it, then it didn’t. Then it had Brad Haddin in it, then it didn’t. Then it had Mitchell Marsh in it, then it didn’t. Remember that Haddin saved at least three tests last time round with his batting. He was in terrible form, but Peter Nevill looked totally at sea once he was off the Lord’s featherbed.

And by the time they got to Trent Bridge, they didn’t have enough bowlers (only Lyon, Starc, Johnson and Hazelwood)  and they didn’t have an all-rounder at all. So we enjoyed the absurd sight of Davy Warner bowling on the first day of a test match when his side desperately needed wickets

The selectors compounded the error by picking a single party for tours to both the West Indies and England. They aren’t the same, at all, even if the tests in the Caribbean were at least played with a specially made Duke ball.

And that brings us to another reason for defeat:

3. Because they were complacent

They were so complacent that Cricket Australia started to brief about the dangers of complacency. But there was no evidence they would succeed here – they haven’t done so since 2001, after all. Then they picked an ageing side for one last go out of a sense of what might charitably be described as pragmatism – but also could have been sentimentality, because so many of those about to retire had never won a series in England. But mainly, they just couldn’t see how the rabble they had destroyed last time out could possibly put up any serious opposition. Many of them said so, which was helpful for England’s motivation.

4. Because they lacked team spirit

It’s seemed clear for a long time that Michael Clarke and Darren Lehmann don’t see eye to eye. And that there is tension between Clarke and his team. But the lack of application and effort in adapting to the conditions suggests that the team weren’t in the mood. And no one apart from Adam Voges looked like he was trying to stay around in the second innings at Trent Bridge – in fact, it looked like they wanted it all over as quickly as possible. Maybe they’ll all rally round Clarke for one last hurrah at the Oval.

5. Because their coaches got it wrong. Then got it wrong again.

Michael di Venuto played a lot of cricket in England. So did Craig McDermott. But neither of them could get their charges to do the right thing or make the right changes once the pressure was on. All in all, it’s not been a good tour for Australia’s coaching set up. They could always have looked at some tape of Terry Alderman bowling in England. Or Glenn McGrath. Or of Steve Waugh batting here. The Marsh brothers could just have asked their dad about batting on the first day at Trent Bridge in 1989 and making that mammoth 301-0. (Or anyone could have asked Ashton Agar about batting there in 2013.)

6. Because England were at home

Apart from Lord’s, England got the pitches Trevor Bayliss asked for: traditional English seamers. Their seam bowlers then proceeded to demolish Australia with late and unpredictable movement. And their batsmen all knew how to cope with a moving ball.

7. Because England batted deep

With Jimmy Anderson out and Mark Wood batting as a nightwatchman, England’s tail at Trent Bridge started at 11. Stuart Broad and Moeen Ali scored massively important runs down the order in many innings. (So did Mitchells Johnson and Starc, but they were making up for a misfiring top order.

8. Because of Joe Root

The world’s number one batsman has learned from his chastening experiences on the last tour down under. He’s in the form of his life, relentlessly punishes the bad ball, and forgets about any mistakes he’s made immediately. Let’s hope they don’t burden him with the captaincy too soon.

9. Because of Ottis Gibson

Brilliant bowling requires a brilliant plan. All the England bowlers took wickets in clumps at some stage of the series – with Ben Stokes backing up Stuart Broad’s inspired spell with some brilliant swing bowling that was reminiscent of Botham or Flintoff against Australia. It didn’t matter that Moeen Ali couldn’t spin the ball, because he didn’t need to.

10. Because of Alastair Cook

England had the funky captain. (That declaration just before lunch on the second day at Trent Bridge was almost unbelievable)> And even though he didn’t score hatfuls of runs, he paved the way for others who did. Redemption has rarely been more deserved. Let’s hope he stays around for a while.

11. Because of Paul Farbrace and Trevor Bayliss

Farbrace put a smile back on England’s faces during the series against New Zealand. Bayliss gave the players confidence with his inside knowledge, and then gave them pretty short shrift after the debacle at Lord’s. Stop worrying about Australia and start playing your own game, seemed to be his message.

12. Because Kevin Pietersen wasn’t there

Indeed, the guard has begun to change throughout the side. It is possible for England to win without Jimmy Anderson. It is possible for them to win without Kevin Pietersen too. The team spirit seemed a lot better with a lot of younger players in the side – and not a single South African in sight.

13. Because Woody got the horse out

Cricket is a game. Mark Wood plays it like one. So does Ben Stokes. Even Ian Bell lightened up and started to look like he was having fun.

Fasten your seat belts for another tense ride…

Is Michael Clarke about to be the next Australian skipper to fall victim to ‘tall poppy syndrome?’

Well, the circus rolls on to Trent Bridge, and the only thing we know is that we don’t know anything.

There’s never been a series like it before (indeed, there’s only ever been one series where the run rate has been as high, and that was between India and Pakistan on very flat pitches, with loads of centuries.

The series has been close, but the matches haven’t been. This suggests that ‘momentum’ isn’t as significant as some people would make out, or at least not in the context of the series as a whole.

England surprised Australia at Cardiff with the level of aggression with which they exploded out of the blocks. It’s hardly surprising, since the last time they saw an England side face to face it was when they pulverised a demoralised rabble in the World Cup, and the last time before that was when they pulverised a demoralised rabble in the Ashes down under.

