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.
If England are to take one positive away from the first test at the Gabba, it is that they were in the contest for the best part of three days.
Many touring sides walk away from the ‘Gabbatoir’ with egos damaged, reputations tarnished and careers in tatters.
This was certainly the case in 2013/14 when England came to the Gabba and were blown away inside four days by Mitchell Johnson.
Jonathan Trott and Graeme Swan were left with psychological scars so deep they returned home, while the remainder of the English dressing room were left puzzled as to how they would go about thwarting the firebrand quick for the rest of the series.
They never recovered and went on to lose 5-0.
Years earlier Simon Jones, who had shown signs he could become a prolific wicket taker for England in the few overs he got to bowl before plugging his knee in the Gabba outfield during the first test of the 2002/03 series, was whisked off to hospital and took no further part in the tour.
England also had 350 runs put on them on that first day at the Gabba after Nasser Hussain decided he would make his bowlers toil on a wicket harder than the M1.
To no one’s surprise, England lost that series 4-1, with their only relief coming in the final test of the summer at the SCG.
The first test of this summer didn’t follow the conventional Gabba storylines.
Few England players have been left with deep psychological scars despite the fact they lost by a margin of 10 wickets and many key batsman failed to score runs – Alastair Cook being one of those.
Normally it is the quicks who leave batsmen fearing for their collective futures at the Gabba. But the first test of this Ashes summer belonged to Nathan Lyon, and you get the feeling most of the English left handers will be losing sleep over him rather than Starc and Hazlewood.
Malan and Stoneman were both dismissed in the second innings prodding at a ball that ripped and turned from the footmarks outside off stump.
They had no set plan to the off spinner and spent most of their time plonking their front foot down the line of off-stump, hoping the ball would go straight on to hit the middle of the bat.
Kevin Pietersen made mention in the aftermath of the first test that the English batsmen must go after Lyon or risk being bogged down and eventually lose their wicket without progressing the score.
You sense that Lyon was able to contain the English batsmen during the first test because, to put it simply, they were scared to leave their crease.
With the ball spinning and bouncing, the risk of being stumped became far greater and so they reverted to playing with soft hands and a vertical bat.
Taking one method of dismissal out of the equation betters your chance of survival, right?
Nathan Lyon is the kind of bowler that will immediately find a second gear if he gets a sniff.
With many of the English batsmen new to the test arena, Lyon was able to play on their vulnerabilities and improve his chances of taking a wicket by removing the only way he is ever put off his length – the dancing feet of an opposition batsman.
When a batsmen is rooted to the crease, as the likes of Bell and Prior were back in 2013, Lyon fires.
He can build up pressure around the bat and let the rough do the talking while the batsmen push and prod in the hope of survival.
If a batsmen goes after him, as many touring sides have done in the past, he begins to drop the ball short and run scoring becomes far easier.
The sooner the English batsmen realise this, the better chance they are of scoring over 400 in Adelaide and beyond without Stokes.
Of course, there is still the quicks to contend with, but they will be far less threatening if Lyon isn’t building up pressure down the other end.
For the better part of the first innings at the Gabba, Australia’s bowlers were far too short. This could easily be blamed on the slowness of the Gabba wicket, for if it had played normally – as it did in the second innings – the shorter length may well have been effective.
But the Australian quicks, Cummins in particular, were too short too often and went looking for a mode of dismissal that was nigh on impossible during much of the first innings.
Only when the wicket quickened up did the back-of-a-length tactic pay dividends.
For the reminder of the summer, the WACA aside, the wickets will be flat, slow and might even seam from time to time.
The benefit of touring Australia is that you play on drop in wickets that are devoid of life and flatter than a pancake after a day and a half.
If England can win in Adelaide, there’s a chance they can win the series. Lose and there is no coming back with a game at the WACA to come.
Tests at the Gabba and WACA are so often seen as the games that make or break a series because the wickets at both venues play into Australia’s hands.
But Adelaide is now seen as the tie-breaker because the games at the MCG and SCG could go either way.
If England lose in Adelaide, the series is all but sewn up for Australia.
