WASTE NOT, WANTAGE NOT

When I turned on the radio on the Monday morning after the Cardiff Test and heard "... ran out of time as Monty Panesar and James Anderson hung on for a dramatic draw", the sick feeling that washed over me was as acute as any I have experienced in a long time. I'd say I was "gutted" but I hate the term and the way it has gained currency here. John Howard might be our official Cricket Tragic, but I suspect he doesn't feel the game like your dyed-in-the-wool obsessed cricket idiots, of which I am one. It didn't help that the result was semi-expected. The half-chance Collingwood gave early in his innings which lobbed almost exactly between Haddin and Katich (don't forget: Pies was the only English batsman to stick around on the last day in Adelaide in 2006), Broad being given not out LB first ball, our lack of a Warne-like cutting edge, and the generally placid nature of the pitch all pointed to England hanging on. Further details emerging through the day - North bowling at the close - only served to rub in the result. This was a chance wasted.

Australia cannot afford to cough up results like Cardiff. NGASAEB is the catch-cry around here, even when Warne and McGrath were in full flight, and its significance has been acutely magnified over the last 18 months.

So it came to pass. The Lords result was on the cards the moment the Cardiff Test ended. Forget the bullshit about 75 years of Aussie domination at the home of cricket. Ignore the flannel about how Aussies rise to the occasion within the hallowed confines of the august stadium. The run was a statistical blip, a fluke, and bound to break eventually. Every time we won at Lords we were a Test closer to losing there. (You didn't know the AGB did sophistry, did you?) Every time I heard or read about it leading into last weekend, the more convinced I was we would lose. Fact: we are not very good. Yes, we can play good cricket, but in the wrong circus-pants - a flat pitch is very much the wrong circs - with players off their game and with an unhealthy emphasis on Our Phil Hughes, we were more than vulnerable.

At our best we would probably beat England, but we didn't play at our best. We didn't even play near our best. Lords was the worst performance I have seen from an Aussie side ever. Basically, we fell apart.

I wrote in the lead-up to Lords that "if Australia are, as they say at the track, 'better for the run' (especially Johnson)" then we would win, but we weren't, we were much worse for the run (especially Johnson). It defies belief that Johnson is bowling poorly because of his mum. Warnie could have all the trouble in the world off the pitch, but as soon as he was in a match, his troubles would vanish. Johnson's trouble is not his mum, it's quite evidently his action and rhythm. The flat pitches can't help, either.

The strange thing is, we were dreadful, but we weren't that far off the pace. Brian at LP:

Well the cricket’s not over yet. Strauss’s best move, apart from claiming a catch that clearly hit the ground in front of him was to win the toss – twice. In the second test for the first four days when the Poms batted the sun shone and when the Aussies batted there were clouds and the ball swung.

In the Aussies second innings they lost 3 of their top 6 to bad umpiring and still scored over 400. How many teams have scored over 400 in the last innings of a test match? Not many at all I’d reckon.

Overall so far we’ve taken 35 wickets and the Poms 26.

And yet, even without KP England will be hard to beat because we will struggle to bowl them out twice. Bell, the mooted replacement, has a poor record against Australia, but his poor record is against Warne and McGrath. Will he end up with a poor record against our current attack? KP was almost a by-stander in the first two Tests, Bell has been knocking up runs in the counties. KP's injury may well be the piece of luck that re-invigorates Bell's career, a-la Slatts to Gnome B.N. Unless Australia can improve their bowling, Bell will not be easy to get out. And the Englands are no longer six-out, all-out, they bat deep.

Can't work out if our batting is a problem or not. Hughes is an obvious worry. I was under the impression that we had a truck-load of batsmen tooling around the counties, but every time someone mentions Hughes' name it is accompanied by a criticism that there are no spare batsmen in the touring party. Wasn't local back-up the reason we picked one less batsman? Have we suddenly no replacements in England? Despite misgivings about the rest of the top six, they have all got runs. What does help the batting, though, is a sense that no matter what the batsmen score, the bowlers will run through the opposition for less. That gives the batsmen confidence and releases pressure. Unless we get our bowling right, it's hard to see us breaking through at Edgbaston. (Anyone for jelly?)

