Well we did it. We bloody did it. When Australia’s lead crept up to 120 I was worried. But Ian Bell, the maestro of Birmingham, saw us home. I’m as pleased as punch.
I’m particularly delighted because our heroes from days two and three are players who have really struggled of late. It warms the cockles.
Steve Finn was simply magnificent yesterday afternoon and proved all of the doubters, which included my good self, completely wrong. It’s great to have you back Finny.
And of course today was all about Ian Bell. Everyone has been on his case recently. I found myself in numerous Twitter arguments defending his record and predicting he’d come good. Thank heavens he’s proven yet again that form is temporary and class is permanent. Today is a victory for purists everywhere.
Bell has often been accused of mental fragility. I agree he can appear flaky on occasion but ‘weak’ is too harsh. He was under enormous pressure in this game – pressure stemming from both his own poor form and the match situation – but he really delivered. I’m chuffed for the bloke.
With Bell back in form England’s batting suddenly looks so much stronger. With Cook up front, Bell at three, Root at four and Stokes at six, we have a really strong spine. Australia’s middle order, on the other hand, look like deer in the crosshairs. Ahem. That one’s for you, Maxie.
The loss of Jimmy Anderson is obviously a massive blow moving forward, but somehow I think we’ll be ok. Don’t ask me while I’m feeling optimistic – it doesn’t take much to shatter my brittle belief in England cricket teams – but I’m confident the other bowlers can step up. I’d be interested to know who you’d pick as a replacement? Wood is the obvious choice for me.
As for Australia, they suddenly look under enormous pressure. Starc and Hazlewood, who were supposed to be bankers in this match, have performed poorly. Mitchell Johnson and Nathan Lyon have bowled pretty well, but they need more support.
The big issue for Australia is their batting line up. Surely it makes sense for them to bring in the elegant Shaun Marsh at three, and then push Smith and Clarke down to four and five? Voges doesn’t look test quality to me. We’ve long argued on this blog that runs against the Windies means comparatively little. I call it Bopara’s law. Maybe Shane Watson will be welcomed back with open arms (wink, wink)?
Anyway, I’m going to leave the analysis there for now. Today is a day for celebration. Our team have bounced back in emphatic fashion and sent the Aussies packing. Let’s just ignore what normally happens in the next game after we win.
Over to you folks …
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
“Well we did it. We bloody did it. When Australia’s lead crept up to 120 I was worried.”
Of course you were.
If it had got to 150 you would have abandoned all hope and hid behind your sofa.
Well I would have done so as well. Seen far too many matches where a win was a certainty and we managed to lose.
“As for Australia, they suddenly look under enormous pressure.”
It’s only “sudden” if you ignored the evidence previously.
“Starc and Hazlewood, who were supposed to be bankers in this match, have performed poorly.”
Really? Surely the bowling isn’t the issue.
And I’m not sure Hazlewood has been “poor”. Look at the numbers.
“The big issue for Australia is their batting line up. Surely it makes sense for them to bring in the elegant Shaun Marsh at three, and then push Smith and Clarke down to four and five?”
Clarke is the big worry. He represents the single biggest discrepancy between pre-series expectation and what’s actually been delivered.
I do enjoy listening to interviews with Clarke. Have to turn off Cook as he makes me want to keel over and zzzzzzzzz but Clarke is always so honest. Time for the Captain to get on the bus he said. Straight to the point
Yes. Hazlewood and Starc were both poor in this match. Clarke didn’t trust JH for long periods in the first innings and Starc bowled a few magic deliveries but was ragged overall. Shane Warne has already said MS should be dropped for Cummins.
Let’s not take Shane Warne’s word as gospel. Let’s remember that Pat Cummins has played a total of 7 first-class matches in his career. Frankly, his selection in the squad, even with Harris going down, was a surprise.
Let’s also remember that you were positively shitting yourself about Mitchell Starc before the series. Apparently his performance in the 50-over format was enough to convince some that he would dominate the Ashes – despite more level-headed posters pointing out he was (and is) still unproven at Test level.
