Well now there can be no denying, England cannot play ordinary spin bowling.
The so called no.1 test playing Nation has now lost 4 test matches in a row mostly due to its inability to play slow bowling. Don't get me wrong, the likes of Herath are good bowlers but not in the same class as Murali or Warne. We can spend all day blaming the conditions, but the truth is the conditions are the same for both sides and if England are incapable of beating these teams, then they do not deserve to be no.1 in the world.
There is one test remaining on this short tour and certainly hope Strauss, Cook and co. will show they do have the technique to score runs on these wickets.I
Friday, 30 March 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
More questions than answers for England
It is only three weeks until the first test against Sri Lanka and for England there are more questions than answers following the dismal test series against Pakistan.
England have a very good group of players at their disposal and some very good young players knocking on the door, however the big question mark over England has always been their ability to win on Asian pitches.
A major technical flaw with English batsmen over the years seems to be their ability to cope with the turning ball and the test series against Pakistan only confirmed this. Sri Lanka are currently in a post Murilitharan period and need to rediscover their strengths and weaknesses. Despite this they still managed to keep England at bay for most of last summer other than one session which cost them the series.
The bowling line up seems to be capable of bowling out sides on any pitch providing the ball is pout in the right areas, then is certainly strength in depth with a number of seam bowlers and spinners to chose from, I would say more than I can remember. Maybe a couple of fast bowlers in the mould of a Brett Lee or Dale Steyn would be useful but not necessary on slow Asian pitches.
It is the batting I am concerned with. England should have won the second test against Pakistan only chasing 145 and ending up bowled out for 72. Even if the England batsmen had thrown the bat at everything they would have done better, so perhaps a more aggressive approach is needed sometimes.
The form of Strauss has been worrying recently and Bell, Trott amd Pieterson also need to score some decent runs in this series. I am hoping the UAE series was an aberration and normal service can be resumed. Time for England to show the cricketing world they deserve to be top of the pile.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
What has happened to Test Cricket?
I first became interest in cricket around 1978. I was eight years old and England was touring Australia. This was a period of great turmoil in Australian cricket. The national team had been decimated by Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket revolution. On the commercial Channel Nine the familiar C'mon on Aussie C'mon featured regularly on advertisements. All the top Australian players featured: Marsh, Lillee, Chappell brothers, Thompson amongst many others.
Meanwhile on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the Australian team endured a horrid summer losing the Ashes 5-1 against an England side featuring the rising stars of Ian Botham and David Gower. Yes this was a time for the young Australians such as Alan Border and Rodney Hogg to get their chance, and they did perform well when they had the chance, but against a near full strength opposition, I think it was only Alan Knott, Tony Grieg and Derek Underwood who participated in World Series Cricket. The Australians had little chance of success.
It wasn't long before the revolution won and cricket was never the same. I for one was never allowed to watch World Series Cricket as my father had boycotted it in our house. In 1978 one day cricket was relatively new on the world stage, the first World Cup on a few years before. Any score over 200 was considered as good score, remembering test scoring rates were usually around 2.5-3 runs per over. Touring sides did not bring one-day sides only the home team had the advantage of playing one day specialists.
Thirty years ago one day cricket never really threatened test cricket. Although the crowds were often bigger, there were not so many test playing nations to congest the fixture list. The only element to threaten the standing of test cricket was the rebel tours to South Africa which were often followed by lengthy bans to those that chose to take cash.
The last thirty years has seen some major changes to cricket internationally. The re introduction of South Africa into cricket and the admission of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe has broken the West Indies/Australia/England monopoly of power in cricket. The Pakistan and India sides have established themselves as credible powers in the game and India has become the power base of cricket politically.
Technology has also made a big impact on cricket, with first the third umpire being used for run outs and stumpings and now we see hot spot and snicko and frame by frame replays for lbws and caught behinds that only the Indians seem reluctant to use. But cricket has always been a pauper in the world of sport. Compared to Football players and tennis players and golfers and America's Grid Iron players, Basketball Players and Baseball players the international cricketer is not well paid other the very top players who could rely on endorsements.
The real revolution happened in the home of cricket. England had been going through a complete restructuring of its domestic cricket. Out went the 3 day first class games and in game the national 40 over league. But the counties still wanted to make the game more attractive to new supporters. The idea was a shortened version of the game set for evening play. It was meant to be quick and entertaining and the counties provided other entertainment such as Jacuzzis and competitions for the spectators. And so the 20 over form of the game was born.