Starting tonight at Wantage Road it's imperative our bowlers get their act together, both individually and collectively. (Please, enough with the "Aussies sweating on Lee fitness" headlines. That reeks of desperation.) When we won in SA, our bowling was team-tight, each bowler contributing to the overall impact. Here in the UK, our bowling has been team-sloppy. Individual bowlers have managed good spells, even Johnson in the second innings at Lords, but too often we have gone through sessions where our lines and lengths were appalling.

It's hard to see us getting back on top in this series. Yet England on paper, even with Freddy supposedly running amok, are not the vastly superior side a big win at Lords would superficially indicate. Surely, this fact was reflected in the English media's over-reaction to the result, which probably stemmed more from relief than any great sense that their boys are better. I mean, five hundred ahead, and they were still worried Australia might win?

Catches, the toss, a better performed and organised attack, and - fingers crossed - luck, could easily see momentum swing the other way.

Fvcken Cardiff!

Comments

[m0nty]

Well said that man.

[RT]

Right on Tone

[sid smith]

Crickus interruptus in Northants today, judging by the forecast.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/em/northampton_forecast_weather.html

[Tony]

Hughes out cheap again.

I bet he wishes it was still raining.

[Tony]

Who? Wakely, Wigley, Wessels, Willey, White, White.

[jrod]

Rogers is in England, and he had panty dropping season for the Vics. David Hussey just finished his month long stint which included about 3 or 4 hundreds and a 195 of 209 balls for an encore. Other than those realistic options there is Voges who is still in trouble for getting married, and the old bastards, Langer, Law, and DiVenuto. Can't think of any other batsmen in county cricket.

[nick]

I see England's bowlers have been sledging more than Australia's...
This will of course go unnoticed.
If we were 2-0 up, Siddle and Ponting would be the new axis of evil.
Sadly, Johnson and Hauritz (and Hilf) seem to be mute.
What day will Paper Cut succumb to injury?

Btw, how did Hughes get out?

[nick]

And apropos the title, we won the toss - in the tour game. What a waste. Hussey(c) for the toss?

[Tony]

Hughes, caught Wakely, bowled Wigley.

Whether that means he was caught at short leg, short fine leg of just short of the long off rope I don't know.

[nick]

Apparently short ball off shoulder of bat to gully...
Paper Cut has made a score.

[nick]

'Wigley, who possesses a modest first class average of 34.72 across stints with three counties, rocked Hughes onto the back-foot with a rib-high delivery around off-stump. Hughes fended at the ball but succeeded only in making contact with the shoulder of his bat, resulting in a simple catch to Alex Wakely in the gully for 10'.

[The Don has risen]

I do not agree the ball hit the ground before Strauss caught it.

The cameras could not show it very well. To me he caught it and the square leg umpire was in NO doubt.

IF the ball swings we are in deep doodoo to quote a technical term.. If it doesn't we make a lot of runs.

We will struggle to get out England twice no matter which people they pick.

Ponting should learn to catch low ctahes the proper way

[nick]

If you catch a ball with your foot on the boundary - it's a four or six. What's the rule if your hand is touching the ground when you catch the ball? Hotspot should show any impact with the ball or hand on the ground.

Regardless, there was a significant amount of doubt. Given the umpires' earlier poor performance in this match, it should have been referred, as was the Bopara/Hauritz catch.

Anyway.

Edgbaston.

[Bruce]

Studsy even got slapped around by the second rate county team. Surely he needs a spell. Clark did enough to warrant his place.

Papercut looks in good nick - but who would you drop? I've heard a lot of people bagging North but he made a big ton only 2 innings ago. You certainly couldn't rely on his bowling with his past and so he can't replace Johnson.

