Part of my Christmas ritual (and probably yours too) is staying up to watch the first session of the Boxing Day test from the MCG. It used to be a dispiriting experience fifteen years ago. A succession of worthy challengers (some of which contained great bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh and Waqar Younis) would turn up with high hopes, but concede four hundred runs in a day and lose by an innings. How on earth was England’s attack (which at this point was led by Alan Mullally) going to take a single wicket, let alone twenty? Slater, Mark Waugh etc were going to have a field day.
These days the pattern is pretty familiar, but the overall experience is so, so different. Teams from the West Indies, Pakistan, and most recently Sri Lanka, still turn up at the MCG and get their behinds kicked, but this time I can’t help smirking. Indeed, I occasionally burst out laughing when I hear channel nine suggesting that Australia are once again ‘the best in the world’, or even ‘back on track’.
This is by far the weakest Australian team I’ve ever seen – even if they’re currently winning the Boxing Test day test at a canter.
The reason they’re doing well, of course, is that the standard of test cricket outside of England and South Africa (and games involving Saeed Ajmal) is quite frankly abysmal. I’d wager that it’s a worse standard than Sheffield Shield matches in the 1990s, or even division one of the country championship now.
The current Sri Lankan team has three excellent, but weary and punch-drunk , cricketers in Jayawardene, Sangakarra and Dilshan, but the rest simply aren’t up to standard; they might do well in home conditions, but away from home they’re out of the depth. I doubt any of their seamers could hold down a place in the Warwickshire or Durham side.
Australia’s recent successes are therefore absolutely meaningless. England will be licking their lips ahead of the Ashes.
Australia have two world class players in Clarke and the ageless Hussey, and another serviceable one (Watson) who has been forced into the middle-order to compensate for the woeful inadequacies of other batsmen available. Never before has the Aussies’ cupboard been so bare.
The other Australian players are the same old stooges we’ve beaten time and again – plus a few new ones like Ed Cowan, who are even worse than the ones they’ve replaced. David Warner will feast upon inadequate bowlers on flat pitches, but his technique isn’t good enough to cope with quality bowling on a regular basis.
Phil Hughes, meanwhile, is exactly the same flawed batsmen he has always been. The channel nine team keep talking up his new method, but there’s nothing new about it whatsoever. He’s still a liability to rising deliveries outside off-stump. I know because I watched him several times for Worcestershire last year.
Then we come to the bowlers. Who has been Australia’s star performer in this match? Good old Mitchell Johnson, that’s who. He still bowls to the left, he still bowls to the right, and he’s still largely s**t*.
Meanwhile, contrary to channel nine’s continued claims that Hilfenhaus and Siddle have put on eight yards of pace, they are clearly not the new Lillee and Thompson. Since when do seamers approaching thirty suddenly reinvent themselves as jaw shattering juggernauts? They don’t. The speed guns are about as accurate as Mitch’s bowling.
The only bowlers who were actually a danger to England’s recent Ashes dominance were Pat Cummins and James Pattinson. However, injuries have set them both back significantly, and it’s doubtful whether either will actually play next summer.
As Australia will discover in a few months time, scoring runs against pop-gun attacks and taking wickets against limited and demoralised opponents (who have been beaten by all and sundry over the last two years) means nothing. All it does is create false optimism and paper over the cracks.
Long may it continue.
James Morgan
Whereas, England’s “world class” players are….. Cook, Pietersen (oh dear, did I really say that?) Anderson, Swann and Prior – that’s twice as many which, on the face of it should be enough. Looking around the bit part players, Bell has the capacity to be “world class” (there is no one I would rather watch make a hundred – even KP (oh dear, there I go again!) and perhaps that young chap from Middlesex with the sore knee which he keeps banging against stumps at the bowlers end .. ah yes, Steve Finn – if he can be kept fit. In many ways, it doesn’t matter with the Ashes, it is always fascinating (excluding, of course the Ashes that never were 2006/7) which was just ….. well, sickening, But it made 2009 all the sweeter.
Here’s to the continued health of Swann’s elbow. Without it it will be a much more even series!