Then England spent all the time before the Lord’s test telling themselves how hard Australia were going to come back at them, and forgot to make any detailed plans about what to do about it. In the second innings in particular, they batted like a demoralised rabble.

At Edgbaston, England did the coming back hard, with the result that Australia were never on the pace and tended to bat like a demoralised rabble (Chris Rogers and Mitchell Starc apart.) England by contrast batted like kings – from he get go, Ian Bell and Joe Root tried to hit the covers off everything that was in their arc. This must be part of Trevor Bayliss’s plan, because they’ve never been so gung-ho before.

Apart from he attitude, the difference has been in the pitches. Cardiff was almost an English seamer (just a bit on the slow side). Lord’s was sub-continental. While Edgbaston was certainly an English seamer.

Australia have bowled the wrong lengths in the games they lost. That’s not my opinion, it’s Glenn McGrath’s. He thought they went looking for wickets too early, and forgot the eternal verities of line and length. He said it so many times that even the Australian bowlers must have noticed: in England when the ball is seaming late, you bowl the right line and the right length and let natural variation make the difference. That’s what’s worked for the English bowlers. You don’t need to do it at 95 mph. 85 will do fine, because seam movement occurs later than swing, and you can’t spot it from the hand.

McGrath also said that Australia need to build pressure from both ends in order to force the batmen to take risks, which has only really looked like happening when the admirable Nathan Lyon has been bowling so far.

The only wicket so far where line and length hasn’t worked is at Lord’s, where Jimmy went wicketless and looked as if he’d lost all hope. Instead, Australia worked out what they needed to do and took the pitch out of the equation altogether, bowling full and fast or short and faster. (As if they were in India or Pakistan rather than St John’s Wood.) But then they tried to do the same thing at Edgbaston, and it didn’t work at all. (Apart from Mitchell Johnson’s rip snorting opening over to Jonny Barstow and Ben Stokes, which weirdly he failed to follow up at all.)

Johnson himself is threatening more short stuff at Trent Bridge, and Mitchell Starc keeps saying it’s part of the plan. But it’s unlikely to succeed there either, and if Australia’s strike bowlers keep trying it, they’re going to scuff up the ball and wear themselves out pretty soon.

It’s boring to say so, but they’d probably do better to try bowling line and length – which Josh Hazelwood is meant to be better at, but he keeps losing control and delivering four balls. Mitchell Marsh certainly can do it, and does do it, but he and Lyon can’t be the only people building pressure while three other bowlers release the valve and feed England’s new-found aggression. Perhaps Australia will bring back Peter Siddle, who certainly ‘hits good areas’, but without the menace of old, according to some observers.

And if they do find themselves under pressure at Trent Bridge, Australia’s batsmen don’t look like they’re made of the right stuff to resist it for long. Only Chris Rogers has shown the requisite technique to bat for long periods when the ball is seaming. (Play late, play straight, keep your head still and watch the ball right onto the bat.)

It looks as if Shane Watson has shuffled his sad way off the field for the last time in a test match. Adam Voges looks likely to follow him, a late bloomer celebrated largely for his ability to catch Alastair Cook out with his stomach. Shaun Marsh may come in, and Michael Clarke may bat one place lower down in the order, where he has traditionally made more runs.

No one seems to be mentioning that this superior record may not be due to the mystical power of the number five, but the practical batting power of the men who used to precede Clarke in the line up – like Ricky Ponting. With them gone, will it really make that much difference when he comes in, other than to the spirit of his teammates, who might feel that their skipper is guilty of putting himself first.

That spirit doesn’t seem as strong as it used to be, especially not since the dropping of Brad Haddin. There were rumblings of discontent among the team on the eve of the World Cup Final, when Clarke used his press conference to announce that this game would be his last ODI for Australia. Some of his colleagues apparently felt that this was rather pulling focus from their remarkable achievements as a team during the tournament. They’d also rather enjoyed playing under Steve Smith while Clarke was injured. And Clarke had tried very hard to have Brad Haddin appointed as stand-in captain during that period instead.

Now Haddin’s gone. Pushed by Darren Lehmann and Rodney Marsh while he was on compassionate leave. It’s a decision Clarke has been at pains to distance himself from, reminding the world that he’s not a selector (It was allegedly a condition of Lehmann’s before he took the job at the start of the last Ashes tour.)

Aggrieved former teammates have spoken up bitterly on Haddin’s behalf, pointing to the apparent breach of Australia’s ‘Family First’ policy. They’re missing the point – Haddin was averaging 15 in the 12 tests since the Ashes down under – and would have been long gone but for his captain’s steadfast support

From the outside, it looks as if Lehmann is creating a ‘me or him’ situation around him and Clarke. He’s pushed the captain’s biggest ally out of the side at a crucial time. No matter that his replacement Peter Nevill has been pretty successful. The side is now missing the one man who bridged the gap between brilliant but aloof leader and his troops. Without his lieutenant – or should that be Sergeant Major – Captain Clarke certainly looks isolated.

Shades on, arms folded (possibly to support his injured back), he looks far more like a consultant appointed to judge the performance of the side than the one man who is meant to be leading it. There’s a lot less funky captaincy too.

It’s even possible to imagine a situation where Clarke resigns and retires from all parts of the game before the end of the series, though it would possibly require another crushing defeat by England at Trent Bridge, and we just can’t be sure that will happen.

