Today’s play was painful. We had our collective boot on Australia’s metaphorical throat but the opportunity slipped away. And it’s all because of Steve Smith. Yes him. The ginger rodent. The bane of our existence.
I wish I could say Smith was lucky. I wish I could say that he cheated. But he wasn’t and he didn’t. He was absolutely outstanding. And I guess we just have to salute the bloke – through gritted of teeth of course. Broad and Woakes bowled superbly but Smith was the one recognised batsman who stood firm.
The only thing we can do, as a completely sour and futile gesture, is point out how horrible his innings was to watch. Is there an uglier player in world cricket? I can’t think of one. But it’s not how, it how many that counts. I doubt any Australian cares that England fans would rather kiss the elephant man than watch Smith bat.
At the other end he (eventually) found admirable support from the two most unlikely places: Australia’s No.10 and No.11 batsmen. Watching us struggle to knock over Siddle and Lyon, which should’ve been done through brute force and intimidation if ‘skill’ and subtlety failed, was like the bad old days.
I predicted that England might struggle after picking 4 right arm seamers who bowl at similar speeds and so it proved. I desperately wanted Ollie Stone in the side in Archer’s absence but England opted for predictability over penetration. If only we’d picked Stone instead of Denly and moved Stokes up to 3/4.
England did have one excuse though. And it’s rather a huge one. Jimmy Anderson’s injury absolutely killed us. His calf tightened up right after Steve Smith strode to the wicket. Had he bowled at Smith when the ball was still moving around then it might have been a very different story indeed. Fate just conspired against us today. Maybe this was luck evening up after our fortuitous World Cup final win?
Questions will inevitably be asked about England’s decision to pick Jimmy. Did the medical staff get this one wrong? I’m no doctor – not a medical one anyway – but maybe they just forgot that Jimmy’s 37 years old now. It’s bound to take him longer to recover from injuries. I just hope it’s not too serious and he’s fit for Lord’s.
So where does this game stand? 284 looks a decent total to me. England have only made over 400 once in their last 32 attempts and we’ve got to bat last. The smart money is possibly on Australia. You’ll find some tantalising odds via UK online betting reviews if you fancy a flutter.
All is not lost though. Not yet anyway! I actually thought the pitch calmed down quite a lot in the final session. This could be because England’s bowlers were fatigued but Australia’s opening pair of Cummins and Pattinson (who bowl at a fair lick) didn’t get too much out of the surface either before the close. Yes it was a small sample size but Burns and Roy looked relatively comfortable in what could’ve been a very tense mini passage of play.
The Australians’ team selection was also a little controversial and they yet rue the decision to leave out two bowlers as good as Starc and Hazlewood. Although Starc hasn’t always been effective with the Dukes ball, he was in brilliant form during the World Cup and his left arm angle provides variation. Meanwhile, Hazlewood is ranked 13th in the ICC rankings. He’s a class act. I’m really surprised that the Aussies preferred Siddle.
As I mentioned on the blog yesterday, however, the Aussies are blessed in the fast bowling department; therefore they were always going to be a threat whoever they picked. Siddle is a good old war horse who has been bowling an excellent English length at Essex, and Pattinson is a thoroughbred. I just wonder if, a bit like England, they might want a tad more variety if we manage to get a good partnership going.
Readers of this blog will know that I’m occasionally partial to a cricketing cliche – they prevent me from having to engage my brain at the end of a long day – therefore I’m going to offer you another one now:
Nobody will know whether 284 is a good score until Friday evening. One can’t judge a pitch until England have had the chance to collapse on it.
James Morgan
Written in collaboration with Bookmaker Advisor
Australia can’t bat but Smith is just so way ahead of anyone else he single handedly dragged them to a score. All the larger louts made themselves look dumb so hopefully they’ll just sod off back to football.
Woakes and broad bowled well but we all know englsnd are simply banking on someone ‘coming off’ to compete so tbh, it’s going to be a lottery tomorrow
Great to watch someone play test cricket though (Smith) and not just wack his way along
Smith played superbly. Comes back into the team and promptly props them up, as though he hasn’t been away but the wicket has definitely flattened out. If England can find some patience, they should be able to at least reach par, I’d say about 320 would be a good score though.
Pretty fair summary (though I think Smith’s hair should be called sandy rather than ginger). It certainly seemed like the pitch flattened out as the day went on although the Australian top order played some pretty awful shots (as the England top order will probably do too). Siddle looked comfortable which is a good sign for us tomorrow.
Still hoping Australia appoint Unai Emery (paper) as their new head coach.
Sandy? Sandy? He wishes.
