Watson nails first drop, but why did England pick Woakes and Kerrigan?

If you walk northwards down the Vauxhall Road towards the muddy river Thames, away from the iconic wrought-iron gasworks that flank The Oval, you will reach a mysterious Lego-like building: the headquarters of MI6, a shadowy organisation not obliged to explain its actions.

There was another mystery that was barely explained yesterday: Why did England chose two debutants in Chris Woakes and Simon Kerrigan?

Yes, with Tim Bresnan injured there was space for a bowler who could bat a bit. After all didn’t Stephen Finn hit 56 in Dunedin in March? Even Chris Tremlett has a top first class score of 25 not out. That’s without mentioning their bowling.

Tremlett as many of you remember, starred in Australia in 2010/11, taking 17 at 23.35, which included the Ashes-winning wicket to end 24 years of English hurt and humiliation. Whereas Finn has 90 Test wickets at under 30 – Jimmy Anderson’s average by that milestone was considerably northwards of that figure.

So what did England do? They chose Woakes and Kerrigan.

Now, I happen to think both are good if not very good prospects. I saw Woakes look fast and intimidating at Uxbridge last year bowling for Nottingham against my beloved Middlesex. And Kerrigan has taken a hatful of wickets this summer, albeit in Division Two.

But to pitch them both into the unyielding intensity of an Ashes battle? Why?

As Geoff Boycott said “I don’t know what the selectors were thinking but I hope they don’t think it again”.

Momentum is not just a truism. If we weren’t playing another five Tests in Australia in less than three months time, you could possibly laud the decision as far-sighted, if a little bold. But to play the pair when there is another Ashes to win this northern winter smacked of a poor decision.

With Boof telling the whole of Australia to target Stuart Broad I would give anything to be at the Gabba come November to see the intensity of it (not to mention trying to give some of it back as an Englishman in the midst of the Barmy Army).

A friend asked me today what I would do if I was young Stuart. I replied I would have walked at Trent Bridge.

Not that the atmosphere at that intimidating bear-pit in Queensland, would have been easy even if Australia did not have a new public enemy to bait.

For what it’s worth Broad should walk out there with a smile, not react to anything and do his best without a trace of bad humour. If he does that come the SCG he may even have changed a few people’s opinions of him down under. Easier said than done I know, but for all that he has the support of the majority of England fans. And so he should.

England, as this millennium has progressed, have increasingly executed a cold and calculating selection policy – in other words they’ve always had a plan – but today’s decision smacked of a misjudgement or even confusion, exacerbated by a complete absence of strategy. It was similar to the two lads unfortunate performances.

At times it was painful to watch Simon Kerrigan bowl. Watson did not give, or allow the ball out of the hand any freedom, and brutally eviscerated the debutant’s first two overs, leaving the Lancashire lad figures of 0-28 off twelve balls.

The nature of his deliveries, whether it be half trackers, long-hops or full tosses, the wrong length or flight, bowling down the legside; or merely the fact that he looked overawed in being elevated from the top of the second division of the county championship to the intensity of an Ashes Test left you genuinely fearful for his long term development.

Did the occasion get to him, or was Watson’s brutal introduction to the new boy a bigger scar? They always say you can tell character from a second spell – with 15 off four overs it was a better effort than this first.

Thrust into this Ashes maelstrom, Kerrigan has character and ability. He has been fast-tracked into this Test via the Lions. He knows he is better than this. Lancashire know he is better than this. Most England supporters know he is better than this.

We’ve all played cricket. No-one likes to see someone humiliated.

Will it affect Kerrigan long term? I sincerely hope not. Not just for England’s long term planning but in this case more importantly for the boy himself. I hope he has a far better second day and a long career for England. I just can’t say it with any certainty.

Chris Woakes fared slightly better. England need a third aggressive wicket taking seamer to back up Anderson and Broad. Unfortunately on today’s evidence Woakes looked like an average fourth seamer.

With no lateral movement or damp conditions (although rain is forecast for Sunday – Old Trafford all over again: now that really wouldn’t be fair to Australia) Woakes looked like an ordinary seamer today. Military ordinary as Boycs said.

It was instructive that Swan bowled a lot of overs today to compensate for the two debutants. Spinners are there to win matches in the second innings – their job is not to be a frontline bowler to compensate for the lack of a third seamer in the first innings, certainly not on a pitch with no spin, or a lack of wearing footholes so early in the game.