As for Hazlewood, look at his performance in the series overall. Surely you can’t keep basing your analysis exclusively on the most recent match. How has that worked out so far? Even in this match – in which you say Hazlewood was “poor” – he finished with 4/95. Is that unacceptable?
What you’re seeing at the moment is the hole left by Harris. That doesn’t mean that the Australian attack is completely dysfunctional – it’s just not as well balanced. Harris was awesome.
But why are we even talking about the Australian bowling? It’s been pretty decent overall.
The issue at Edgbaston – and in general – is the Australian batting. As I pointed out to Maxie after Lord’s when he was in the middle of abandoning all hope despite it being 1-1, Australia have got very little from batsmen 4, 5 and 6. That remains the case.
Warne already has form for having it in for MS. I’m not entirely sure what he’s got against him. Much as there are some things to admire about Warne, there are more things to dislike including his grudges he holds against various people even on his own team.
Dropping MS for Cummins would be ridiculous. The issue is one of control particulary when the ball is moving around a lot. If they need more control Siddle is your man, not the guy with 7 first class games, who is all talent but with very actual experience. That would be pure desperation.
I quite agree, James : a day for celebration and congratulation especially to Bell and especially, especially to Finn : a thousand curses and more on the England coaching set up which deemed him U selectable.
Am I alone in thinking that the Big Bash is making it increasingly difficult for the Australian (batsmen in particular) to readjust to Test cricket. At Lord’s, the wicket nullified much of the England bowling threat, but at both Cardiff and Edgbaston when what was necessary was for batsmen to get their collective heads down, and build a big score, they were mostly hell bent on knocking the cover off the ball and going for a boundary as their default position. Clarke is in a horrible, possibly terminal, run of form but to see Smith being dismissed in the way he was in each innings when he had a match saving/winning role to play…..! Maybe some of the middle order aren’t quite good enough, but I thought their main problem at Edgbaston was application rather than ability.
Yes I think that’s a good point. There’s nothing wrong with blocking now and again. The best teams are versatile and can play the situation. Ditto the best players imho.
‘Play the situation’ : that sums it up well.
Yes, there’s more to a positive approach/”brand” than going hell for leather and trying to smash it to all parts every time regardless of the situation. If the bowlers have the upper hand, the definition of playing positive cricket can be watchfulness and accumulating runs as you can without being tempted into taking on kamikaze shots.
“Am I alone in thinking that the Big Bash is making it increasingly difficult for the Australian (batsmen in particular) to readjust to Test cricket.”
It’s got nothing to do with the Big Bash. That finished in January and none of Smith, Clarke, Warner and Rogers played a single game. Ben Stokes, on the other hand, played four. Has he struggled to readjust? You may as well blame the WC, which was more recent and actually involved Smith, Clarke and Warner.
It’s more about diminished ability to adapt to foreign conditions and, in general, a lack of graft. Rogers is the exception in both aspects.
I think Australia have also made some errors in selection. After the Ashes series in 2013-14, the view was that a similar side could go again in England and make a decent fist of defending the urn. There was some tinkering – Voges replaced Bailey and the pace attack was rejigged but other than that it’s the same side.
But that plan has turned out to be completely unfeasible. Harris broke down before the series. Admittedly, they had planned for him to be unavailable initially but I think he’d be a pretty handy inclusion at this point. And what was the Plan B? Pat Cummins? That has to count as a mistake, I’m afraid.
Then there’s Watson and Haddin, who were carried all the way to this series, despite ordinary form, only for Watson to be discarded after one Test and Haddin after two.
To top it off, Clarke looks shot. And the rationale of picking Voges for his experience (which I totally supported) hasn’t worked out.
All in all, it’s as though Australia timed the awkward tipping point where transition becomes inevitable to coincide perfectly with this series. It was understandable to an extent but as we sit here with England leading 2-1, with Australia’s middle order completely misfiring, surely the most sound conclusion is that a few more hard calls should have been made earlier.