If this scenario transpires, all hell could break lose in England’s camp and we could witness a repeat of the carnage and turmoil of their last trip down under.
Australia have the upper hand but Adelaide will tell us a lot about the direction this Ashes series is headed.
We have been told by those in the know that at some point over the next few days the pay dispute engulfing Australian cricket is set to be rectified. This is fantastic news on a number of fronts but the damage, it seems, has already been done. Not to those who are the poster boys of the Players’ Association – who have been unemployed for the better part of a month – but to those on the fringes of breaking into the Australian cricket team.
When news first broke that a settlement between the Players’ Association and CA had not been reached by the June 30 deadline, my mind immediately thought of the upcoming test tour of Bangladesh. Last time Australia were due to travel to the region, back in 2015, they pulled out due to security risks. This made sense because many other teams were doing the same and using the very same tired old excuses. All they had to do was go along with it and they got off touring scot-free.
This time around, however, the ‘security risk’ excuse doesn’t hold up thanks largely to England, and others, who have toured the region without consequence over the last year. So for CA to announce that their cricketers would not be touring again in 2017 due to the dangers posed by the countries citizens simply wouldn’t make an iota of sense. ‘England can do it but not you?’ – ‘Why?’
So Cricket Australia, looking for an out, decided that if the pay dispute was to extend beyond the tour of Bangladesh in August, it wouldn’t have to, let alone be able to, send its players to a faraway land where the chance of losing to a perceived second-rate team before the Ashes is high and the generation of revenue is the poorest of all the test series’ held across the globe.
Part of this conspiracy theory was the idea that the players had already signed an agreement with CA long before the deadline, and were keeping it under wraps until the day of the first test in Bangladesh rolled around.
Why my mind immediately thought of this as a plausible reason for the pay dispute that continues to ravage Australian cricket with every passing day goes to show just how money orientated I believe CA are. It made sense. Sign an under the table deal with the players long before the deadline but keep it hidden from the public until such a time as the tour of Bangladesh can be abandoned. That way the national team can avoid any undue scrutiny before the Ashes, the side will not undergo any reshuffling, and CA aren’t required to splash the cash on a tour that is unattractive to television broadcasters and hence will not fetch top dollar.
Every angle you look at this pay dispute, you can tie it back to money. The players want more because they feel they are the ones that have grown the popularity of cricket and are therefore entitled to a greater slice of the pie that CA are currently keeping for themselves. They argue that without the product, the store cannot operate, let alone make a profit. So what would they sell to keep themselves afloat? A sponsor-less BBL featuring club cricketers?
From this stance it seems the players have all the bargaining power in this dispute. Think about it – if the players are still unemployed come a fortnight out from the first Ashes test in Brisbane, CA would lose sponsors, be forced to remunerate the fans the full price of their tickets, face an unwinnable court case with the ECB who will claim that both they and their players have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (imagine that, a united front – players and administrators standing together for a common cause), and face the television broadcasters both here and abroad that will have also lost millions of dollars. Then there are the travelling supporters that would also be out of pocket. Court cases would pop up left, right and centre and CA would soon go bankrupt. So no, they will not let it get to this stage. Which makes you think, is this all just one big conspiracy?
For a sceptic like me it certainly appears this way. But there is more to this dispute than money. Players’ reputations, their futures in the game, are at stake. And I’m not talking about your Steve Smith’s and David Warner’s, I’m talking about your state cricketers who are next in line to crack the glass ceiling and make their debuts in the Baggy Green.
Most of them are still being payed to this point due to the fact the contracts they have with their individual states were signed long before the dispute began. But they are the ones that are going to suffer the most if it continues to drag out beyond the end of this month. In fact, as I said in the opening paragraph, they have suffered enough already.
Australia A were set to tour South Africa last month but due to the pay dispute, players followed through on their threats and opted against travelling in the interest of their quest for increased salaries. You might argue that, given it was the players choice to call the tour off, they have dug their own graves and now must lie in them if they fail to score runs over the coming season and miss out on ever playing for Australia, or make another A team. This A tour might have been a breakthrough series for some members of the squad. The kind of series that suddenly puts you on the selector’s radar. Whatever the case, the bottom line is you chose not to tour and must suffer the consequences.
