Day Three at Lord’s

As you might expect, I have absolutely zero appetite to write today’s report. But with Maxie still away on paternity leave, someone’s got to do it. You’ll just have to put up with my foul mood.

All the miserable people out there can quite rightly say ‘I told you so’. How naïve it was of me to abandon my pre-series pessimism after one test match. To be honest I let my heart rule my head (never a good idea) simply because I was getting bored of writing the same miserable stuff – and I assumed our regular readers would get tired of reading it too.

However, reality has bitten us all in the bum. England lost an all important toss in this match, but we simply haven’t played well enough. I mentioned yesterday that I thought we looked flat in the field, as if the bowlers just decided that this pitch wasn’t worth the effort. Well, yesterday evening the Australians proved that a little more zest can bring rewards.

Admittedly, the pitch is now a tad quicker and offers the seamers a bit more help – Stuart Broad’s spell after lunch proved that – but Australia had success for three reasons, two of which were a direct result of their positive strategy and attitude. Firstly, they took the pitch out of the equation by bowling very full. Secondly, they really charged in and showed much more aggression than England.

Of course, the fact Australia had nearly 600 on the board must have given them a huge lift, and their bowlers knew they only had to bowl for one session (which enabled them to give it everything), but their performance was full of positive intent.

The other reason why the Aussies were successful was down to pure luck: they just happened to pick a new cherry that swung prodigiously. Starc, Johnson and Hazlewood made the ball talk; therefore for the first time in the match the batsmen were under genuine pressure.

Why is it that identical looking balls can behave so differently? The players are given a box of balls to choose from, and all of them are manufactured in exactly the same way, yet some swing miles while others do nothing. Some bowlers believe they have a talent for choosing balls (something about the way it feels in the hand) but they’re kidding themselves. Jimmy Anderson regularly says it’s just down to pot luck, and nobody has taken as many test wickets with a duke as him.

The end result is that England find themselves in a hole. And it’s a pretty deep and dark hole too. One might say it’s exactly the right size and shape for a coffin. Some of us hoped that we might be able to bat ourselves into a position of relative safety, but a combination of good bowling and scoreboard pressure put paid to that.

Unfortunately we batted like complete tarts. The shots played by Lyth and Root were completely unacceptable in the circumstances. Meanwhile, Gary Ballance’s technique looks increasingly unacceptable too. Good players should not be cleaned bowled by straight balls while stuck back in the crease. It was the dismissal of a scared tail-ender.

I think two things are becoming obvious: (a) Ballance is not a number three, and (b) Ballance is not good enough to play top end test cricket (against the best teams) if he perseveres with his quirky method.

The only batsman I’d excuse somewhat is Ian Bell. The ball that bowled him was an absolute peach. I’ve heard a lot of nonsense talked about Bell’s wicket. Both Mike Atherton and Geoff Boycott criticised him for trying to play the ball through mid-wicket. This criticism stems from over-analysis. They’re paid to give opinions and on this occasion they just blurted out a cliché.

When the ball left Hazlewood’s hand, it was directed at leg stump. This was its original line. Bell probably thought (as did I) ‘brilliant, a rare scoring opportunity’. The fact the ball swung more than a foot at the last second was completely out of the batsman’s hands. Normally balls on this leg stump line don’t swing. The delivery would have dismissed any batsman in the world – even one that’s well set.

Boycott and Atherton completely ignored the fact that Bell’s bat was dead straight, and he was showing the full face of it, at the precise moment that the ball passed the bat. It looked worse than it was because the bat ended up closed and his feet were in an awkward looking position. This is simply because the ball squared him up. And I’m not surprised. It was a terrific nut.

The only crumb of comfort for England is that Cook and Stokes survived until the end of the day. In the skipper’s case this was more down to luck that judgement. He almost played on a couple of times, and there were a couple of ungainly gropes at balls well outside off-stump that he was fortunate to miss. I’ll put this down to nerves and the carnage going on around him.

I wrote pre-series that Australia would look to neutralise Cook by pushing the ball across him and exploiting the fact that he’s not a natural driver. I predicted a kind of stalemate would result, with the Australians simply happy to take wickets at the other end. Cook’s strike rate yesterday was a rather ominous 25. I wonder if we’re seeing evidence of the aforementioned strategy?

The batting performance of Ben Stokes was the only real source of joy yesterday. He’s such a good player to watch. If he can make another four hundred runs on his own tomorrow, we might yet escape with a draw. Ahem.

Feel free to add your thoughts on yesterday’s play, and today’s action of course, below.

James Morgan

@DoctorCopy