One thing that is for sure is that Clarke has put pressure on himself to perform, announcing that the number four batsman hasn’t got off the plane yet. The bad news is that he’s never scored any sort of runs at Trent Bridge or the Oval, and it might be hard for him to start now.

Another safe bet is that new look aggressive England (TM) will be attempting to open any cracks they see in the Australian psyche as quickly as they can, so there might be a few more verbal spats. (Though at least with Jimmy Anderson out of the way we can be pretty sure there won’t be any fisticuffs this year.)

In fact, this game is so close that it might come down to one of two things. Firstly, which side gets the better start. (They’re both so brittle until they get going.) And secondly, how England cope without Jimmy. Australia certainly think that matters, and have been tryin to build it up into a ‘Glenn McGrath’s ankle injury in 2005’ issue.

Truth is, we don’t know how they’ll do. Jimmy’s not the force he once was, though he did bowl well at Edgbaston in the first innings. He was awful at Lord’s and okay at Cardiff. Stuart Broad’s raising his game for Australia as usual. Steven Finn was marvellous. Mark Wood’s skiddy page might be a good thing at Trent Bridge. But Liam Plunkett can bowl a full length and get the ball to move too. I don’t see England trusting Mark Footit just yet. And Moeen is not a destroyer with the ball in the way he is batting at number eight.

Face facts: it’s going to be another horribly tense few days for England fans. But then the Ashes always is. We don’t know what’s going to happen. And that’s why we love it so much.

Who is Peter Nevill? And our first limerick of the Ashes summer

With the news that Peter Nevlill is to replace Brad Haddin at Lord’s on Thursday, we may have the first instance of a debutant being more familiar to the opposition coach than to his own. Nevill has never represented Australia at any level, but plays for New South Wales, where England’s new coach Trevor Bayliss was working until very recently.

Nevill is no mug with the bat. He has a first class average of 44, and a Sheffield Shield average last season of 76.4. However, his wicket keeping is not considered a strength: he conceded 31 byes in the recent tour match at Chelmsford. Keeping on the slope at Lord’s may prove even more challenging, especially if either of the Mitchells starts to swing the ball late.

Mitchell Starc is said to be recovering well from the ankle pain he was suffering at Cardiff. Apparently it is a recurrence of the ‘bone spur’ problem that has dogged him for years. The man who told us of Starc’s recovery was none other than Peter Siddle, who has been mooted as a possible replacement should the ankle prove unresponsive to treatment.

There is still no news about Shane Watson, who has been horribly tormented across social media since his second consecutive dismissal for LBW (and subsequent review).

Meanwhile, we have our first limerick of the Ashes summer, from parishioner Toby Reisz. In fairness to whom, I must confess I have been sitting on the verse for at least two weeks, so its almost eerie prescience may not be as impressive as it originally was.

They’ve got Mitchells Johnson and Starc,

And of course they’ve got Michael Clarke.

But we don’t give a hoot,

We’ve got Joe Root,

And he hits it all over the park.

Five key questions for Lord’s

 

 

‘Who chopped them logs’ It certainly wasn’t top Aussie fast bowler and vegetarian legend Peter Siddle.But will he make the side for the second Test at Lord’s?

Well, that went better than anyone could have expected. (No one, not the bookmakers, not the teams, not the pundits, not the bloggers, saw Australia being thrashed as a likely outcome at Cardiff.)

England played as well as it was possible to play. They bowled to plan (well, plans) full and straight to most of the batsmen, but on an imaginary fifth stump line to the most dangerous Australians, Steve Smith and Michael Clarke. Mooen Ali took important wickets, Ian Bell sacrificed technical perfection for quick runs in the second innings, Joe Root was Joe Root, and Alastair Cook was the the funky president in the captaincy competition (check out that incipient goatee – he’ll be Bedfordshire’s first farming hipster in next to no time.)

Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson looked fresh and rested, and Mark Wood looked a revelation with both ball and bat.

It won’t always be like this.

The second test starts on Thursday, England have picked the same squad and will, injuries notwithstanding, play the same XI. But Australia will be desperate to come back hard. Here are five key questions they need to answer if they are to succeed…

1) Is it all over for Shane Watson?

Probably. He’s apparently Australia’s highest-paid player, with a contract worth $4m a year. But he’s a walking LBW. (29 times in tests, in case you missed the numbers.) Also, he always wastes a review when he’s out. And it doesn’t look like Michael Clarke likes him very much. He’s likely to be replaced by Mitchell Marsh. Which will disappoint the Barmy Army.

2) And Brad Haddin?

He looked a bit creaky behind the stumps at times in Cardiff, and will never forget dropping Joe Root second ball in the first innings. His batting doesn’t look too hot at the moment either. Peter Nevill, the reserve wicketkeeper in the squad, averaged 76 in the Sheffield Shield last year, so he’s probably not too shabby with the gloves. But he’ll probably only get a look in if Australia fail at Lord’s too.

3) Will Mitchell Starc recover in time?

Ryan Harris has already been forced to retire on this tour. Mitchell Starc bowled a lot of overs in Cardiff with an ankle injury that required cortisone injections. He’s already had ankle surgery, so this can’t be trivial. Australia need his strike bowling, but they also need him to bowl in a more disciplined way when he’s not sending down wicket-taking thunderbolts. Or they need to add another more disciplined bowler to the team – having both bowling Mitchells free to do as they wish is too loose on pitches without pace and bounce. (In Australia last time, Clarke could call on four tight bowlers who would give nothing away, and allow Johnson to have his head. He doesn’t have that luxury this time.)

