- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Is 3-0 an accurate reflection of the series so far? Can David Warner become a valuable Test batsman? Does James Anderson need a rest?
Recap Australia’s collapse – from 0/109 to all out for 224.
Can David Warner become a valuable Test batsman?
Warner’s innings began in typically rapid fashion yesterday, with 37 runs coming in as many balls among a slew of boundaries.
The aggressive left hander then played out two consecutive maiden overs from Broad.
So often in his career a period of such sedation has pricked Warner’s ego, prompting him to try to reassert his authority immediately, regardless of whether the next delivery was there to be hit.
As it so happened the following ball he faced was in his striking zone but, rather than attempting to disintegrate it with the force of his blade, he leant into the overpitched delivery from Broad and ran it through cover for two.
This was but a minor event in Warner’s innings but hinted at the batsman he could become should he manage to temper his arrogance.
The diminutive left hander brought up his half century from just 74 balls despite his circumspection.
He scored at a brisk rate without ever chancing his hand. Warner’s most outlandish stroke was a lofted drive for six over cover off Swann.
Yet even that shot was played with a minimum of risk – his head was still, his foot was to the pitch of the ball and the stroke was hit with the spin.
Warner’s most famous Test knock is his belligerent 180 from just 159 balls against India at the WACA in January 2012.
It was indeed a scintillating innings of rare carnage, but it came on an amiable deck against a timid Indian attack which was in retreat mode after Michael Clarke’s blistering triple ton in the previous Test.
While it does not evoke as vivid memories as that WACA blitzkrieg, Warner’s debut Test ton earlier that summer was a far superior knock.
As wickets tumbled around him at Bellerive Oval, he remained composed against New Zealand’s skilful pace attack and almost led Australia to a rousing victory.
That innings, like his effort yesterday, was as notable for his patience and judgment as his audacity.
It surprised many cricket followers who considered Warner merely a short-form dasher incapable of adapting to the most complex and challenging form of the game.
Those same pundits and fans had good reason to chalk it up as an aberration as Warner gifted his wicket with ill-advised strokes time after time in subsequent matches.
Yesterday was perhaps the first time since that display in Tasmania that he has shown a willingness to tailor his game to the circumstances.
His knock of 71 from 113 balls suggested that he may yet become a valuable Test batsman.
Of course, that relies upon Warner recognising the merit in his approach at Chester-le-Street.
Does James Anderson need a rest?
As English skipper Alastair Cook desperately tried to wrest back control of the Test in the last session following a blazing start from Australia, he found himself in the unfamiliar predicament of having to drag his most accomplished bowler.
James Anderson, the wizardly swing merchant who toyed with Australia in the opening two Tests, for the first time in years had become a liability.
Unable to gain traditional or reverse swing, Anderson’s trademark full length was being exploited by the assertive Aussie batsmen.
His first 13 overs yesterday went for 57 runs as Warner, Clarke and Usman Khawaja all took turns to dispatch the veteran.
Since the Lords Test, Anderson has taken 4 for 283. What makes those figures even more damning is that not one of those wickets was a top six batsman.
The lush outfields offered up at Chester-le-Street and Old Trafford have inhibited the reverse swing which made Anderson such a destructive force in the opening two Tests.
The champion quick also appears to be operating without rhythm. With the final match at The Oval now a dead rubber, the Poms will surely rest Anderson.
Considering the manner in which Australia have tested their antipodean adversaries the past two matches, England will need a revitalised Anderson if they are to retain the Ashes down under.
Is 3-0 a fair reflection of the series so far?
While history has been revised somewhat in the wake of Australia’s defiant efforts the past two Tests, the reality is the overwhelming majority of pundits and fans predicted pre-series England would humiliate their opponents.
It has not been so. Aside from a horrendously inept performance at Lords, the Aussies have strongly challenged their highly-touted rivals in three of the four Tests and are somewhat unfortunate to be 3-0 down.
We will never know what would have occurred had inclement weather not truncated the Manchester Test.
England are notoriously difficult to finish off, even when brought to their knees.
But Australia undoubtedly had the better of that Test, as they did here at Chester-le-Street for the first two days.
The balance of contributions in those two matches has been more commendable than at Trent Bridge, where Australia’s tail was largely responsible for their competitiveness.
Chris Rogers, Clarke, Smith, Warner, Watson and Haddin all have compiled impressive innings since Lords, while spinner Nathan Lyon’s improved efforts have complemented the consistently brilliant contributions of veteran pace pair Peter Siddle and Ryan Harris.
The upshot of this series is that England are more vulnerable than many people would have had you believe and Australia are not as incompetent as they were made out to be.
The key difference between the sides is that one can finish off its good work and the other can not.
Timeline of Australia’s collapse: