New 100-ball format highlights cricket’s unhealthy relationship with change

Cricket has been through numerous revolutionary changes. It all began way back in 1977 when Kerry Packer, then head of Channel Nine, started his own competition by the name of World Series Cricket. Though he didn’t know it at the time, his new take on a grand old game would shape its future. White balls, coloured clothing, cricket at night and heavy commercialism are all now common themes. What he and his associates started way back at the SCG during 1978 – some 20 years before my birth – has led to the cricket you and I watch with great interest today. Take the IPL for example. Without WSC it may have a very different complexion to what we have become accustomed. Some may say change was imminent and Packer was the man lucky enough to strike gold. But what he and Channel Nine did for the game is immeasurable. Without the WSC revolution, cricket may have gone several years before a broadcaster came up with the idea to place a camera at each end of the wicket. And what about the humble stump microphone? That too was the brainchild of Mr Packer’s WSC crew.

You might be wondering why I’m writing all this. No, it’s not because Channel Nine has lost the right to broadcast cricket in Australia (though it will be sad to see it go after 40 glorious summers). It’s because I’m intrigued by the backlash the ECB has received in response to its revolutionary plan to cut the length of its new franchise tournament to 100 balls.

Kerry Packer.jpg
Kerry Packer – cricket’s original trendsetter.

When I first read the news on Twitter, I immediately thought the ECB had decided to limit a batsman’s innings to just 100 balls in the domestic 50-over tournament. The idea here being that the less balls a batsman has to face, the quicker he must score. Of course, this simply wouldn’t work; imagine a batsman getting to 100 balls only to be forced to retire on 99, or having to retire during a close run chase where 40 runs are required from 24 balls with just three wickets in hand. My mind immediately thought of these seemingly impossible circumstances because they are scarily tangible, such is the penchant for boards to tinker with cricket to the point of extinction. 50 over cricket is an easy target for change. It no longer offers the money-making potential of the newer, more popular format. Who knew T20 would be the target of revolution so early in its life?

There are many reasons the ECB may want to change what is already working – and working exceptionally well – around the world. The first answer is money. And why wouldn’t this be what immediately comes to mind? T20 cricket was designed for boards to make a financial windfall and is now played so that these same boards can prop up the less profitable formats. The second potential response is prestige. With the IPL making waves in India, and the BBL inspiring an entire generation of cricketers in Australia, the ECB may have finally had a gut full of other countries riding on its coattails. This is less likely, but still possible considering England lay claim to the creation of T20 cricket and would hate to see other countries profiting from what they started. The third and final answer is the fans. It is widely accepted that since cricket was put behind a pay-wall in England, its main audience has been middle-aged males. But this is not the ECB’s target audience – let’s get that straight. The future of the game relies on its popularity among younger audiences. Typically, these audiences have short attention spans, an affinity for entertainment, and enjoy the gimmicks of T20 cricket. And so the only way to appease the future custodians of cricket is to tailor it, mutilate it (whatever you want to call the dumbing down process) and ultimately shorten an already abbreviated format.

But we must consider what this means for the future of the game given its love of revolution. No other big sport the world over has gone through so many changes. Football still looks the same as it did when cricket was going through its first major shakeup. There have been some minor changes to the way it is presented to audiences on television, but the mechanics – the actual gameplay – remains largely untouched. The major American sports are the same. They have been adapted to suit a modern landscape that thrives on commercialism, yet there have been minimal changes to the actual rules of the game. Even golf, on a par with cricket for traditional customs, remains largely the same.

Trent Bridge
The revolution will be televised.

Hundred-ball cricket is just the tip of the iceberg. History tells us there will be many changes to come. WSC brought cricket into the future and gave it a pulse. It too was criticized and maligned, but without it, cricket may not have lived far beyond the turn of the 21st century. The reason I say this is because, outside of the Ashes, test cricket has struggled to draw a crowd. Sure, it may not have been required to compete with T20 cricket for viewers. But the money generated by T20 at both a domestic and international level would not have been there to keep test cricket afloat.

Revolution is not necessarily a bad thing. But you have to question at what point the game will be bent completely out of proportion. The Hundred-ball format might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Lessons for the ECB’s bold venture into uncharted territory

If you’re not a fan of switch hits, midgame firework displays, or any of the T20 fanfare, and would much rather tune into a test match with a copy of Wisden in hand and a cup of tea by your side, look away now. This is going to get ugly.

I’m not going to patronise you, for I too am a traditionalist. I’d much prefer to watch a patient test ton than a T20 slogathon. For me, there is less glory in the shortest form of the game; matches are quickly forgotten and the performances within them fade swiftly from memory.

But this is the direction cricket is headed. What was once seen to be revolutionary is now the norm. T20 has connected with a generation of cricket fans that must be entertained to remain invested. The ECB and counties that voted in favour of ‘revolutionising’ cricket in England are simply following a well-trodden path.

Ageas Bowl.jpg

 

What concerns me most about this new tournament is that it will run in conjunction with the ‘Blast’. Already there are 133 games of T20 cricket played during the summer. If the new franchise tournament is to follow a four-match home and away structure, this figure will balloon out to 165 – and that’s without considering the extra finals matches.

If these numbers don’t get your blood boiling as a cricket purist, nothing will. The truth is, in another 10 years, this will seem perfectly normal. The County Championship and One-Day Cup will have shrunk significantly by then. Just ask Adil Rashid and Alex Hales. Both have pulled up stumps on their respective red-ball careers in favour of the shorter formats. And fair do’s to them both. They have identified that going on the T20 circuit is the best way to earn a crust in an era of reduced test match scheduling and vast franchise riches.

With the emergence of a second T20 tournament, the prevalence of short form specialists like Hales and Rashid will increase year-on-year. Since the days of World Series Cricket, players have gone in search of rock star-sized paychecks. In many ways, the players of that era are responsible for normalizing the contract processes – such as IPL auctions – we now take for granted.

In that spirit, let’s take a look at what the new English franchise competition can learn from one of the biggest T20 tournaments in the short history of the format.

Why the BBL works

Believe it or not, the BBL hasn’t always been as successful as it is today. In its early years it struggled to draw crowds and attract a television audience. When free to air network, Channel 10, bought the rights for $100 million on a five-year deal in 2013, the competition suddenly gained traction. In 2016/17, the BBL averaged 1.03 million television viewers per match; there was a slight fall in viewership this year, with 947,000 tuning in each night. Compare these figures to the ‘Blast’, and you begin to see why the ECB had no choice but to implement a franchise competition – and why it was necessary for a FTA broadcaster to obtain the rights to show some games. T20 Finals Day in 2015, which saw Lancashire take out the crown, averaged an audience of 388,000 on Sky Sports. Attendance figures in the ‘Blast’ are also smashed every year by the BBL, which sees well over 1.5 million people pass through the stadium gates each season.

In addition to exposure on FTA television, the BBL can attribute some of its success to the popularity of its high profile overseas stars. As is the case in several sports around the world, the superstars of the game bring with them an extra element of excitement. Afghanistan leg-spinner Rashid Khan stunned the Adelaide Strikers faithful in the most recent season of the BBL. He, along with other big-name players like Dwayne Bravo, Tymal Mills, Shadab Khan, David Willey, Carlos Brathwaite and Kevin Pietersen, develop interest in the tournament; they are the BBL’s major selling point and are indirectly responsible for increases in grassroots participation.

While the ‘Blast’ also features a whole host of international players, they are spread across 18 counties, rather than 8 franchises, and are scarcely able to commit to the full two months of competition. But this is all common knowledge by now, and no doubt contributed to the ECB’s push for a franchise-based tournament. Nevertheless, in order for the new competition to flourish, international stars must take centre stage. In the BBL they are the face of marketing campaigns and television advertisements. Without them, many would see tournaments like the BBL as little more than a glorified version of the fatiguing one-day cup.