4) Will the Australians be prepared for bowling at Lord’s?

The slope makes it tricky for new boys at HQ. Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon and Josh Hazelwood have never bowled there before. Mitchell Johnson has – and took two wickets for a hundred and lots. (Just like Cardiff then). Michael Clarke may well feel the need for a bit more control. (His bowlers abandoned the plan far too early at Cardiff, bowled too short and too wide and fed the English batsmen’s driving game. And then kept trying to bounce men out as if they were at the Gabba.) Peter Siddle has bowled at Lord’s, is disciplined, experienced, and apparently much harder to pick from the hand than Mitchell Starc. (So Clarke may be hoping that troublesome ankle stays troublesome for a few more days so he can stick the champion woodchopper in the team.)

5) What will the pitch be like?

Mick (never Mike) Hunt, the groundsman at Lord’s, is notoriously a man with his own opinions. He’s employed by the MCC, not the ECB, so he’s less likely to succumb to pressure to produce a slow and low track like the one at Cardiff. There’s no evidence there was any pressure to do that there anyway – it’s what pitches at the SWALEC tend to be like anyway. The pitch at Lord’s against New Zealand made for fine cricket earlier this summer. But it’s going to matter less now that England have got over their fear of the Australian bowlers, and know they are mere humans.

The Ashes 2015: nine questions that could determine the outcome

Yes, it’s all about to start again. The Ashes are coming, so it’s time for some rank speculation and idle theorising.

It’s almost time… The Aussies are here. Ryan Harris is injured. Glenn McGrath’s made his traditional 5-0 prediction. Sky have recorded that shameful, shameful song. But what’s actually going to happen out on the pitch?

The marvellous thing about the Ashes is that we just don’t know. And if we’re lucky, we won’t find out until the last day at the Oval.

Last time, England played conservative cricket and just about made it by winning the key sessions. But the three lions have changed their spots since then, in the one-day game at least. Who knows which England side will step out on to the turf at Cardiff next Wednesday? (Test moved forward one day to make the last day a Sunday, and ensure a bigger crowd.)

Whatever happens, there are a nine questions whose answers could well determine which way the series goes.

1) Will Alastair Cook make runs?

If Cook carries on leaving the ball as well as he did against New Zealand (and in Trent Boult he was facing the closest thing there is to Mitchells Johnson and Starc – albeit slower than either of the Mitchells then he will be well on the way to accumulating runs. That will mean the baggy green bowlers will have to keep it very tight indeed, with no width and no short stuff for Cook to cut or pull. And that, in turn, could prove very tiring indeed for them. They’ve already lost Harris… Siddle is as tough as old boots, but he’s not quite the bowler he used to be, and he never was as good as Harris. Josh Hazelwood is very disciplined, but it’s a lot to ask of him on his first Ashes tour to keep England’s skipper tied down all the time. And if Cook makes runs, England will be on their way to winning.

2) Will Steve Smith make runs?

The key to Australia’s recent success has been Smith’s incredible run spree. And the key to that is his incredible hand/eye co-ordination. But will his unusual back foot technique hold up against a moving ball? The only time he made a lot of runs during the las home Ashes was at the Oval, against the ‘for one night only’ attack of Simon Kerrigan and Chris Woakes, on a dead, dry wicket. He’s just made tons of runs against West Indies on dead, dry wickets too. (And if this weather continues, he might be seeing a lot more of them.) If England can get him out cheaply, their chances will be massively improved.

3) Will the ball move?

They’re using a Dukes ball again, after the resolutely swing-proof Kookaburra has been sent back to Australia where it belongs. So there’s a better chance of some swing for both sides. Jimmy Anderson has had a nice long rest, which is nice, and has had to endure young guns like Mark Wood stealing his thunder, which is funny for us but probably not for Jimmy. Realistically, this is his last crack at a home Ashes series, so he’s going to want to go out with a bang. And Stuart Broad always produces at least one wonder spell (The Oval 2011, Durham 2013) that helps to define the entire series. Australia are sufficiently concerned to have picked two ‘England’ specialists in Chris Rogers and Adam Voges, who certainly have the knowledge to play the conditions.

4) Who will bowl spin for England?

It looks like it’s going to be Moeen Ali at first. And given that the last time England played two spinners at Cardiff (Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar the last time out) they both went for more than a hundred runs, he’s not likely to get that much aggressive bowling in. However, England did add Adil Rashid to the squad, presumably on the basis that if the weather keeps up then two spinners might be the answer. And Moeen is only batting at eight. If he was at five or six and more central to the batting ‘unit’, then he’d be more likely to be a nailed-on selection. Also Rashid can bat, and turns the ball both ways, and has a googly that will trouble Mitchells Starc and Johnson. If Moeen does bowl as a lone spinner, then Australia have a distinct advantage in Nathan Lyon.

5) Will the real Mitchell Johnson turn up?

He took 37 wickets in Australia the last time the sides met, so he’s not realistically going to do better than that, even if he bowls like Malcolm Marshall in his pomp. His record in Tests in England is less stellar than when he plays in Australia, but he did well against Kent in the warm-up game. And like Jimmy, this may well be his last Ashes outing, so he’ll want to leave on a high, and make the ‘barmy army’ eat their words.

6) Will Brad Haddin and Michael Clarke keep going?

