Cricket Australia to blame for the Aussie slide

Vinay, I appreciate your ongoing support for the possibilities of Australian cricket but I must say that based on what I saw in Adelaide the Aussies have no hope in hell of beating England in Perth. It wasn't just the loss but the insipid way we allowed it to happen. The tail, so often our saviour, simply folded, twice. The batsmen (the skipper excepted) all got good starts and burned them - lots of fifties followed by immediate dismissal. Clarke's was the stand-out innings but he perished on the brink of creating some English doubt, as he so often does, and failed to front up next morning. It was a critical point in the game and virtually condemned his side to failure. The point of Clarke's innings was to "stay in". He could not bring himself to do so. My mate predicted it and Clarke made it happen. Next morning, the last, everyone knew the rain was coming but still the batsmen could not resist. England outplayed us at every turn. Anderson and Swann bowled better than any of ours though Harris was gallant and needed a close watch. Their batsmen simply showed us what Test match batting was all about. Watching Pietersen, Cook and Bell simply waiting for Siddle and co to drop short was frustrating to say the least. They just picked their spot and belted them. Someone should tell Siddle that he cannot intimidate good batsmen on a road at his pace. Just give it up - and pitch it up. As for the fielding, well, it was the most telling of all. I cannot remember seeing an English team outfield us to the point that it was embarrassing. I saw it in Adelaide. They beat us on all aspects which make up a cricket match - and they did it on the bit. The problem now is that they know they're a better team and we know they're a better team. On that basis I cannot see a turn-around in Perth, especially with four new faces from Adelaide. Hughes, on current form, is suspect which may well bring Ponting to the crease very early - in which case Anderson will fancy his chances and bingo, the possibility of being 2 for not much looms again. Let's hope everyone is better prepared this time and that Clarke is in the dressing room from the start. As for that Adelaide run out, I must disagree with you. Katich has only himself to blame. The ball went quite deep to just in front of square and Trott was a long way from it. If Katich had moved off from the crease the way we were taught to do in primary school he would have made his ground easily - by metres - and well before Trott had even picked up the ball. I accept that Watson was worried about the lbw appeal but a quick call by someone would have solved that problem. I find it impossible to believe that in the first few minutes of an Ashes Test either batsman would have been so dozy. Knowing how nervous they were both batsmen should have been prepared for that situation. Both seemed a little distracted but that ball was 20-30 metres from the nearest fieldsman and, in the end, Trott had time to run around, pick it up and steady before throwing. Katich was out by metres but the truth is he was ball watching. The other truth, of course, is that as running partners Katich and Watson are no Simpson and Lawry. In fact, they're terrible. As you know, running between the wickets is pretty simple. You call, you go and go hard - or you say "No" immediately. I suspect that at critical times neither of these two guys call at all but knowing that, ball watching is not an option. Unfortunately, these two are their own worst enemy when it comes to running - and judging a run. They have perfected Denis Compton's method of calling, "Yes, no, wait, go, sorry!" The second run out, featuring Doherty, also involved poor running and ball watching. At least, in both instances, the man at fault was the batsman who was run out. Just my opinion, of course.