I wonder if Clarke knows how much better than the rest of the side he is…I reckon a couple of losses and it’ll all become too much for even him. He could be the Atherton of the next 5 years, a heroic loser who gradually gets more and more miserable and bitter as those around him drag him down.
[…] The Full Toss – “Intimidated – I Don’t Think So” A brasher assessment of Australia’s chances next year. “The Full Toss” is a little below the belt in this article, mocking Australia’s current cricketing reserves and in particular the assessments of the ‘Channel 9′ commentary team, who do have a tendency to overhype any recent Australian victory. There is a little part of me who wants to jump on board the Full Toss bandwagon, and a little part of me which will forever be afflicted by ‘The Fear’. This entails English batting collapses, bronzed Australians crowing, Steve Harmison hitting second slip, Nasser putting Australia in at the Gabba, and Glenn McGrath. On that last one: Glenn McGrath, Mitchell Johnson isn’t. We should be alright. […]
Warner is very, very good. You’re underrating him. Wade shows potential also, more than Prior, but we will still have the edge next series. We (England) have the stronger batting line up, and with our balanced attack that will be enough to do the job comfortably at home, by a couple of tests. Anderson and Finn will feast. But Australia’s current attack is nothing like what they -may- arrive with next year. If Pattinson and Cummins get their bodies in check in time for Trent Bridge, they could ambush us. I’ve watched a lot of both since being here. Together they have the potential to lead an era for Australia. They both have more upside than Finn. But I doubt we will see this next year. Having said that, I smell trouble when our mob heads down here for the Australian summer. Siddle HAS improved, quite markedly actually. He will trouble us on their wickets. Starc is good but raw. Hilfenhaus looks the same useless bowler he did when we trounced them in 2010. Big win if they have to turn to him. Lyon is decent. I’m not sure how much upside he has given they plucked from a groundskeeper’s job at Adelaide Oval. He is still putting his game together. Won’t trouble our bats I’m tipping.
What I think will happen is that we see more of Cummins and Pattinson in Australia than in England, and together with Siddle they do enough to reclaim the earn. 2-1 or something like that. We also won’t get the unseasonable conditions we did in 2010. 3-1 England in England, 2-1 Australia in Australia. Honours shared. It may not look it now but we will need to come up with something special to better that attack of theirs in the years that follow. Pattinson and Cummins are both once in a generation. Not sure Meaker with Finn will be enough to balance that, we will need to find another star.
Cricket is a psychological game, and much like England in the 90s, Australia have nothing but bad memories of playing Eng recently and vice versa. Re: Pattinson and Cummins, I agree the former is a useful bowler but generational is a bit generous. Cummins looks special, but I just sense that his body will never be right. He’s very young atm, yet he still spends most of his time on the treatment table. I really doubt he will ever get himself fit for long.
As another Englishman in Oz, I have a different perspective.
To give credit where it’s due, Clarke is having a great year and is in really good form. Whether it’ll last or not no-one knows. His runs have been masking a lot of Australia’s problems, though.
He’s scored a single, three double, and a triple century this year, largely in partnership with Hussey. The top order has continuously failed, though. Cowan scored an excellent ton against SA, but it was the exception rather than the rule. He keeps getting out for low scores. Rob Quiney looked a better player but was dumped after just a couple of games, whereas Cowan seems to have endless chances. Watson’s been opening the innings since 2009 but still only averages 35 and has now been pushed down to no. 4 (against his wishes) which is at least a bit closer to 6 where he should be batting.
Warner’s been brought back in to open. He *is* very, very good, but he’s far too hit and miss, like Sehwag. He will change the course of a match once in a while, but he has far too many failures as a result of stupid shots. His style isn’t suited to playing in England, either. He goes hard and early at the ball, and the movement in England is likely to cause him real problems – again, much like Sehwag.
Phil Hughes is back in the team, allegedly a new player. He seems to have developed his leg-side game a bit, but the real test won’t come until he’s faced top-class fast bowling on good wickets. His real problem is against tall fast-bowlers angling the ball across him, and neither Sri Lanka nor India have the attacks to test him. He never had trouble scoring runs against such bowlers, and it wasn’t until he got to England that he got found out. I suspect the same will happen again.