He’s been almost as important as Steve Smith, with his ability to bludgeon quick runs. But he isn’t getting any younger, and the demands of being a wicketkeeper in the post-Gilchrist era are almost impossible to meet. (Just ask Matt Prior’s broken body.) Michael Clarke has been broken in the back for a long time, but he’s really, really tough and will want to keep on winning.

7) Will Mark Wood get the horse out?

I hope so. He’s taken to giving it a quick pat at the start of his run-up, and to letting slip a neigh or two on the way in. He also bowls at 95mph, which will test Steve Smith’s reactions. And Wood is just one of a host of England players who know no fear of Australia. Ben Stokes scored a blistering hundred against them in Perth during the last series, Jos Buttler is an amazing talent who can hit any ball to any part of any ground, and Joe Root is now the absolutely key man for England and is in blistering form too.

8) Will the change of coach help England?

Possibly. Last time they were here, Australia sacked the unpopular Mickey Arthur after the fiasco in the Walkabout between Davie Warner and Joe Root and rushed in the lovable larrikin Darren Lehmann. That definitely gave them more bounce. It’s difficult to see how England could get any bouncier after everyone’s favourite friendly series against the friendliest team in the world, but Trevor Bayliss and Paul Farbrace know each other well and are likely to continue the same attacking mode of cricket. Bayliss also knows the seven players from New South Wales who are likely to feature, so if they have any weaknesses, he will be able to help England out there. If either of them can make Alastair Cook more aggressive as captain, that could make the series a lot more interesting.

(9) Will anyone call for Kevin Pietersen’s* return?

Only Piers Morgan.

* For those of you who can’t remember, Pietersen was a highly rated England batsman some years ago.

Kevin who?

KP se meurt. Vive le nouveau Beefy. It’s time for a new hero for English cricket, and it has very ginger hair.

 

Lord’s proved once and for all that a week is a long time in cricket. Before Ben Stokes announced his arrival with that hundred, the cricket world was in full mither about KP and the dreadful way he’d been treated. After BS, Piers Morgan was reduced to tweeting about the fact that no one described him as a Kiwi in the same way that they called KP a South African. Face it Kev, it’s over.

But Lord’s was about much more than Ben Stokes, though that bit was absolutely brilliant. It was about how a team that was outplayed for the first three-and-a-bit days of the match came back to win. And the credit for that must go to the new England leadership – because this was clearly a team effort.

Of course, that includes Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss, but looking on from afar, it seemed as if Paul Farbrace had a lot to do with it. Suddenly, English players were backing themselves to take risks, and not just the new Beefy. Mark Wood’s strange ‘Let’s do the timewarp’ skip to the left to changing his angle of delivery from time to time is a major risk for a player new to the demands of test match cricket. His whole action shifts, and it would be very easy for him to lose his rhythm. But it unsettled the batsmen more than the bowler, and along with his extreme pace, made him very hard to handle. It’s just as hard to imagine that having happened under the regimes of Peter Moores or Andy Flower. Their strategy seemed to revolve around the old maxim of ‘keep it tight lads and let’s see if they get themselves out’. And if the bowling itself wouldn’t have happened under the ancient regime, then the celebration would never have been tolerated. Let’s hope we see Mark ‘get the horse out’ a lot more times this summer. And that we see more of Joe Root sitting chortling on the balcony too – it’s a very potent symbol of the end of low-risk cricket.

To be fair, over the past couple of years at least that low-risk strategy had begun to deliver returns that weren’t so much diminishing as disappearing. So it was heartening to see England respond to New Zealand’s aggressive approach with such gusto – even if it might have been that aggression that forced them to attack in turn. Perhaps we are witnessing the birth of a new phenomenon, counter-attacking cricket. After all, it works in football and rugby, so why not in the summer game too? We’ve already discussed the new importance of pace in both batting and bowling, and that was underlined once again at Lord’s.

Stokes’s bowling was every bit as fast and decisive as his batting, with his ability to produce the odd unplayable ball a particularly magnificent treat. Alastair Cook revealed that when Stokes took Brendon McCullum’s wicket in the second innings at Lord’s, Stuart Broad ran in to shriek ‘this is brilliant’. When the youngsters start reminding the grizzled old pros that the game can be fun, then things really are looking up. And that grizzled old pro bowled as well in the match as he has in a long time – fit at last and confident that his body can afford to cash the cheques his brain is writing. Jimmy didn’t bowl particularly well, but he did get the last wicket, and he is going to become less decisive as he gets older.

The only slight tinge of disappointment concerned the spin department. Moeen Ali always looks more comfortable bowling on pitches that offer less help. When the pressure and expectation are off, he is more capable of delivering. He puts more revolutions on the ball than Joe Root and James Treadwell, which Shane Warne reckons is the sign of a ‘proper’ attacking spinner. It wasn’t a problem at Lord’s, but it might be at some point during the Ashes. There doesn’t seem to be a ready made alternative out there that anyone in the management team trusts, but perhaps Trevor Bayliss will have a view on that.

Who knows what Headingley will throw up over the next few days? If it doesn’t rain, there’s likely to be a positive result, But whatever happens – and we must assume that Stokes won’t be able to perform heroically every single time he picks us bat or ball – it will be a more energetic, outward-lookign and smiling England. And that can only be a good thing.

 

We need to talk about Kevin

Forget Moeen Ali, this is the beard that’s really feared. Decline can be a challenge for any hero, even the greatest.

