England's Graeme Swann, right, takes the final wicket of Australia's Brad Haddin, 4th right, to dismiss Australia to win the Ashes on the fourth day of the fifth Ashes cricket test match at the Oval cricket ground, London, Sunday Aug. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Tom Hevezi)
The autopsy of Ricky Ponting’s second successive Ashes loss in England should be brutal. I fear it will not be. The entrails should be laid out, read by the augaries and verdicts announced. Those managing the dissection should include the Chairman and CEO of Cricket Australia.
It will not be enough to leave this in the hands of the selection panel for they are as culpable as the players who took the field.
It is not in hindsight that the touring squad was criticised for the inappropriate balance that delivered neither a second specialist spinner nor opening batsmen among the 16.
Please don’t tell me that Shane Watson was a success at the top – when you get away to as many starts as he did you need to convert a fair number of those into big scores, scores that make team first innings big enough for winning comfort.
Watson’s consistent failure to go on past the half century was maddening, especially as he was out LBW and bowled so often.
The sign of a true opener is one who battles through the new ball and prospers against the old.
But back to the selectors. They deemed a need to reward players for past efforts, even modest ones rather than think of a strategy for the NEXT series, one played in different conditions and with different skills.
The selectors took a gamble of sorts in that Phil Hughes would continue his golden beginnings and then dumped him after three innings one of which was 36 and replaced him with a late order batsmen who averaged four point-zip in his previous first class opening attempts!
Andrew MacDonald was NEVER considered for a Test berth in a series where Australia were struggling, but I reckon Doug Bollinger would have been a chance if they had bothered to pick a specialist fast bowler.
Stuart Clark twiddled his thumbs, chewed nails and carried drinks until his opportunity finally arrived. Australia duly won.
Nathan Hauritz doen’t know whether he is coming or going. Apparently he is not required on turning pitches any more. I wonder under what conditions he will return to the XI?
Mike Hussey may have extended his career after the gutsy and lengthy hundred (219 balls for 100) after being dropped four times. A ton in a big losing margin, hmmm, whether this innings will keep a younger man from the middle order must be thoroughly discussed, and not just by the punters.
Ricky Ponting’s run-out had all the trade marks of his Trent Bridge 2005 dismissal, when he left the field hurling abuse at the England coach for having the audacity to use a substitute fieldsmen.
That run out, as this one at The Oval, had little to do with the quality of the fieldsmen and a lot to do with Ponting ‘ball watching’ and dawdling.
On both occasions he may have been safe with a little more attention to detail. Up to that moment he and Hussey had negotiated the turbulent waters and were sailing as comfortably as the dusty surface would allow.
Mitchell Johnson is capable of producing truly dangerous deliveries, but dangerous overs or spells or consecutive matches are, at this stage, beyond him.
He still picks up wickets because of raw pace and extra bounce plus that slinging action that leaves batsmen with a late look at the ball, but if Australia are to return to being a consistent team they need the spearhead to be on his game most of the time.
Hilfenhaus and Siddle are the workmen and good at their jobs but they are not strike bowlers. They wear batsmen down well enough, but you need a bit more than that at elite level.
They are supposed to be the support wing for Johnson’s bombing raids but recently Johnson has been coming on at first or second change and that is not what number one destroyer is supposed to do.
All these matters require good coaching and thoughtful, wise selecting, but given those failings there is one single influential moment in this series where the Ashes were lost.
Look no further than the First Test. With 69 deliveries left in the match Australia needed one single wicket to complete their domination of a cowering England.
A first up win in such crushing fashion would have set the tone for the remainder, England would not have recovered and Philip Hughes would have been retained with exactly the same amount of runs with which he was dropped.
With two left handers at the crease – Anderson, useful at number 10 and Panesar, a genuine eleven – captain Ponting threw the ball to decent part time offie Marcus North. Nathan Hauritz was operating at the other end.
The fastest bowler on the ground was not called upon, neither were the next two in pace. (Perhaps the captain had over rates on his mind after the events of India last october ?)
Plan ‘A’, should have been to intimidate Panesar, then get him out. This is not rocket science. England survived and turned the momentum of the QEII around.
There was not much between these two teams, that observation was made before the series began and was proven in the most eclectic of Ashes.
Good decision making by leaders therefore became paramount. Andrew Hilditch and Ricky Ponting have ruled as Australia have lost three of the past four series. I hope the forensics are thorough.
Recommend this story.
August 24th 2009 @ 7:12am
Matt0931 said | August 24th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Yep, the ashes was won and lost by Pontings ashes in the first test with his bowling selection when he should yhave picked a pace bowler to give monty some chin music and then by his actions in the last test when he wasn’t on the game and got himself run out…although I think hussey was a bit adventurous taking a risky single when the team should heve been more focussed on staying the distanec and taking runs only when it was safe to do so.
I think Ponting still has a lot of cricket left in him but I think it is time that he is given much more direction and assistanec with his captaincy. Why didn’t the dressing room send soemone out to tell him to put in a pace attack at the end when he went for a spinner?