There are a few reasons why this shouldn’t be how we look at it. Firstly, like workers from the local milk factory on strike, you stand as one. Every member of the factory must fight for the same cause or its messages will be far less potent. Say Bill, Eric and 10 others decide not to stand arm in arm with their fellow colleagues on the main road outside the factory while the other 50 workers are waving pickets and hoisting flags, and opt instead to continue operating the cap sealing machine because they are trying to pay off their respective mortgages. What is the employer likely to do? If it was financially viable, they would either sack those outside picketing on the spot and replace them with fresh workers, or give them an ultimatum – return to work now on the same income or face unemployment. For some workers, just like those state cricketers looking to crack international cricket, they cannot afford to spend their days browsing the want ads. Therefore, standing as one becomes their only option.
So I pose the same question as I did before: can you really blame the players for pulling out of a tour when their peers are pressurising them into doing so?
Imagine you’re a young cricketer who has been selected for Australia A after just a few seasons of first class cricket. This is your opportunity to shine. An opportunity to show the selectors that when Warner and Smith are too old or losing form a few years down the track, you are the man for the job. But the senior players of the A squad are discussing the dispute and that, no matter what happens, we must stand together or miss out on a pay rise that we are more than entitled to. Of course, you’re going to conform. Stray from the group and there is the risk you will be offside with the future captain of Australia, maybe even your future opening partner. As a young player you have no choice.
But opting to accept the views of the group in the interest of remaining loyal to your fellow players is just as damaging to your reputation as not going on that tour at all. The selectors won’t see you. It might be the one and only opportunity you had to make an impression. Injury might strike a season later, slowing down the speed you once possessed with the ball in hand or ruining your timing with the bat.
How can a player possibly push their case if they aren’t playing any cricket under the very structures that have been created to identify cricketers of the future? The members of the Australian A squad are, after all, the heirs to the Baggy Green throne.
This is why the pay dispute is cutting scars deeper than first thought. We can all form conspiracies around why money is the driver of both parties, but this would be to miss the point completely.
The dispute is damaging more than just the players’ hip pockets – it is damaging careers.
Australia have named their test squad to tour Bangladesh at the end of August, with a number of familiar faces rejoining the side.
The biggest news to come out of the announcement was that Steve O’Keefe, Australia’s 19 wicket hero in last February’s tour of India, has been dropped from the squad following comments he made about a female cricketer at NSW’s end of season awards night.
This is without doubt the right call. Although, Trevor Hohn’s statement tends to suggest that O’Keefe was dropped on form, not for his alleged ‘booze fueled’ antics that have seen him receive a ban from this year’s Matador Cup; a competition he may not have featured in anyway.
“Whilst Steve O’Keefe bowled well in Pune, he did not maintain this level in the remaining matches of the series and we believe the timing is right for Ashton to enter the set-up and test his all-rounder ability,”
In fact, at no point in Cricket Australia’s article on the announcement of the 13-man squad are his actions mentioned. Disappointing given the progress of women’s cricket in this country. Surely we must at least acknowledge it to show that a precedent has been set and that such irreverence will not be tolerated.
Starc has also been left out of the squad, and while his omission is cited as being the result of an injury, it is hard to think that this is indeed the case given his participation in the Champions Trophy recently.
“…despite playing in Australia’s failed Champions Trophy campaign, the left-armer’s injury has not fully healed and he has subsequently been ordered rest with an Ashes campaign on the horizon.”
I understand him being rested for the Ashes, but to use an injury as just cause after participating in a world tournament that concluded no more than a week ago is unfair to paying supporters and Bangladesh Cricket, who are trying to cement their spot in the test playing ranks and earn more regular fixtures against the world’s leading side’s. Still, though, they are treated like second rate citizens.
It seems to be yet another example of CA refusing to send their best team to play in a test series that is perceived as meaningless and where television rights are purchased at bottom dollar, even though they will look the fools if Bangladesh embarrass Australia just like they did England at the back-end of last year.