ECB chairman elect Colin Graves started it. The gist of what he said after his election was ‘what Pietersen needs to do is play country cricket for someone and score a lot of runs.’ Never mind whether he meant it or not, or whether he was hoping KP would hang on to his IPL contract and be unavailable for any county side until it was too late. He said it. And it’s not a very controversial thing to say, when you come to think about it. It’s the old argument. Keep your head down, son, and just let your cricket do the talking.

Graves must have felt he was on pretty safe ground too. After all, KP’s cricket hasn’t been talking very loudly for quite a while. For most of the last two years, he has looked like a force in decline, not the hero he once was. A couple of fifties in the Big Bash don’t count for very much when you try to cash them in for a test place. Commentators had started suggesting that the easiest thing to have done would have been to drop him, just like any other player on a bad trot. But that’s a bit like Agamemnon suggesting to Menelaus that they should just leave Ulysses out of the attack against the lofty towers of Ilion because after all, ‘he hasn’t really been performing in the Attic Sunday League recently, has he?’.

Then this. 355 not out. On the same day that England’s latest cricket supremo/tsar Andrew Strauss declared that he wouldn’t be selected this summer. He’s not banned. Oh no. He just won’t be selected this summer. Trust issues apparently. Although there was a fig leaf of sorts. KP was offered an advisory role for the one-day team.

Having managed some quite ‘difficult’ people in my time (some well, some not so well), I can understand the temptation Strauss was feeling. He didn’t want Pietersen to be able to say that what had been decided was unfair. But he must have been able to see what would happen when the ‘logic’ of what he was saying was unpicked. All he needed to say was: ‘Kevin, you may have been a hero, but we can’t trust you any more. So we can’t consider you for selection. Thank you for coming to see us. Goodnight.’

But like the inexperienced manager he is, Strauss wanted to somehow sweeten the pill. There is no way to do this. (See my comment above about managing ‘difficult’ people.) You just have to hand them the pill and make them take it. They aren’t ever going to like you for making them do it and you shouldn’t expect them to. Especially not when they’ve been a hero, And even more so when they’re as wily at making themselves the victim and you the villain as Pietersen is.

To KP it probably just seemed like weakness. And like all heroes, he has always gone for the jugular when he sees weakness. Now he has an opportunity to keep on worrying at the scar tissue that has formed around the England side. It doesn’t matter whether he’s in it or out of the team, the ‘narrative’ of English cricket is always about Pietersen. Even the normally wise Simon Jenkins was moved to write about him. The stories are all about English cricket needing a run scorer.

KP’s cheerleaders were straight in. Piers Morgan to the forefront as ever. Even he can spot a glaring logical flaw. The gist of what they were saying was ‘how can you not trust him to be in the team, but still trust him to advise on it?’ Even Michael Vaughan, the rex quondam rex futurusque of English cricket tweeted about how difficult it was to explain to his 9-year-old.

In truth, it may be sad to explain, but it’s not really that hard. Pietersen, a genuine hero of the game, an utterly brilliant batsman with an unpredictable talent, had finally got his dodgy knee fixed and was presented with a Leicestershire attack that hadn’t won a championship match for two years, on a sunny day, on the batting paradise that is the Oval. He was angry. He knew that Strauss and Tom Harrison, the other new ECB figurehead, wanted to talk to him later on and he could assume it wasn’t going to be good news. So he roused himself.

No one could ever accuse Pietersen of lacking a sense of occasion. And if this is going to be his last great act as a player, then where better than the Oval, scene of the sickeningly intense duel with his great frenemy Shane Warne in the most exhausting Test of all time in 2005?

On that day. Pietersen took control of the game, just like he did yesterday, only then he was playing against some towering giants. Yesterday, he was playing against some doughty yeomen. What chance have Mark Cosgrove and Ben Raine against a hero who once drove the greatest bowler ever round the bend with his audacity and will to win? There’s no shame in it, but they were never going to restrain the old lion. Any more than the neophyte manager Andrew Strauss was. This was one last roar of defiance in the face of reality.

For Pietersen grows old. And that’s why he cannot be the present of England cricket, let alone the future. The audacity and will are there still. That’s why we always knew he would seize the day. But everybody ages, even the greatest heroes. And there is no connection whatever between facing friendly military medium on a May afternoon and facing a brace of warriors called Mitchell in their menacing prime one late August morning. This was nothing more than a divertissement. It was never going to make the necessary difference. It was never really going to count.

So Strauss messed up his first challenge as manager. Colin Graves started a spat with his captain before he’d even managed to take office. KP kept himself on the agenda as ever. Piers Morgan poured petrol on the fire, while Paddy Power opened a book on a variety of outcomes. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, some grizzled Trojans rubbed their hands with glee at the disarray among the Achaean foe.

All these classical references have put me in mind of Tennyson’s Ulysses. Like this article, it tells the story of a once-great warrior who is bored and frankly little embarrassed – if not actively demeaned – by the domesticated life he is forced to lead in semi-retirement. He is desperately searching for something a modern hero might describe as a ‘meaningful challenge’. And it isn’t an unofficial role advising the one-day side. Unlike Achilles in a similarly neglected position, he doesn’t retire to his tent to sulk. He does something. And maybe, just maybe, that’s what cunning Kevin is up to here…

‘Death closes all; but something ere the end,

Some work of noble note, may yet be done,

Not unbecoming men who strove with Gods…

 

Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are –

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

KP’s cheerlead

 

Same old, same old England

Well that all went well, then.

