What a difference five days makes. Less than a week back, Michael Clarke was the one who appeared somewhat unsure, betraying the fact that he didn't know quite what to expect. After a four day manhandling (and there's no other word really), dished out in large part by two of Australia's most volatile players in Mitchell Johnson and David Warner, the uncertainties all belong to Alistair Cook. It also puts my pre-series prediction in some jeopardy though clearly the two teams won't care about that ;-)
The key reason behind England's dismal start to the series is (as Jarrod Kimber astutely points out) a lack of big runs which has been coming for a while. Against a sub-standard West Indies side (and in English conditions to boot), they managed to cross 400 just once (and made 398 once), that too only driven by twin centuries from Andrew Strauss who retired one series later, where Cook, Trott, and Bell were all significantly below par. A brief recovery against India was followed by what should have been the biggest warning sign for Flower and Cook as England just managed to avoid defeat against the Kiwis and were bowled out for less than 205 twice in five innings. Bell's spectacular return to form and KP's unusual willingness to grind out runs plus a fairly wretched Australian outfit meant that England's batting glitches (all but one specialist batsmen averaging below 40) were glossed over again in the first leg of the Ashes. Two things changed between that series and this one. First, Australia found a strong third seamer in Johnson to back up Harris, Siddle and Lyon thus making their attack one without gaps. Second, the shift to home conditions meant that mentally the Aussie bowlers were more confident than they had been in the northern summer. England's batting form didn't change and they've paid the penalty.
I wrote here about the similarities between this England side and the Indian team between 2008 and 2010 and its worth digging into a bit more. First, the stats. India's batting held up brilliantly during this phase with Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir and Laxman all averaging over 50 and Dravid and Dhoni in the 40s. They also struggled to find a solid #6 as Yuvraj failed to cement a spot after Ganguly's departure. England's rise to a period of dominance began in about 2010 and their batting in this period is marked by similar stats (if a touch poorer than India). Four men averaging 48+, a keeper averaging over 40, and a veteran struggling compared to their past standards. For Ganguly substitute Collingwood (they even bowled canny medium pace!) and in Eoin Morgan, England had India's equivalent of a left-handed limited overs match winner who failed in Tests. As expected the bowling shows a similar though slightly complementary picture. England's figures are outstanding, especially Anderson and Swann but well backed up by Broad, Finn, and Tremlett with Bresnan, and Panesar not too shabby either. India's back-up was not nearly as strong with only Ishant Sharma getting enough of a run (and actually matching Broad in terms of strike rate) but in Zaheer and Harbhajan they had as good a pair to lead the attack as England. Cook for one (and all of England) will be hoping that the similarities end there given what happened to India in the two years after their ascent to #1, especially overseas but also culminating in the home loss to (ironically) Cook and gang at the end of 2012. The signs are all there though. Trott is already back home, Anderson is not getting any younger, and KP and Swann both have bruised bodies that surely won't last too much longer. That leaves Cook with Bell, Prior, and Broad as his main men to look to for the future. The next generation of English batsmen and bowlers are not quite looking up yet which is a worry. In this series though, the old guard should still have enough in them to pull up their socks and battle back hard. Whether they can do so (and repeat what they achieved in India) or go the India way and descend into decline and then regeneration will be the story of this series. In the immediate term, with Trott gone, I would move Joe Root upto #3 and bring in Gary Ballance at #6 and also bring Steve Finn back in place of Tremlett.
A word about Australia too. They performed really strongly in Brisbane but its too early in my opinion to declare a complete turnaround and install them as favourites as many people seem to want to. Since Michael Clarke took over as captain the only real "team" performance they've had against strong opposition (ie one of England, South Africa, India, or Pakistan) has come in Johannesburg back in November 2011, which is over two years back. Most of their other victories (or dominant draws) have come about as a result of a few individually strong performances. In Brisbane, Warner, Johnson, Clarke, Haddin, and Lyon to some extent were the men who stood up. Problems still abound, especially in the batting with Rogers, Watson, and Bailey far from convincing in their roles and none of them are long term options given their age. They say that you shouldn't change a winning team but I think Australia will gain a lot more from bringing in Phil Hughes and Alex Doolan in place of Rogers and Bailey and moving Watson back again to open the innings. The bowling looks more stable though the back-up in the event of injury to any of the fast men is somewhat thin. Coulter-Nile, Cutting, and Hilfenhaus are not the worst options to have though.
The one other thing worth commenting on is the fact that most teams these days (with the exception of South Africa) struggle away from home. Since 2010, apart from the Springboks most teams have a fairly wretched away Test record but good home records (for Pakistan that would be neutral venue records). England are no exception to the rule so its not earth-shattering that they lost in Brisbane. They will also know that they didn't go on to lose the series in any of the four previous away losses they've suffered since 2010 and in three of them they went on to win the very next match. A repeat in Adelaide will be a tough ask but that's what Test cricket should be.
