Kridaya Cricket Blog

Given Watson’s half-century in the first innings, Hughes may find himself out of the team for a while. And in the whole scheme of things, I don’t think this is a good thing for Australia. First, it is sure to derail a career that was just getting started. Hughes has really failed in only one Test and that too via some dodgy umpiring decisions. In the last tour match, he actually outscored Watson (68 vs 50), but apparently the Australian management had already made their decision.

But as long as people are going to be making such decisions on form, why not drop Michael Hussey while you are at it? Q raised this issue, but I thought I would illustrate it with some graphs.

First, his average after each innings. Notice the relentless march southwards (since January 2008)

Exhibit B: His 5-innings rolling average – It has been a long time since he has sustained a good run of form. A good score is invariably followed by a poor score or a duck (several in the last few matches)

Exhibit C: His actual scores during this period – Notice the clear difference between the first half and the second half.

Hughes is unfortunate to have been a new entrant to the team. Even after scoring tons of runs in South Africa, he has been dropped despite the existence of someone who has been displaying a far worse run of form. But if Australia recognize that Hussey (out for a golden duck today) is a worse liability for the team, Hughes can make a comeback.

It is funny how cricket turns up the unexpected. Before the Ashes started, you would have been very comfortable laying your money on England worrying about its lineup based on form and Australia doing so on injury. How the tables have turned as England reach the mid-point leading 1-0 and Australia trying to come up with the right answer.

It is definite that Pietersen will be out because of his Achilles injury and perhaps Flintoff too. Bell will be the first replacement and Harmison may get the other remaining spot. That leaves the English batting a little weakened. As for bowling, both Flintoff and Harmison have never been consistent, so it is difficult to say who would be the better bowler. In hindsight, Flintoff won the bowling honors at Lord’s, but it was never a given before the Test.

Australia have to contend with Johnson’s poor showing in the first two Tests. Unable to make a return to form in the tour match against Northamptonshire, he is the most likely one to be dropped. Hughes is the other possible candidate to sit on the benches, even though he did make 68 in the last innings of the tour match. Johnson is likely to be replaced by Clark or Lee, while Hughes by Shane Watson.

The Johnson replacement would plug an open wound in the Australian side. Although Johnson has taken 8 wickets in the first two Tests, he has leaked a lot of runs creating pressure on the rest of the team. The main downside is that Australia will miss his aggressive batting.

Shane Watson shone in the tour match and is hot favorite for replacing Hughes. His presence in the side also provides another bowling option for the Australians. But I am not sure if Australia should go this route. Hughes should be given some more rope given the strong Australian batting order, which, to be fair, failed only once in this series so far.

Rangana Herath’s 5-wicket haul in the last Pakistani innings of this series, while expensive, will mean a longer absence for Ajantha Mendis from the Sri Lankan team. Unless Sri Lanka plans to field three spinners in a Test, it will be Herath who will accompany Murali in the upcoming Tests. This is a stunning setback to the career of Mendis, who was flying high throughout last year.

2009 has been cruel to Mendis. Compare his stats from 2008 and 2009:

Tests in 2008: 26 wickets at 18.38 in 3 Tests
Tests in 2009: 13 wickets at 40.23 in 5 Tests

ODIs in 2008: 48 wickets at 10.12 in 18 matches
ODIs in 2009: 16 wickets at 22.18 in 10 matches

T20s in 2008: 11 wickets at 5.00 in 3 matches
T20s in 2009: 12 wickets at 11.91 in 7 matches

The ODI and T20 stats for 2009 are not bad in absolute terms, but when compared to his 2008 achievements, they are a stinker. Mendis’s IPL was a disaster as he was not only a member of the much-ridiculed Kolkata Knight Riders, but also his performance (3 wickets at 39.00 from 4 matches at a 7.31 economy rate) was poor. He didn’t play many matches.

It is clear that teams have figured him out. The Sri Lankan management over-hyped him, but then Mendis’s initial performances justified such hype. I think the real problem was that Mendis was so extremely successful that other players and coaches were forced to spend time in trying to beat him. At the international level, there are enough resources, experience and brainpower to accurately understand the playing style of any batsman or bowler.

To counter that, the player has to innovate constantly. Clearly, whatever technique Mendis has is no longer a mystery. And he apparently is unable to produce changes in his bowling that would confuse batsmen. The difference between his Test and ODI performance also suggests that batsmen are much more careful against him, since in ODIs, they are forced to take risks, like it or not.

The best comparison we can make to Ajantha Mendis is Mike Hussey, who had a great start to his career, but subsequently slumped badly. Even though Hussey still maintains a 50+ average, he is no longer that immovable force he was at his career start. In fact, it is surprising that he hasn’t been dropped, something that could yet happen if Australia lose the Ashes and Hussey doesn’t hit a century or two.

I don’t think Mendis is going away entirely. It is difficult to see Herath continuing his success especially after Murali’s return. And Mendis will play a role in ODIs and T20s. But the mystery is gone now and unless he comes up with new tactics, Mendis is no longer the irresistible force!

