Ok I am back with my review of the Australian performance in the First Test. The Aussies really did one let one slip throuhg the fingers, I am hoping they wont come to rue this missed oppurtunity. There were plenty of positives from the Aussies performance, but also a couple of downers. SO dont worry my English friends, I am sure you will get the chance to stick the boots in.
AUSTRALIA
Ok where to start, hmm well seeing as we bowled first why not start there. But first first did I really see Leeds Guy refer to the Aussie bowling ineup as one of the best in the world? Really? Truly? That is so nice of you, but also very incorrect. Lets see, top of my head stuff. South Africa (Steyn, Ntini, A or M Morkel, Parnell, Kallis, Harris) are better, India (Z Khan, Sharma, Harbi, RP Singh, insert 30 other spinners here) are better, Sri Lanka (Malinga, Vaas, Mendis, Murali) are better. Those 3 are clearly better and I also rate Pakistan (Gul, Tanvir, Kainera **insert about 30 other young players) and think they have the potential to be clearly better, I also think New Zealand with Shane Bond back would push the Aussie attack, even Englands in theory is possibly superior to the Aussie attack. Granted we should be able to easily dismiss numbers 10 & 11, especially when they are rabbits, but suddenly talking this attack up as one of the best in the world is crap. About a week ago the so called experts where saying how shit the Aussies bowling attack was.
Useless stas time. It was the first time any of Mitchell Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Haurtiz had ever bowled in a test match in England. The four combine for 39 tests worth of experience, from which Johnson has played 22 of those. In comparison James Anderson has played 38 tests by himself, and young 'Stephanie' Broad has played 18. So this Australian attack is very very fledgling. Imo it does have the potential to be a very very good attack in world cricket, but has a long way to go to be considered such. I still think our attack would be much much better to have Brett Lee in it.
Anyway I will come back from the tangent I went on to talk about the guys bowling performance for this test. Same sort of style as my wrap up for the English attack.
Johnson: Mitch, you see those three things sticking out of the ground at the batsmans end? Well the are called stumps. Bowling at them would be a good idea I reckon. An extremely underwhelming performance from Mitch I htought. Especially the second innings where for a while he seemed to be trying to bowl as wide as he could. Yeah he bowled some good deliveries. But all in all was disappointing, and was the sort of perfornance that has left Australian fans frustrated with Mitch over the past few years. We thought that was gone after a great tour of South Africa where he bowled with aggression and fire and was able to swing the bowl and really trouble all batsman. A step back for Mitch imo. Hope he was just shaking some cobwebs off.
Hilfenhaus: When I saw Hilfy was in the team for Clark I was very surprised. I know Hilfenhaus had been earmarked for the Ashes a long way out because of his ability to swing the ball, but after the hiding he received in the first warmup match I didnt think hed make it to Cardiff. Bowled extremely well I thought, maybe a bit short on occasions. But all in all have to be very happy with his performance. Swung the ball, and whe he wasnt swinging it bowled a very good off stump line. Will be looking to build on this performance.
Siddle: The big man was pretty unlucky in the first innings. Did bowl some good balls but had a few edges goe for runs. The ball he bowled to get Prior was a beauty. Followed up with a very disciplne showing in the second dig. However like Hilf and Mitch did bowl a bit short on occasions. Never stops trying and leaves it all on the field. Can definately improve but a decenitsh hitout.
Hauritz: Ok Nathan you finished with match figures of 6/158. You didnt bowl too badly at all. Kept it pretty tight. Picked up key wickets of KP in the 1st and Strauss in the second. But sadly didnt look like you were ever going to rip through the English like a good spinner should of on that pitch. Did his job, but only in the team because of the lack of a quality spinner anywhere in Australia. Although he leaks runs, Id still rather Krejza. Especially when we need to get wickets. Spins and bounces it more. Not sure if Hauritz will play another test in the series. Depends how the selectors look at it I guess. But can hold his head pretty high.
Well not much can be said for Australias batting but awesome really. Anytime you make 6/674 not much is going wrong really. Kaitch was steady, Punter was amazing as he is shook of thoughts of a form slump, Pup batted well and should of made a 100. North was awesome in his first Ashes Test, not flash but very solid at number 6, and Haddin showed all the English what he can do.... Adam who??