If the pitch doesn't warrant a spinner than maybe for Ritz - but I would be thinking more of McDonald for Hauritz to get through the overs and tie up an end. I maintain that McDonald doing that job really well was part of the success formula in South Africa.

[nick]

At least Hughes has scored some runs now. The only way I can get my head around dropping Johnson is to say he's got an injury and needs an urgent motherectomy before he takes the field again. Even though Siddle was similarly profligate in the tour game (and haven't we worked hard playing a young weak cunty side!) you couldn't drop him - could you?

I would keep our 11 from Lords.

[Adsy]

I'd make two definite changes - S.Clark in for Johnson, McDonald in for Hauritz. The third change that I don't really know about is Papercut. I'm in the same boat as Bruce. (Who for?) Hughes should get an extended run at it up the top, hes only a few innings past smashing the Saffas around. North has done enough to cement his spot. Only other one I can think of is Hussey perhaps. But unsure about the makeup of the side though if this happens, seems a bit all-rounder heavy;

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
North
Watson
Haddin
McDonald
Siddle
Clark
Hilfenhaus

Three quicks, 2 mediums (McDonald, Watson), 3 part time spin options (North, Clarke, Katich). Quite a lot of bowling depth for Ponting to go to if things go pear shaped. Batting is fairly strong through the middle, bit of firepower if we need to score quickly. I like McDonald at 8 as the link man to turn over strike with the recognised bats, then to bat periods with the tail.

[Tony]

Hate to be a selector for this Test. What a conundrum.

Ideally Johnson would get his farken act together. Clark is a necessary in. I love what Boiled brings to the table.

But the Hauritzer has been our best bowler. Siddle would be stiff to miss. So would North. No point even contemplating the Hilf being dropped.

On what Johnson has put up, though, he doesn't deserve to be picked. Will the selectors take a punt on him coming good?

If Clark came in for Johnson, I wouldn't complain.

Paper Cut's another story. If only he could get his body together. He can play, and if he'd been capable of putting a run of matches together he would currently be referred to as "an established player".

Hughes runs last night will keep him in the side.

[nick]

Johnson is broken and doesn't seem to be coming good. His brain and bowling are as bad as KP's achilles - with much the same results. If we ignore his potential, Clark must be a better choice. In regard to Hughes - it used to be said that the media and the crowds in Australia played a big part in monstering opposition players and captains - Murali, Hussein, Ganguly all come to mind. There seems to have been a concerted effort from the Pom Media to paint Hughes as a flaky hack (which he may very well be, as opposed to a Sehwagology devotee). A day has not gone by where they haven't talked up his failings against fast short bowling (that he flogged all over the park in South Africa). Even after that, he's had some very unlucky dismissals. Remember his first Test innings? He came good after that. If the selectors dropped Hughes or North, I think they would be continuing what they've done to Hodge, Casson and Krezja.

I still think we can win the Third Test with no changes.

[sid smith]

From what I've seen (ie, only on this tour), Hughes's failing is worse than Johnson's: at least Mitch can bat.

Hughes is helpless against balls coming in at him. From the commentary here on the Northants match, he only survived in his second innings (for a while!) because of inadequate bowling and a dropped catch or two.

I'd be delighted if he played at Edgbaston.

[nick]

KP can win a game, Australians are not sure Bell can - hence the lack of worry here in regard to the Shermanators call up. Hughes and Johnson can win games, Clark can too - can Watson? Johnson's just gone for 9 in his first over...

When I saw Johnson in the West Indies, he looked incredible - tall, muscular, athletic, aggressive, great with the bat...but he bowled utter tripe. I'm sure he has the fundamentals...

I can't wait for the Third Test!

[nick]

Watson's bowling head to head with Johnson - Johnson 0/13 off 2, Paper Cut running in to bowl...

[Tony]

Both going for six an over as I type.

[nick]

Johnson winning - going for 7 8-(

[Tony]

Watto 5 off 2.

Studs 21 of 3.

[nick]

A Paper Maiden.