Smith’s innings was pure test match cricket, will go down in ashes history. Pressure will be on England tomorrow, have to start batting for time than just ticking the score along – smith demolished tired bowlers at the end
Terrible umpiring
Poor bowling 122/8 to 284 all out, even with the pitch flattening out.
Terrible captaincy: nine men on the boundary! Please.
Poor selection, Anderson should never have played.At 37 needs careful liking after. Stone or Curran. No variety in the attack.
Moronic booing by the piss heads.
Fantastic Innings from Smith. One of the best you’ll ever see.
England need 300. Mmmm.
Pretty much says all I wanted to say.
The best innings I have ever seen in Ashes cricket by an Australian, and that covers nearly all of the 21st century (including Ponting’s 156 at Old Trafford in 2005). England will need a century from someone, and this is where Siddle’s selection alongside Cummins works for Australia – Root, the best source of such a score, has only ever managed one hundred against an attack including one of those guys. This is the first time he has ever had to face both in the same Test.
Advantage Australia.
Jeez, fair play England, what does a person have to do to get some applause. After booing Smith all through the World Cup and onto the field on Day 1, booing a guy when he gets a century is a bit low and not a good look on international TV… Are England taking the high moral ground and believe they need to continually punish Smith & Warner… Hang on, sandpaper gate happened in another country and had nothing to do with England… then why the hostility. …Face it England, it’s just a convenient excuse to stick it to the Aussies… Whilst you are on the high moral ground, don’t forget Ben Stokes and Mike Atherrton. Should be interesting next time you are downunder.
I think you are forgetting circa “a bunch of nobodies” 2013-4 and Broad targeted at every game for not walking! Booed? that was the least of it!! Hardly in the same league as Sandpaper ordered by the Captain when his team were losing in South Africa!! If Aussies couldn’t win by fair means they went for foul. Coach Boof saw to that. Years of being the nasty team world wide. Langer is there to put that right.
But what has sandpaper gate got to do with England or India or Pakistan etc. It happened in South Africa. at least Broad was in the same country when he didn’t walk..The ICC only gave a one match ban,which was accepted and taken. It was CA that imposed it’s own internal punishment..Again what business is it of England to justify the hostility (and I am sure it is not just on the field). No country has a perfect record, I just see this sort of crowd sanctioned punishment as being unnecessary and will only deteriorate cricket relations between UK and Oz which will be a shame. India used to be the country where Australia didn’t like to visit, at this rate it will be England.
Smith never gave the order to use the sandpaper, as you put it. Broad was booed because he didn’t walk, not just from a feathered snick, but a blatant middle of the bat shot to 1st slip, a massive cheating moment. Many have not walked on the feathers, but a blatant “shot” to slip? Broad deserved it, he loved the attention, he loves playing in Australia and would do it again if asked, purely for the theatre. It happened in Australia v Australia, the sandpaper happened in SA against SA, nothing to do with England. WG (dis)Grace was the worst cheat of all, yet revered in England, double standards?
I remember cheering for Broad when he played for Hobart Hurricanes in the Big Bash a couple of years ago. Played well, was disappointed he didn’t come back…He is one of two English cricketers I would like to have in an Aussie team.
Not exactly true though is it? This massive cheating moment actually consisted of Broad nicking off to the keeper, not to slip. Brad Haddin missed the catch but deflected it straight to the slipper (forget who he was, Clarke maybe?). So if the direction of the edge is a factor in our moral arbitration of the incident, maybe Broad’s cheating wasn’t that massive after all…
I think most of the booing was pantomime stuff. I shouldn’t read too much into it. By the way, Stokes was acquitted so not a fair comparison! And all Atherton did was rub soil on a ball to dry it in plain sight. Hardly an abrasive substance. Bit different from a team conspiracy to smuggle sandpaper onto the field in someone’s jockstrap in a brazen attempt to scatch the ball up.
But James, my point is what did it have to do with England… I can only think that the English supporter has presumed they have the right and privilege to boo the Aussies on behalf of the rest of the world (World Cup) or the Ashes… A crime is a crime, no matter how it was done, the intent was to change the surface of the ball with dirt or sandpaper… Being acquitted doesn’t necessarily mean innocence, but it suited England for it to be so..In all cases punishment given and taken by all parties, The booing may be pantomime but it can cut deep and may well envelope the entire team, but perhaps that is the intention, I just don’t think Mum’s & Dad’s waving yellow sandpaper in front of their children is a good look on (free to air) TV. As for the booing, it does nothing for image of the English supporter, but maybe they don’t care..
