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.
Dave1
Guest
i dont think you would get Ian Chappell and Steve Waugh to turn up on the same day.
Dave
Guest
Hodge has come out today critiscising the whole “brown paper bag” philosophy. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25988834-11088,00.html Hodge lashes cricket's alleged NSW bias
William F Woods
Guest
Ujjal - not bad, however, one major flaw. Chappell, Warne, Waugh and company cannot teach a bloke 'instinct' and that unfortunately is a major factor in Ponting's leadership problems.
Ujjal
Guest
Fully agree. Ponting keeps on making the same mistakes repeatedly and seems to be driven too much by personal ego rather than the cause of the team.His blunders on the field have brought horrific results for Australia. Unfortunately there is no one currently to take cahrge and if he is sacked - it is for sure that he will resign and retire. He has nothing to lose as he is already the highest run scorere in Australia and has an average well over 50.00. He also has the maximum no of centuries and in the near future no one is going to break it in Australia more so because Australia keeps selecting oldies and a person debuting at the age of 29 - 30 has only may 3 / 4 years of good cricket left in him. In that period he will never be able to make it. Gone are the days when we saw a young Kim Hughes , a young Border, , A young Steve Waugh , a Young Ponting come along. We now have 29 yr olds ( Hussey and Mark North debuting) come in. However, Marcus North looks a very compsed player and it seems he has the right kind of personality and mental makeup to be the captian but will all concerned play under him with the same kind of committment? I dont think Clark is Captaincy material. maybe we will spoil his batting prowess by making him the captain. Best solution - send Ponting away to a captaincy skill dvelopment clinc conducted by Ian Chappell , Shane warne and Steve Wagh .
William F Woods
Guest
Quickjohnny and Whiteline - thanks for the inquiries - no, not related to Tiger or Prince William. My only connection with the famous is that I have a broken down knee and hobble around like Freddie Flintoff. Great points from both of you re. greed and a change in attitude being needed.
damos_x
Guest
Unfortunately the future doesn't look bright for Australia becuase the main change the team needs simply cannot happen. Ricky Ponting is perhaps at once our greatest asset & alas, also a major dilemma, in the required restructure of the squad. It goes without saying that not only would Ponting be picked at first drop if he had never been captain but would overwhelmingly be the first name on the team sheet too so his position is solid to say the least. His role as captain must be scrutinised even if the result is retention. The problem for Australia is that scrutiny will not be applied is simply the fact that Ponting the captain will not become Ponting the player again & play under another captain, presumably Michael Clarke, & even if he did the team dynamic would be so disjointed it would prove better to have cut him away more ruthlessly. The new captain would struggle to impose himself & the role, at least in the evidence on offer, is not one bandied about to all comers in the manner that has happened to other nations. It is passed down in an esteemed manner & the new candidate is normally already groomed & the incumbent is afforded aa glorious an exit as possible a la Steve Waugh & so mote it be. Ponting should be retained on both statistical & key performance indicators as is the rage presently. He is the winningest captain, highest run scorer, best big game player, vastly experienced & respected as an opponent by all comers & if he wasn't captain would be a national treasure in the vein of Warney. The fact that he is all those things plus any other amazing stat you can measure as well as being captain is surely enough to retain him in the role even if sacking him was a possibilty. The main question seems to be concerning his tactical nous & the glaring errors which have been made both by him alone in the field & in concert with selectors on tour. The consequences of these apparent failings are becoming a little too obvious & verge on elephant in the room territory at times. The circus that our selection of spin bowlers has become is one area which defies belief. Players know who they want to play with & who is the business so it seems inconceivable that of the available & seemingly competent spin bowlers none has been deemed worthy of Ponting's backing as a player he wanted in his team. Is this not the real role of captain ? to stamp his authority on the team & blend a unit rather than the horses for courses policy apparently now used by selectors ( I won't even start on this issue) but Ponting seems as befuddled as his bosses over whom if anyone they should choose. This lack of conviction & foresight is costly, more than just matches & series wins, but also in the development of both the present generation& future players who won't be inspired to take up spin bowling because they had no role models to feed the fantasy on as the present rejected generation did with warney. Alone this may be seen as a minor problem but the same situation exists in other crucial areas. Ponting seems to be missing the edge when reading the game at important times & bowling changes highlight this. Our inability to finish teams off is in stark contrast to past generations. This can be largely attributed to the change of the guard but inherent in the change is the prospect of a brighter future. Without a change of both slectors & captain this will not occur but simultaneously this change cannot happen & thus Australia are hamstrung & all for the fact that Ricky Ponting is so good.
whiteline
Guest
Or perhaps Woods has some royalty in him QuickJohnny - Prince William perhaps?
quickjohnny
Guest
William F Woods you speak common sense but sadly sense is not always that common! Agree with you, although in context of the money issue perhaps I should say 'aGREED' because greed is what has partially killed the hunger of Australia's cricketers. They want more money for a lighter workload!!!! None of them are playing for Australia any more, but in this professional age they are simply playing for a team called Australia. Big Difference in attitude and approach and it shows. Well played Woods. Any relation to Tiger?
whiteline
Guest
Woods - you have hit the nail my friend. In regards to why Australia didn't win, as you said that's been discussed many times. I think the fact that Englands 2009 team is probably worse than it's 2001 and 2003 teams shows you where Australia is at the moment. As long as the Aussies accept where they are and decide they are going to change and do something different then they will improve. If they continue to think everything is ok (James Sutherland style) then they will continue along their merry way.