There should have been a better plan B in place if Harris couldn’t play. Haddin and Watson should have finished 12 months ago. Australia would now be in a better position if that had happened.
“All in all, it’s as though Australia timed the awkward tipping point where transition becomes inevitable to coincide perfectly with this series. It was understandable to an extent but as we sit here with England leading 2-1, with Australia’s middle order completely misfiring, surely the most sound conclusion is that a few more hard calls should have been made earlier”.
One of the most plausible analyses I’ve read.
I don’t come here just to heckle you and James.
I am not dancing around the room over this, partly because I have a torn calf muscle, but mainly because I still find it difficult to get behind the team, or let me say a team let by Cook. But my main reason for feeling pleased is that Finn is back where he belongs and has come good. I am so happy for him. And Aggers wittering, as per, about his bowling action and the response from Boyks was he didn’t care about his action as long as he was taking wickets. Would somebody explain to me why Aggers is allowed to talk rubbish and all the time too?
Sorry,Elaine, I can’t explain it but it’s painful isn’t it? It’s bad enough when he sticks to cricket but once he gets going about his wife’s horses and his barbecues…give me strength!!!
And try as I might I cannot remember seeing him play cricket ever. Perhaps I have wiped it from my subconscious?
Aggers is allowed to talk rubbish for the same reason he was allowed to bowl rubbish when he was in the England Test team back in the 1980s. He is a nice boy from the right background and his face fits.
As for the Test series so far it is like watching two boxers who throw knock out punches but also have glass jaws. You never know which is going to end up on the canvass. Maybe I am a bit of a party pooper but personally I regard an Ashes series where the result is done and dusted in every match before day 5 rather less than stellar.
Hugh
To be fair to Agnew (and I’m no great fan of his in the commentary box)’ he was a decent county fast bowler who ended up in the Test side – where he was demonstrably out of his depth – because the (few) alternatives were no better : he was at the bottom of the barrel and boy were the selectors scraping.
At least amongst his clutch of ‘0 fors’ lurk the Test wickets of Greenidge and Richards something which, to his credit, I’ve only heard him mention once on air and that was when he was pressed on it by Geoffrey.
Very good analysis.
Aggers took over 600 first class wickets at under 30 over a decade as a professional cricketer, which marks him up as a bit more than a nice boy from the right background. He was the last bowler to take 100 wickets in a first class season for Leicestershire in 1987 and got his test call up in 1984 on the back of 80+ championship wickets – I assume that legions of county batsmen were shouldering arms to straight ones just because Aggers was a nice chap? Jettisoned after 3 tests, so hardly ‘allowed to bowl rubbish’. He was a good county bowler who wasn’t up to test standards. I did find one H Fowler who played for Yorkshire 2nd XI in 1899 – I assume that’s not you, but perhaps you’re Curtley Ambrose posting under an alias (though I suspect Curtley would show a little more respect to a fellow professional).
I assume he was talking about Finn’s technique because for one it’s a relevant talking point due to Finn’s struggles, and also there are plenty of cricket followers who are interested in the technical side of the game – either way, I’m sure he’s got significantly more insight about bowling technique than anybody on this site.
Whatever you think of Aggers as a commentator / journalist, there are obviously plenty who like his gentle style, which is why he’s been in the business for 25 years. He’s old school, and a good foil for more strident characters like Boycott.
What I find laughable is when a keyboard warrior starts slinging personal insults at a decent professional, who reached a level of professional sport that most of us could only dream of, and whose only crime seems to be that he’s a bit long winded.
Love Cook. You lot really are a bunch of weirdos, he’s totally inoffensive.
I won’t reprise all the arguments here, Ralph, save to say that if you take a look through all that Cook’s said and done during the last eight months, it would be hard to conclude he’s inoffensive. Have you read the ‘due diligence’ dossier? Now, you might agree or sympathise with Cook, but the idea he’s some innocuous innocent is completely invalid.
