These are fascinating times for Australian cricket
By Geoff Lawson, 4 Aug 2009 Geoff Lawson is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, english cricket, Michael Clarke, The Ashes

After a short delay Australia's Phillip Hughes, left, walks back to the pavilion as Ricky Ponting, 2nd left, looks at umpires Billy Doctrove, 2nd right, and Rudi Koertzen on the fourth day of the second Ashes Test match between England and Australia at Lord's cricket ground in London, Sunday, July 19, 2009. Hughes was caught out by Andrew Strauss off a ball from James Anderson for 17 runs. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
The beauty of sport is that the scoreline is unambiguous. It sums up the collective performances of the combatants, it factors in the vagaries of the pitch, the inconsistencies of the umpires, the errors of the players and even the changeability of the climate.
The ‘what ifs’ give the experts, the pundits, the coaches, and the media plenty to talk about. But they never change the scoreline on Monday mornings.
Which leaves us with the Ashes – three down and two to play, with England holding a decisive one-zip advantage. I say ‘decisive’ not so much in the vitality or superiority of the lead, but because being one up in this series is like being a goal in front of the FA Cup Final with 15 minutes to play.
The defense is packed so tightly that the Morris twins, Gary Ablett Jnr, Tim Cahill, and even Warney couldn’t score.
When the fourth Australian wicket fell at 161 last night, there became a growing fear that England could roll the lower order and steam away for the win. Graham Manou, batting at 7, inspires a deal less confidence than Brad Haddin.
And Australia can’t keep relying on the tail to keep them afloat.
Two things, not unrelated happened over the next couple of hours as the Ashes lay in the balance.
Firstly, Michael Clarke and Marcus North batted with true Test match grit. They weathered early storms and blossomed when the attack tired and the bowlers strayed.
Which brings us to, secondly, England bowled very well in the first innings, though Australia got a bonus 70 odd from 9, 10 and 11.
England then began reasonably in the second dig but had some lapses late on the fourth day when Watson was gifted runs, and then again after that fourth wicket fell.
Runs were easy to make as the bowling was short and wide or full and not quite straight. It was as though the pressure was all on England.
Clarke and North blocked the good ones, not many of those, and whacked the bad ones, yep, plenty of them.
Test match bowling discipline flew out the window and Andrew Strauss began the hair pulling ritual that Ricky would do if his rug wasn’t so expensive.
The much-maligned Mitchell Johnson certainly bowled better in this match. “Wouldn’t be hard you”, say. And quite rightly so.
But he did have a much more consistent technique and did actually swing a couple, which umpire Koertzen was shocked by and couldn’t raise the index digit for.
Mitch was significantly better, but he needs a plan when the ball isn’t swinging and the tail are!
Whether his two wickets for the Test match will return his mojo is debatable, but in a series that has seen such swings of form and fortune, we find ourselves demurring to Forrest Gump.
We just don’t know what we are going to get from the players of either side out of the box of chocolates.
Shane Watson has secured his Test lifeline, opening the batting can you believe! The prodigy, Hughes, is forgotten already at this stage of his career.
Strikeforce Johnson has ten wickets at nearly 50, Peter Siddle has not reproduced anywhere near his sterling South African form, Nathan Hauritz has been steady – just STEADY mind you.
But he is bucking the system by being consistent. Get a grip Nathan!
Ben Hilfenhaus looks Terry Alderman-like one day and Alderman Clem Jones the next (young people can Google him ).
Skipper Ponting breaks records then leaves a Sydney Heads gap to Swann.
Swann looks unplayable at 11am and unmissable at 3; Jimmy Anderson swings it both ways at pace and then can’t miss the bat; and Graham Onions peels off outswingers on a length followed by long hops at a width.
Stuart Broad is averaging much worse than the maligned Johnson in this series, but keeps getting picked in front of Steve Harmison (Harmison and S Clark will SURELY play in the next Test!)
I’m not sure if I like all this unpredictability.
I prefer my Test cricket played by men with known and measureable skills, you know, like McGrath, Warne and Bradman. Isn’t that why, and how, you get to play Test cricket in the first place?!
One nil down, two to play.
English weather, African umpire, Headingly pitch (remember 1981, I’ve almost erased it completely from my memory), Merv Hughes a selector, Shane Watson the form opener, Brett Lee professing peak fitness …
Like my time in Pakistan, it is all fascinating, but in the end only the scoreline will matter.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, english cricket, Michael Clarke, The Ashes

August 4th 2009 @ 10:39am
ozziejag said | August 4th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Geoffrey
Can you tell me if it’s true that Will Murdoch , Australia’s second Test captain , lost the Ashes twice in England ?