Clarke is scoring a lot of runs at no. 5, but he should be stepping up for his team and batting at three, just like Ponting did. He’s the best player in the team by a country mile but he appears to be hiding down the order. Doesn’t seem likely to move, either.
Hussey was on the verge of being dropped before the SA series. Thankfully for Aus he wasn’t and he’s hit a purple patch. He’s the only other batsman consistently scoring runs. That said, he’s 38 and you have to wonder how much longer it can last. Even if he has a bad series in India, though, he’s guaranteed a spot on the Ashes tour. There just isn’t anyone running him close for a spot.
Then there’s Wade. I find the idea that he’s more promising than Prior a bit bizarre. He’s got talent, but he simply can’t buy a run. It’s too early to tell, but there’s a question mark over whether he has the temperament for Test-match batting. Prior, on the other hand, is the best and most consistent no 7 in the world by huge margin.
As for the bowling…there’s talent around in the form of Starc, Cummins, and Pattinson, but I really don’t think it’s the beginning of a great generation. Starc and Cummins are, in fairness, very good, but we’ve only had brief glimpses of them because they’re both so fragile. Neither of them has got through a whole series yet. Pattinson’s not bad but he thinks he’s a lot better than he really is. His attitude is much like Broad’s. Appeals for ridiculous things and has hissy fits when he’s turned down.
Siddle and Hilf are still the preferred choices as bowlers. Siddle has acquired a reputation recently as being a true-blue Aussie hero, largely because of his effort to bowl out SA in the second Test. The thing is, though, the reason he had to bowl so many overs is because Aus just couldn’t manage to take 20 wickets, even with an awful lot in their favour. They had real trouble in the last Test against a very weak SL team, too. On a fifth day wicket with uneven bounce and huge seam movement, SL took it to the last hour and Lyon didn’t manage a single wicket. For all the talk, Siddle is still just a net bowler who has occasional good spells, and Hilf is still just a medium pacer who looks a bit like Terry Alderman but doesn’t take any wickets.
The selectors managed to look through the hype about Siddle’s ‘heroics’ and realized the attack was toothless, and their answer was to pick Mitchell Johnson. Seriously. He’s doing ok, but he’s still nuts, and he’s still spraying it around. It’s a big step backwards (but he is now one of their best batsmen…)
What’s more, there’s been a lot of criticism of player management because of all the bowler injuries. As a result they’ve come up with a hair-brained scheme worthy of England circa 1994. They’ve begun a rotation policy which has resulted in Starc being dropped for one of the few games he’s actually fit for in favour on Jackson Bird, a medium pacer no one’s ever heard of.
Bottom line is, Australia hasn’t got anyone of the quality of Anderson or Finn, their spinner is just a county trundler, and they only have two reliable batsmen. England has 5 of the top 7 batting spots nailed down and firing, and strong options in Compton, Root, Bairstow, and Morgan for the other two spots, along with both quality and depth in the bowling. England goes in to the Ashes with a huge advantage, and will have to ask themselves some pretty big questions if they fail to turn that in to a convincing series win.
I suspect that momentum will carry on in to the second series, but it’s too far away to make predictions. A lot can happen – Cook could lose form, Anderson could be injured, KP could have another falling out, Broad could make a recovery and be picked again (shudder), Swann’s elbow could finally go. Who knows, but the side could look very different then.
I watch quite a bit of domestic cricket, though, and I doubt it’s been weaker in a long time. As Morgsy said, Shield teams in the 90s used to beat international sides. Watching them now, though, there’s a real dearth of talent. The cupboard, at the moment, is pretty bare.
Have to pull you up on a couple of things. Starc has barely had an injury since arriving on the scene. It was also mentioned during the South African series that their key indicators show he has the most durable body in his age group in world cricket currently, which was interesting. He cannot be bracketed with Cummins and Pattinson, who have persistently broken down.
Never seen Pattinson chuck a hissy fit. He is aggressive, and annoying, but strikes me as confident rather than overrating himself. Has more upside than Starc to my eye.
Prior is excellent. Don’t think he’s quite as good as we have made him out to be though. First class average of 40, fraction lower than Wade who has a better technique and is only 25. Prior is head and shoulders above for us at the minute, and that will hold for next year, but I would love to have Wade coming through the county system right now. They have the makings of a good number 7 again, after the erratic Haddin. That was my point.