[Tony]

The only two maidens Studs knows are, well, you know...

[Tony]

Is that the time? Will have to record the Great Watto Studs bowl off to read another day.

[nick]

45 off 7 for Studs.
25 and a wicket off 6 for Paper Cut.
Studs out of the attack.

Clark into the attack and surely into the Third Test...if the selectors are true to form.

[sid smith]

Well, I listened to the end of the Northants match, and Hughes and Johnson answered no questions.

Hughes was out for nowt in the first innings and in the second he gloved one in the standard manner but got away with it. MJ went for 6 per in both innings and his only wicket was the Northants number 10.

Agree that Bell has been a bunny for Australia -- but for Australia with McGrath and Warne. So we'll see...

[Russ]

A week ago I'd have agreed with nick, that we could win with no changes. That the reason we lost in Lords' was not the bowling, but the batting. Even though the bowling was atrocious, and comprehensively failed to exert control or pressure on the English, they still took 16 wickets and rolled them for a little over 400. Getting rolled for less than the follow-on on a reasonable pitch is a disgrace, but then, they did alright in Cardiff.

Now, I'm not so sure. Studs isn't there. His body language at Lords' and in the photos I've seen at Northants radiate frustration, bewilderment and negativity. Never mind his bowling, I don't want that in the side.

At some level, the side who prevailed in South Africa deserves a chance, but then, that side had Boiled, who took four for f-all last night, not Ritz, who, despite being the leading wicket-taker, did all that work on a Cardiff turner we still failed to win on. Clark should have played at Lords': perfect for English conditions, great record, good form in the tour games. You need to find a place for him, even if that means dropping a slightly down Siddle.

As for Hughes, I never wanted him opening, and I haven't changed on that front. Hussey should have been drafted upwards a long time ago, and if Hughes must open, then Krab should go to three, to protect Ponting (who may not be any better off with Shameless above him anyway)

My preference then:
Hussey
Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
North
Haddin <--- easy to forget how bad he's been, when everyone is struggling
McDonald
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

That team misses Studs explosive wicket-taking ability, but it will keep the game under wraps, and that worked well enough in South Africa. I wouldn't play McDonald and Ritz together. I like defence, but there are limits.

The alternative, if you really want Ritz (and he's settling in to be a valuable player, as any spinner must, away from Australia and it's unhelpful pitches) is to drop North, whose ostensible all-rounder-ness was predicated on an all-pace attack, and who hasn't offered that much with the bat. That brings Paper Cut in, assuming he can last a test-match, to give some overs:

Hussey
Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Watson
Haddin <--- did I mention Klutz is rubbish?
Clark
Hauritz
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

I prefer the first team, by the by, because I think Boiled brings more with his bowling than either Paper Cut or Ritz, because he is a handy cricketer generally, who seems to add some stability through his mere presence in the side, in the field, and who can be relied on to bowl tight lines in tandem with the other three.

It will be a hard slog to take (as opposed to accept) wickets without Studs there though.

[The Don has risen]

Can I just say as a coach you cannot attempt to change a bowlers action in he middle of a series. You have to wait until the end of the season.

Thus with Johnson you have to hope things will change or put Clark in instead.

The Poms great advantage is that they can swing the ball ( both orthodox and reverse) much better than us.
Their disadvantage is that their only match winning batsman is out of the series.

We have two weak teams playing each other.

[Bruce]

Wickets have been taken with no help from Johnson so far. In fact they've had to be pried out after he has played the openers into form by giving them a good look at some tasty pies.

How quickly we seem to have forgotten what made Warne/McGrath great. Tight bowling. Never giving anything away. Forcing batsmen to try something in order to get some runs which is one way of generating chances. We've had none of that so far and still taken 30 odd wickets. The reintroduction of some tension might get us a few more. Sarf and Owl are the primary candidates to fill that role.

I agree that it's Ritz or Owl - if the pitch dries out then Ritz should hold his spot. Otherwise swap him for the Owl.