I am sure the T20 concept was never meant to be taken seriously just a chance for the counties to make a bit of money and the players and crowd to have fun; a good introduction for the young to cricket. However events were to change that. The IPL was soon established and player auctions introduced. The domestic cricketer who excels in the shortest form of the game is now able to command a large salary without even playing international cricket. So now the professional prioritises the T20 over international cricket.
Test cricket by consequence is dying slowly. Other than in England it is rare to see a sell out in test cricket and more and more we are seeing great test cricket played in front of empty stadiums. While there are suggestions to try to boost the game with day/night tests and different coloured balls, it seems this form of the game is in decline. And what a shame it will be if it dies forever.
Meanwhile on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the Australian team endured a horrid summer losing the Ashes 5-1 against an England side featuring the rising stars of Ian Botham and David Gower. Yes this was a time for the young Australians such as Alan Border and Rodney Hogg to get their chance, and they did perform well when they had the chance, but against a near full strength opposition, I think it was only Alan Knott, Tony Grieg and Derek Underwood who participated in World Series Cricket. The Australians had little chance of success.
It wasn't long before the revolution won and cricket was never the same. I for one was never allowed to watch World Series Cricket as my father had boycotted it in our house. In 1978 one day cricket was relatively new on the world stage, the first World Cup on a few years before. Any score over 200 was considered as good score, remembering test scoring rates were usually around 2.5-3 runs per over. Touring sides did not bring one-day sides only the home team had the advantage of playing one day specialists.
Thirty years ago one day cricket never really threatened test cricket. Although the crowds were often bigger, there were not so many test playing nations to congest the fixture list. The only element to threaten the standing of test cricket was the rebel tours to South Africa which were often followed by lengthy bans to those that chose to take cash.
The last thirty years has seen some major changes to cricket internationally. The re introduction of South Africa into cricket and the admission of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe has broken the West Indies/Australia/England monopoly of power in cricket. The Pakistan and India sides have established themselves as credible powers in the game and India has become the power base of cricket politically.
Technology has also made a big impact on cricket, with first the third umpire being used for run outs and stumpings and now we see hot spot and snicko and frame by frame replays for lbws and caught behinds that only the Indians seem reluctant to use. But cricket has always been a pauper in the world of sport. Compared to Football players and tennis players and golfers and America's Grid Iron players, Basketball Players and Baseball players the international cricketer is not well paid other the very top players who could rely on endorsements.
The real revolution happened in the home of cricket. England had been going through a complete restructuring of its domestic cricket. Out went the 3 day first class games and in game the national 40 over league. But the counties still wanted to make the game more attractive to new supporters. The idea was a shortened version of the game set for evening play. It was meant to be quick and entertaining and the counties provided other entertainment such as Jacuzzis and competitions for the spectators. And so the 20 over form of the game was born.
I am sure the T20 concept was never meant to be taken seriously just a chance for the counties to make a bit of money and the players and crowd to have fun; a good introduction for the young to cricket. However events were to change that. The IPL was soon established and player auctions introduced. The domestic cricketer who excels in the shortest form of the game is now able to command a large salary without even playing international cricket. So now the professional prioritises the T20 over international cricket.
Test cricket by consequence is dying slowly. Other than in England it is rare to see a sell out in test cricket and more and more we are seeing great test cricket played in front of empty stadiums. While there are suggestions to try to boost the game with day/night tests and different coloured balls, it seems this form of the game is in decline. And what a shame it will be if it dies forever.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Are Australia on their way back?
It doesn't seem at that long ago that Australia slumped to three innings defeats against England. However fortunes have improved somewhat since then. A series victory in Sri Lanka was followed up by a credible drawn series in South Africa, a series draw against New Zealand being the only blip, which was then followed by a whitewash of India.
Australia's efforts against India matched those of England last summer and perhaps like England are due to the decline of an ageing side. However you can only defeat the opposition that is put in front of you.
This Australian team is still very much an unknown quantity. There appears to be very little consistency in selection and the side appears constantly affected by injury to not only its array of fast bowlers but also to the captain, Micheal Clarke.
