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.
Jameswm
Guest
I agree with those who say Hughes' problems witht he short ball have been overstated. He got out off one that came back at him, one down leg and a full one when admittedly he was back in his stance because of the short-pitched barrage. In between, he spanked several short balls to the boundary. I don't see how he can remain a test batsman until his back foot goes across, though. You have to cover your stumps and open your stance a bit, or else you are opening up too many ways to get out. He'll be back, better than ever. You watch. Hussey I am undecided on though.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
I am currently in the UK. Two things are clear to me, perhaps because cricket is a game better appreciated in daylight (I hesitate to use the word "sunlight" of the recent British weather!) than in the darkness of an overnight Australian living room: 1. Clarke is batting as if he is Australia's captain, whereas Ponting is batting as if he is ... Well let's just say that I hope that after this series, when the Ashes have been lost, Ponting follows the lead of some of his Indian and fellow great contemporaries (Dravid, Tendulkar) by resigning the captaincy, and going back to what he does best: being a great batsman. To put it bluntly, our current stocks are such that we cannot afford not to have Ponting batting at his best. That said: 2. Australia's problem this series is almost entirely its bowling. At the end of T3, Sky Sports flashed up the following thought to ponder: "Centuries this series: Australia 6, England 1". Throw in North's 96 in T3, Haddin's 80 in T2, and Clarke's 87 in T1, and one could almost make this 9-1 (off the top of my head I cannot think of any English near-centuries). This would seem to make clear that Australia has much stronger batting than England. Ergo, the problem is bowling. Incidentally, the county scores I am seeing from The Oval, the venue of T5, suggest a batting superhighway. Thus in all probability the series comes down to T4 in Headingley. Will Australia's bowling suddenly find the necessary form?
Colin N
Guest
It's amazing how some people just simply overreact to a situation. After Australia were bowled out for 263, apparently this English attack was excellent, now it's average. Make your mind up lads. Also, what strikes me is how England have always had the best of the conditions, but could it be that the Australian aren't actually bowling well? Johnson's got some swing at Edgbaston, Hlifenhaus always seems to get swing, even in Cardiff, which was a very lifeless pitch, but they haven't properly taken advantage. Excuses, excuses I say. I seem to recall an Aussie commentator (it may well have been Geoff Lawson himself) writing in an English paper stating that most Australians probably wished they had England's second string attack, such as Sidebottom, Harmison and Panesar. Is this true?
Marty
Guest
Aussie rules!!!
GPR-SA
Guest
What a great article - so well written. I love your opening two paragraphs and will use them in many a sporting debate in the future. I have copied them and filed them in my collection of quotes - don't worry I will always quote your name. A pleasure to read - enjoyed the humour as well. As a South African, I loved your comment about an African Umpire ( yes, with you on that one and still laughing!) Cheers from sunny warm Queensland!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Fly on the Wall...You may well have something here as I believe confidence can be so fragile at times,especially if you are a new kid on the block. My views on Troy cooley and Neilsen were outlined in an article last week. They do have qualifications to coach but it is not evident based on current history.
Jason
Guest
I reckon Hussey to go in place of Hughes (with Watson batting at 4). We need to take 20 wickets so we need enough time to get them. Hughes can put on a quick 50 or 100. I think his so called weakness against the short ball is overstated given that he has probably only been out legitimately once in this series. Clark for Hauritz as well although I really wish Krejza was on tour. And hopefully Haddin is fit.
Fly on the WalI
Guest
I have a theory that selecting Lee in the squad in the first place upset the positive vibes created by the unexpected win in South Africa. One of the bowlers knew he was gone and that deflated things. Then when Lee got injured it only added to the confusion - this is an inexperienced side in English conditions, remember. And Lee's selection made him an automatic inclusion - despit having had two very poor previous tours of England. My question is this: Why are Troy Cooley and Tim Nielsen (does he have any actual qualifications) so inept at fixing our wayward pace bowling? And does anyone else realise that we have now gone 7 Tests in England without a win. That's starting to sound like our record against the Windies (or anyone for that matter) in the mid-80s.
Spencer
Guest
Brian - methinks you give too much credit to Ponting. Remember he captains by precedent, not thought.
Brian
Guest
So England didn't have the better of conditions because Ponting obviously thought it wasn't that terrible, otherwise he would have bowled.
sheek
Guest
There's two things we didn't count on this series. 1. Phil Hughes being exposed by the short, lifting away swinger ball. 2. Mitchell Johnson losing all semblance of form due to domestic issues. These two guys firing would normally have been enough to suggest we would win the series. I reckon both will be back better than ever. Perhaps just not this series!
sheek
Guest
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.
Dave
Guest
If you dont like BJ in the studio, watch SBS
Junior
Guest
ralph - turn it down and listen to the wireless son. even if it's out of whack a little, it beats listening to those appalling sky commentators. and bj back in the studio? oh spare me please! johnb - according to t.nielsen, stuart clark wasn't picked because he was deemed too similar to siddle. i agree. too similar except for leaks runs like a sieve and doesn't take wickets. johnb again - watto was bowling in the low 80mph range in his short spell. if you missed it, it was a spell of looseners. a few other points: w/keeping - haddin is a turnstile behind the stumps. if he can average 30 runs higher than manou, then and only then should he be picked for a test again. hughes - desperately unlucky. does anybody seriously believe that shane "MRI" watson will get through the remaining tests without retiring hurt at least once? he copped a blow on the arm yesterday. is he out for six months? headingley changes - siddle out, clark in. no other changes subject to watson fitness cloud.
Spencer
Guest
.....and we still finished in a stronger position.
davido
Guest
Why not Clark for Siddle?
Brian
Guest
except Ponting won the toss after the rain and decided to bat
Spencer
Guest
Day one was actually day minus 1.5 in terms of the pitch conditions. Therefore day 5 was actually about a day 3 pitch, meaning England batted on a day 1-2 pitch. If that makes sense. Point being that Australia ended the match in a much stronger position than England did.
SouthernWaratah
Guest
Judging by the English bowling we were a fair way away from loosing that test if we had had 5 days play. England looked average as a bowling attack without the ball swinging. Atherton stated “Its Ok to take wickets when conditions suit but you still have to take wicket in all conditions”. England got the best of the swing conditions and took advantage in our first innings, with the sun out runs came aplenty.
FIsher Price
Guest
Watson was just medium pace. His action looked different to what he had in India, so perhaps he's recognised that he's not physically capable of being a fast bowler. If that Edgbaston spell was an example of his quality at medium pace, then he's better off not bowling at all. Meanwhile, I don't think that draw is anything to crow about. The alternative would have been a loss inside three days, so to avoid that humiliation is a fair distance shy of victory.