Hi everyone. Could we stick to the cricket in this thread please. Cheers, James :-)
No pillow talk?
Well said James.
https://www.thefulltoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11800065_10205308307159899_8780453996998395854_n.jpg
*cough***cough*** excuse me let me show myself out ***cough
Nice one though to be fair he did say “this thread”
Different writers too. TFT is not some monolithic animal rights blog. We all do different stuff.
Morning James. I have not overlooked your post amidst all the Maxie kerfuffle of yesterday. (Where would we be without a Maxie kerfuffle!)
Anyway I wanted a word about our bowling. It seems that all being well Wood is most likely to play. He is a mean bowler but without Jimmy pegging them down our attack will seriously lack control. Any thoughts on Brook being more suitable as a like for likeish replacement?
Hi jenny. If Brooks or Rushworth play, they’ll need quite a lot of help from the wicket to be effective. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of them is named in the squad, just in case the pitch looks like a green top, but I’d be amazed if Wood doesn’t play. People shouldn’t judge him on Lord’s, where he wasn’t fully fit. I really liked the look of Wood in the first few tests of the summer, and I expect him to bowl fast. He’s also a bit skiddy and can reverse it, so he’s a good contrast to Broad and Finn. And let’s not forget Footitt. If Wood isn’t fit, he could get a look in. There’s also Jordan and Plunkett. I think we’ll be ok.
How Cook handles the rejigged England attack is probably going to be crucial in the next match. As captain there is not much he can do to alter the way the side bats apart from giving instructions, tinkering with the order and scoring runs himself. However, he does have a lot of control over the management of the side in the field. My worry is that throughout his career as captain he has been overly dependent on the likes of Anderson or Broad delivering with the ball and when they don’t he rapidly runs out of ideas about how to take the game to he opposition. The next Test is going to give him the perfect opportunity to prove his critics such as myself wrong. It will be interesting to see how he and England do know that their main bowling strike threat has been removed.
lol fair enough, always though maxie was james’s softer alter ego though :p
We’re actually the same person, but with a Gollum style disorder :-)
It’s a fair cop.
There are some strange ideas floating around about what constitutes a winning fourth innings’ target. No team has defended 120 in the last decade of Test cricket. It happened only three times in the decade before that.
We tend to forget that modern pitches last better than they used to – and the rate of play means the fourth innings isn’t often played on a fifth day pitch anyway. Modern batsmen are also highly experienced at run chases and don’t usually let an innings stagnate. Tailenders, if required, are more likely to be able to contribute than perhaps they could in the past.
When England set West Indies 192 in Bridgetown (remember that?) several regulars in the MSM were Tweeting that England were “favourites”. That was a tricky pitch and the West Indies are not a strong batting line-up – but they still won comfortably. Recent history again showed it was highly unusual for a team to be able to defend 192.
Some wickets may fall, and there may be a period when it gets quite tense, but a team set less than 200 seldom doesn’t win a modern Test match.
Good points as always Simon.
A collection of my thoughts on the match… I really didn’t enjoy this test. First of all, I’m Australian. Second, I wanted to watch some cricket on the weekend. Third, what I did get to watch was generally of a pretty poor standard from both teams, particularly Australia.
The conditions can’t be blamed. It was a fair pitch, there was a bit of help for bowlers but it wasn’t unplayable by any stretch of the imagination, and there was value for shots.
Anderson and Finn can be happy with how they bowled, but the Australian batting flattered them. I don’t think any batsman from either side will think they played remotely close to their best. Maybe Bell comes closest to thinking that, as he will walk away satisfied or at least relieved, but that was a horrible dismissal in the first innings and should have been gone for 20 in the second. Moeen’s innings was key to extending the lead, and incredibly frustrating to watch as an Austalian. He looked horribly out of form and I lost count of the number of times he swished outside off stump with zero footwork to the quicks or hung out a bat to Lyon without edging. Every streaky shot for 4 after that had me fuming.
