The Ashes: Five questions for Cardiff.
Roar Rookie
By Fred Magee, 5 Jul 2009 Fred Magee is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- ashses, Cricket, Cricket Australia, England, Kevin Pietersen, Phil Hughes, Steve Harmison
So after sitting through three days/nights play at Worcester and anxiously waiting for the naming of the two sides for the First Test on Wednesday, there are a number of questions that still require answers.
1. What will England do with Steve Harmison?
I am sure that the intention was to let Harmison loose on Australians and if lucky, shake them up so that Anderson, Broad, Sidebottom etc could build on any uncertainty and doubt. He has not only accomplished this mission but perhaps bowled himself into contention for Cardiff; especially by potentially finding a weakness against Phillip Hughes.
Harmison is a different and a much better bowler on English soil then away in foreign lands but does this performance warrant a recall or has he just played his designated role in this series?
2. Has Phillip Hughes been found out?
Anyone who saw his two dismissals at Worcester would have been concerned at how awkward Hughes was made to look by Harmison’s very good short pitched bowling. That and if you believe the Sky Sports commentators in England, this ‘discovery’ has gone a long way in getting the Ashes back to Lords.
There are very high expectations of Phillip Hughes, as there were prior to his first Test innings duck in South Africa. That and one first class game doesn’t make a summer.
3. Can the Australian batting order consistently fire?
Three to four of the top seven have to fire with the bat for Australia to win. My earlier concerns around Michael Hussey’s form slump have been alleviated as he played like his old self in this game and will hopefully continue into the Ashes series.
All the Australian batsmen have scored runs over the two warm up games but the key will be ensuring that they consistently fire and not having to rely on vital runs being made by the bowlers.
Make no mistake, if Australia’s batsmen don’t fire then the Ashes will be lost.
4. Will Kevin Pietersen deliver on his reputation?
I think I am a lone voice here but I think that Kevin Pietersen is extremely overrated. Yes, he is capable of a match turning innings but he hasn’t delivered enough of these innings for mine or for England’s liking.
Perhaps if he started batting as England needed him to as opposed to what his ego dictates, then his aggregate and England’s chances of winning will both increase.
5. Are our expectations realistic?
We have lost three players (Warne, McGrath & Gilchrist) who are ‘once in a lifetime’ players. We have also lost ‘world class’ players in Hayden, Langer and MacGill. Fact is, Australia has come back to the pack when it comes to Test Cricket and recent series against India and South Africa have proven this.
We can still win Test matches; just not as quickly and as convincingly as it has been in the past. With that is the realisation that the mix of the eleven may not be the same. More than ever, we need a bowling attack that will hunt as a pack and help each other take the twenty wickets needed to win. If that means we don’t play a front line spinner then so be it.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (196)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (30)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (196)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- ashses, Cricket, Cricket Australia, England, Kevin Pietersen, Phil Hughes, Steve Harmison
Brett McKay said | July 5th 2009 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Fred, you’re not a lone voice….
Spiro Zavos said | July 5th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
The big weakness in the Australian side is the lack of a front-line spinner. But if there is not such a player around, then do without him. The fast bowling attack has some variety in it with the left-armers of Mitchell Johnson, with Peter Siddle banging them into the pitch, a la Merv Hughes, Stuart Clarke bowling tight and very well to tail-enders and Brett Lee, presumably, bowling his skidders with reverse swing coming into play, hopefully. With this sort of attack the catching behind the wicket needs to be sharp. Is the team up to this?n
Fred Magee said | July 5th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Agree…more than anything else fielding let them down in 2005. They made up for that in 06/07. As we get closer, I would be comfortable with Johnson, Siddle, Clark, Lee with North/Katich/Clarke sharing the spinning duties. I am more confident of these four getting the 20 wickets rather than leaking runs with Haurtiz – especially in the crucial first test.
vinay verma said | July 5th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
Australia areaware of their recent fielding frailities. Michael Clarke is the newly annointed First Slip. Australia have been struggling here since Hayden and Warne retired. North had an unsuccessful stint as did Katich. I believe this is a good cordon now with Clarke,Ponting,North and Katich. Michael Hussey is reliable in the gully.