I am unsure how this new crop of Australian players will fare in the coming years, and the Englishmen in me hopes for failure, however knowing the Australians, it won't be long before they are once again at the top of the cricketing world.
Australia's efforts against India matched those of England last summer and perhaps like England are due to the decline of an ageing side. However you can only defeat the opposition that is put in front of you.
This Australian team is still very much an unknown quantity. There appears to be very little consistency in selection and the side appears constantly affected by injury to not only its array of fast bowlers but also to the captain, Micheal Clarke.
I am unsure how this new crop of Australian players will fare in the coming years, and the Englishmen in me hopes for failure, however knowing the Australians, it won't be long before they are once again at the top of the cricketing world.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Good Result, poor preformance
So like Cardiff we escape defeat again. This is a position we should have never been in. Andrew Strauss made a mistake from the start by putting South Africa in, although he may have misread the pitch or not put enough research into the conditions.
Strauss was not helped with some poor new ball bowling and that his bowlers failed in both inings to capitalise on good postions. Having the Proteas at 50/4 in the second innings, having them out for 150 was possible, but having benign conditions and an attack that has little bite allowed the South Africans to gain control of the game.
What worries me is the form of Cook, Bell and Prior. They all failed to make decent runs in this match, when conditions weren't that difficult. Kevin Pieterson does, what he usually does, worked hard to get the team in a good position and then threw his wicket away.
The only plaudits for this game belong to Swann and Trott who both equipped themselves well. There is a lot to work on for Durban.
Strauss was not helped with some poor new ball bowling and that his bowlers failed in both inings to capitalise on good postions. Having the Proteas at 50/4 in the second innings, having them out for 150 was possible, but having benign conditions and an attack that has little bite allowed the South Africans to gain control of the game.
What worries me is the form of Cook, Bell and Prior. They all failed to make decent runs in this match, when conditions weren't that difficult. Kevin Pieterson does, what he usually does, worked hard to get the team in a good position and then threw his wicket away.
The only plaudits for this game belong to Swann and Trott who both equipped themselves well. There is a lot to work on for Durban.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
Another one day disaster
So here we go again another one day series lost. I really do have to question why we can mainatain four runs per over in 100 overs against Australia in a test match but struggle to do it in a 50 over game. Once again we are trying to find the right combination playing out of form players or those who have not consistently performed for England. Yes we are missing Pieterson and Flintoff but surely we have enough depth in our ranks to cover for these losses.
I always think that cricket is a simple game over complicated by tacticians, sports psychologists, analysts etc. The object, score more than the other team! We obviously have a problem with our batting line up. The only runs we are getting on a consistent basis is from Strauss. We need 6 batsmen who will make a significant contribution and at least one who will get a big score, 80+.
Ideally we need the top 4 to be our best players as they should take us to the 40 over mark. I think that Prior is the most interesting player. He is better suited to coming in early. I would like to see Prior opening with Strauss. Occupying number three and four when fit, should be Pieterson and Bell. These guys should really be trying to occupy the crease for 20 overs each. That will allow the finishers to come in at 5,6,7 and 8..
Before I look at the middle order I want to talk about the bowlers. We should always pick four frontline bowlers with the remaining 10 to be picked up by the allrounders. To me this is a no brainer: Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad and Swann. The only others that could come into this line up are Bresnan and Onions. Brsenan seems to be picked as an allrounder but I think it is his bowling that he should first and foremost be picked, the batting then is the bonus.
So as Broad would occupy number 8 there only remains 5,6 and 7 to consider. Paul Collingwood is my choice for number five. I don't always have complete confidence in Collingwood particularly in test cricket, but he is a great asset in the one day game. He will always keep the scoreboard ticking over, a great fielder and a handy option for the fifth bowler. Luke Wright is a player I like. He is again a good option for some overs and he a good striker of the ball to finish off the innings. He has been picked in the past as a pinch hitter, but when you need some sixes at the end of the innings there is not alot else. The final selection is a much harder one. There are a number of players here to choose from: Shah, Bopara, Rashid, Denly, Morgan, Napier. Shah is probably the best batting option here but really the top 4 should be doing their job, I for one would rather pick someone who can get some wickets and is a different type of bowler than the other choices, so I would go for Rashid here, his leg spin bowling does give a different option.
So my line up would be:
Strauss
Prior
Pieterson
Bell
Collingwood
Wright
Rashid
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
I think the top order looks more solid and there is strength in the bowling line up to restrict the opposition. If you add Flintoff to this side next year it looks even stronger.
I always think that cricket is a simple game over complicated by tacticians, sports psychologists, analysts etc. The object, score more than the other team! We obviously have a problem with our batting line up. The only runs we are getting on a consistent basis is from Strauss. We need 6 batsmen who will make a significant contribution and at least one who will get a big score, 80+.
Ideally we need the top 4 to be our best players as they should take us to the 40 over mark. I think that Prior is the most interesting player. He is better suited to coming in early. I would like to see Prior opening with Strauss. Occupying number three and four when fit, should be Pieterson and Bell. These guys should really be trying to occupy the crease for 20 overs each. That will allow the finishers to come in at 5,6,7 and 8..
Before I look at the middle order I want to talk about the bowlers. We should always pick four frontline bowlers with the remaining 10 to be picked up by the allrounders. To me this is a no brainer: Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad and Swann. The only others that could come into this line up are Bresnan and Onions. Brsenan seems to be picked as an allrounder but I think it is his bowling that he should first and foremost be picked, the batting then is the bonus.
So as Broad would occupy number 8 there only remains 5,6 and 7 to consider. Paul Collingwood is my choice for number five. I don't always have complete confidence in Collingwood particularly in test cricket, but he is a great asset in the one day game. He will always keep the scoreboard ticking over, a great fielder and a handy option for the fifth bowler. Luke Wright is a player I like. He is again a good option for some overs and he a good striker of the ball to finish off the innings. He has been picked in the past as a pinch hitter, but when you need some sixes at the end of the innings there is not alot else. The final selection is a much harder one. There are a number of players here to choose from: Shah, Bopara, Rashid, Denly, Morgan, Napier. Shah is probably the best batting option here but really the top 4 should be doing their job, I for one would rather pick someone who can get some wickets and is a different type of bowler than the other choices, so I would go for Rashid here, his leg spin bowling does give a different option.
So my line up would be:
Strauss
Prior
Pieterson
Bell
Collingwood
Wright
Rashid
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
I think the top order looks more solid and there is strength in the bowling line up to restrict the opposition. If you add Flintoff to this side next year it looks even stronger.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Australian media.
After browsing through several Australian newspapers, I see the OZ press still hasn't grown up. The amount of times in their reports any reference to certain England players begins with South African born, well I cannot count. Facts is facts and yes there will be four South African born players in the squad when we tour there later this year. Now I am not sure what the exact rules are but I think you have to be playing here for five years before you qualify to play for England.
Our national cricket team has always had its share of imports including the likes of: D'Olivera, Grieg, Smith, Lamb, Jackman, Hick, Mullaly, White, Pieterson, Strauss, Prior and Trott. This is not because we actively recruit players but because young cricketers around the world see playing cricket in England as a great opportunity to further their careers. There is the chance here to play in eighteen first class games a season on top of the plethora of 40 over, 50 over and 20 over competitions.
If I may look at our latest import, Jonathan Trott, he played some Representative cricket at youth level but at 18 he saw that his future career lay ahead in England. I am sure there are many young cricketers contemplating this very same thing as we speak. I think this is a compliment to the nation that maintains the best conditions for professional cricketers in the world.
I didn't see Australia baulking at playing Andrew Symonds when he was born in England, nor did it stop the likes of Jacques, Di Venuto, North, Clark, Langer, Law, Lehman etc earning a living in the UK. Australian sport has a history of taking in foreign athletes as their own: Tennis players Dokic and Mandlikova, amongst the numerous Olympic Athletes including Jana Pittman, even some famous footballers such as Mark Viduka, who's family origins are from Croatia, harry Kewell who came to England under a British passport and Tim Cahill who's mother is Samoan and father is English and played youth football for Samoa.
I would only have to question why doesn't Australia have more players of foreign origin playing for them. Australia has a population with large representation from Asia but this doesn't seem to translate into their cricket team.
Anyway I think its time Australians stop worrying about where our players are born and should respect the fact that they all fight to play for England.
