“Five more pies please” – is it just us, or has Shane Watson put on six stone?
It’s obviously still early days in the ODI series against the Canary Yellows, but we’ve seen enough to make some sweeping and probably inaccurate generalisations. So here goes …
First of all, it appears that we’ve still got the wood over them. There’s something about our swagger. In the 1990s you just knew from the way Matthew Hayden ate his gum that the Aussies were going to win. With every snarly arrogant chew, Hayden seemed to be saying ‘you guys are crap, and I’m going to have my way with you when I bat’. Which, of course, he invariably did. The git.
This time the boot’s on the other foot. When England were three wickets down at Lord’s, and the pace of the innings a tad slow, Trott didn’t seem to care. Somehow he knew we’d up the rate and eventually post a good total. Our ODI side hasn’t always done that in the past – we’ve panicked like pelicans – but against this opposition, we were always confident of success. And so it proved.
Yesterday also gave us a chance to size up some of the Australian players. And by ‘size up’ I’m referring to Shane Watson. There comes a time in every thirty something’s life when excess weight is harder to shift. Most of us pretend we’ve been working out, and that the extra girth is actually muscle. David Lloyd made a comment about Watson’s ‘broad frame’ on commentary yesterday – but you’re not fooling anyone Bumble. We know what you meant. Watson is filling out faster than Merv Hughes on a potein shake and chocolate diet. And it’s probably got more to do with Taco Bells than dumbbells.
Much more impressive than Watson yesterday was his opening partner, David Warner. He’s got quick hands and a great eye. That’s the bad news. The good news is that he moves his feet about as much as Phil Hughes (i.e. not very) and he looks a bit dodgy against spin. Although he’s got some serious talent, you’d expect England’s patient attack to peg him back in the test arena and eventually exploit his flaws. Here’s hoping anyway.
The most pleasing aspect of yesterday’s win, however, was the performance of our bowling attack. We won’t get into the five bowler debate again – why the selectors want to play four bowlers in a game that lasts five days, but five in a game that lasts just one is beyond me – so let’s just enjoy how potent they looked without dwelling on the broader issue.
Cook had serious options everywhere he looked yesterday. When we needed a wicket, he could turn to Jimmy or the seriously impressive Steve Finn. If he needed to attack the left handers, or stifle the run rate, he could turn to Swann. And that’s not even mentioning Stuart Broad, who has aggression and a good cricket brain, or the wholehearted Bresnan. It’s a formidable unit.
The performance of Finn was the most satisfying aspect of the day for me. He really put Pat Cummins, the Aussies’ young hotshot in the shade – and provided incontrovertible evidence that the Aussies fiddle with the speed gun in their home series.
Every time I’ve seen Cummins bowl in Australia, he’s registered between 90-97mph. Yesterday he was averaging 84-90mph – which is a good yard slower. Finn was bowling a lot more quickly – regularly hitting 90-92mph – and looked by far the better prospect. Yet Finn can’t even make it into our test team. That’s something for Michael Clarke to think about.
The only mystery, as far as I’m concerned, is why Finn can’t seem to replicate these kind of speeds in the test arena. When he played at Edgbaston, he was relatively speedy in his first spell, but was bowling little more than 84mph thereafter.
Now I know it’s a bit rich for me, the archetypal couch potato, to question a professional sportsman’s fitness, but Finn seems to lack stamina. What other logical answer is there? In ODI’s he seems to bend his back safe in the knowledge that his work is done after ten overs.
Unless Finn can improve this aspect of his game, England won’t get the best out of our fastest bowler. My solution would be to play him as a strike bowler in a five man attack – as I firmly believe the team would benefit more from a wicket taking Finn than a wet behind the ears (and somewhat out of his depth) Bairstow batting at six.
However, I said I wouldn’t mention the balance of the test side today, so I won’t (although I blatantly already have). All I’ll say it that Bairstow – a natural shot maker well suited to ODI cricket – isn’t considered good enough to make the first XI in the England one-day team, yet he’s judged good enough to play tests, where technique counts for more than raw talent. Mystified? Me too.
James Morgan
England would play 2 bowlers in an ODI if the rules would allow. For all the good things you can say about the England selectors, imaginative isn’t one. They’d rather rotate the entire lions squad at number 6 rather than pick a fifth, even though their number 8 and 9 have been outscoring their number 6 for a while now