England will not play two spinners in Australia. Even at the SCG, Australia in their pomp rarely played SCG MacGill and Shane Warne together – so it’s not as if England can even say they were blooding a young spinner in preparation for the next Ashes. And even if they did, the recently troubled Monty Panesar has taken a 5-fer in Perth, and has over 150 test wickets, so if (and it is a big if) he can get his domestic life together surely he would be the back-up.

By all accounts he has bowled relatively well over the last two days over a large number of balls for Essex, the team he was loaned to from Sussex.

But for all that we have to rightly praise Shane Watson’s performance on the first day.

He earned the right to have a piece of good fortune, through his bravery and attacking instincts, even if it was a god review (for a change – it was the ninth time he’s reviewed an lbw only but only the second he’s got right) ).

Indeed, there was discussion about the DRS again as the first day progressed.

Except this time DRS stood for dead rubber syndrome.

Great Australian sides of the past often lost the last Test, long after the series was won. 1993 and 1997 at The Oval; 2001 at Headingley anybody? I was even at the SCG in 2003 when we won the last contest (did I mention we were 4-0 down at the time?).

Watson’s bravery came through not flinching when a short ball from Stuart Broad, which he unfortunately turned away from, pounded his neck just under his left ear. Treatment and a headache pill was all he needed to reach his highest test score.

As for his attacking instincts, they became memorable for Australians rather than notorious for a change – simply by playing his shots and taking on the debutants (Michael Vaughan always said he targeted the new boys to test their mettle).

For all his faults on and off the pitch, I do like a fighter and Shane Watson proved that he is. He also proved that he’s thought about his game – apparently he and Clarke had an extended nets session at Northampton last week where they worked hard on Watto’s technique.

So when I say it was simple, it was in a sense: he just needed to realise he’s had to play straighter.

If you look at his head position when about to face during his innings, for the most part it remained over the top of off-stump.

This time – by staying just that inch or two towards the legside his recalibration has not only significantly reduced the risk of an LBW, but ironically freed Watson to play more positive strokes across the off side. It was certainly a change compared to his miserable dismissal at Durham when he walked towards off stump.

Shane Watson interviewed straight after the close of play said of his century: “It’s been something I’ve been searching for a long time – being hit in the head in the 90s probably took my mind off it – Stuart Broad probably did me a favour.

“The wicket is only ever going to get up and down from here and turn more so it’s best that we batted first.”

He also revealed knowingly: “I faced Kerrigan in the tour match last week – I knew what he had for me.”

But the real point of today was contained in his next line:

“It would be nice to stay at number three – I would like to thank the selectors, coach, and captain for allowing me the chance to find my feet.”

So, by choosing two players unaccustomed to Ashes cricket, England unwittingly helped select Australia’s number three for Brisbane.

As far as I see it your top five for the series down under has suddenly morphed into a viable unit. Rogers complements the more attacking Warner at one and two, Watson has now nailed number three, Clarke is four, and with Smith is scoring runs the number five slot is surely spoken for. And for number six it’s surely just a question of whether Brad Haddin has done enough, or will Wade return?

Whereas after today, England’s problematical number six position is no nearer to being solved as Jonny Bairstow, denied a chance to cement his position with a big innings here was dropped, rested or relieved depending on who you listen to. And we are no nearer knowing who the third seamer is, if Finn and Tremlett stay fit for the winter assuming Bresnan returns.

Of course the Ashes is won. The little urn will be presented at the end of the game to Alastair Cook, Ian Bell and KP have become that rarity in English cricket, four time Ashes winners, so I don’t want to be overly critical of England – not when many people remember the absolute thrashings Australian handed out to us.

I for one will be at the Oval celebrating along with everyone else – but with a respectful nod in remembering the mental disintegration Steve Waugh inflicted on us.

Yet in the best traditions of the baggy green – if not English reserve – we should have, to use the vernacular, have gone for the throat. With the vagaries, ebbs and flows of Test cricket a 4-0 scoreline may still happen.

A lot rides on Smith’s broad shoulders tomorrow morning, not to mention Broad’s shoulders – and forgive me but I still feel queasy about Australia sending in a night-watchman after admiring the tenacity of Steve Waugh’s teams in the flesh – but what today has done is given more answers to Australia and raised more questions for England in terms of the next series.

Just don’t expect MI6 to give you a comment on it.