The ECB will have no trouble selling a franchise competition to the masses, especially if it is played during the school holidays. The BBL runs across the summer break in Australia, with all games played at family-friendly hours, and tickets sold at family-friendly prices. This is important, and has been a contributing factor to the tournament’s longevity. There are concerns, however, that expansion is counterproductive to T20 cricket. The tournament was extended to 40 matches plus finals in 2017/18 and was met with a subsequent drop in television ratings.

The T20 paradox

One of the problems with T20 cricket is that it quickly becomes repetitive. Most matches follow a similar storyline by virtue of their brevity. Seeing a ball sail into the grandstand every night at 6 o’clock can only remain enjoyable for so long. T20 doesn’t ebb and flow the way test matches do either. If a team limps to a first innings total there is no time to put things right.

There is a school of thought amongst Australia’s leading scribes that the BBL has reached its breaking point as a result. Any further changes to the way the product is sold and packaged will turn fans away. The ECB’s new competition must avoid trying to oversell itself the way Australia has in recent times. With two tournaments running in tandem, there is a good chance fans will suffer fatigue. How are the ECB going to deal with this? It’s an important question and will ultimately decide how long the tournament remains relevant.

In this day and age, cricket must move with the times. CA has done this exceptionally well; the BBL is still among the best-supported sporting ventures in the country. Can the ECB find a balance between its thirst for cash and the limits of T20 cricket the way Australia has? Or will it fall into the trap of pushing it beyond its limitations and be flogging a dead horse before five years are up?

NRL must bring hammer down on salary cap cheats

Australian sport has been shaken to its very core this week. Much of this is due to the despicable actions of our cricketers in South Africa. As has been reported heavily over the past few days, Australian captain Steve Smith will miss the fourth and final test match of the series after being found guilty of contrary conduct by the ICC.

What is most jarring about this story is that the plan to change the condition of the ball was concocted behind closed doors, and involved the most sacred members of the playing group: its leaders.

During his time as Prime Minister, John Howard quipped that he had the second most important job in Australia. In the last week, this has proven to be the case. The Australian captain, it seems, is expected to uphold the standards and ideals we hold dear as a nation – even more so than those running the country. Fail us in any way and the emotional firestorm that follows will hit you like a ton of bricks.

Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 7.23.39 pm.png

The pitchforks have come out for Smith faster than they might have done had Turnbull committed the political equivalent of ball tampering. But is all the hoo-hah warranted? After all, this isn’t the first time a cricketer has used a foreign object to change the condition of the ball. And if you listen to the game’s leading voices, the prevalence of ball tampering across all levels of the sport is higher than first thought. Even South African skipper Faf du Plessis has had a crack at scuffing up the ball to make it reverse swing.

The reason the Australians are being placed under heavy scrutiny from the public is partly because they expect more of their national heroes, and partly because it was a premeditated act.

So why then are we not applying the same heat to those at the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles, who also engaged in premeditated cheating? Is it because they aren’t held in as high regard as Smith and his brigade of Baggy Green crusaders? Do Howard’s words – that Australian captaincy is the pinnacle of national leadership and those bestowed with this honour are the bearers of an unblemished moral compass – actually hold true?

There are many parallels that can be drawn between the two cases. Both were premeditated acts and both were committed with the intention of gaining an edge over their opposition. Both, quite stupidly I might add, were done under the watchful eye of each code’s respective governing bodies; one in front of the television cameras and the other under the constant surveillance of the integrity unit.

Where the cases begin to differ is on the severity of the punishments handed down and the outpouring of public disgust. Steve Smith has been given a one-match ban by the ICC but may never captain Australia again. Two Manly officials, Neil Bare and Joe Kelly, have received 12-month suspensions, yet the player managers, the players themselves, and the club at large, got off relatively scot-free.

Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 7.26.26 pm.png

They are very different cases but at their core lies the same motivation. The Australian cricketers changed the condition of the ball to cheat their way to victory; Manly used undeclared TPA’s to lure players to the club with the aim of assembling a superior roster, therefore allowing them to win more games.

A statement NRL CEO Todd Greenberg made during yesterday’s press conference, where he detailed the findings of a nine-month-long salary cap investigation, sums up this point well: “Manly had a financial advantage in securing the services of players who may otherwise have gone to other clubs”.

Right, so why have competition points not been docked? Why have they only been fined $750,000, $250,000 of which will be suspended if the club makes appropriate governance changes, when the subjects of the two previous salary cap scandals had points stripped?

Sure, they’re currently cap compliant. That’s fine. But, as Greenberg himself acknowledges, other clubs “missed the opportunity to secure players because of Manly’s undisclosed deals”. Nothing can reverse this and a small fine isn’t going to provide any closure for opposition clubs. The Gold Coast certainly aren’t about to forgive them for missing out on signing Daly Cherry-Evans because they are playing with a reduced cap. The biggest backflip in NRL history occurred because Manly used third-party deals to cheat – that is the bottom line.

Clearly, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. I feel like a broken record writing something like this in a rugby league article because it seems to happen every second week, no matter the topic. Two salary cap scandals in three seasons shows that the NRL needs to take a hard line on those cheating the system.

If Steve Smith – a man many were comparing to Bradman not three months ago – is at risk of losing his spot in the national team over something like ball tampering, a harsher punishment should be handed down to those NRL clubs who choose to dance with the salary cap devil.

Both are blatant acts of cheating. And both should be treated accordingly to prevent future cases.

South Africa v Australia – talking points from day one in Durban

Before rejoining the Australian team during the third test match of the recently completed Ashes series, Mitchell Marsh struggled with the responsibility of batting in the middle order. If Australia found themselves in a hole, as they did yesterday when Mitch’s brother Shaun fell with the score on 177, the middle order could hardly be relied upon to turn the innings around. Often it was Mitchell Marsh that was held responsible for sparking a collapse. A common gripe among the cricketing fraternity was his inability to dig in when the team required it and contribute with a score of note. His temperament was questioned, and his technique scrutinised, until his weaknesses were laid bare. Australia was, at the time, struggling to score enough first innings runs. Much of this was down to the failings of a fledgeling middle order. The pressure from fans to pursue another option at six soon took hold and Mitch Marsh found himself on the outer with the national team.

On the first day of the first test in this all-important tour, the hit and miss gung-ho merchant of old was nowhere to be seen. Marsh has come to realise there is a far more important quality than bludgeoning the ball to the boundary: patience. With patience comes the ability for a batsman to pick the right ball and minimise risk; a skill that will undoubtedly come in handy against Philander’s guile as the series progresses.

His innings of 32 will not win Australia a test match; he must convert it into triple figures if it is to have any impact. However, we must admire the way in which he kept out Philander, remained confident in his own technique after getting away with a close LBW shout off the bowling of Rabada, and formed a partnership with Paine to see Australia through to the close.

This morning’s first session will decide how many Australia get in their first innings. It will test how much Mitchell Marsh has grown. It will shine a spotlight on what this tour holds in store for Paine. More importantly, it will set the tone for the entire series.

What now for Bancroft?

There comes a time in the career of every opener where they must examine their own technique and identify the flaws. For Bancroft there are many. And the time for reflection is now. England quickly identified a weakness following the first Ashes test at Brisbane. That flaw was exploited during the four test matches that followed and, as is the case in test cricket, other nations have picked up on it.

South Africa went hard at the pads of Bancroft with the new ball as England did throughout the Ashes. The theory is his falling head, perhaps the by-product of his front foot movement, leaves him vulnerable on middle and leg. His bat comes down on a 45-degree angle, as if he is looking to hit the ball through mid-off as soon as it is straight enough, bringing in LBW and bowled as the main modes of dismissal.