Agree on Cowan, doesn’t look much chop to me. They selected him because he has cut his teeth in Tasmanian conditions and is supposedly accomplished against swing bowling. Often sees the new ball off but doesn’t go on with it. Ho hum player.
Anyway we’ll see what happens.
Interesting use of statistics. Prior’s Test average after 62 matches is over 43, with six centuries and twenty-four half centuries. His FC average is hardly relevant. It’s hard to see how we over-rate him, as his performances have been head-and-shoulders above every comparable player apart from Gilchirst, who averaged 47. He does it when it counts, too, as demonstrated in India. The question with Wade is not whether he’s talented but whether his temperament is sound. He’s been getting out to some pretty ropey shots. Time will tell.
Fair point of Starc’s fitness, although I find him a much better prospect than Pattinson. I don’t think Pattinson does enough with the ball to be consistently threatening, and he’s not out-and-out quick. He is aggressive and annoying, yes – whether he has hissy fits is a matter of opinion, I suppose. Against SA his response to having appeals turned down bordered on dissent a few times. His over-confidence persuaded Clarke to refer a couple of appeals which weren’t even that close, thus wasting them. I find that his demeanor on the pitch isn’t quite backed up by his ability. He just reminds me too much of Broad, to be honest.
The annoying thing with Cowan is that he’s proved he really can do it. Australia was staring down the barrel against SA when he got that ton. Clarke got all the plaudits but he batted off the back of Cowan who really did the hard yards against the new ball. Like so many players, it might just be what’s in his head. It’s hard to explain why he keeps getting out to stupid shots as soon as he’s seen the new ball off otherwise. I think Quiney might have been a much better bet for them, and his harsh dropping might be a blessing for us.
Australia’s real problem seems to be that they just can’t fix on anything. The mark of their great sides was consistency, but now they chop and change in every part of the team. They don’t know who they want opening, who they want bowling, where Watson should play. Now they’ve picked four openers, which smacks of desperation. Long may it continue, frankly.
Speak of the devil, Prior is opening the batting tonight with Chris Gayle for my local Big Bash team.
Just another point about Prior. His average would be higher if he batted up the order. He’s one of England’s best test batsmen fullstop and he often doesn’t have time to make big scores. He’s often left with the tail … hence all those 50s and not so many tons. I’m not convinced by Wade. I know it’s all subjective, but I just don’t see anything special. I’m expecting a workmanlike career. As a batsman I think he is less talented than Haddin, although perhaps less likely to have a brain melt!
Matthew wade as good as Matt prior? Pull the other one mate. He has a reasonable average playing a pretty dire standard of FC cricket in Australia. Says nothing about his capacity to perform at test level. Prior is comfortably the best keeper bat in the world, with a proven record of scoring tough runs when it’s needed.
Starc looks okay. Pattinson and cummins can’t string together 2 games in a row. And I’m praying they pick Johnson for the ashes! Siddle has improved but as previously mentioned, he’s still no worldbeater, and wouldn’t get a look in to the test side if he were English.
Clarke is a machine but he will have to score alot of runs to compensate for the weak Aussie top order. Hussey is also a quality player but Anderson and Swann are hardly going to be having nightmares about it.
England 3-1 at home and 3-1 away. Australia to start strongly but fade away as series goes on….
MHA here.
Interesting debate. In terms of what will happen next summer, and then next winter, I wonder if the issues go a little deeper than the relative merits of the players on paper.
The Australians who will tour here next year have either never played in England before, or only have bad memories of our country.
Clarke batted well in the second innings on a couple of occasions in 2009, but went missing each time Australia collapsed at Lord’s, Edgbaston and the Oval – the first and third of those collapses being the main reason his side lost the series.
Siddle and Hilfenhaus picked up a few wickets in 2009, without bowling particularly well, but were useless in 2010/11. And no sane selector could field Super Mitch in a test match staged in front of 25,000 gleefully sarcastic Englishmen.
What I’m getting at is the psychological element. Australia’s lesser players did well against decent England players in the 1990s and early 2000s because the latter expected the former to beat them. Yes, Australia would have triumphed anyway, but most of those Ashes series were won before a ball was bowled.