The pace this game was played at was incredible… probably foolishly so from nearly all batsmen. Even Root and Bell at the end, playing big shots and getting lucky with them falling between fielders on a number of occasions. Clarke’s captaincy too… the number of runs leaked to 3rd man was amazing. I’m not sure why he was so reluctant to put a man there and slow things down a bit.
I can’t believe the guy who took that diving catch to dismiss Lyth in the first test is the same guy who dropped Bell yesterday. The sequence of play around there was the final nail in the coffin. You would think that having been somewhat bailed out by the tail, the Australian batsmen would be hustling to repay the favour in the field… in the space of an over or two shortly after Cook was dismissed there was Warner completely missing an easy stop at gully costing 4 runs, Clarke’s drop, and some wayward returns to the keeper. I knew there would be no miracle at that point.
I’m no SMarsh fan, but he must come in for Voges. Starc is mixing up a few peaches with a lot of nonsense… maybe Siddle can offer more control and increase the effectiveness of the other bowlers.
I’m sure none of you lot have any misgivings about narrowly winning the two tests McGrath missed in 2005, so forgive me if I’ve got a smile on my face about Anderson being out for at least 1 and in all likelihood 2 tests. It will definitely be interesting to see how the other bowlers cope without him leading the way – does anyone have any stats on how England have gone without either or both Anderson and Broad missing?
That’s fair enough Scrim. Dealing with injuries is part of any sport.
I don’t have stats but from memory when Broad was missing we have done ok. Ashes 10/11 won 2 lost 1 after he went home . Won a test in Colombo after he went home and Won one drew one in India after he went home.
Only test I remember Anderson missing in a long time was v the West Indies at Edgbaston in 2012 where he was rested. This was a heavily rain affected draw.
From cricket.com.au:
“The right-arm quick has missed just eight Test matches in the past eight years, and England’s only two victories from those matches without their spearhead came against Bangladesh. In the other six Tests, they were beaten by New Zealand and West Indies, and drew thrice with Sri Lanka and once with West Indies.”
The Windies tail wagged massively in that game. I can’t remember if that was when Tino Best made 90-odd, but if wasn’t then Ramdin and Sammy certainly went nuts instead.
That was the game where Tino went nuts.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/sport/cricket/swanny-s-world-of-sport-why-england-don-t-need-kp-1-6878770
just saw this wow
leave aside swann’s attack on KP but does he have the right’s to rubbish a section of cricket fans?
This article again serves as a way to tell fans to shut up and move on.
how can a cricketer equally cherished and got the accolades of the same fans do that
Swan is a turd
Just read this
Funny and quite insightful
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/event/article-3179866/Piers-Morgan-Sir-Ian-Botham-cricket-match-never-thought-rival-day-bowled-West-Indian-great-Brian-Lara-duck-felt-better.html
Insightful??????
Yes insightful as Piers Morgan is always honest and hard on himself. He knows he can be a turd and gets in before anybody else. So yes, insightful, and I found it quite funny
Honest?
Profited from dodgy share tipping by his paper, printed hoax photos of torture and phone hacking.
A tabloid journalist through and through and his KP campaign is as much about Piers Morgan’s ongoing quest for popularity as KP’s return to the England team.
There are few people in public life that I have more contempt for. I would happily see him cast adrift with Katie Hopkins in a rubber dinghy
You do know that the article’s by somebody called Alan Swann?
oops did confuse with the real swann though he isnt doing nay better against KP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3177249/Kevin-Pietersen-mocked-Graeme-Swann-merciless-radio-impression-like-repeat-sound-good-say-words.html
that was hilarious, would have been even more if it was KP under strauss
I would say England don’t ‘need’ KP, but he’d help. I think he might have scored a few more than Ballance and Bairstow. We’ll see ….
I would just ask why anyone is taking notice of an obscure East Anglian journalist just because he has a familiar surname? [Quite agree with your suggestion – Bell, Pietersen and Root looks an enticing middle order].