Vinay, Having recently returned from Adelaide I have been missing from the Roar for a week or so. Despite going one down, the game proved to be most interesting in many ways. One aspect which was fascinating was the observation that someone at CA has had a serious word to our boys in the Baggy Green. To a man they were approachable to one and all, within reason. Autograph hunters were graciously accommodated, those requiring a photo were patiently tolerated while dad, mum, or a total stranger fumbled over which button to press. The most astonishing, and pleasing, were those interactions involving the skipper and his deputy. Clarke came out of the nets on the practice day to be swamped by those seeking his signature. "Not now folks, let me put down the bat, gloves, helmet etc. and I'll be back!" And he was!!! A hundred autographs later his work was done. The skipper was the same. It was pleasing to see it. Unfortunately, the good bits ended there. The first 10-15 minutes put the seal on the game. Katich was ball watching and ran himself out - although did Watson call loud enough - or at all? Still, if Kat had moved off when the ball was bowled he would have made his ground by ten metres. Perhaps the lbw appeal against Watson ruined his concentration. In any case, England's worse fielder hit the stumps from side-on and that was that. The skipper looked like his body was ten minutes in advance of his head. He was out there but still wondering why. One ball later and the head caught up. Good catch, though. Clarke, if rumours are to be believed was still in the nets when Katich was run out. With Ponting going first nut, yet again, I'm sure Michael was not as relaxed as he might have been on other, more successful, occasions. 3 for 2 and game over. Hussey batted very well, Haddin was pretty good but when North gave the keeper some catching practice the tail folded; 5 for 38 and all out for nowhere near enough. England then showed us what Test match batting was like to the tune of 620 while still having batsmen in the bank. On the last two days there was the threat of rain. We got it on day four but still managed another hour and a half, or thereabouts, after the holdup. A friend of mine then ruined it all by telling me he didn't think Clarke was hard-nosed enough - certainly not like Border or S. Waugh. "He gets out far too often late in the session when the hard work has been done. He just seems to lack the concentration, and the fight needed to finish the job and start again next day!" The words had just been said and, next ball, Clarke was gone, dismissed off what became the last ball of the day - from Pietersen of all people! "Told you!" was all I got from my mate who was clearly unimpressed though thoroughly justified. It didn't help. Clarke was the key. On day five everyone knew rain was coming. About 30-40mls of the stuff if the weatherman was to be believed. I have no doubt that Hussey and Clarke could have batted us through had they both still been there next morning. As it turned out there was only Hussey and North which meant, in essence, Hussey and a gateway through to the tail. An hour after play was over, and England had won, the heavens opened up and flooded the place. In truth, I'd have happily taken the draw but in my heart of hearts I knew we had been outplayed and comprehensively so. England deserved the victory for no other reason than their batsmen made runs, their bowlers took wickets and their fieldsmen held their catches (and hit the stumps when required). What else is there? As for Perth, or indeed anywhere, I can't remember too many teams making four changes and winning the Test. We are under the pump and on the run. The best of luck to Ricky and the boys - because they're going to need it. An Australian victory is not impossible but from what I saw in Adelaide it is, at the very least, highly unlikely. Still, as Greg Chappell pointed out in a recent interview, it is times like these which are the most interesting. Who will come through the ranks and take the mantle? We may not know yet - but someone will. We live in interesting times.

Fisher, Interestingly, Greg Chappell made a point of chatting to both Khawaja and Ferguson on the last day of the recently completed Shield match in Sydney. It briefly raised hopes of a double inclusion but it soon became apparent it was more of the "not this time, but we're paying attention" conversation. Of the Beer selection, it was a surprise but on reflection I can't imagine why the selectors would be so radical and then not play him. So I think he must be in the eleven - especially given the way the WACA track has cracked up late in the match in recent Tests.

FP I think URDS is an major improvement for cricket. The only real problems are in in how it is used and ensuring equal use for all countries, I am sure it will be worked out over time. Though there will still be controversies as no system will account for all scenarios. In regards to Strauss in 2005, if URDS was used in that series Australia would have won 3:0 or 3:1 and there would have been no MBE’s or open top bus rides through London. As far as umpire intimidation goes, Daryl Hair was a courageous umpire, if a bit of a pedant, and based on ICC reviews generally one of the top two umpires. Look where that got him. I also wonder when Billy Bowden was faced with that decision in India eaarlier this summer, that would have meant Australia won the 1st test match, if he was thinking more about the rules of the game or his future career prospect given the fate of Steve Bucknor.

It is hard to find follow what the selectors do, there in little consistency and a fair degree of panic in their selections. I have a theory that selectors can be influenced by the press. Players constantly mentioned in the media, e.g. Hughes and Smith, are much higher up the pecking order than their performances demand. Beer’s selection sort of disproves that theory, though Warnie did name him recently.