Starc’s omission has, however, opened the door for Pattinson to return to the side. Young all-rounder Hilton Cartwright, whose selection before last summer’s Sydney test caused quite a stir, has also been included in the squad, meaning Australia will travel with a total of two all-rounders following the announcement of Agar’s selection as cover for O’Keefe.
Unsurprisingly, there was no room for Shaun Marsh who, it appears, has used up all his credit with the Australian selectors; Khawaja has instead been reinstated after missing the tour to India in February.
This is a big tour for the elegant left-handed batsmen who has fallen out of favor with selectors in recent times on tours to the sub-continent.
Since Graeme Swann got the better of him in the 2013 Ashes series, and following his torrid tour of Sri Lanka this time last year, Khawaja’s susceptibility to the turning ball has seen him miss a significant amount of cricket in Asian conditions.
This tour might finally settle the score and decide what role he plays in future tours to the sub-continent. My tip is that his class will outshine the guile of Shakib and the immense talent of Mahedi Hasan.
The rest of the team is as expected. All that is left to be finalised now is the MOU. Hopefully we receive some clarity on this matter in the not to distant future.
Ah Pakistan. How we love you and your carefree approach to the game.
We had written you off after your embarrassing loss to India, but we shouldn’t have. Clearly we had forgotten your modern-day trademark – to win games when nobody expects you too and when your backs are firmly against the wall.
It’s true. These days, nobody knows which Pakistan is going to show up. The one that plays like a newly assembled group of park cricketers, or the one that is capable of defeating the powerhouses of the international game through grit and determination.
We saw it against South Africa, where a master-class in reverse swing bowling from Amir, Junaid and Hasan saw Pakistan dismiss one of the tournament favorites for a total of 219, before Malik made hay while the sun shone against a South African bowling attack ravaged by Kolpak deals.
It was brilliant to watch. Not simply because reverse-swing has seemingly gone AWOL since the introduction of two new Kookaburra balls, but because cricket thrives when Pakistan is playing like they did in the days of Akram and Imran.
But these occasions are few and far between; only appearing when you least expect them too.
Even against Sri Lanka, Pakistan could have pulled a Pakistan and collapsed short of the finish line like a dehydrated marathon runner. They were already seven wickets down when the game was completed and captain Srafraz had been dropped not once, not twice, but three times in quick succession by an undisciplined Sri Lankan side who fielded as if they were ready to board the plane home. Not like a side that was desperate to give its travelling supporters something to cheer about.
Plain and simple, Pakistan wanted it more than Sri Lanka; they were hungrier for victory.
This approach is evident in the Test Match arena as well. Out of nowhere they have climbed the ICC rankings quicker than a feral cat scaling a telephone pole despite the fact they are a side of lightweight’s taking on the heavyweight champions of the world.
They’re unpredictable and often enter a bout as rank outsiders, but when you least expect it they’ll throw a haymaker that knocks their opponents to the ground quicker than a right-hook from Mohammad Ali.
This is best exemplified by their captain, the enigmatic Sarfraz Ahmed; and their coach, the often misunderstood and unorthodox Mickey Arthur. A man best remembered for being sacked after setting the Australian team homework on their tour to India in 2013. The clincher here is that, if you can recall, he played the role of headmaster and sent a few of his player’s packing for failing to complete it.
Unsurprisingly, Australia lost that series 4-0.
Arthur is like the teachers pet sitting on his lonesome at the back of a dimly lit classroom. He is bullied, bruised and teased for his differences, but makes his peers red with envy when he passes a test he is tipped to fail. Luckily for Arthur, he has made a habit of doing so just when the knives of his doubters, namely those being wielded by members of the PCB, begin to sharpen.
When he rose from his seat on Monday evening to celebrate Pakistan’s progression to the semi-final stage of the Champions Trophy, some of that unbridled joy would have been pure, unadulterated relief. Only a week earlier his job was under threat. India had handed Pakistan their backsides and there were whispers that the waters had muddied in the team camp.
But, like an unpopular high school student, he overcame the hurdles of adversity and passed the test. A sign that Arthur has pitched his tent on Pakistan’s property like a nomadic traveller and doesn’t plan on leaving until those with more power come knocking.
