Hay while the sun shone, a ton and following the Don: First Ashes Test in review

By Parky Claret / Roar Rookie

The first act of the stage play that is the Ashes has been played out. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune were best weathered by Pat Cummins’ men, who took arms against the sea of troubles presented by Joe Root’s forces and prevailed handsomely.

That Australia outplayed England in all facets of the game is one fact that cannot be argued against.

What is debatable is whether England tied one of their metaphorical hands behind their backs before the first arrow was fired in anger.

I remarked before play began that for England to have any chance of victory, they had to bowl first. This was from a defensive standpoint as well as an attacking one: it seemed as vital that their fragile batting order avoid the tricky batting conditions on the first morning as it was that their bowlers should take advantage of the grey skies and green wicket.

Root, however, had other ideas.

Stuart Broad had driven Australia’s upper order to distraction, in particular David Warner, in England in 2019. Now, in the most English of conditions that Brisbane could offer, the tourists showed their hand early by saving their tormentor-in-chief for another day.

Root then decided that he would do as Mark Taylor had done in Manchester: bat first and back his batsmen to make it through the tough early skirmishes to make hay when the sun finally shone.

Unlike Taylor, whose more experienced henchmen were both willing and able to carry out their captain’s plan, Root was not to see success.

Root’s opposite number, Cummins, went to bed on Tuesday merely as captain elect. By a minute past 10 on the Wednesday morning, he was a part of history.

Mitchell Starc had been criticised in some quarters, with various pundits speculating that his pace and swing is not as it was when the paceman was at his menacing best. However, Cummins had seen enough to throw his spearhead the new Kookaburra, with which he bowled Rory Burns behind his legs with the first ball of the series.

(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)

Cummins therefore became only the second Australian captain to see his team claim a wicket with the first ball of his captaincy career. His only predecessor to see a similar success threw the ball to Ernest McCormick, who despatched Thomas Worthington, also against England in Brisbane, in 1936.

I seem to recall that he had a fairly successful captaincy career thereafter. His name was Sir Donald Bradman.

Once Australia seized upon the early favourable conditions by bowling England out for 147, the hosts were always ahead of the game. Where Australia took the chances that were offered to them, England frittered theirs away.

Ben Stokes overstepped the bowling crease when bowling Warner, which would have seen the second wicket fall with the score at 30, but the second ended up coming once Australia were already past England’s total.

Travis Head looked in all manner of trouble early in his innings, but a combination of poor fortune and lack of killer instinct in field settings let him off the chain to the point where he made an imperious 152 at better than a run a ball.

The inability to capitalise on a promising situation was never more evident than on the fourth morning, after the captain and his lieutenant, Dawid Malan, had got England back into the contest. Having got to within 55 runs of parity with only two wickets down, Malan succumbed to give Nathan Lyon his long-awaited 400th Test wicket.

Lyon’s main weapon is the bounce and dip that he generates from a classical high action, rather than any degree of extravagant turn. Because of the overspin he imposes, he often manages to fool the batsman that he is to the pitch of the ball where in reality he is a couple of feet short.

This did for Malan early on the fourth day, a morning on which he never looked as comfortable as he was on the day before.

Once the Malan-Root liaison had been parted, the rest of the batting order folded with alarming speed.

Lyon, as if released from his shackles by passing the historic barrier, proceeded to run through the England side with the pace bowlers in support, and the last eight wickets were lost for the addition of only 74 runs.

Australia lost the wicket of Alex Carey, but otherwise had no trouble in posting the required 20 runs to take the early lead in the series.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

The second Test, being a day-night encounter, will prove to be a different challenge, likely to be a relatively low-scoring affair, meaning that any fielding lapses – or poor hours with either ball or bat – will be magnified.

The established bowling partnership of James Anderson and Stuart Broad will be back for England, probably at the expense of Chris Woakes, and spinner Jack Leach, who was monstered by Warner and Head.

Josh Hazlewood is a confirmed non-starter for Australia and Warner is in grave doubt.