Clark for Johnson is the most obvious and necessary move from the selectors and therefore unlikely to happen.

[Tony]

If I was The Hilf, I'd want Johnson dropped. Every time Johnson bowls, the ball gets mangled; both by the bat and the wobbly seam.

Trouble is, I don't trust the Aussie selectors to get it right. Their desperation to get Lee back in the side will be matched by their desperation to back Johnson to rediscover his form. What's the bet they bring in Clark for Siddle and keep Johnson.

[Bruce]

Hilditch - "That Johnson crack is getting pretty big. The Siddle-filla doesn't seem to be working to well in holding it together."
Boonie - "She'll be right mate. We'll just throw some Clark-paper over the top and be right as rain. Obviously you can't keep using the Siddle-filla once you've covered up the crack."

Are we being pessimistic second-guessers? Surely the problem is there for the entire world to see. Englishmen claiming they would be delighted to see an attack without Studsy seems like Brer Rabbit and the briar patch. Surely he can't be trusted with the new ball again. I remember us being disappointed with his new ball bowling in Perth - nothing has changed there.

This is doing my head in.

At least my passport is safe for another week or two. Lee is nowhere near selection for the time being.

[Russ]

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see Siddle go. He is having his own problems, trying to hard to make up for Studs rubbish, I think, but his figures aren't any better than Studs, who despite impressions, has ripped out the odd bat so far this series when he gets one right (surprises them, no doubt).

MG Johnson (Aus)  	2  	82.4  	10  	331  	8  	3/87  	5/131  	41.37  	4.00  	62.0  	0  	0
PM Siddle (Aus) 	2 	80.2 	10 	312 	7 	2/64 	4/140 	44.57 	3.88 	68.8 	0 	0

I'd keep Siddle purely because I rate him the better chance of coming good in three days. And because I still think he'll be the key bowler in whether we win or not.

[RT]

Ricky Ponting in his newspaper column

About Haddin - I'm not worried about his keeping at all.

About Stud - And for all the early concerns about Mitchell Johnson's bowling, he got better as the match went on.

About Siddle - Peter Siddle is the player I'm most pleased with coming out of Lord's.

Why pays him to write this nonsense? And who reads this watered down tripe? Apart from me.

Would have bet on no change pre-Wantage but Stu for Stud as the only change is looming. Stud's bowling is simply falling apart before our eyes. Staggering really.

[sid smith]

Bell will bat at four, says the BBC.

[Tony]

Judging by Tim Nielsen's aggressive support:

"I’ve been expecting some sort of comments along those lines," Nielsen said with an intense stare.

"The last two years we’ve played some pretty good Test match cricket and Mitchell has been at the forefront of that. There’s been a lot of times when batsmen and bowlers have been out of form and we’ve stuck with them, and shown some faith, unlike what seems to be the public or the press point of view."

"At the moment we are working hard to get him bowling as well as he possibly can, and we feel he is getting closer every time, so we’ll have a look at the conditions when we get to Edgbaston and take it from there."

Johnson is in.

[The Don has risen]

Bell has a good technique and no Warney or McGrath to mess with his head.

As I said it is too late to do anything with Johnson. you simply hope and wait for the end of the tour until you attempt to change his action.

given the rain that has been around perhaps the ball will swing from the first ball if there is any play.

[Russ]

So... apparently, Hughes out for Watson, Johnson to be used as impact bowler, Watson to contain.

My first thought is its madness to have Watson opening. Here's looking forward to being 4/30 (again).

[Bruce]

Last night I had a dream

I was getting a vision from the future.....

It was the 19th of August....

There was a press conference...

The vision is hazy but I hear the words:
"Sure, we're 2 -nil down in the series and have lost The Ashes, but Mitch has been bowling really well in the nets and we're confident he can turn it around in this match. It's fair to say he hasn't had the best series only taking 5 wickets - but we'll give him every chance and he'll be taking the new ball again"

And then I woke up screaming.