Nothing about Pakistan is conventional. But they always seem to find a way to get the job done.
Shortly before the start of the Champions Trophy, Pakistani opener, Sharjeel Khan, was banned for spot-fixing and yet another strike was put against Pakistan’s already sullied name.
Due to Sharjeel’s absence at the top of the order, Pakistan was forced to draft in a debutant during a major world tournament. Hardly ideal.
Quite clearly, corruption continues to act as a major stumbling block for the progression and performance of Pakistan cricket.
Young opener Fakhar was thrown into the deepest of dead ends and has responded admirably, scoring a half-century against Sri Lanka. But what if he hadn’t. How much could you blame on Sharjeel’s alleged crimes?
How much could you blame corruption for Pakistan’s struggles during the start of the decade, a period spent without whiz kid Mohammad Amir, who was rubbed out of the game along with two other members of Pakistan’s set-up for dealings with an illegal bookmaker.
Mohammad Irfan, a member of Pakistan’s ill-fated 2015 World Cup Campaign, was also banned at the beginning of this year for failing to report approaches by bookmakers linked to spot-fixing. As a result, Pakistan have had no choice but to introduce young, inexperienced seamers whose performances could have seen them exit the Champions Trophy without so much as a whimper.
Pakistan has a worrying association with corruption, but a finals berth at the Champions Trophy would make many players reassess the reasons why they play the game.
Losing to the Poms is always a bitter pill for Australian’s to swallow, but it is made far worse when it occurs in a must-win game at fortress Edgbaston and results in the elimination from a tournament you’re expected to get within touching distance of winning.
Sure, we can blame the rain for ending a game we should’ve won. Bangladesh will go through to the finals but they were totally outplayed by Australia and should consider themselves more than lucky.
They finish on three points having beaten New Zealand at Cardiff, and more thrilled for them I could not be. However, something must be done about the DLS system, because Australia have been robbed of the chance to show their wares beyond a sudden death group stage match-up that for only a fleeting moment they looked capable of winning.
Bangladesh have not played better cricket than Australia. Yet they are the one’s progressing to the finals.
At the Oval on Tuesday, Australia were within four overs of sending the Bangladeshis packing when rain intervened and both sides were gifted a point, much to the delight of their captain Mashrafe Mortaza, who said in no uncertain terms that Australia totally outplayed Bangadesh and were on a collision course for victory.
That’s it. Four overs was the difference between qualification and a plane ticket home. How can this be justified?
Call me a whinging Australian with a God complex, but that Australia, the better of the two sides, cannot progress beyond the group stage despite demonstrating their dominance over the very opponents that will, means there is something seriously wrong with the current system that decides upon a victor in the event of rain.
There are no two ways about it, Australia played poor cricket against England and deserved to be beaten. In fact, nothing about the brand of cricket they played across the entire tournament said they were entitled to a finals berth.
In the games against New Zealand and England, the bowlers lost their radar and were unable to take wickets at regular intervals nor stem the flow of runs when batsmen were set; so inconsistent was their line and length. King of the ODI castle Mitchell Starc was Reduced to a mere peasant, rarely able to hone in on a yorker length as he did so routinely back in the 2015 World Cup. Cummins, for all his star power and raw pace, was more expensive than a three course meal at a Turkish restaurant; the quicker he delivered the ball, the quicker it found the rope.
Only Hazlewood and Zampa can be commended for their performances with ball in hand. The former will return to Australia having bagged nine wickets in just three, rain affected matches, while the latter, often neglected by his captain at crucial stages of the innings, can depart knowing he has made a difference in this tournament.
While he couldn’t match the feats of Adil Rashid, who himself has battled through periods without the full backing of selectors, his craft is slowly developing and he is now apart of the fabric of Australia’s ODI team. Why Smith elected to bowl part time slow-bowler Travis Head before him, a specialist leg-spinner, beggars belief and was a tactic that failed to produce enough wicket taking opportunities for it to remain a viable option. Hopefully Australia have learnt their lesson and will stray from this line of thinking in the future.