The conditions in South Australia should suit the England seam attack and provide the best chance possible for them to get back into the series.

It remains to be seen whether they have the psychological mettle to take advantage.

The Crowd Says:

2021-12-15T06:13:34+00:00

dungerBob

Roar Rookie


Plus, they no doubt would have been thinking of making 250 - 300 in their first innings.

2021-12-15T06:10:33+00:00

dungerBob

Roar Rookie


It seems a real blunder now but I'm not entirely convinced it was the game breaker everyone seems to think it was. While England more or less doubled their first innings effort in the 2nd dig, they still didn't make 300. The weather was significantly better and Aus. had knocked any demons out of the pitch with that first innings of 400+ so maybe it wouldn't have mattered that much if they had decided to bowl. They just didn't bat well enough to win the cricket match imo.

2021-12-15T02:09:27+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


To be in the contest England would have needed to be no worse than 4 for +100 and that is another 158 for no more than 2 more wickets. And even then some Stokes magic would be needed to get the lead to 200 and then beyond 250 - another 150 for the last 6 wickets. An Everest of a climb before it is 'game on'.

AUTHOR

2021-12-15T01:58:08+00:00

Parky Claret

Roar Rookie


I suppose it depends on how you define “in the contest” doesn’t it “Once Upon”. To me, in this situation, England could have (and were) well behind after an hour of day four. Then again, if Root and Malan had got set again they could have been level - it could have gone either way. That fits my idea of “game on”, although I have every respect for your contrary opinion!!! Thanks for your comment!!!

2021-12-14T23:53:31+00:00

Dwanye

Roar Rookie


Na I think evidence is a pretty good word to use for it, but for me ‘words don’t come easy’ lol

2021-12-14T23:50:32+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


That’s the point Dave: if a nobody fan like myself who has no particular knowledge of reading cricket pitches can know before the toss that you have to bowl, then it’s pretty darn obvious.

2021-12-14T23:45:23+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


Excuses? WTF? Pat, JL and the boys obviously needed you to lead them through the kingdom of the blind as well. I shared your relief that he bowled, on a gut feeling, but didn’t have the benefit you presumably had of inspecting the pitch up close?

2021-12-14T23:32:57+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


A team is not back in a contest when they reach 2 for -58 batting third – they are in fact 58 runs worse off than a team batting first being 2 for zilch. History shows that a collapse is never far away when teams, in the face of massive deficits, reach the false score of 2 for 200.

2021-12-14T23:30:00+00:00

Once Upon a Time on the Roar

Roar Guru


Excuses. I was overjoyed when Root chose to bat. Blind Freddy could see it.

2021-12-14T23:20:53+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


V true Dwanye. I guess evidence may have been the wrong word - experience perhaps, with batting first having a good track record, with bowling first backfiring on some occasions. Though I think some have pointed out that it has been successful sometimes- just not necessarily easy to pick the right time.

2021-12-14T23:02:08+00:00

Dwanye

Roar Rookie


Hi DaveJ. I often wonder how much some take into account ‘evidence’ of things like you said. ‘Evidence’ of Warner ave in aust vs ‘evidence’ of ave in Eng. ‘Evidence’ of Broad ave in Eng vs ‘evidence’ of ave in Aust. Obviously anything can happen or sone just go on ‘a feel’ lol

2021-12-14T22:33:40+00:00

DaveJ

Roar Rookie


With a huge mountain of evidence in favour of batting first, it’s never an obvious decision to bowl first. No doubt in hindsight would have been the right one, but no one can say it was a glaring blunder before the match to opt to bat.

2021-12-14T16:42:33+00:00

Micko

Roar Rookie


Seems silly in hindsight to bat first with their weak batting lineup in prime bowling conditions, but having Leach in the side, and also no Broad or/and Anderson as experienced senior guys to bolster the pace attack, presumably Root/England thought they’d struggle to limit Australia batting first to under 200, but could bowl Australia out on a wearing 4th/5th day track to win?

Read more at The Roar