I also think it is time for the selectors to get the push and have a lesser input into team selection. Too many times we see players picked for past heroics or by the state they are from rather than how good they are. I think it is time to stop being so precious about dropping players and just go for it if players are not performing. This happens in many other sports so it should also happen in cricket. Mitchell Johnson should have been dropped as soon as Lee was back from injury and Siddle should have been dropped for Clarke straight after the first test. Hussey should also have been dropped earlier on in the series when he wasn’t performing.
And finally I think Ponting needs to shift down the order to number 4 with Clarke moving above him.
I disagree with the points made above about Watson. I think he was great as the opener and did much better than many of our middle order who are supposed to be better than him. I think the Poms found his weak spot and exploited it. It is up to the coaches to fix this small weakness and then he will be much stronger and a greater opening batsman.
August 24th 2009 @ 7:33am
vinay verma said | August 24th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
The recriminations from commentators and fans will be swift and perhaps savage. Australia has dominated cricket for a decade and all dynasties come to an end. But it is far from the death of a cricketing nation. Australi’s hold on the Number One position has been tenuous for the last 18 months. Nations like South Africa,Sri Lanka and India have detected a diminshing of Australia’s hitherto collective strength and have pounced. Australia has remained static and the rest have galvanised and improved. The three mentioned above have settled batting and a balanced attack. These two factors make Captaincy easier. More than the captain it is the selectors and back room boys that are culpable . Troy Cooley and Nielsen seem out of their depth and it is staggering to think that Nielsen has been given an extended contract. Clearly,Otis Gibson and Andy Flower have stage managed the England squad better.
Consistency has been australia’s nemesis. The selection of Watson as an opener changed the dynamics of Australi’s batting and the selectors obviously panicked in dropping Hughes. When you consider that Bell was persevered with in spite of being terrorised by Johnson. Watson as Geoff points out did not convert any of his starts and importantly did not take a wicket with his bowling.
The Oval again highlighted the inconsistency in Australia’s bowling. It is difficult for a Captain to set fields for bad bowling. This is an inexperienced attack but the experience will do them good. Generally the batting looks good but their bad moments have cost them dearly. Ponting is hurting and has accepted responsibility for the result and it is to be hoped he will continue to captain the side. Because,simply,there is no one remotely qualified to take over from him.
August 24th 2009 @ 9:31am
Harry said | August 24th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
The selectors have to go. As does Katich … performed worse than Watson. Agree that the Hussey century shouldn’t automatically save him. I’m sorry but Stuart Clarke was poor in this game, worse than the other 3 quicks. Can’t agree that Bollinger would have been any better than the afore mentioned 3 quicks. Krezja should have been on the tour in place of Hauritz.
August 24th 2009 @ 2:49pm
FIsher Price said | August 24th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
What?
August 24th 2009 @ 2:49pm
FIsher Price said | August 24th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Katich has been the most consistent batsman for two years.
August 24th 2009 @ 9:49am
Kyle said | August 24th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Latest forensic analyses suggest that Australia (a) continues on a downslope (starting approx 24 months ago); (b) is in rebuilding rather than reloading mode; (c) requires bowling/batting transplants and (d) deep burial for selectors.
Overall prognosis is guarded with newly introduced transfusions, but long-term outlook looks promising, but may require several years of directed convalescence.
August 24th 2009 @ 11:29am
James Mortimer said | August 24th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
The one things that irks me about Australian media/experts, is that when a team loses, it is always instant recriminations, and never the acknowledgment of the victor.
At the end of the day, I believe the better team won the Ashes.
Well done England!
August 24th 2009 @ 12:58pm
Harry said | August 24th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
In case you haven’t noticed this is an Australian based sports opinion site. Join the throng of backslappers at the UK newspaper sites if you want adulation for the victors. Unless you are merely gloating … which you are quite entitled to do.
My view by the way is that it was a deseved victory. England had a more balanced side and had the better of 3 of the 5 games, and the critical moments in the series. As soon as we got in trouble at Lords and the Oval, we folded … as did England at Headingly, but not, crucially, at Cardiff (thanks Monty and Collingwood)
August 24th 2009 @ 12:59pm
Brett McKay said | August 24th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Could not agree more James, some day somewhere, an Australian scribe will give credit where it’s due, and not just tacked on the end of analysis calling for heads and laying blame. Like this piece..
For the moment, let the series loss sit as just that: a series loss.
Full credit to England for their various fightbacks and general series dominance…
August 24th 2009 @ 4:31pm
Dave said | August 24th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
and next England papers will not be saying its the end of the world everytime they lose a test.
August 24th 2009 @ 11:59am
Ophuph Huckaske said | August 24th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
If any good comes from this series, it will hopefully be an end to the off-field sledging (with the media and assorted camp followers being willing collaborators) that the Aussies have indulged in over the last 15 years. No other international seems to do this, apart from the Saffers; they come across as equally boorish when they do, and just as foolish when they can’t walk the walk.
So selecting Trott was an act of desperation was it? With hindsight we can now see that the England selectors actually erred by not putting Bopara out to pasture before Headingley.
Were the English right to fear Ponting, as Clarke claimed? The right time for a signature innings was the first dig – not the somewhat streaky half-century he made when, realistically, all was lost.