The key reason behind England's dismal start to the series is (as Jarrod Kimber astutely points out) a lack of big runs which has been coming for a while. Against a sub-standard West Indies side (and in English conditions to boot), they managed to cross 400 just once (and made 398 once), that too only driven by twin centuries from Andrew Strauss who retired one series later, where Cook, Trott, and Bell were all significantly below par. A brief recovery against India was followed by what should have been the biggest warning sign for Flower and Cook as England just managed to avoid defeat against the Kiwis and were bowled out for less than 205 twice in five innings. Bell's spectacular return to form and KP's unusual willingness to grind out runs plus a fairly wretched Australian outfit meant that England's batting glitches (all but one specialist batsmen averaging below 40) were glossed over again in the first leg of the Ashes. Two things changed between that series and this one. First, Australia found a strong third seamer in Johnson to back up Harris, Siddle and Lyon thus making their attack one without gaps. Second, the shift to home conditions meant that mentally the Aussie bowlers were more confident than they had been in the northern summer. England's batting form didn't change and they've paid the penalty.
I wrote here about the similarities between this England side and the Indian team between 2008 and 2010 and its worth digging into a bit more. First, the stats. India's batting held up brilliantly during this phase with Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir and Laxman all averaging over 50 and Dravid and Dhoni in the 40s. They also struggled to find a solid #6 as Yuvraj failed to cement a spot after Ganguly's departure. England's rise to a period of dominance began in about 2010 and their batting in this period is marked by similar stats (if a touch poorer than India). Four men averaging 48+, a keeper averaging over 40, and a veteran struggling compared to their past standards. For Ganguly substitute Collingwood (they even bowled canny medium pace!) and in Eoin Morgan, England had India's equivalent of a left-handed limited overs match winner who failed in Tests. As expected the bowling shows a similar though slightly complementary picture. England's figures are outstanding, especially Anderson and Swann but well backed up by Broad, Finn, and Tremlett with Bresnan, and Panesar not too shabby either. India's back-up was not nearly as strong with only Ishant Sharma getting enough of a run (and actually matching Broad in terms of strike rate) but in Zaheer and Harbhajan they had as good a pair to lead the attack as England. Cook for one (and all of England) will be hoping that the similarities end there given what happened to India in the two years after their ascent to #1, especially overseas but also culminating in the home loss to (ironically) Cook and gang at the end of 2012. The signs are all there though. Trott is already back home, Anderson is not getting any younger, and KP and Swann both have bruised bodies that surely won't last too much longer. That leaves Cook with Bell, Prior, and Broad as his main men to look to for the future. The next generation of English batsmen and bowlers are not quite looking up yet which is a worry. In this series though, the old guard should still have enough in them to pull up their socks and battle back hard. Whether they can do so (and repeat what they achieved in India) or go the India way and descend into decline and then regeneration will be the story of this series. In the immediate term, with Trott gone, I would move Joe Root upto #3 and bring in Gary Ballance at #6 and also bring Steve Finn back in place of Tremlett.
A word about Australia too. They performed really strongly in Brisbane but its too early in my opinion to declare a complete turnaround and install them as favourites as many people seem to want to. Since Michael Clarke took over as captain the only real "team" performance they've had against strong opposition (ie one of England, South Africa, India, or Pakistan) has come in Johannesburg back in November 2011, which is over two years back. Most of their other victories (or dominant draws) have come about as a result of a few individually strong performances. In Brisbane, Warner, Johnson, Clarke, Haddin, and Lyon to some extent were the men who stood up. Problems still abound, especially in the batting with Rogers, Watson, and Bailey far from convincing in their roles and none of them are long term options given their age. They say that you shouldn't change a winning team but I think Australia will gain a lot more from bringing in Phil Hughes and Alex Doolan in place of Rogers and Bailey and moving Watson back again to open the innings. The bowling looks more stable though the back-up in the event of injury to any of the fast men is somewhat thin. Coulter-Nile, Cutting, and Hilfenhaus are not the worst options to have though.
The one other thing worth commenting on is the fact that most teams these days (with the exception of South Africa) struggle away from home. Since 2010, apart from the Springboks most teams have a fairly wretched away Test record but good home records (for Pakistan that would be neutral venue records). England are no exception to the rule so its not earth-shattering that they lost in Brisbane. They will also know that they didn't go on to lose the series in any of the four previous away losses they've suffered since 2010 and in three of them they went on to win the very next match. A repeat in Adelaide will be a tough ask but that's what Test cricket should be.
Comments