Anyone watching the denouement of the third test in Barbados would be excused for thinking they were watching a repeat. (Well, anyone following England anyway: fans of West Indian cricket would have been justifiably excited by the changes that their new management team of Phil Simmons and Curtly Ambrose have wrought so quickly. Less brittleness in the batting, less indiscipline in the bowling, and in Jermaine Blackwood in particular they appear to have found a batsman who can play in different ways as the occasion demands.) But enough of West Indies…

England made crucial mistakes throughout this series. They all seem to stem from a naturally conservativism that can lead to stifling caution.

Three of them concern selection, and reflect poorly on the current selectors, the management and the captain. In trying to win this test match without a recognised spinner, England set themselves an impossible task. Mooen Ali bowled reasonably well against India last summer, but it was obvious that India’s batsmen really didn’t believe they could win a test series in England. On this tour, Ali’s action appears less fluid, and he has bowled a much larger proportion of dross. He has proved neither capable of ‘keeping one end tight’ or of penetrating and taking wickets. This is not his fault. He is not a first-class bowler. Adil Rashid might be one day, but not if he never plays (although he may always be a second option rather than the go-to-man). And James Tredwell is a doughty campaigner who performed well in the first test. There has been much muttering that the academy at Loughborough, now Andy Flower’s domain, hasn’t produced any spinners worthy of the name, despite its multi-million pound budget.

The second concerns poor old Jonathan Trott. You may have noticed that he retired from international cricket yesterday (although wags might suggest a date some time earlier in the month.) He seems a nice man. But he should never

It takes leadership to change things. Not managerial gradualism. The ECB should take note.

have been involved. Because he was never going to be the man to open against the two Mitchells this summer.

In a sane world, Adam Lyth would be three tests into his international career. Now he’ll have to wait till the series against New Zealand.

The final example of the curse of conservatism (getting political in this general election week) is the fact that the bowling attack still depends horribly on the form of Jimmy Anderson. We all know he’s England’s record wicket-taker, but he’s also the man who has bowled a fifth more overs than any of his rivals at the top of the rankings, and he can’t go on for ever. And when he doesn’t fire, as he didn’t in the West Indies’ second innings, England look absolutely toothless. Stuart Broad has always been a streaky bowler, capable of summoning up an immense effort of will, but Chris Jordan and Ben Stokes look merely tidy at best. Without much greater variation, they are offering up the international version of military medium pace. And we can be sure that Messrs Warner and Finch in particular will be eyeing that ravenously. Some greater experimentation is needed. Perhaps Liam Plunkett’s greater pace and ‘heavier ball’ might have made a greater impact. (Though it must be said that Jordan is one of the most amazing slip fielders I have ever seen, although he’s not always allowed to field in the cordon.)

The responsibility for these selections lies with three men: James Whittaker, Peter Moores and Alastair Cook. It also lies with a culture that still bears the deep imprint of Andy Flower’s claws. Risk minimisation is at its heart. Steady accumulation is preferred to a more dominating approach; bowling in areas to bowling wicket-taking deliveries; deploying Jos Buttler’s destructive talents at number 8 (not out three times, only 175 balls faced in the entire series) rather than higher up the order…

Briefly, it seemed as if the incoming ECB chairman Colin Graves was about to sweep all this away. Fresh from cleaning the Augean stables at Headingley and creating a winning culture at Yorkshire, Graves was seen as a breath of fresh air. (We can forget about his ill-advised comments about the West Indies being a ‘mediocre side’ for the moment.)

Paul Downton, former wicketkeeper turned stockbroker then MD of the England team was first to go. Then it was announced that we would soon see the appointment of a cricket tsar, solely accountable for the performance of the England men’s XI. Michael Vaughan threw his hat into the ring, as did the Gaffer, Alec Stewart (though Surrey’s less than stellar record during his, well, stewardship might have counted against him. Jason Gillespie was mentioned as the next coach. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive…

No more. After ‘talks’, Michael Vaughan has suggested that he is no longer interested. Stewart has suggested that the ECB need to decide what the terms of reference are. (After an interview.) Andrew Strauss is the last man standing. And curiously, Andrew Strauss is the last man likely to stand up to the culture of caution that he helped to create. (Gillespie’s much-publicised rejection of the South Australia coaching job seems much more likely to be the prelude to succeed Darren Lehmann with the baggy greens than Peter Moores with the three lions.

Strauss seems a nice man. Very laid back. Not fond of Kevin Pietersen, but then who is these days? He’s a public schoolboy – unlike Vaughan and Stewart – so he’s obviously ‘officer class’, and he’ll fit in well at Lord’s having played there for the best part of a decade. But he’s not going to change anything. Moores and Cook will be allowed to fail again, to the strains of Kipling’s ‘Recessional’. (And Austrailia will be very pleased to help them.)

And once again in England, managerialism and gradualism will occupy the space where leadership should stand.

The World Cup: it’s all about the pace

England audition potential fast bowlers for the development programme. After the pie throwing comes the cheese rolling…

 

Watching the global cricket jamboree that is the World Cup, one feature has stood out among all the winning sides. It’s all about the pace.

Time was, ODIs were all about containment, defence, and risk minimisation. Not any more. Now we have Mitchell Starc charging in and bowling over after over in the 90mph zone. Followed up by Mitchell Johnson, and some other fast young athletes who may or may not be called Mitchell, but who all get ip up there pretty fast. It’s no longer about ‘bowling in areas’ or ‘the corridor of uncertainty’. It’s about denying the batsman time to play or think, while making him worry more than a little about his physical safety.