I have read Roland Perry’s section on him in “Captain Australia ” & still can’t work it out.
PLease clarify . I have heard that Roland’s facts are not always correct.
It’s great that we saved the Third Test but is it just delaying the inevitble ?
Cheers
Ozziejag { 300kms West of Wagga Wagga }
August 4th 2009 @ 7:34pm
sheek said | August 4th 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
Ozziejag,
Murdoch did captain Australia to two Ashes series losses in the early years – 1884 & 1890. The 1984 series was lost 0-1, & the 1990 series 0-2.
However Murdoch did captain Australia to series wins in 1880 (one test), 1881/82 (2-0 in 4 tests) & 1983 (one test). He also lost a home series in 1882/83 (2-3). This is no reflection on Murdoch, as England were exceptionally strong during the 70s & 80s. After all, they invented the game of cricket!
England won 7 successive series from 1984-90, totaling 20 tests & 14 wins. Australia won just 3 of these tests. Previously, in 13 tests from 1877-83, Australia won 7 to 4 with 2 draws. Australia regained its supremacy in the 1890s.
August 4th 2009 @ 11:17am
Spiro Zavos said | August 4th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
It seems to me that this Ashes series revolves around the fact that the batting, except for Australia at Lords where they got the worst of the conditions, is much stronger than the bowling. Australia has two Tests to get a victory. It probably won’t come in the Oval Test as the last game there produced to innings of over 600 runs.
This makes the Test starting on Friday very important. Which brings us to Australia’s bowling and the chances of taking 20 English wickets with the attack that has failed to do this so far, although Cardiff was close.
The key here is Stuart Clark. A place has to be found for him. If this means dropping Nathan Hauritz or Mitchell Johnson, then so be it. England have been able to score their runs too quickly so far in the series. You’d think that Clark would put a brake on things and place the batsmen under more pressure than they’ve been so far.
I’m not expecting Shane Watson to be successful again but after his good showing he’ll remain in the side, even though his bowling was no compensation for the lack of Clark’s accuracy.
August 4th 2009 @ 2:03pm
Spencer said | August 4th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Spiro – We need 20 wickets. Johnson MUST play. Siddle must go, and with Clark coming in the attack looks balanced. Unfortunately North can not be used as a spinner, and Clarke doesnt want to be, so therefore Hauritz must play. With Haddin out injured Watson will play, as it is too risky to bring back Hughes.
You see Spiro, it’s all rather logical if you spend a few minutes thinking about it. Well…my logic anyway.
August 4th 2009 @ 11:23am
Brian said | August 4th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Good article, sums up the series nicely.
England’s 1-0 lead doesn’t seem watertight especially without KP, 20 wickets looks very achievable. Being 1-0 I wonder if they will be tempted to drop Broad in favour of another dour batsman aka. Collingwood in 2005.
August 4th 2009 @ 11:30am
Tom said | August 4th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Is Rudi umpiring the next test?
August 4th 2009 @ 11:39am
SouthernWaratah said | August 4th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
I’ve written it before and I’ll write it again…. Lawson for National Selector! Add Shane Warne and Greg Matthews to that list and well have some tough but fair selectors!
August 4th 2009 @ 11:59am
Jameswm said | August 4th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
SClark has to come in, probably for Siddle. We have to start strangling them better, because as good as Warne and McGrath were, that’s what they did best.
August 4th 2009 @ 12:41pm
FYRalphyG said | August 4th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I don’t know if I can watch any more because no matter how good the cricket is, the H&R Block ads are driving me to distraction. All I can think of now is that guy covered in receipts and that annoying tune is stuck permanently in my head.
August 4th 2009 @ 12:48pm
JohnB said | August 4th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
A couple of questions to other Roar-ers – was there ever any explanation as to why Clark wasn’t picked for the Test just finished? And what sort of pace was Watson getting up to in his short bowling spell?
August 4th 2009 @ 1:11pm
Jameswm said | August 4th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Ralphy
My 4yo loves that ad. He loves dressing up in suits (Spiderman, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter etc) and has asked his grandma to make him the paper suit. She thought about it then decided it was too hard.
August 4th 2009 @ 2:10pm
Hansie said | August 4th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
I thought a picture was worth a thousand words when I saw Stuart Clark warming up the other day wearing his whites, while the test players were all in their training gear. I assume this was a subtle message to the selectors by Stuart.