Now it is up to Bancroft to address these technical deficiencies – no easy task given they are based in muscle memory – before the selectors swing their axe. You feel that, because Australia has opted not to bring another opening batsmen on tour, he will be given a few tests to find his feet. If not, Renshaw – who has returned to form with hundreds in Shield cricket against Victoria and South Australia – will be first in line to take his place.

Admiring Philander

There is a lot to be said about the great swing bowlers of the modern era. I wonder whether Philander will ever figure in this conversation. As it stands he has 188 test wickets at 21. Hardly the stuff of legends.

There is a lot of catching up to do to join the likes of Anderson, McGrath and others at the top of the wicket-takers tree. In many ways, though, Philander has a bigger role to play than many of those who have taken over 300 test wickets bowling at just over 130 kilometres.

When Kyle Abbott, another superb swing bowler in his own right, parted ways with South Africa to join Hampshire on a Kolpak deal, South Africa were left with a gaping hole in their bowling stocks that was also missing an injured Dale Steyn. At this point, Philander’s importance in the future of the South African side grew significantly. Not until the last year and a bit, though, has he truly come into his own. Last time South Africa toured Australia all the talk was about Rabada and his lightning-fast arm action; Philander barely rated a mention. That was until he visited Hobart, swing bowling paradise, and tore through the Australians. Since then he has been the main focus of every touring side.

Last night, when bowling to David Warner during the first session of play, he honed in on a length with military precision, consistently hitting the stickers of Warner’s blade. This wasn’t a pitch ideal for someone of Philander’s pace. Yet he made it work, eventually grabbing Warner’s wicket on the stroke of lunch. What was most impressive was not the delivery that found Warner’s edge – an eye-catching moment in its own right, mind you – but the set-up. This is one of Philander’s greatest qualities and why he will soon be given the credit he is due.

Ashes Daily – To follow-on or not to follow-on: that is the question.

Embed from Getty Images

England have been behind the eight ball since Joe Root won the toss and decided to bowl four days ago, but if England go on to win tomorrow the question on everybody’s lips will be ‘gee, I wonder if the result would be different had Smith enforced the follow-on’.

At face value Smith’s decision to bat again after dismissing the fragile English batting line-up makes sense.

The seamers had already bowled 76 overs and when you are carrying just three fast bowlers and a sole spinner through a five-match test series it is wise to give them a rest when the opportunity presents itself.

But consider the message enforcing the follow-on would’ve sent to England, who were bowled out for just 227 after seeing Australia pile on double that in a day and a half.

Had they been sent straight back in while the memories of the first innings carnage were fresh in the mind, England’s batsmen would’ve been low on confidence rather than buoyed by the possibility of a history-defying win for the ages stemming from impeccable swing and seam bowling.

No batsmen at any level enjoys batting after a failure in the first innings because the pressure is on to avoid back-to-back low scores.

Fall cheaply twice in a test match and all of a sudden your career hangs by a thread.

You begin to question facets of your game and technique that were once completed without question while rumours swirl in the press of a likely replacement for the next match.

Four of England’s top 5 failed to go past 20 in England’s first innings; three of those are finding their way in test cricket and, had they been put back in on the evening of day three and dismissed cheaply once again, it might have set the tone for the remainder of the series.

Where is our next run coming from? How can we score over 300 against these bowlers?

Our next game is at the WACA – we could get rolled for 100.

Australia’s bowlers would’ve looked more like the formidable West Indian attack of the nineties and the mind games that are so important in the Ashes would’ve set a cat amongst the pigeons in the English camp, potentially leading to further Overton-esque changes.

By electing to bat again, Smith has inadvertently given up Australia’s stranglehold on both the test match and the series.

All of a sudden the English don’t fear the Australian quicks, while the batsmen, who were previously infallible in their home conditions, are as human as the rest of us after all.