Pace bowling was used as an aggressive weapon, and not only by the Australians. Pakistan’s left-arm quick Wahab Riaz delivered what might have been the single best spell of the entire tournament. In six overs, he conceded 24 runs and captured the wickets of David Warner and Michael Clarke, then proceeded to menace Shane Watson.

But, I hear you say, pace bowling has always been part of the ODI game. What about Waqar Younis and his fizzing yorkers? I am prepared to concede some ground here, but I really don’t believe that any World Cup has seen such a proliferation of pace bowling as an attacking weapon. And it made the entertainment a whole lot more, well, entertaining.

But the real change has been in the approach to batting. When Aaron Finch gets going, the game is up for the opposition. Not only does he score runs quickly, but he does so in such a dominant way that he forces the opposition bowlers to change their game. And if he doesn’t succeed, there’s always David Warner… And Shane Watson.

These guys bat in packs. Which is why it’s so foolish to deride their ‘high-risk’ approach. They are not individual pinch hitters. They come in early in the order and they all have the capacity to win the game on their own. (Or to put it totally beyond the opposition within the first ten overs, which is much the same thing.) And if one of them fails even two out of every three times, then there is always another and another and then another to come.

Australia exemplify this new high pace approach, but New Zealand aren’t so far behind them, especially in home conditions. We’ve known about Brendon McCullum for a long while, but who thought Martin Guptil would be putting the ball on the roof of the Cake Tin at the end of the biggest World Cup score ever? Even their bowlers have added zip and aggression. India have their moments, but struggled to adjust to the pitches, South Africa fell victim to the weather in the semi-finals when AB de Villiers was about to cut loose, (By the way, can anyone think of another batsman in world cricket who is so brilliant at playing both in the classical and what can only be called barbarian manner?) Poor old West Indies were lucky to get there at all, but at least we saw something of Chris Gayle’s monstrous power.

All of which begs a rather obvious question: what about England? They took Alex Hales, but didn’t play him. They dropped Alastair Cook, but played his kind of game anyway. Peter Moores bemoaned the lack of a Jonathan Trott-style player – a steady accumulator. And the destructive batsmen they did have – Jos Buttler in particular – came in so late in the innings that they could never have had the time to win the game. And none of the lookalike ‘pace’ bowlers could reach anything above 85mph. They appeared to have been completely undermined by the team’s tactics.

Talking of which, the whole of England’s tactical approach seemed to be based around a lack of pace and a concommittant lack of aggression. It was as if they were still playing in Paul Collingwood’s heyday. You know the drill: Trot in and bowl ten overs of military medium, take 0-37, and then nurdle an ugly but effective 43 of 67 balls.

In fact, the only time England have played with pace and aggression in an ODI that I can recall is against Sri Lanka at Lord’s, Buttler came in after another middle order collapse, and jolly nearly won the game single-handedly. That should have been a lesson for the whole team and the new management that took over. Instead we’ve had defensiveness, getting the ball in areas and trying to bowl to the opposition’s weaknesses rather than our bowler’s strengths.

The next World Cup is in England. We’re going to need to up the pace to compete.

What’s up with Michael Clarke?

Yes, it’s all about to start again. The Ashes are coming, so it’s time for some rank speculation and idle theorising.

What with KP’s unusual reticence and Manchester City’s usual collapse it’s been difficult for cricket to find its way onto the front pages this week. But away from the spotlight, something interesting has still been happening in the cricketing world.

Michael Clarke has been in abysmal form.

He has just presided over Australia’s series defeat against Pakistan. But the collapse dates back way beyond that. For more than a year in fact. In his last 16 innings, Clarke has passed 50 on a single occasion.

The standard of that single innings (161 not out, compiled with a fractured shoulder) has tended to eclipse the regular diet of dross Pup has been serving up. (It’s all a bit like late-period KP, with terrible decision-making forgotten in the glare of one or two unbelievably stellar performances.)

His average this calendar year is a meagre 29.4 (compared to a career figure of 51). He also plumbed new depths in the series against Pakistan, scoring 57 runs at 14.25 against an attack that featured none of the best bowlers in the world, on pitches that may have turned, but did it very slowly. He was bowled by the colossus of world cricket that is Zulfiqar Babar last time out. He’s no Saeed Ajmal.

What’s more, for the first time we saw a Clarke whose feet weren’t able to help him beat the bowlers. As a young man, Clarke was possibly the best batsman against spin Australia has ever seen. And the key to it was his extraordinarily nimble footwork.

Since then, Clark

e has remained a phenomenally agile batsman and flelder, despite a chronic and deteriorating back condition. But it may just be that time is catching up with the golden boy. This is the first time he has failed to perform with the bat as captain, even when his team have let him down, and that must be the most worrying aspect.

Of course, Clarke will certainly captain Australia in the world cup, and will be here in England this summer, hoping to secure a first victory on Pommy soil.

But with Chris Rogers struggling, the experiment with Glenn Maxwell looking a bit, well, experimental, and Peter Siddle, Mitchells Johson and Starc failing to make much of an impact with the new ball and Nathan Lyon not looking like the new Shane Warne (or even like the new Zulfiqar Babar) things are all suddenly perking up for England.