Why anyone would ever take any notice of Piers Morgan is another matter altogether!
Because whether you like him or not, he tends to hit the nail on the heard. Also whether you like him or not, he has stuck by his friend through thin and thick and hails of insults and hundreds of vile tweets.
Found it quite intriguing that he wrote that he spoke to Strauss about KP’s omission and promised to keep it quiet.
This is the bloke who never keeps quiet.
Pietersen (Swann): ‘Hi guys, is anybody there? How’s it chaps? I’m so, so happy to be here with you right now. I look great at the moment. I’ve got new tattoos and they’re shining beautifully in the sunshine. I feel awesome.’
Hayden: ‘I’ve got this beauty (from Twitter), then I’ve got a question on the back of it as well: ‘Batting as well as ever and the team have issues with the top order! What a waste, just lying on a beach! I wish I could help!’ And then the muscle sign, the bicep curl emoji. Mate, why aren’t you playing for Surrey if you think you’re top shelf and going for it — what’s the problem?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘Well, the thing is Kevin has to go all over the world to create massive awareness of how good he is. I played for Surrey, I was told to average highly and I averaged 150 in my time at the bottom half of division two. Sure, one of my innings was 350 not out and apart from that my highest score was 12. It shows KP is a big player, a big-time player. The bicep curl is because I’m beautiful … Not a lot of people know this, but (Matthew Hayden) called me FIG JAM. It was the nicest nickname because what it means is Flip I’m Good, Just Ask Matty. It showed everyone how high the regard for me was with Matt Hayden. What an awesome guy.’
Hayden: ‘So Kev, this next tweet: ‘So, so, so, so silly!’ What’s that all about?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘Well, I like to repeat myself because I sound so good when I say some words. Like so, so, so, so silly. I might say that again, so, so, oh that sounds great. I can’t remember the question but let me tell you that I scored 25 last night off three balls. It may sound impossible — which it is for most guys — but not for me.’
Waugh: ‘Seriously, did you watch the Test match? Obviously you did. What did you make of the English batting? What do they need to do to improve, apart from getting you back in the team, is there something they can work on that top order?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘I didn’t actually watch the Test match — one of my people told me the scores. What I was actually doing was having a net and I was hitting it really nicely, and striking it nicely, so, so nicely, and I think it’s a matter of time before I’m back in the side. Because I’m so, so, so ready to play.’
Hayden: ‘Have you got any form at all on the board though?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘Of course. Haydos I scored 200 against a team who hadn’t won for three weeks, three years … it doesn’t matter because no matter who KP bats against he will score runs.’
Waugh: ‘Where was that KP?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘It was a practice game in St Lucia, but it doesn’t matter. Those guys bowling were awesome. They had to have a day off school to play, but they bowled well. Listen, I am ready at any stage to come back and play for my country — or England if they ask as well.’
Hayden: ‘Just quickly, what do you think of Graeme Swann as a bloke?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘I have never met anyone called Graeme Swann, at all. I deny that happened.’
Waugh: ‘He wasn’t one of your favourite teammates? Who was? Who did you enjoy playing with in England?’
Pietersen (Swann): ‘Kevin Pietersen enjoyed playing with Kevin Pietersen. He was an awesome team guy and a great golfer.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3177249/Kevin-Pietersen-mocked-Graeme-Swann-merciless-radio-impression-like-repeat-sound-good-say-words.html#ixzz3hfiYLHPB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It seems the KPGenius Twitter account is alive and well and appearing on Triple M Radio.
What a cunning stunt.
I kept repeating that fast like a tongue twister and i got the right word for him :D
I don’t know what you mean! ;)
Hair shirt moment…
I feel a little guilty about my worry a week ago that Ian Bell might fail at # 3. I even worried that the perception would be that he’d been set up to fail. With two decent 50s at Edgbaston, it’s clear that he responded to the responsibility that went with his promotion up the order and to the implicit faith that was placed in his seniority, experience and skills. Really hope he’s able to build on that recovery.