Cracks begin to form in the Australian batting ranks and before you know it the pressure is right back on them to avoid a loss to the old enemy on home soil.

If you need evidence of this, look no further than Peter Handscomb who could find himself out of the side if Australia goes down tomorrow.

Had Smith enforced the follow-on, Handscomb walks away with a score of 36 – assuming, of course, that Australia weren’t required to bat again – and is automatically retained for the third test at the WACA.

A loss under such circumstances, however, shines a spotlight on technical deficiencies that are swept under the rug when a side goes through a series unbeaten.

Smith’s decision has further ramifications that can’t necessarily be quantified. England have gained confidence in their ability to dismiss the Australians, and, if they complete the job tomorrow, their batting is capable of what can only be described as a statistical impossibility.

A stat was flashed up on Channel Nine’s telecast today. It detailed the highest run chases in test history at the Adelaide Oval.

The last side to chase down a score over 300 was way back in the early 1900’s when wickets were uncovered and every delivery sent down by the opposition quicks was a  potential landmine.

If a side can do it in these conditions, it can’t be difficult to replicate such a feat on an artificially concocted drop-in wicket.

Even if the visitors fail, they have been given a huge leg up by a decision that could well decide the path this series takes.

Ashes Daily – Where have we seen this before? Dogged England show fight to keep faint title hopes alive.

 

24085230_1591716067583089_2101700122_o.jpg
Nothing but a memory now…An image from day two of the first 2017 Ashes test at the Gabba.

 

Today’s play showed exactly why the Ashes is seen as one of the most exciting sporting spectacles on the planet.

England’s batting crumbled as many predicted it would, before the Australians, electing not to enforce the follow-on, lost four of their own under the bright Adelaide lights.

Jimmy Anderson and Chris Woakes were the architects of England’s recovery. Both made the ball talk in a way it hasn’t so far this series to give their batsman a chance of saving the test match if – and it’s a big if – they manage to dismiss the Australians for under 150 tomorrow morning.

If the Aussie quicks are let loose on the fragile English batting lineup for any longer than 4 sessions you get the feeling that it will be good night Irene by midway through the final day.

Give the England batsmen a total of 320 though and it’s amazing what confidence from a dogged bowling effort can do.

Australia will need to produce the magic they did earlier today to dismiss proven performers like Root and Cook who have managed to get England out of the woods from a similar position several times in the past.

Both threw their wickets away this morning; Root pushing at a wide half-volley; Cook playing at a rather unthreatening delivery from Lyon with an open blade. Given another chance, it is unlikely they will fall in the same fashion.

Australia will, however, have the advantage of bowling under lights for two sessions before the end of this test match.

If the ball swings and seams like it did for Anderson, Broad and Woakes this evening, England’s junior brigade will have no hope of fending off Australia’s quicks to save the game.

Just as impressive as England’s evening session were the Australian seamers who it appears have finally hit their straps.

Despite winning comprehensively at the Gabba, you got the sense that the quicks were below their best.

Cummins was on the short side for most of the first innings while Hazlewood looked to be down on pace.

Starc produced moments of brilliance but has improved with every over as the series has progressed.

One cannot write an article without mentioning the legend that is Nathan Lyon. It was only a year ago that he was on the outer following a tough series against South Africa and when Australia arrived at the Gabba for the first test against Pakistan, it looked as if Lyon might be left out.

The selectors opted in favour of the spinner over a fourth seamer and, since earning a regular spot, finds himself atop the wicket-takers list for 2017.

Of the top five players on that list, four are spinners.

Lyon has gone past Sri Lankan maestro Rangana Herath and usurped South African seamer Kagiso Rabada.

Joining him at the top of the leaderboard is Ravi Ashwin, who also has 55 wickets. Lyon, however, has played 2 fewer games.

By the end of his career, Lyon will have surpassed many of the game’s greatest bowlers on the all-time leading wicket-takers list.