Our national cricket team has always had its share of imports including the likes of: D'Olivera, Grieg, Smith, Lamb, Jackman, Hick, Mullaly, White, Pieterson, Strauss, Prior and Trott. This is not because we actively recruit players but because young cricketers around the world see playing cricket in England as a great opportunity to further their careers. There is the chance here to play in eighteen first class games a season on top of the plethora of 40 over, 50 over and 20 over competitions.
If I may look at our latest import, Jonathan Trott, he played some Representative cricket at youth level but at 18 he saw that his future career lay ahead in England. I am sure there are many young cricketers contemplating this very same thing as we speak. I think this is a compliment to the nation that maintains the best conditions for professional cricketers in the world.
I didn't see Australia baulking at playing Andrew Symonds when he was born in England, nor did it stop the likes of Jacques, Di Venuto, North, Clark, Langer, Law, Lehman etc earning a living in the UK. Australian sport has a history of taking in foreign athletes as their own: Tennis players Dokic and Mandlikova, amongst the numerous Olympic Athletes including Jana Pittman, even some famous footballers such as Mark Viduka, who's family origins are from Croatia, harry Kewell who came to England under a British passport and Tim Cahill who's mother is Samoan and father is English and played youth football for Samoa.
I would only have to question why doesn't Australia have more players of foreign origin playing for them. Australia has a population with large representation from Asia but this doesn't seem to translate into their cricket team.
Anyway I think its time Australians stop worrying about where our players are born and should respect the fact that they all fight to play for England.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Looking forward
England's toughest challenge is coming up next with a trip to South Africa. Well this will be a homecoming for several members of the squad so its not completely like playing away from home! The selectors and management have a few months to prepare the right squad for this tour. The major questions are first of all how we replace Flintoff and who we will play in our middle order. If we are to pick sixteen players I would go for 7 batsmen, 5 seamers, 3 spinners and 1 keeper. I don't see the point in taking 2 keepers allthough it may be risky if Prior was to be injured on the day of the test.
Batsmen
For me this will be the toughest choice. There are only 3 definates here: Strauss, Pieterson and Trott. The other 4 who have represented England this summer: Cook, Bell, Bopara and Collingwood, are on very shaky ground. At this moment it would be unlikely that England will make any major changes to the batting lineup for continuity reasons. I would like us to bring in Joe Denly, depending on how well he does in the one day matches, at the expense of one of the four mentioned. I think Bopara looks the most vulnerable as his problems are technical and playing him in South Africa would constitute a huge risk against a very South African bowling lineup.
Seamers
I am still not convinced by our bowling line up. It seems to be getting harder and harder to take wickets and getting easier to score runs. We need a mixture here of agression and line and length bowling. We need a great deal of dicipline and each bowler knowing what their role is. The senior member at the moment is Anderson with Broad now looking like a shoe in as he finished the series against Australia well. I believe that Onions should also go as he has performed well this summer. The other 2 positions are really up for grabs. Steve Harmisson is an obvious one, however he doesn't seem to travel well an I thought his comments were very negative yesterday. He doesn't seem to hve the fight that is required to be an international cricketer. My preference here would to give Tim Bresnan the oppourtunity and also Mahmood, although his county for is not that great, he has the pace and agression to do a job for England.
Wicket-keeper
There should be no doubt now that Prior is number one for England. The only issue would be whether we take a back up. Foster is probably the best keeper in the country but he doesn't score enough runs and if selected would need another batsmen to come into the side.
Spinners
I think this is the choice a third spinner or a second keeper. I would prefer a third spinner. These pick themselves with Swann, Panesar and Rashid. The latter being a handy allround option.
My squad: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Trott, Pieterson, Denly, Prior, Swann, Panesar, Rashid, Broad, Anderson, Onions, Bresnan, Mahmood.
If I was to pick an eleven today, depending on the conditions, I would favour: Strauss, Denly, Bell, Pieterson, Trott, Prior, Rashid, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions. Yes a bit different with just 3 seamers and 2 spinners but a side capable of scoring big runs and an attack full of variety.
I can't wait!
Late flash!!!
I forgot Sidebottom, well you would have to think he would be a part of this squad, probablu in place of Bresnan, sorry Tim.