It was a strange tournament for the batsmen. We can make all the excuses in the world about the weather preventing them from getting any semblance of match practice under their belts, but they are professionals and we need to see more in the way of adaptability.
Finch, a man who is no stranger to English conditions, looked out of touch in the first two games but returned in the last with a typically defiant innings filled with strokes born of power and aggression. His opening partner was just as fluent, but was dismissed after a promising start which saw him crunch a few boundaries in quick succession to kick-start Australia’s innings. If Australia were to win, he too needed to join Finch in reaching a half century at the very least. A start of 21 was never going to suffice.
Other notable performances came from captain Steve Smith, who continues to tick milestones off his list, and Travis Head, whose late order hitting edged Australia towards a respectable total. The rest were, without sugar coating it, extremely poor.
It was rather stupefying not to see Chris Lynn force his way into the Australian side for their clash with England. Moises Henriques was again given the nod ahead of him and provided nothing after a strong start from the top three, eventually falling to a poor stroke which saw Smith hammer the turf with his bat in frustration, perhaps acknowledging he had made the wrong decision.
There is no doubt Chris Lynn was the perfect man for the situation Henriques found himself in. Finch, Warner and Smith had set a platform and Australia were looking at a total of 300+ which, given England’s track record post the 2015 WC, was a requirement if they were to win and progress to the finals.
Lynn’s free-flowing stroke-play and absence of fear could have seen him capitalise on what was, at the time, some wayward bowling from Plunkett and Stokes. But Smith persisted with Henriques, perhaps hoping that his potential and raw skill would transform into an X-factor that could influence the game and help set a challenging total for England’s batsmen. As it stands, he leaves the Champions Trophy with a lowly average of 9 and his career hanging by a thread.
Speaking of outlandish selections, why was Pattinson, and Hastings for that matter, consigned to the carrying of drinks? For those who are unaware, Pattinson has been playing county cricket for Nottinghamshire and performing admirably in the Royal London one-day cup. Of all the Australian’s, he would’ve no doubt understood the conditions more than his other fast bowling counterparts who have been lapping up the dusty wickets in the IPL, yet he was never given the opportunity.
There is a pecking order in Australian cricket and Cummins, quite clearly, through pace and perhaps a smidgen of extra experience, is currently ahead of the Victorian spearhead.
So where do Australia stand now in ODI cricket? Like I said in my last article, they are far from the side that took the field against New Zeland in the World Cup final of 2015; lacking as they are both in experience and genuine match winners capable of matching it with the Stokes, de Villiers and Kohli’s of the world.
Clarke and Johnson, two of Australia’s finest warriors, have left a hole in the ODI side bigger than those at Gina Rinehart’s mining sites. For this reason, and many others that are within the players’ control but don’t appear any closer to a solution, Australia are now well below the powerhouses of the international game – India, England and, err, South Africa – and languishing somewhere around the middle of the field which is currently occupied by New Zealand and Pakistan. They are powerful at their best and woefully inconsistent at their worst.
Sure, some of the stars of the game reside in Australia’s side, but if we can take one thing away from this Champions Trophy it is that you need substance beyond your top order. New Zealand didn’t have it; neither did Australia. But England sure do, and India, with Dhoni and Yuvraj at the helm, have it in spades. That is why we are set for a repeat of the final of four years ago once again this time around. Bat is dominant over ball in this era and a strong order can atone for the sins of the bowlers.
Buckle your seat belts, folks. We are in for a wild ride!
We’re three days into the Champions Trophy and already it is becoming clear who the contenders are for the crown. England cruised to victory against Bangladesh, who put up a valiant fight but were ultimately lacking star power at the back end of their batting innings. New Zealand gave Australia a good scare and, had rain not ruined proceedings, you can’t help but think that the Kiwis would’ve won that game given the way they started with the ball. Finch, Warner and Henriques were already back in the shed when play was called, and the run rate was quickly creeping up on the Australians like a Lion stalking a Zebra in the dead of night.
