Someone has stolen the jam from my donut. I’m not amused and I’m going to let rip. Had England won the toss yesterday, we would’ve had one hand on the Ashes.
I know this seems like a bit of an overstatement but hear me out. Whoever won the toss yesterday was bound to score 500+. The pitch was an absolute featherbed. And had it been England with that imposing first innings score, Australia’s morale would’ve been shot and it would’ve been incredibly tough to pick themselves up from the canvass.
And so on to this bloody pitch. It’s lifeless. It’s ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet it’s maker. Bereft of life it rests in peace. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. And if pitches like this reoccur on a regular basis, test cricket will be an ex-sport.
It’s one thing to prepare a slow pitch like Cardiff; it’s quite another to prepare a surface that’s slow but offers no movement whatsoever. The strip at the SWALEC gave bowlers a chance and something to work with. The pitch Mick Hunt has prepared at Lord’s is an absolute stinker. It’s not good enough.
I feel sorry for the twenty thousand or so punters who paid a hundred quid to watch yesterday’s play. You were even more ripped off than normal.
Before I sign off, and go and lie in a darkened room, I should say something about the two teams.
First of all, well done to Australia. Rogers and Smith both showed great discipline. The caveat, I suppose, is that all test batsmen worth their salt should make hay in those conditions. All that was required was the most basic level of self-discipline and application … something David Warner was sadly lacking.
As for England, well … that’s a slightly different matter. It’s become customary for pundits to show bowlers sympathy in these circumstances. The usual cliches come out: they ‘stuck to their task’ blah blah blah. What were they doing to do, walk off, resign or hide in the dressing room?
I actually think England looked flat all day. From what I saw – and I have to admit that I gave up and watched the golf instead at one point – we looked flat, really, really flat in the field. All the bowlers were down on pace. It’s almost as if they looked the pitch, shrugged their shoulders, and decided to save their energy for another day.
This assessment is possibly a bit harsh – it’s more likely they just decided to bowl dry, and didn’t see the point of running in hard on a benign surface – but it was still disappointing. It’s ok for us supporters to accept that a big score is inevitable, but not the bowlers. If only we had a mystery spinner.
So on to day two. I think we all know what it’s going to bring. A total of 600, and a declaration that leaves England’s openers a tricky spell to survive before the end of play.
I will be extremely disappointed if we get bowled out twice on this pitch. We all know that England usually lose if they’ve won the previous test, and that scoreboard pressure can do funny things, but they just need to show discipline.
Unless this pitch changes dramatically, England’s batsmen should look forward to filling their boots. Alastair Cook will never get a better chance to resurrect his terrible home Ashes record. Something tells me that he won’t be England’s least productive opening batsman in home Ashes series (statistically) since 1900 for much longer. This situation is made for him.
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
Spot on. An absolute joke of a wicket. Cardiff wasn’t much better but the variable bounce and swing gave the bowlers something.
If there’s a result in this test it will be used as evidence that the pitch was ok. Like it was at Cardiff. Nonsense. If a fast bowler can’t get any bounce or movement out of a pitch then it’s a sad state of affairs. I appreciate that on the sub continent this can happen which probably explains why the short forms are more popular over there and a lot of it is out of the groundsmen’s control in that part of the world. Sad for the game that the result has become more important than the entertainment. Just produce a fair wicket with something for the bowlers and if you lose then so be it. Regardless of the score if 3 more pitches like this get produced then morally Australia have won.
Like you James I gave up watching. Tidying the kitchen cupboards became a much more interesting prospect. Followed the game on TMS so a bit difficult to give a view on the bowling. Boycott thought that Stuart Broad bowled exceptionally well. Accurate and controlled. Jimmy does go flat when the ball doesn’t swing. It negates his skill. Not a lot else he can do.
I hope you are right about Alistair Cook. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the need to get up with the more aggressive style of play. He can take a long time to learn. How long did it take him to trust any spinner other than Graeme Swann?
Risking it all on pitch and toss has been a remarkably stupid and counter productive thing to do. I would like to know exactly who is responsible for issuing instructions to the ground staff. I expect to hear excuses and I am sure there are difficulties in preparation but I hope lessons have been learned. The game has been brought into disrespect and the paying public have been sold a pup. We can do without anymore of this.
A good and entertaining read as always James. It’s all work for you while we simply wait and look forward to the posts! :-)
I don’t understand.
The new England are aggressive. Everyone says so.
Why would they prepare such slow pitches?
It’s something I’d expect from the “unsportsmanlike Australians”.
Except that everyone doesn’t say so – as you know from our earlier exchange.
The ‘aggressive’ line is just another one from the same PR merchants that brought us the core of steel etc.
I for one am quite pleased that England lost the toss, even if it means that they lose. Serves us right.
Though for the powers that be to learn a lesson from this test, it would probably also require Cook fail in both innings, as should he make a big score, they’d probably regard the exercise as worthwhile.
Are you saying there’s no such thing as ‘New England’?
Just some new players – who are pretty handy.
Management, with the odd exception, is the same old same old.
Re – pitches, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no problem with preparing pitches to suit the home side. Every test nation does that.
There are only two types of pitch which bother me: first, a pitch with nothing in it for the bowlers – it’s an insult to all spectators; second, a pitch where winning the toss is tantamount to winning the game – now that really isn’t sporting.
I can’t believe the ECB would spin like that. They’ve said New England is more aggressive. I can’t believe you’d have the temerity to question that.
Of course there’s room for home-ground advantage. But so far, these pitches have been unacceptable.
I have no problem with Cardiff.
