Background: Tied at 0-0 after a draw in Brisbane, England named an unchanged team, but Australia swapped Johnson and Hilfenhaus for Harris and Bollinger.
How did it start: Ponting won the toss (for once) and had a bat.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: The run out of Katich without Kat facing. A crucial momentum shift, which wasn't helped by Ponting edging behind the next ball.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: Hussey continued his Brisbane form. North got into double figures.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Hussey's 90 meant that Australia were restricted to 'only' 245.
Where did it all go right for England?: Brilliant bowling, hawkish fielding, brilliant day for England.
Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon - England. Evening - England.
Who won the day?: England.
Crumb of comfort?: The pitch might do a bit for Aussie bowlers as well
Shot of the day: Watson's effortless six off Swann
Ball of the day: Anderson giving Ponting a first baller. Brilliant bowling, and massive psychologically.
Man of the day: Jimmy Anderson. Got the wickets he deserved in Brisbane.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: Bumble's Australian accent, which was undoutably the worst Aussie accent ever.
Showing posts with label Simon Katich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simon Katich. Show all posts
Friday, 3 December 2010
Monday, 29 November 2010
Day Five At Brisbane
Background: Hundreds for Strauss and Cook meant that England let by 80 with only one wicket down.
How did it start: Cook with an unbeaten century, and Trott with an unbeaten fifty at the crease.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: They bowled even worse than yesterday
Where did it all go right for Australia?: England declared.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't have time for Cook to make his 500.
Where did it all go right for England?: Not losing a wicket all day, Cook's maiden double ton, Trott's second successive Ashes century, gaining loads of momentum and disheartening Australia massively.
Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon - England. Evening - Nobody was that bothered.
Who won the day?: England. Again.
Crumb of comfort?: At least Australia didn't lose too many wickets.
Shot of the day: Trott's lofted drive over straight on. Gorge.
Ball of the day: Broad getting Katich. The only wicket taking ball of the day.
Man of the day: Ally Cook. Honourable mention to Trott.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: The Ashes on Twitter. An American woman left very confused by her new found celebrity status.
How did it start: Cook with an unbeaten century, and Trott with an unbeaten fifty at the crease.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: They bowled even worse than yesterday
Where did it all go right for Australia?: England declared.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't have time for Cook to make his 500.
Where did it all go right for England?: Not losing a wicket all day, Cook's maiden double ton, Trott's second successive Ashes century, gaining loads of momentum and disheartening Australia massively.
Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon - England. Evening - Nobody was that bothered.
Who won the day?: England. Again.
Crumb of comfort?: At least Australia didn't lose too many wickets.
Shot of the day: Trott's lofted drive over straight on. Gorge.
Ball of the day: Broad getting Katich. The only wicket taking ball of the day.
Man of the day: Ally Cook. Honourable mention to Trott.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: The Ashes on Twitter. An American woman left very confused by her new found celebrity status.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Day Two At Brisbane
Background: England got 260 (below par) - the Aussies got fired up and Siddle took a hattrick.
How did it start: With Watson and Katich batting for Australia - and England not really looking like taking many wickets.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: With a few players looking not great - Michael Clarke and Marcus North especially.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: A good opening partnership, and a good final partnership of the day between Hussey and Haddin. Hussey's apparent return to form will be a big plus.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't look all too threatening in the morning and evening sessions which allowed Australia to put on some big partnerships.
Where did it all go right for England?: A brilliant hour at the start of the afternoon session got England right back into the game. Anderson and Finn's bowling especially will give them confidence.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - England. Evening - Australia.
Who won the day?: Probably England - got right back into this game. Would have wanted a couple of wickets in the evening - but Australia probably still in pole position in this game.
Crumb of comfort?: England's bowling attack will take great heart for the hour at the start of the afternoon where Australia couldn't score any runs, and wickets looked likely every delivery.
Shot of the day: Hussey's lofted six over mid on off Swann signalled intent, and a return to form for Mr Cricket
Ball of the day: Swann's to North - a great display of off-spin bowling to a left hander. Honourable mention to Jimmy Anderson's ball that got rid of Watson.
Man of the day: Mike Hussey. A great innings under pressure when his side needed it.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: For a man of 6 foot 8 with notably rubbish balance, Steve Finn's diving catch to dismiss Katich, as well as another diving stop off his own bowling was remarkable "hands for a big man".
How did it start: With Watson and Katich batting for Australia - and England not really looking like taking many wickets.
Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: With a few players looking not great - Michael Clarke and Marcus North especially.
Where did it all go right for Australia?: A good opening partnership, and a good final partnership of the day between Hussey and Haddin. Hussey's apparent return to form will be a big plus.
Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't look all too threatening in the morning and evening sessions which allowed Australia to put on some big partnerships.
Where did it all go right for England?: A brilliant hour at the start of the afternoon session got England right back into the game. Anderson and Finn's bowling especially will give them confidence.
Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - England. Evening - Australia.
Who won the day?: Probably England - got right back into this game. Would have wanted a couple of wickets in the evening - but Australia probably still in pole position in this game.
Crumb of comfort?: England's bowling attack will take great heart for the hour at the start of the afternoon where Australia couldn't score any runs, and wickets looked likely every delivery.
Shot of the day: Hussey's lofted six over mid on off Swann signalled intent, and a return to form for Mr Cricket
Ball of the day: Swann's to North - a great display of off-spin bowling to a left hander. Honourable mention to Jimmy Anderson's ball that got rid of Watson.
Man of the day: Mike Hussey. A great innings under pressure when his side needed it.
And finally... Ashes Oddity: For a man of 6 foot 8 with notably rubbish balance, Steve Finn's diving catch to dismiss Katich, as well as another diving stop off his own bowling was remarkable "hands for a big man".
Finn Musings
Finn's had a nice start to his test career. His first 4 tests were against Bangladesh, which was fun. And he then played four against a Pakistani side who couldn't be bothered to bat.
He hasn't really had much to do in his short career. Without actually doing anything too good, he's found his way onto an Ashes tour with an average of 23. He certainly won't end the tour with an average of 23.
Nobody really knows what Finn will be. Is he a McGrath - someone who probes outside off stump, testing the batsman's technique and being able to seam it around. England don't really do McGraths. We do Harmisons - big, tall fast men who "wang it down" as fast as they can, bouncing it around the batsman's eyes before shattering his stumps.
At the moment, Finn isn't either. He wants to be a McGrath, but at the moment, he's a McGrath without something. He lacks a bit of nip; an X Factor that gets the best batsmen out. As I'm writing (Day 2 Morning of Brisbane test), Finn has bowled half-trackers and half-volleys, been misdirected and malaligned, and hasn't looked like getting anyone out.
Skipper Strauss has told Finn to test Katich and Watson, and has sprayed it around. He hasn't consistently attacked the stumps, he hasn't probed in the corridor, he hasn't really done anything. I'm not sure if I'm saying Finn should or shouldn't be in the side. I'd just like to see him start taking some wickets, otherwise this could be a long tour for England's tallest ever Ashes player.
He hasn't really had much to do in his short career. Without actually doing anything too good, he's found his way onto an Ashes tour with an average of 23. He certainly won't end the tour with an average of 23.
Nobody really knows what Finn will be. Is he a McGrath - someone who probes outside off stump, testing the batsman's technique and being able to seam it around. England don't really do McGraths. We do Harmisons - big, tall fast men who "wang it down" as fast as they can, bouncing it around the batsman's eyes before shattering his stumps.
At the moment, Finn isn't either. He wants to be a McGrath, but at the moment, he's a McGrath without something. He lacks a bit of nip; an X Factor that gets the best batsmen out. As I'm writing (Day 2 Morning of Brisbane test), Finn has bowled half-trackers and half-volleys, been misdirected and malaligned, and hasn't looked like getting anyone out.
Skipper Strauss has told Finn to test Katich and Watson, and has sprayed it around. He hasn't consistently attacked the stumps, he hasn't probed in the corridor, he hasn't really done anything. I'm not sure if I'm saying Finn should or shouldn't be in the side. I'd just like to see him start taking some wickets, otherwise this could be a long tour for England's tallest ever Ashes player.
Monday, 11 October 2010
Who Is The Best In the World?
I was talking to a few people the other day about the merits of this India v Australia series. In the not too distant past, these two would be going toe to toe as the best two teams in the world. I don't know if they are today.
When I look at both teams, they both have some awesomely crap players. Marcus North is not a test player; neither is Hauritz. McGrath, Warne or Hayden they are not. There are some good journeymen players such as Bollinger and Katich, but they will not be remembered in 30 years as any of the best. Yes, there are some world-class performers in the Australian side, but it's fairly obviously a shadow of the all-conquering side of only a few years ago.