South Africa also got their tournament off to a winning start on a slow, placid Oval wicket. Sri Lanka performed exceptionally well with the ball to restrict South Africa to a sub 300 total, but fell short in the run chase despite a strong opening stand from Dickwella and captain Tharanga. Had a few more batsmen chipped in, Sri Lanka would’ve given South Africa an almighty fright. But the guile of Imran Tahir proved too much for a Matthews-less Sri Lanka who, much like Bangladesh, are missing the star power in their late to middle order, making any chase over 325 a real struggle.
The slowness with which Sri Lanka got through their fifty overs yesterday evening was nothing short of farcical. It is no secret that one-day cricket is withering on the vine and slow over rates aren’t helping its cause. At one point during last night’s game, Sri Lanka had just twenty minutes to bowl ten overs. How the umpires allowed it to get to this point is beyond comprehension and goes to show that the ICC must do something to ensure we are not sent to sleep by batsmen calling for a refreshment every second over.
Banning the captain for one match is quite clearly failing to deter sides from taking their sweet time in setting fields, or from captains talking to their bowler as if they are relaying Chinese whispers. The only way to stamp this out is by introducing in-game penalties which are enforced by the on-field umpires. For example, if Sri Lanka go 45 minutes beyond their allotted time, and the batsmen aren’t calling for drinks at regular intervals, runs should be added to the opposition total. Whether this means adding 5 runs for every 10 minutes the bowling side goes over time, or cutting the innings off at a certain point, is up to the ICC to decide upon but must be made post-haste to ensure we are spared the nonsense that goes on between overs. Bottom line – fail to make a change now and risk seeing fans turn away from the one-day format in their droves.
Now that this little pet-hate of mine is out of the way, we can move on and talk about the cricket. Australia might be just one game into their campaign but already they are under great pressure to progress beyond the group stage. Rain is predicted for their clash with Bangladesh on Monday meaning they are at risk of going into their final group stage match against England with two no results to their name.
The odds are stacked firmly against them, so it is of paramount importance that they get the team formula right for the remaining matches. Last game, Henriques got the nod ahead of Lynn. While I understand that the selectors may have gone this way because Henriques provides Smith with an extra bowling option if things go awry early, as they did against New Zealand, Lynn is too good a player to waste on water-boy duties. He can change the game in a matter of overs and has the ability to send the ball to Timbuktu no matter the circumstances or conditions. Imagine a top order of Finch, Warner, Smith, Lynn and Maxwell. It doesn’t get much better. These are some of the finest one-day players the world has to offer, not to mention some of the biggest hitters on show, and will ensure Australia pass 300 more times than they fail. Take Lynn out of the mix though and it doesn’t look quite as threatening. Henriques is a fine player but he would be better suited down the order. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a spot for him currently, as Hastings showed on Friday how valuable he is as Australia’s fourth seamer.
On that note, I’m not quite sure what to make of Australia’s bowling effort. It was brilliant at times and horrible at others. Hastings and Hazlewood were the pick of the bowlers and changed the game when it looked like Ronchi might take it away from them. But even they were a little expensive and seemed powerless to stem the flow of runs when Ronchi and Williamson were in full flight. If it weren’t for some late innings brilliance from Hazlewood that sparked a lower order collapse, or the constant rain delays that put the game on hold, Australia would’ve been staring down the barrel of a mammoth total that might have ended their campaign there and then.
This is a telling tournament for Australia. They are still champions of the world but a number of the players who took them to that World Cup final are now making ends meat in franchise T20 tournaments around the globe. An Australian attack without Johnson is a weaker one no doubt, as is a batting order missing Clarke, Watson and an in form Bailey. In the two years since the World Cup trophy was held aloft, Australia have been tremendous on home soil in the one-day format and abysmal against the stronger nations away. They thrashed Pakistan at home last summer and India the year before. But were themselves defeated twice in the Chappell-Hadlee series, and against South Africa last October. More embarrassing the latter could not have been.
So there is plenty riding on this tournament for Australia. We will certainly know more about the side following the next two games then we did coming in to the Champions Trophy. Are they still capable of mixing it with the world’s best or are we witnessing a fall from grace bigger than Texas?
Monday’s game against Bangladesh is huge. Lose that and, suddenly, Australian one-day cricket is in a state of flux. I can hear the knives being sharpened already…