FIsher Price
Guest
Spot on: Nicholas is vomit-inducing.
William F Woods
Guest
All I want to say is 'Thank God it's over'. I've had enough of trying to sift through the multitude of reasons why Australia didn't win. The bottom line is we are not the team we used to be. The funny thing is that most of the cricketing public, media and the players themselves still think they are a great team. Look in the mirror fellas! It's cyclic and was bound to happen - we could not have remained on top forever. But we will bounce back one day - probably not for a while though. On a different angle, the whole scheduling thing is a complete mess and does little to allow teams to regroup and regain form. What chance did someone like P Hughes have at getting back in when he wasn't going to get another bat on tour? And don't tell me that the nets are enough. These blokes are supposedly professional. But now, they want more money than ever before - and they want to play less cricket?! Make them earn it. This tour will go down as one of the most forgettable for so many reasons - the lack of cricket being right up there. And its not just test tours that need a jolt back into life. Take that tragic, hopelessly organised 2007 World Cup as an example. Why did it just drag on and on and on? Because most teams only played 2 games a week. Come on - these blokes are supposed to be fit athletes - schedule the games more frequently, get these types of series over quicker - and then spend more time playing proper games on proper tours. While I'm at it - why not just get rid of the ODI's altogether? Just have the tests and T20's. If we're worried about scheduling then lighten any unnecessary load. The fans want the T20's. Most cricketers want the Tests. I'm sorry, but the ODI's must miss out. I think I've gone a little off track. Now I know how Ricky feels.
Justin
Guest
Sorry Andrew but each of Hughes dismissals was completely different. Once not caught at slip to outside edge, a faint tickle on the glove from a pull shot and then an inside edge to the keeper. Watson was out in similar fashion with a number of lbws.
Ujjal
Guest
All in all - what bis lost is lost. Australia has become the england of the old - picking on bloddy old payers and being a close to dads army kin of thing. It is very strange Australia can not find a bowler like Ishant Sharma, a legspinner like Amit Mishra ( is he that great a bowler in terms of potential) and a batsman like Rohit Sharma . It is unbelievable. The selectors need to give the youngsters a decent try and back them with the best coaching and support. Its true and very strange - once they select some one in 30 s they seem to think that he will go on playing (Haddin does not want to give up in spite of broken finger) - Hussey is being dragged on but we forget Brad Hodge. Why cant to we look a little deeper? We should get a fast bowlers clinic ( headed by Lillee and may be Geoff) and a spinners clinc (headed by Warne, Jenner, Mallett and Saqlain) and Greg Chappell is already teh head of teh centre of Excellence - he and Border with Geof Marsh may be can take up the cause of the ypoung batsmen. Healy should come in to give his wisdom to the young keepers like Luke Ronchi , Paine (he has the potential of being a world class player). Come on, with real vision and mission Australia can become the no 1 again within the two years (I reckon fater the next home Ashes in 2010 - 11.)
andrew
Guest
Geoff This is an unsubstantiated, hypocritical whine of the highest order. First of all, as a player, selector and coach, at some time you must have noticed that there is only room for XI in the XI! You can't put all the right guys in and not say who you are going to leave out. Of course Harutitz should have played in the 5th test - my post last week saifd as much. But if he had been picked and we lost, you would have been whinging about leaving out Clark. You have (another) dig at Shane Watson, but don't mention Katich. They opened together 5 times, and Watson scored 240 runs and Katich 165. Yes he failed to go on, but he was an unmitigated success. You argue Hughes was dropped after only two tests - but it was clear to everybody that he was getting out the same way every time! The sight of him walking out gave the Poms a spur, as they always knew they had a chance. And - they didn't go to Marcus North with 69 deliveries left. They went to him after Siddle - who was quickest in the first test - failed to intimidate him bowling fast and short for three overs. They went to North in a clear and sensible attempt to get two more Hauritz overs in, because Hauritz was bowling well and looked the best chance. Being a monday morning quarterback is the easiest job in sport - but that hasnot stopped you from stuffing it up.
sunshinecoaster
Guest
Two points for me Hasn't Shane Warne developed into a superb commentator,hes fare balanced and says what he thinks And wasnt it sooooo bloody good not to hear the same one eyed dribble and pro Aussie cheer leading that the channel nine coverage has become,including the nauseating Australian bum slapping from Mark Nicholas. Thank you SBS for your coverage including Greg Matthews, Stuart MacGill and Damien Martyn,refreshing to say the least.
Lem
Guest
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.
Dan
Guest
Well spotted, Drew. Hussey was the last man out. Haddin wasn't even close, being the 6th wicket to fall. Hope you find a way to shut up your Pom workmates. I found the 5-0 06/07 result quite effective in that regard, but I don't think we'll be seeing that again any time soon.
drewster
Roar Pro
On with the ODI's I say. It's over! They won, We lost and I've got 3 Pommie work mates who have given me every angle on how good they were. I need some ammo to fire back at em! So come on Boys, Win the ODI Series please. PS has anybody read the caption under the photo it is not quite right if my eyes don't decieve me.
Dan
Guest
Oops, I meant four selectors, although Merv hardly counts, being 99.9% tour guide. A Richmond FC bloodletting would be nice, starting from the top.
Dan
Guest
Exactly, 3 opening/top order batsmen and a fast bowler. Bit more variety would be nice.