You had not one, but two chances to win the game – the toss, and not dropping Root at 40-odd for 3.
It was neither utterly boring nor utterly one sided.
“You had not one, but two chances to win the game – the toss, and not dropping Root at 40-odd for 3.”
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a poor pitch.
And the fact you count the toss as ‘a chance to win the game’ speaks volumes.
The toss of a coin shouldn’t be a ‘chance to win the game’.
Not claiming that Cardiff was a great pitch but “unacceptable” smacks of sour grapes.
Not really. It was poor, just as Lord’s was poor.
Is it “sour grapes” if England fans make that observation about the Lord’s pitch?
Or maybe Cardiff was fine because England won the toss, while Lord’s was poor because Australia won it?
As we know, there’s one rule for England and another for everyone else.
OK. New rule.
You’re only allowed to criticise a pitch if your team wins. Otherwise it’s sour grapes.
Fair enough?
Isn’t blaming the pitch the easy option? Let’s see what happens over the next few days before rushing to judgement. Wasn’t the Cardiff pitch criticised after day one but then lauded at the end of the match?
The Cardiff pitch wasn’t ‘lauded’.
It was a poor first-day wicket. Same goes for Lord’s.
There’s too much advantage for the side batting first, which, in turn, makes winning the toss far more important that it should be.
It’s not ‘the easy option’ to point that out. It’s stating the obvious.
Point taken Tom. Would be very interesting to hear the groundsmens’ perspective on the debate. It’s easy to blame a groundsman for a docile pitch but where does the directive come from and how much flexibility do groundsmen have when preparing pitches.
I’m definitely not blaming the groundsman. He was likely following instructions.
I imagine the directive comes from Strauss or someone working under his supervision.
Compare this wicket to the wicket for England v NZ six weeks ago. That had enough juice to persuade McCullum to bowl after winning the toss. None of that this time around.
How does a pitch change so dramatically in the space of six weeks?
@Colin Kerr I’m an Aussie and I think this pitch is a disgrace (so I’m not blaming it for the score). I think the Cardiff one was too (but it constantly swung and there was variable bounce). If pitches are being prepared to ensure a 90mph bowler can’t get one over shoulder height then the game is the loser.
“Alastair Cook will never get a better chance to resurrect his terrible home Ashes record. Something tells me that he won’t be England’s least productive opening batsman in home Ashes series (statistically) since 1900 for much longer. This situation is made for him.”
Funny that.
The pitch seems to be a little quicker today. Still a very good batting surface but possibly a little more in it for the bowlers. Broad bowled well first up. Beat the bat a few times – not something we saw much yesterday.
Watching today it’s become increasingly clear that England’s bowling was poor yesterday as it was too wide. Clearly that was the plan but they are saying only 6% of balls bowled were hitting the stumps. While the tactic dried up free run scoring it wasn’t likely to get wickets particularly as the ball isn’t getting much lateral movement so it’s easy to pick you leaves and in smiths case there was a lot of leaves. Broad has shown today that a tighter line will get wickets even on this flat wicket
Broad has been bloody good today. And I’m not his greatest fan.
That’s 6% of balls bowled to smith but it includes today so I imagine it was lower yesterday.
Dead pitch comes alive! 2 down already.
England giving it away, like Australia did in their Cardiff first innings.
Some good bowling, but some awful batting.
Root is not going to come good every match, and when he doesn’t we suddenly look short of answers.
The wicket is still great for batting. Lyth and Root both played abysmal shots (scoreboard pressure) and the Aussies were lucky enough to pick a cherry that swung considerably. The ball that got Ballance was full (pitch didn’t play a part) and the one that got Bell was a beauty that swung late and turned him around. Bad batting plus some very good bowling. At least the Aussies showed more attacking intent than England … but I suppose having 580 on the board is enough to give any attack a boost.
To be fair to them, they did commit to that approach some time before they scored 580 – ie last night.
Ballance should have been playing forward, not back, so. o excuses for him. Bell ‘might’ be judged unlucky, but should he fail in the second innings, I think it’s time for a change.
Once you hit a certain age – as Pietersen has discovered – you don’t get quite as many second chances… unless you’re one of the elect.
Stat of the day…. Stokes strike rate is over three times that of Cook.
The problem is, and has been for some years, that England are not as good as they think they are. Broad and Anderson have nothing else when the ball and the pitch aren’t doing anything. Root is a great young player, but he can’t get runs every time, and apart from Cook (who’s going through a lean patch), there is no-one else of substance in the batting line-up (Bell is only an ordinary Test batsman).
For the Lord’s groundsman to prepare a pitch like this is not playing to England’s strengths. It might negate Johnson (except that it hasn’t), but it certainly will negate England’s “strike” bowlers.
“The problem is, and has been for some years, that England are not as good as they think they are.”
Is that really the problem?
“Broad and Anderson have nothing else when the ball and the pitch aren’t doing anything.”
I thought Broad was excellent on the second day.
“Is that really the problem?”
Yes, I think it is the problem. England don’t have very many class players. But every time they win a match the UK press think they do, and I think it affects the players negatively.
“I thought Broad was excellent on the second day.”
This is what I mean. Broad was the best of the English bowlers, but he was hardly excellent. Malcolm Marshall at Headingley in 1984 was excellent. Broad was merely decent.
The ICC should introduce a new rule whereby the visiting team always gets the choice of batting or bowling first. This would force the home team to produce a fair wicket as they would be the ones to suffer in the event of a shocking pitch.
[…] post Day Two at Lord’s appeared first on The Full Toss – England Cricket […]