I wouldn’t personally join in with the booing – and I don’t want to defend it – but to be honest this all stems from England getting their own back. England players have been abused and ridiculed down under for decades. We used to look in amazement at the behaviour of Aussie crowds. And the fact we always used to get our arses tanned both home and away created some kind of link between bad behaviour and winning. When England finally started beating Australia after 2005 we adopted many of the same bad habits – both the players and the crowds. England would sledge like the Aussies, and behave arrogantly like the Aussies, because they somehow thought this was how winners behaved. It’s all a but pathetic really. And both countries are clearly to blame. The way I see it is that the Aussies started it and we copied it. It’s really childish.
What’s more, there is now a certain football culture at some cricket grounds. Football crowds rile each other mercilessly, and some of this has creeped into cricket. I don’t mind when it’s generally good humoured – I toured with the Barmy Army years ago too and the banter was pretty fun – but booing someone when they’ve reached a century is a bit beyond the pale imho. Smith played a special innings and it should have been recognised as such.
Agree with all of that James. It is becoming tit for tat and until someone stops it will just keep getting worse. Disappointing for England not to shake hands before the match.What a shame for Ashes cricket. South Africa didn’t have any problems with hand shakes, they could see a change for the better was beginning. I will say that, in my view, England have their own version of arrogance as well, a topic for another time perhaps.
I watched the highlights and the booing when he got his century sounded ridiculous, (even worse than at the time I heard it) and just nasty at the end when he’s walking off with 144 to his name having just performed an ashes masterclass. Unfortunately the test match crowd is infested with bored football supporters who are only there to get drunk and act like a tit.
What about England’s refusal to shake hands before the match. Tim Paine was offering the olive branch but England refused to accept it. More punishment, this time from the cricketers, or English bad sportsmanship. Have to agree with you on the crowd behaviour, just getting boring now. If England is intent on their own punishment of the Aussies, their behaviour is getting very boorish as well.
Is that how it’s been reported down under? If so that’s not quite how it was. Root was concerned that it was a really contrived act (as it never happens in other matches) and that it was arranged without him or the management being consulted. It was a PR exercise for Australian PR purposes and Root felt it wasn’t necessary. Perhaps there would have been more need for it had it been a match between SA and Australia to bury the ball tampering hatchet.
Shaking hands was something Tim Paine instigated as a genuine attempt to build some bridges in South Africa. He thought, as we all did, that England would reciprocate – Tim grew up just down the road from me here in Tasmania, never met him but from what I do know of him, his offer would be genuine.
I think you pretty much hit all the nails on the head there James. As I said before is we can’t find a way to get Smith out we wont win this series. It was a typically ugly test match knock from a great test match batsman.
Couldn’t believe their selection, leaving out Stark and putting Wade in. It’s the sort of defensive measure you excpect from Smith and co. Surely you play your world class bowlers, whatever the conditions.
Also couldn’t believe they chose to bat, so missing their best chance of exposing our greatest weakness on a first Morning pitch with plenty of cloud cover and gaining the initiative straight away.
Maybe having Ponting there in the background could work in our favour.
Where was Jack Leach when we needed him!
Tim Paine as captain might be our strongest asset. Selection not their best either. Why bat first In conditions that suit bowling?? Why leave out their best bowlers?? Starc fear factor must count for something? Langer is strong on team ethic. But their batting looks fragile? Is Smith that good or is everyone else appalling? In an era where Franchise cricket is god batting is a forgotten art. I think Ponting was able to pile on the runs and look good as well. Likewise Lara. The Fab Four etc. I personally deplore the rise of ugly batting and the loss of the aesthetic in cricket. No batsmen cares enough anymore about stroke play. But it’s one of the joys of cricket. Having said that I was pretty impressed with the stroke play of D’arcy Short in a T20 game playing for Durham. Quite wonderful in languid control and 70 off 36 balls. All done with deftness and placing through the field. Reminded me of Bell playing T20 last year and the umpires smiling with delight!
A good reason to bat first is that England have not won a Test when the opposition bats first and scores at least 200 in the first innings since at least March 2014 (the time after the Ashes whitewash). Siddle was brought in because they thought he would be a more consistent third seamer of the attack than Hazlewood and Pattinson came in because Starc is the Lee of this generation – all time ODI great, not quite of that level in Test cricket (still very, very good). He will be much more likely for Old Trafford and The Oval because of the reverse swing that is usually important at those grounds.
That stat, I should add, is for Tests England have played in England during that time.
Everyone else appalling? Have you taken a look at Steve Smith’s stats? He’s a mile ahead of the other Aussies in test cricket and probably most other batsmen in the world. That was his 24th ton and he’s only 30!
Smiths stats are incredible, a career test average of 62 is insane and if you take his first 10 tests out of that it’s closer to 70. An absolute run machine
Only 3 players who have played 50+ tests have an average above 60 – Bradman, Smith and Sutcliffe, in that order.