Batsmen
For me this will be the toughest choice. There are only 3 definates here: Strauss, Pieterson and Trott. The other 4 who have represented England this summer: Cook, Bell, Bopara and Collingwood, are on very shaky ground. At this moment it would be unlikely that England will make any major changes to the batting lineup for continuity reasons. I would like us to bring in Joe Denly, depending on how well he does in the one day matches, at the expense of one of the four mentioned. I think Bopara looks the most vulnerable as his problems are technical and playing him in South Africa would constitute a huge risk against a very South African bowling lineup.
Seamers
I am still not convinced by our bowling line up. It seems to be getting harder and harder to take wickets and getting easier to score runs. We need a mixture here of agression and line and length bowling. We need a great deal of dicipline and each bowler knowing what their role is. The senior member at the moment is Anderson with Broad now looking like a shoe in as he finished the series against Australia well. I believe that Onions should also go as he has performed well this summer. The other 2 positions are really up for grabs. Steve Harmisson is an obvious one, however he doesn't seem to travel well an I thought his comments were very negative yesterday. He doesn't seem to hve the fight that is required to be an international cricketer. My preference here would to give Tim Bresnan the oppourtunity and also Mahmood, although his county for is not that great, he has the pace and agression to do a job for England.
Wicket-keeper
There should be no doubt now that Prior is number one for England. The only issue would be whether we take a back up. Foster is probably the best keeper in the country but he doesn't score enough runs and if selected would need another batsmen to come into the side.
Spinners
I think this is the choice a third spinner or a second keeper. I would prefer a third spinner. These pick themselves with Swann, Panesar and Rashid. The latter being a handy allround option.
My squad: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood, Trott, Pieterson, Denly, Prior, Swann, Panesar, Rashid, Broad, Anderson, Onions, Bresnan, Mahmood.
If I was to pick an eleven today, depending on the conditions, I would favour: Strauss, Denly, Bell, Pieterson, Trott, Prior, Rashid, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions. Yes a bit different with just 3 seamers and 2 spinners but a side capable of scoring big runs and an attack full of variety.
I can't wait!
Late flash!!!
I forgot Sidebottom, well you would have to think he would be a part of this squad, probablu in place of Bresnan, sorry Tim.
Did we win the Ashes?
What a difference from four years ago. I remember the Edgbaston test as it was looking more and more likely Australi were going to make it before Kasprowicz was caught behind. I was so deliruous I picked up a table and thre it accross my lounge room. Who could forget the tension of the final day at the Oval and that great knock from Kevin Pieterson. We bought a bottle of champagne and celebrated in style. Not as much as Feddie Flintoff though.
Four years later and the same 2-1 margin but nowhere near the same amount of excitement. There is obviously not the same quality as last time round and England did beat an Australian side with so many great players such as Warne, Mcgrath, Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist etc. You would have to say that both the England and Australian sides are a work in progress. Australia have problems at the top of the order, are short of a quality spinner and don't have someone they can throw the ball to to get a wicket when they really need to. Englands major weakness is with their middle order and they struggle to take wickets on a flat wicket.
This was a strange serios lacking real quality and intensity. The final result should have been 3-2 if all games had been played to their conclusion. Certainly England outplayed Australia in 2 tests and likewise Australia outplayed England in two tests. Edgbaston was more advantage England and who knows what would have happened with an extra day there.
Well I am happy to have the ashes back in Englands hands and I just forward to November next year when the battle commences again. It seems strange that it will be a quarter of a century since we last won there by the time we arrive in Australia. But all records are made to be broken.
Four years later and the same 2-1 margin but nowhere near the same amount of excitement. There is obviously not the same quality as last time round and England did beat an Australian side with so many great players such as Warne, Mcgrath, Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist etc. You would have to say that both the England and Australian sides are a work in progress. Australia have problems at the top of the order, are short of a quality spinner and don't have someone they can throw the ball to to get a wicket when they really need to. Englands major weakness is with their middle order and they struggle to take wickets on a flat wicket.
This was a strange serios lacking real quality and intensity. The final result should have been 3-2 if all games had been played to their conclusion. Certainly England outplayed Australia in 2 tests and likewise Australia outplayed England in two tests. Edgbaston was more advantage England and who knows what would have happened with an extra day there.
Well I am happy to have the ashes back in Englands hands and I just forward to November next year when the battle commences again. It seems strange that it will be a quarter of a century since we last won there by the time we arrive in Australia. But all records are made to be broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)