He is the glue that holds the Australian bowling attack together and has played a role in many of the wickets taken by the quicks down the other end.

They say you should judge an off-spinner on their ability to bowl their side to victory on the fifth day of a test match.

Many Australian spinners have had their day in the sun – Hauritz on the fifth day at the SCG in 2010 against Pakistan being one such example – but few have managed to do the heavy lifting on wearing wickets all over the world like Lyon does on a consistent basis.

If he continues the way he has so far this Ashes series, he might outlast the likes of Warner and Marsh who will step down when younger players with quicker reflexes hit the big time.

No off-spinner is currently putting their hand up for test selection in the Shield competition other than Agar, whom the selectors prefer to play deputy to Lyon on away tours to the sub-continent as he lacks the incumbent’s control.

Jon Holand and Steve O’Keefe are also on the radar but haven’t put their hands up when given the opportunity and are reaching the twilight of their respective careers.

Lyon, much like Warne, is a fan favourite and with this comes an enormous ego boost that helps a bowler’s confidence when stood at the top of their mark.

If Australia are to win this test match, Lyon must stand up once again and their batsmen must push the lead beyond 350. Any less and they are leaving the door open for an Australian like comeback at Adelaide in 2006.

It seems unlikely, but we musn’t forget that Root and Cook, not to mention Bairstow and Ali, have conquered uphill battles like this before.

You have to wonder what the English press would make of England’s bowling performance tonight if Stokes was in the side.

350? Pfft. We’ll do that inside two sessions. Remember Cape Town?

Tomorrow’s morning session will decide the test match.

Ashes Daily – England’s bowling attack requires fire and brimstone

 

image (4).jpeg
Day One of the first test at the Gabba.

 

The English bowlers were well below their best at the Gabba last week. Broad and Anderson struggled to find rhythm, while Ball and Woakes looked tame at times and downright predictable at others. It seems to me that there is a lot of sameness about the English attack. Where is the out and out quick that strikes fear into the hearts of the batsmen? History tells us that if you want to stay competitive in an Ashes series, you’re going to have to try some short stuff from time to time. It worked for Australia at the back end of the first innings and most of the second – particularly against the tailenders – but England don’t have the bowlers capable of replicating this tactic.

Anderson, Ball and Woakes are all in the team to pitch the ball up and make it swing, but this plan of attack is ineffective when the pitch isn’t offering the sideways movement of Trent Bridge or Lord’s. When playing on flat wickets, the likes of which England will encounter at the SCG and MCG, bowlers must bend their backs and intimidate rather than float it up and pray for seam movement. Broad is the man that posses the pace required to execute a leg-side trap, but Anderson – whose record in Australia is rather disappointing for a bowler of his calibre – Ball and Woakes are all working towards a common goal that in Australia, with a Kookaburra ball and flat drop-in wickets, can be a frivolous task.

England would do well to bring in a Mark Wood, who is currently on tour here in Australia with the Lions, or Liam Plunkett, who appears to have been pigeonholed in the shorter formats. I must admit I haven’t seen a lot of Overton and he could well be the man that adds some variety to an otherwise similar bowling attack. If so, the sooner they get him in the side the better. An attack featuring Ball and Wokes alongside Anderson and Broad is incapable of getting the job done at the WACA, where pace and bounce – and more importantly, who uses it best – often dictates the outcome of the game.

We all knew not having Stokes in the side would greatly weaken the English batting lineup, but it seems it has hurt the bowling unit just as much. Not only does he add the mungrel to get under the skin of the Australian batsmen, he adds variety to the pace attack that can trouble batsmen on flat wickets where swing bowling won’t cut the bacon during the second innings.

Adelaide and the pink ball will suit the English quicks because the wicket will play into their hands and allow them to gain reward from standing the seam up as they would in England. As soon as they move on to the WACA, they require a point of difference to avoid the embarrassment of the Gabba. That point of difference is someone who can successfully execute a 145 kph short ball directed at the batsman’s badge.