As for the toss, not sure that you would want to bat last on this wicket with Lyon bowling. Agree though that both sides should have played a pace bowler i.e. Starc and Stone. Don’t see the point of 4 right arm seamers, Stokes is almost becoming an occasional bowler now. Even Currans left arm option would have been a better choice.
Stone instead of denly…..
I don’t understand the current fetish for a team of bowling options. 6 front line bowlers is nonsense. Yes Anderson going down makes it look more attractive but you can’t pick a team on basis a bowler may get injured.
I don’t think anyone could possibly complain if we collapsed after picking a team of bowlers. Historically teams played 6 bat, keeper, 4 bowlers and someone like root as a 5th bowler.
I think that’s the problem. When you load up the team with masses of bowling options and then can bat down to 9 or 10 or whatever with bowlers who can bat, players don’t have to take responsibility to do do the job as someone else will and they can bat or bowl a bit anyway.
So anyway I think that’s a terrible suggestion and I don’t want denly in the team. Stone for someone but make a decision on which of the others to leave out.
I have long argued that picking 5 seamers is nonsense but my suggestion (Stone for Denly) was based on what England were likely to find acceptable and have done in the past – not on what I’d do in an ideal world.
The issue is that England have a plethora of all rounders and no specialist batsmen worth their salt. The all rounders score just as many if not more than the so called specialists. My suggestion to move Stokes up to 3 comes with the caveat that he doesn’t bowl much – much like Kallis towards the end. It’s pefectly acceptable to pick four seamers (in addition) in those circumstances.
The lesson from the Windies tour (and many years before that) is that England should always pick someone with pace if available. Look at the difference Wood made in the Caribbean. If we wanted to get Stone into try side here, and we’re going by your rationale, then it would’ve meant leaving out Woakes on his home ground (who bowled beautifully) or the one spinner in Mo. Hardly ideal.
But James, my point is what did it have to do with England… I can only think that the English supporter has presumed they have the right and privilege to boo the Aussies on behalf of the rest of the world (World Cup) or the Ashes… A crime is a crime, no matter how it was done, the intent was to change the surface of the ball with dirt or sandpaper… Being acquitted doesn’t necessarily mean innocence, but it suited England for it to be so..In all cases punishment given and taken by all parties, The booing may be pantomime but it can cut deep and may well envelope the entire team, but perhaps that is the intention, I just don’t think Mum’s & Dad’s waving yellow sandpaper in front of their children is a good look on (free to air) TV. As for the booing, it does nothing for image of the English supporter, but maybe they don’t care..
sorry for double post, hit the button twice !!
Smith? James, you write, “Is there an uglier player in world cricket? I can’t think of one. But it’s not how, it how many that counts. I doubt any Australian cares that England fans would rather kiss the elephant man than watch Smith bat.”.
That is probably how most cricket followers greeted the arrival of the 18/19 year old W.G. Grace on the scene; daring to break convention with a straight bat and the rather unsporting willingness to score on the leg side. We shall see whether others come to copy Smith who seems the next step in the evolution of batting from Pietersen. On the face of it, it seems such a logical way to bat.
Sandpaper? It is pretty obvious that before the Australians got caught, every side was using sandpaper or similar. One of the interesting things about cricket is the way it evolves. You can hear them in the fast bowlers club saying, “If we can’t use abrasion to intensify side ways movement, why don’t we try that scrambled seam technique?” England used it throughout the World Cup.
Time? The key question is can the England batsmen give Broad, especially, enough time to recover before having to bowl in the second innings. A quick and cavalier 300 won’t cut it. England have to bat long. The extravagant attempted pull shot attempt by Roy to a ball not all that short and 6 inches outside off stump does not auger well. It has to be Stokes and Root batting all day please.
Anderson’s calf? As significant to this series as McGrath’s ankle in 2005?
Colville on the highlights tried going on about “batting as an art form, he’s so ugly to watch” – I think this is a nonsense argument when this bloke averages 62 in tests. That in itself is an art form, being able to just carry on scoring runs no matter the conditions. Having watched the swashbuckling nonsense that is the england batting line up for last 3-4 years, my god what I would give to have someone like Steve Smith in that side hold it all together over and over
There is absolutely no comparison between using sandpaper on the ball and bowling with a scrambled seam!!!
James you miss understand me. I was talking about the development of the skill of bowling with a scambled seam and how cricket evolves. If bowlers were still using sandpaper etc they would not have experimented with the skill of bowling with a scambled seam. The game is richer.
Appreсiating the time and energy yⲟu putt into yur
webbsite and detailed information you offer. It’s aᴡesome to come across a blog
every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashеd information.
Wonderful ｒead! I’ve savfеd your ѕite and I’m including your RSS feeds to
my G᧐ogle aϲсount.