Ashes remedy: Don't panic, just Siddle in Marsh

In the aftermath of Australia’s loss in the first Test of the 2015 Ashes series, a sense of panic quickly emerged from within the nation’s cricketing fraternity.

Granted, it was not from the actual team, but rather from the media and the fan-base of the baggy green.

To which my immediate response is… relax.

Those who feel a sense of dread should take a deep breath and exhale. Maybe even lie down if it helps you. Whatever it takes to remain calm.

It’s going to be a long series and though it certainly wasn’t the start that Michael Clarke and his men were looking for – and a number of issues certainly do need to be addressed – panicking isn’t the answer.

The answer is to objectively look at Australia’s loss, acknowledge that England played well, understand where Australia played badly, and make any necessary adjustments for the second Test at Lord’s.

In most people’s minds, said adjustments usually equate to changes to the starting XI. It’s the easiest to suggest, and it also allows people to push their individual agendas for and against certain players.

It can also be a massive overreaction.

A case in point: halfway through this Test there were calls for Mitchell Johnson to be dropped, due to his supposed poor performance in the first innings.

I admit that I felt that to be quite ludicrous. Not only did Johnson not even bowl that badly, but he’s been Australia’s best bowler since returning to the Test team in November 2013. From that rebirth – heading into this Test – Johnson had taken a staggering 86 wickets.

That tally wasn’t inflated from dated heroics either, as Johnson took eight wickets in the two-Test series against the Windies in the lead-up to this current tour. Additionally, his worst match returns during that entire time period were the figures of 3-121 against South Africa.

Yet there were numerous calls for Johnson to be dropped, after just one bad innings. Needless to say, Australian cricket fans can be a ruthless and impatient bunch.

There are mitigating circumstances to that narrative, to be completely fair. Johnson’s record in England is not great, and the wickets in the series will not be kind to him.

Colleague Ronan O’Connell, who – apart from having an awesome surname – is an extremely astute cricket writer, made the fair point that if Johnson isn’t taking wickets and is going at over four runs an over – as he did in England’s first dig – then he should definitely be in the firing line to get dropped.

While I understand that sentiment, I’d point out that Johnson was unlucky not to have three or four wickets on Day 1, which would have completely changed the context of this discussion. I’m also of the belief that Johnson has earned the right to have more than one bad innings before getting dropped.

As it turns out, when it comes to making changes to the team, Mitchell Starc’s troublesome ankle will probably see him rested for the second Test, rendering Johnson’s spot safe – if indeed he was ever even in danger anyway.

This brings me to the changes I would make, sans any sense of panic.

Starc’s injury should see Peter Siddle given the nod to replace him. The Victorian quick lacks the explosiveness of some of his fellow fast bowling brothers, but his line, length and patience will give the Aussie attack a different look.

Given Johnson’s aforementioned expensive nature, Siddle will help tighten things up should the scoreboard be ticking along a little too easily for England, as it did in Cardiff.

The other change I would make is selecting Mitch Marsh in the all-rounders spot, and dropping Shane Watson.

‘Watto’ would probably be the most written about Australian athlete of the last 10 years, particularly here on The Roar. To say he’s a polarising character would be akin to calling Mila Kunis ‘appealing’ – it’s a bit of an understatement.

I have nothing more to add to the Watson debate that I haven’t said before, though it is funny to consider how my own opinion on Watson’s spot in the Test team fluctuates more than the Stock Exchange.

However, on this occasion, it’s quite simple: Watson is undeniably out of form and not contributing with bat or ball. Furthermore, there is a replacement in the squad ready to go, who does happen to be in good form – at least with the bat.

That last point shouldn’t be taken lightly if the all-rounder is batting at six. It’s one thing to be coming in at seven or eight and not be in good form, but if you’re entrusted to hold down a spot in the top six, then you’re a batsman who bowls. Therefore, if you’re not scoring runs, you’re not doing your job.

In the two warm-up games that the Australians played against Kent and Essex, Mitch Marsh scored two hundreds, including a big one of 169. His four knocks on tour thus far have seen him register scores of 30, 101, 169 and 37.

While Marsh doesn’t offer the swing or frugality of Watson’s bowling, he did take four wickets in the matches against the County teams, and should Siddle come back into the side the need for Watson’s steadiness with the ball is somewhat diminished anyway.

Bottom line is that Watson is currently hurting the team, and they can’t afford to carry him now that they’re down 1-0 in the series. It’s time.

Apart for those two personnel changes, the Australians need to address some other concerns, primarily their batting, which has been saved from embarrassment numerous times over the last two years by Mitch Johnson and his buddies.

The batsmen were poor in this Test, with numerous unnecessary dismissals that should earn the wrath of coach Darren Lehmann. A lack of concentration and application brought many of them undone, and that is simply unacceptable at this level.

Australia must also recognise that England are a different beast on home turf.

When the conditions are in his favour, and his team in a strong position, Jimmy Anderson is a mean bowler. To be more precise, he’s world class when he has the ball ‘talking’. His dismissal of Brad Haddin in the first innings was cricket porn for fast bowlers. Controlled inswing followed by outswing is an absolute delight to watch, and Anderson’s wrist and seam position are sheer perfection when he’s on his game.

Likewise, Stuart Broad can be a real handful when he’s hitting the deck hard and getting extra bounce. Though he can be inconsistent, and his career figures aren’t eye-popping, he’s a ‘streaky’ bowler capable of match-winning spells.

Together, Anderson and Broad provide captain Alastair Cook with two of the best bowlers in the world, but Australia need to be cognisant of the fact that the bowling stocks are considerably thinner behind them.

Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali and Mark Wood are serviceable, but should realistically hold little fear for good Test match batsmen. Throw in the fact that Anderson can be found wanting when things aren’t going his way, and Broad can be inconsistent, and Australia should feel like they can do much better than they did in the first Test, even if concerns about their ability against the swinging ball remain.

Overall, it was a great performance by England, and a poor one from Australia. Yet with a couple of changes – one forced, one overdue – and an increased focus from their batsmen, the second Test should hopefully be a different result for the Aussies.

There is no need for panic, just a need to play better.