Did the unnamed member of the Australian set-up who leaked Langer’s dossier really that by doing so he was driving a stake into the heart of a wilting opponent? It’s taking a couple of years for the Aust. hierarchy to realize that the “mental disintegration” pioneered by Steve Waugh becomes a lot trickier to enforce when you don’t have Warne/McGrath/Gilly in your pocket.
August 24th 2009 @ 4:13pm
Stumpman said | August 24th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
No other teams sledge. What a croc. I saw plenty of vociferous sledging and bitching by the English.
Dossier was stolen out of the change room. Apparently an investigation is underway.
August 24th 2009 @ 9:35pm
Lem said | August 24th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Try reading what Ophuph said. He didn’t say that other teams don’t sledge, he referred to Australia’s failed and pathetic off-field bitching — such as Ponting’s ridiculous attempt to undermine Trott.
August 24th 2009 @ 12:44pm
Worlds Biggest said | August 24th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
It is painful losing the Ashes but credit to the Poms for bouncing back after the Headingly humiliation. I think the 10 day break allowed them more time for reflection and regroup while our guys were reasonably cocky in the leadup. The Oval is once again a bogey ground for Australia. What a toss to win for Strauss. The Aussies will rue Cardiff, a win there and you would think we retain the Ashes. Punter and selectors will come in for harsh scrutiny while Straus and Co will be getting knighthoods and Queens honours etc….
August 24th 2009 @ 1:05pm
Ujjal said | August 24th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Ponting is a thoughtless captain as rightly pointed out by Geoff.
I agree that Michael Clark should come in at no 3 nd Ponting drop down to no 4 simply to preserve his energy. Even Sachin bats at no 4. Tha will not mean that he is swallowing his pride.
Ponting loses the plot in most games when the opposition is attacking and does nothing but spits on his palms and keeps rubbing them . What a nasty habbit !!
Bowling wise – the fastest bowler should be in the team. Be it Brett Lee or Shaun Tait. Young players should be encouraged , backed and nurtured well. For the moment Australia should always play with two spinners, Bryce McGain and Hauritz or Kreza in support. Groom Cullen Bailey strongly.
The Pace bowling should be balanced and express bowlers leading from the front with workmen like bowlers ( Hilfenhaus / Siddle) as first change only and not as the opening bowlers. Young promising batsmen should be brought in the squad. There is a young guy called Smith who is a genuine legspinning allrounder. How about him?
Luke Ronchi should be in the squad. What about the players like Shuan Marsh and Phil Jaques. Phil Hughes should be coached well to correct his technical problems.
Out of the current lot Marcus North has played well and should carry on – but he should continue to bowl more.
Forget the stupid idea of considering particular players for particular versions of the game. I think Marsh and Hughes or Phil Jaques should be the openers. Followed by Clark, Ponting,
Katich, North and Hussey or Shane watson or some one else who can hold the team at times of crisis.
Noted on many occassions that Ponting is reluctant to Katich as a Bowler. God knows why.
Stuart Clarke should now be included only on seaming wickets otherwise, he is now nothing more than an honest Trundler bowling military medium just to keep one end going and give some rest to the main bowlers.
He is unlikely take more test wickest on docile/ non seaming pitches.
Change the coach and also arrange spin clincs by Warne and Saqlain ( he came to give tips to Haurtz before the last test) , Mallet .
Pace bowling clincs by Lillee and McGrath and batting clinics by Greg Chapell , Border. Gilly / Healy are there for wicket keeping brush ups.
Finally captaincy clincs by Warne ( look at the wonders he did with Rajasthan Royals).
Forget the brooding and get set to work and work hard. results will come soon.
August 24th 2009 @ 3:03pm
FIsher Price said | August 24th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
I’m glad you’ve heard of Smith, and he looks promising (but then so too did the Victorian captain), but let him at least have ONE season as a Shield regular before mooting him for international honours, eh?
Marsh – are you having a laugh?
And what is it that you think Ronchi would bring to the side? He had a dreadful 08/09 season and was dropped by WA.
August 24th 2009 @ 2:29pm
fox said | August 24th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Everybody take a deep breath. It’s just cricket. Nobody is going to die.
The bowlers did enough in the end to win it. The battling order needs some work. That’s it. Any hindsight finger pointing at Ponting is a waste of time. He captained the side pretty well overall. It was one poor bowling match and two middle order collapses that lost the series in the end. England were simply less bad than we were.
August 24th 2009 @ 8:48pm
Brett McKay said | August 24th 2009 @ 8:48pm | Report comment
well said Fox..
August 24th 2009 @ 3:19pm
Greg said | August 24th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Great summary from Mr Lawson.
Every reason to panic, methinks, when a good Australian team gets done by a really ordinary Pommy bunch — not to take anything away from them, they deserved it — having won without Pietersen and with Freddy on one leg.
From a droning spectators point of view, Ponting’s management of the bowlers was horrid throughout the series — and agree Clark should been there from the start. Why specialist ATTACK bowlers didn’t get a crack on this tour is baffling (damn you former batsmen-turned selectors).
Hey, hate to say it, but have to — good on you stupid Poms.