The Indian side is better, and with legends like Dravid and Tendulkar in the top order, they will beat most sides. But the bowling of Sreesanth, Ojha and Zaheer would struggle to worry the Richards, Gooches or Laras in their pomp.
When I look globally, I see plenty of brilliant players in the world's top sides, but I also see JP Duminy, Ian Bell and Dale Richards. Top level cricket isn't what it used to be.
When the Australian side of Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist and Lee were tearing teams apart, they were clearly the best side in the world. Likewise the West Indian side of the 80s, and the England side of the 90s (spot the odd one out...). When sides would play against them, they would need to raise their games in order to compete, and any players not good enough would soon be found out, and taken away from test cricket. Without that sort of dominant team, too many test cricketers are being carried by the performances of their teammates, and racking up far too many test caps. Or grinding out one gritty innings to save their career. (Step forward Mr North).
Sure, everyone who plays test cricket must be half-good. They're probably better than me, and probably better than a few of their club / county / state mates. But are they test-class? Without teams being right at the top of their games, test cricket is suffering. The 2005 Ashes were contested by a team who were rightly regarded as the best in the world (and full of hall of famers), and a side who had built themselves up for that series, giving themselves a chance to overhaul that great side. It led to (perhaps) the best series of all time, with the standard of cricket superb throughout. 2009 was different. Australia were rebuilding having lost loads of players; England were trying to create a team after the loss of the coach and two captains. While the competition of the series was great, the overall quality of the cricket was poor. Yes, England won, so I'm not complaining, but nobody will be watching the 2009 DVD ahead of the 2005 six-disc boxset.
So what's the point of this blog? Basically, I am saying that the overall quality of test cricket is lower than it was a few years ago. We've seen Pakistan collapse for under a hundred three times in a four game series - unthinkable previously. And this week we've seen a player who isn't good enough to be playing in tests make a hundred. For Australia. In India. I'm sure this is a cyclical thing, and in a couple of years better players will be displacing their crap counterparts, and the natural order will be restored. But until then, we're going to have to suffer another few years of Marcus North. And Ian Bell.
When I look at both teams, they both have some awesomely crap players. Marcus North is not a test player; neither is Hauritz. McGrath, Warne or Hayden they are not. There are some good journeymen players such as Bollinger and Katich, but they will not be remembered in 30 years as any of the best. Yes, there are some world-class performers in the Australian side, but it's fairly obviously a shadow of the all-conquering side of only a few years ago.
The Indian side is better, and with legends like Dravid and Tendulkar in the top order, they will beat most sides. But the bowling of Sreesanth, Ojha and Zaheer would struggle to worry the Richards, Gooches or Laras in their pomp.
When I look globally, I see plenty of brilliant players in the world's top sides, but I also see JP Duminy, Ian Bell and Dale Richards. Top level cricket isn't what it used to be.
When the Australian side of Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist and Lee were tearing teams apart, they were clearly the best side in the world. Likewise the West Indian side of the 80s, and the England side of the 90s (spot the odd one out...). When sides would play against them, they would need to raise their games in order to compete, and any players not good enough would soon be found out, and taken away from test cricket. Without that sort of dominant team, too many test cricketers are being carried by the performances of their teammates, and racking up far too many test caps. Or grinding out one gritty innings to save their career. (Step forward Mr North).
Sure, everyone who plays test cricket must be half-good. They're probably better than me, and probably better than a few of their club / county / state mates. But are they test-class? Without teams being right at the top of their games, test cricket is suffering. The 2005 Ashes were contested by a team who were rightly regarded as the best in the world (and full of hall of famers), and a side who had built themselves up for that series, giving themselves a chance to overhaul that great side. It led to (perhaps) the best series of all time, with the standard of cricket superb throughout. 2009 was different. Australia were rebuilding having lost loads of players; England were trying to create a team after the loss of the coach and two captains. While the competition of the series was great, the overall quality of the cricket was poor. Yes, England won, so I'm not complaining, but nobody will be watching the 2009 DVD ahead of the 2005 six-disc boxset.
So what's the point of this blog? Basically, I am saying that the overall quality of test cricket is lower than it was a few years ago. We've seen Pakistan collapse for under a hundred three times in a four game series - unthinkable previously. And this week we've seen a player who isn't good enough to be playing in tests make a hundred. For Australia. In India. I'm sure this is a cyclical thing, and in a couple of years better players will be displacing their crap counterparts, and the natural order will be restored. But until then, we're going to have to suffer another few years of Marcus North. And Ian Bell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)