Haddin has to set the tone and where he standsto the pacemen will be crucial. He has to comeup a few yards as the pitches will not have the bounce of Australia and SA. I think they are aware of this. Mitch Johnson and LEE HAVE rocket arms and Clark is slow but sure. A better all roundfielding unit than England. Pietersen is flashy and drops as many as he catches. Strauss is their best catcher and Collingwood in the gully is their only world class fielder.
vinay verma said | July 5th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Fred- your statement “…fielding more than anyhing elselet them down in 2005″ could do with some scrutiny. I believe it was more of their lack of backup bowling. Kasprowicz and Gillespie did not bowl well. McGrath,when he played,and Warne did allthe damage. Lee was more dangerous with the bat than the ball and almost pulled off a victory when they lost by two runs.
Australia could have won the series 2-1. It was that close. I dont thinkit will be that close this time.
Fred Magee said | July 5th 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Fair point Vinay – however among many moments from 2005, two stand out. The first is where a catch from Andrew Strauss goes through first slip (Warne) and Gilchrist. Strauss went on to score a hundred at a point where one more failure would have put his place in massive doubt. Instead, he played himself into form again. The second was in the Oval Test where Warne drops Pietersen early in his innings. It was one of those signs that Australia’s fielding all round was not at the same level as it had been and definitely contributed to the series loss.
To your point, yes Gillespie had suffered a loss of form but at that time there werent too many issues with Kasprowicz, Tait etc as our back up. In fact, we were amazed that Australia had such depth that these guys, along with Andy Bichel were fighting with McGrath, Lee, Gillespie for places in the side.
vinay verma said | July 5th 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
All good stuff.Fred. Cricket is ultimately about humanity ,like most sport. The indecision,the triumph and the agony.
There will be a champion emerge from this Ashes. Or more than one. There will,inevitably be a loser. We will commiserate with him. And we will salute the champions.
Fred Magee said | July 5th 2009 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
Wise words Vinay…you also forgot the significant amount of lost sleep emerging from this series as well!! I know that I will be watching every ball on Wednesday night and for many nights during this series. All that said, I wouldnt have it any other way!
Colin N said | July 5th 2009 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
“Australia could have won the series 2-1. It was that close. I dont thinkit will be that close this time.”
They could have, but England were by far the better side in at least three of the five tests. You could argue that England should and could have beaten Australia at Old Trafford, had it not been for the weather.
Is Pieterson really overrated, considering he still averages over 50, despite having a fairly poor last year or so. He also has a good conversion rate having got 16 centuries compared to 14 50′s.
I also wouldn’t call Flintoff erratic. With the bat definitely, but with the ball, even when just coming back from injury, always seems to be England’s most consistant bowler. The middle order is by far England’s weakest area. Collingwood and Prior have respectable averages, but they still don’t convince me, and Flintoff has never been a great batter.
The bowling looks a strength. Anderson and Broad are forming a promising partnership and Flintoff should be as consistant as ever and Swann is a very good spinner IMO. The question is whether they go with another spinner or Onions. Panesar’s one-dimensional and good at what he does. His work over the last year or so in trying to form more variation just hasn’t work and has gone back to bowling his old way. Onions has simply had an excellent year, leading wicket taker in the County Championship, despite being with England for a bit of the year, with and average of 13. Bowled well against West Indies, but it will be interesting to see how he does against Australia.
Greg Russell said | July 7th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Before the India-Australia test series last year, Peter Roebuck wrote an article saying that Hayden vs Sehwag was the key battle that would determine the series. As usual for Roebuck it was beautifully written and had many brilliant observations, but I remember thinking at the time that there are 121 pairs of players in two opposing cricket teams, and so it is extremely unlikely that a series will be decided by just one head-to-head battle, let alone that one can predict which pair that will be. As it turned out both players had poor series, and they played little role in the series. In fact it was their opening partners Gambhir and Katich who were each country’s best, with Gambhir being the most influential batsman of the series – who predicted that?
Then before Australia went to South Africa last year, Paul Abbey wrote “The series comes down to Katich, Punter, Clarke and Hussey. … One at least needs a stellar (500 run) series”. He was correct that Australia needed a batsman to make 500 runs in order to pull off a surprise win, but what no-one guessed is that Phil Hughes would be that man.
So I am very wary of previews that seek to reduce cricket series to one key battle or even a couple of key issues. Cricket results might be reasonably predictable, but what we really have no idea about is how that predictability will be realised.
In the present case the result is not at all predictable, so it follows that the individual ups and downs are beyond guessing. I mean, if Jason Gillespie can make a test double century …