Of the Australians, only Clarke and Hussey know what it’s like to beat England. And their side doesn’t enjoy the positives of being the plucky underdog – Australian cricket’s wounded pride from 2010/11 means the team are under huge pressure to make amends. England have less to prove and will be under less scrutiny.
I’m no expert on Cummins or Pattinson but it seems unlikely that they can make the difference in themselves between winning and losing – to do that, they would have to deliver sustained hostility and penetration for session after session through the whole series, despite both their lack of experience and England’s relative ease against pace when playing at home. A rookie Frank Tyson may have massively influenced the course of the 1954/55 Ashes, but he was partnered by Brian Statham, and as part of a side which included some of the finest test batsmen in history.
I’m not saying that England will *definitely* win – but it’s ours to lose. The return series next winter will probably be much tougher, however, but remember that if we do indeed win the summer series, a draw will then be enough down under to retain the urn.
On a personal note, let me just say how pleased I am that we’ve returned to the days when every touring side to either nation was pronounced the worst ever on arrival. Calling 5-0 victories is a bit naff. The press were routinely wrong – 86-87 and 89 being the most obviously laughable, although the press might have been right on 86-87 , Australia was just worse.
Australia now, I don’t disagree. It is hard to judge batsmen until they are tested with regularity outside off stump, or bowlers until they face batsmen who can leave the ball. There are precious few players of either kind around these days.
Cowan looks out of his depth to me, Warner less so, but he slashes, and that will bring him unstuck. Hughes’ run-scoring record at the level below is remarkable. He is still young, and worth reserving judgment on. Plenty of young players have failed their first decent test. Watson is a clumper, and won;t last long if the ball moves back in to him. Clarke still slashes at short balls outside off. Hussey is not near as good off the front foot. England will win because their batting is better, smarter, and can play the home conditions. Australia will test them on the return, as they tested South Africa.
The bowling I am bullish on. I like Bird a lot. Cummins, if he is ever fit, is a star. Pattinson and Siddle go okay. Lyon is a better bowler than he can show in Australian conditions. He bowled reasonably in Sri Lanka and the West Indies, and unlike Ponting, Clarke is a decent captain to bowl under. The list of spin bowlers with decent records in Australia in the past three decades is very very short.and includes neither Swann nor Panesar.
The thing this debate is thus far lacking is that great unknown at this point: form. If either side hits form at the right time, whilst the other one hits a low point, it can win. I personally don’t think there is that much to choose between England and South Africa (although the balance kallis brings is important). I believe SA won last summer because Amla, Smith etc hit form at the right time, as did morkel who is often erratic, whilst England looked tired and weren’t in top form. Anderson didn’t bowl well all year (including the windies series weeks beforehand) and went through his only rough spell for years. The same could be said re: cook. Meanwhile broad was well down on pace, and swann was playing with a bad elbow. Then there was the KP situation. England were distracted and not united. I’m not saying England would’ve won if they were on form, but it would’ve been a lot closer. Bad things happen to sides and human beings do not always play to their potential. Remember, SA have not won back to back tests for several years. They are good but not brilliant, and lack a good spinner. Form is all important in sporting contests. If Australia hit a purple patch they can cause Eng probs next year, although Eng will be favourites as they’re more talented overall.
I’m going to put it out there: this year is the anomaly for Michael Clarke. The only other year his average has been significantly above 50 is when he only played a handful of Tests in 2006 and 2007 with not outs involved. Next year he’ll most likely revert back to the good-but-not-great batsman we all know he really is, and England will wrap things up without breaking into much of a sweat.
Make that *one* reliable batsman. Michel Hussey just retired.
Wade has just hit one of the better tons I’ve seen from a wicketkeeper batsman in sometime (Sanga excluded), against some brilliant bowling from Herath. Now has higher test and first class averages than Prior. I’m telling you, he’s good.
But gee whiz, Hussey retiring looks good for us. Cook, Trott, KP and Bell is a super, super arrangement and is the biggest diff between the two sides for mine. We are so far ahead in the batting now it isn’t funny.
Interested to see how Lyon bowls here on a surface where last year’s leading wicket taker in Herath was able to get a lot happening.