Without the UDRS, there would have been some umpiring howlers in Adelaide (Cook out for 64, for instance) In 2005, Strauss was victim to four dodgy dismissals, so no wonder he's keen on the technology, and he has every right to be. Surely you don't prefer umpires to be intimidated into raising the finger as in the infamous SCG match against India?

I wouldn't expect either of them to play spin well, why should they? There isn't a decent spin bowler in Aus state teams for them to practice against I shudder to think what Hughes might be like against decent spin bowling.

Vinay, you're absolutely correct. Ponting has 22/22 wins in World Cup competition. His record is without peer in that field of endeavour. He's backed that up with a phenomenal batting record (1537@48, strikerate 81), second only to Tendulkar (1796@57, strike rate 88). I still rate Australia a strong chance to make it four in a row, but if India can finally gel as a side when it counts they will be very hard to beat (especially on home turf).

Great article Vinay. I couldnt agree more. In particular, the niceties have to end. If J. anderson wants to stand in the middle of the pitch and mouth off, the batsman needs to approach mid pitch and politiely tell Mr Anderson to return to his mark and bowl the next ball... I'm sure if the current crop of Aussie batsmen approach S. Waugh, he will give them the suitable vocabulary for the occasion! Furthermore, your article hits home that CA - from the top down - has turned the Aussie team into a bunch of blokes that look like they really don't even want to stand next to each other for fear of losing their own sponsors rather than a band of brothers ready to go to war for each other.

Seems to me that they were going to pick Smith and Hughes regardless of the situation. What is their record against quality off spin? Have they played against Harbijan, Murali and now Swann? Why would anyone rank them above White, Ferguson and D.Hussey who have shown they have what it takes in international cricket. I know ODI is different but surely their great records must stand for something. All Smith and Hughes seem to have is 'promise'.

Bob I did not think the English bowling would be as good as it has been. Anderson has learnt to swing the kookabuura ball, Finn has been an unexpected threat while Swann has been much much better than I thought possible. Has England surprised you? I based my thoughts on Swann by comparing him to Murali and his performances in Australia. Murali famously struggled here and assuming him to be a much better bowler than Swann I felt the Englishman would also struggle. Traditionally English offies do. That he hasn’t struggled is a worry, does that now mean he could be better than Murali? My worries about Hughes is that he is nowhere near the form he was in eighteen months ago and a Englishmen with pace and bounce like Steve Finn could cause him big problems, let alone Swan. Given his quality at a young age, Finn has tremendous potential. It is all a bit scary, could Finn and Swann become an English version of McGrath and Warne? I agree the selectors have been less than impressive, though Fergusson’s knee injury caused them unexpected problems. Without his injury I’m sure he would have made the test team last summer and with any luck would be an established player by now. I think Ponting, Clarke and M Hussey will play Swann best, while outside the test team I think David Hussey would be most effective against him. I’m not sure about Cameron White as a test bat, more one day and 20/20.

Ponting's tenure, as captain at least, will largely be determined by what transpires between now and Sydney. One thing is a certainty, both he and Hussey will play through to the World Cup. Hussey's the interesting character in the plot. His recent resurgence could indeed prolong his career another 2-3 years, but some of his comments over recent times give a hint at someone who is looking beyond the game of cricket - don't forget he's been making up for lost time in the last five years, playing in every format internationally, along with IPL stints. It's not unusual for players in their mid 30s, particularly with young families, to feel the pressures of long absences from home. Hussey might just be a surprise retirement post World Cup.

For me, Cricket Australia has taken the eye off the ball. It's incredible that Australian cricket is in a similar situation that landed itself back in the mid to late eighties. Also state sides were selecting journeyman type players, like Greg Mail, Jason Arnberger, Nick Jewell. Those players were struggling at shield level for many years. They were never going to play test cricket. The state sides should have promoted promising young players. Victoria this season are struggling. But in this tour match against England, Victoria have given young players a go. Like Michael Hill, Ryan Carters, Alex Keath, Jon Holland. Hopefully Victoria, and other states continue this trend by giving young promising players a go.