Still the batting has a couple of question marks. Firstly Hughes, will he make it at international level or his he just a flash in the pan. Few 'experts' getting into him regarding his footwork for one. Thats the way the guy bats, he is unorthodox and thats his game. When he goes good he looks great, but then can look equally as shocking. Flintoff bowled really well to him, so I cant wait to see how he adapts. Perhaps has to face Harmison at Lords... has Hughes learned??
The biggest worry for Australia is the form of Mr Cricket, Mike Hussey. Gone is his aura of invincibility from a acouple of years ago and he is now just a very mere mortla. Was an ok ball from Anderson nothing spectacular though. His form slump at international level is very worrying. Especially given the back up batsman on tour is Shane Watson
would be a lot more confident if Brad Hodge was waiting in the wings. Huss batted well in the tour match so heres hoping he can return to that form.
Now my biggest bellyache, as it were, against the Aussies after the first test is more directed against the captain Ricky Ponting. Know I am a Ponting fan and I believe he is a pretty good captain. Some over here exclaim he has been shown up as a poor skipper after Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist etc have retired as he doesnt have these champions to fall back on. Some of the guys he has lost are once in a generation players so of course Ricky looks worse when he throws the ball to Hauritz and he doesnt get a wicket, compared to throwing it to Warne and gets 3. But sometimes there are just things that happen, that make you sit back scratch your head and think WTF!! One was sending England in in 2005 at Edgbaston (I think) or was it The Oval, whichever the pitch was flat no McGrath we got slaughtered. Another for me was Ricky's handling of the bowlers for the majortiy of the second half of the English innings.
To have a team 5/70... then 7/159 and then have 11 and a half overs to get the last wicket when two bunnies are at the crease and still not be able to get the win is very very disappoinintg. But to me Rick's captaincy mistakes happened earlier in the day than those dramatic last few overs. I beleive that Ricky let his bowlers bowl for too long in their spells. At times Mitch was looking entirely non threatening, and for a few overs was lucky to hit the pitch, he should of been pulled from the attack much sooner instead of wasting overs as the batsman watched abll after ball pass well wide of offf stump. Another complaint I will give is the use of part time spinners in tandem with Hauritz. Whether that be North, Clarke or Kaitch. Ok I was calling for North to be the spin option over Haurtiz, but its all about creating pressure, partnerships when bowling are as important as when your batting. Its why McGrath and Warne were so great together. Anyway, even with Hauritz bowling well he didnt look like ripping England apart. To have another non threatening spinner operating at the other end is just going to ease the batsmans minds. If a part timer is on at one end, give Siddle the ball. He will be aggressive, threatening and in the batsmans face at the other.
But to me Punters biggest mistake was in turning to Haurtiz and North to try and get Anderson and Monty out. Again the pacement should of been on told to bowl fast and at the stumps. It was spinning yes, but Australia dont have the quality spinner to take full advantage of this. When in doubt no matter what the conditions go with your best bowlers. Do you think Strauss would of had monty and Swann on in tandem if the situation were reversed? No way, he would throw the ball to FLintoff and say "Freddie get one of the pesky little blighters out."
So Australias ovrall performance in the first test was extremely good. The batting was as good as it gets really, but the bowling has to sharpen up a bit cos the batsman wont have things so easy all the time. Proof to me that the Aussies really missed Brett Lee. I for one think he would of ripped through the lower order. But I guess we will never know.
Changes for Lords. I think Hauritz will make way for Stuey Clark. McGrath used to dominate on Lords, and I think Stuey is in the same mold and will do vry well there. Bowling stump to stump and using the slope to his advantage. So Out: Haurtiz In: Clark.
So both teams have areas of improvement and that makes the rest of the series really exciting, even given the one sided nature of the first test. Lords should be great. Im book marking a 100 for Punter and a 100 for KP, as well as a big swag for Clark. Oh and an Aussie victory.
Stat time again. Australian have played England at Lords 33 times. With the Aussies winning 14, drawing 14 and losing just 5 times. In fact you have to go back to 1934 to find the last time England beat Australia at Lords. Make of that what you will.