Win or lose the current Test against Pakistan, Sri Lankans have a lot to think about for future series.

1. What will be their spin attack when Murali comes back? Will it be Herath or Mendis? The Lankans left out the out-of-form Mendis, but Herath has gone missing in this Test with 0/76 and 2/113 so far. Herath’s overall Test record is a miserable 48 wickets in 17 Tests at 37.04 and if you leave out his performances in the first two Tests of this series, it would be much worse. Mendis, of course, has been horrible with his 6 wickets against Pakistan coming at an average of 65.83. From the mystery spinner to the missing spinner, it is quite a drop for him.
   
   
2. Sri Lanka did not cross 300 in any of their innings in this series. The batsmen were shielded by the bowlers who saved them each time Pakistan threatened to win a Test. As usual, Sangakkara and Jayawardene have been among the top run-makers. Sri Lanka cannot continue to keep relying on just two batsmen to produce the goods against the stronger Test teams.
   
   
3. It was a nice gesture to give Vaas a final match, but it will probably cost them the Test and an opportunity to make a strong statement by a 3-0 series victory. The Sri Lanka selectors have to be tougher than that. What if the series had been at 1-1? I know this is not going to happen, but at some point in the past, they should have had a talk with Vaas and told him he was no longer going to play a part in international Test cricket.
   
   
4. Sri Lanka should not fool themselves with the final outcome of this series. They were outplayed several times during the Tests and they just about managed to escape when Pakistan let go of its advantage. Against a stronger team like Australia or South Africa, that would be fatal. Worse, they were outplayed at home. I know they have always struggled against Pakistan at home, but they have to worry if it is going to be an ongoing trend.
   
   
5. It is not clear whether the better performances by some Sri Lankan players is an indication of their so-far hidden talent or is a flash in the pan. We already talked about Herath. Now consider Kulaskera with 16 wickets in 3 Tests in this series. Before it, he had only taken 5 wickets in 6 Tests. Thushara 12 wickets in this series after spending 4 years in the wilderness. Paranavitana has done nothing in his career except for those two knocks in the Galle Test. If they can replicate some of their good performances in this series in the future, Sri Lanka will do well. But otherwise, Sri Lanka will continue to have passengers that will break them against the tougher Test nations.
   
   

England must have had a sleepless night yesterday. Imagine losing a Test after setting a target of 522. Andrew Strauss, in particular, must have been re-thinking that declaration over and over again. With most teams, defending 200 more runs with only 5 wickets to get is a good situation. With the Australians, it seems scary.

In the end, England cleaned it up without too much worry. The second over of the day claimed Haddin. While Clarke and Johnson put a mini-stand, once Clarke fell to Swann, England did not waste too much time cleaning up the tail. Johnson took the opportunity to make a quick 63, but it was only delaying the inevitable without any support from the other side.

And so, Australia lose an Ashes Test for the first time in ages. It was not easy – 406 is among the top scores made in the last innings. And while Clarke and Haddin were there yesterday, they looked like they would win. In the end, their failures in this Test added up – letting the English tail go past 400, the first innings failure and not being able to stop England’s rampage in the second innings.

The Ashes is not over by any means. The last time Australia lost a Lord’s Test, they won the series. Will they repeat that, or will Ponting be the Australian captain who loses two Ashes series? Australia have the talent to bounce back. Their main weakness is the bowling attack that has been toothless against the English batsmen. It is probably time to bring Lee and Clark back, though I would favor Clark over Lee.

England have their own troubles. Injuries to Flintoff and Pietersen make their availability for the next Test suspect. The bowling is as bad as, if not worse than, the Australians. I find it incredible that Strauss still believes that Broad can take wickets. England needs to bring in better firepower if they want to stop a vengeful, marauding Australian team in the third Test.

This is the reason why Australia is No. 1. Not South Africa. Not India. And not any of the rest. Most teams faced with a mammoth 500+ target in the last innings and two days to play would have simply folded up their tent and spent the fifth day on the beach. In contrast, the Australians have all the momentum with an unbeaten 185-run partnership for the sixth wicket.

When England declared, some Australians would have been praying for rain. At the end of the day, only the English are doing any rain dances. But there won’t be any rain tomorrow. Nor with just 2 runs per over required over the day to win the match, will defense (in bowling) save England.

It has been official for sometime now that the English bowling is garbage of the worst sort. They have exactly one injured bowler who is intimidating and even he gets wickets via umpiring errors. The rest of the bowling can neither take wickets nor restrict the scoring rate. Most of the first innings wickets came through unforced mistakes. Few through any strong bowling effort.

What surprises me is that apparently the English team management knows this and still makes the wrong choices. If your bowling needs 180 overs to bowl out an opposition, you are going to lose. Why not bat another 30 overs, pile up another 100 runs and give your bowlers 150 overs so that if they continue to bowl like they are used to, you don’t lose the match?

Perhaps the English captain and coach read the newspapers where the nothing-to-lose commentators advocate humiliating the Australians. But those who try to teach the Australians end up being the fools themselves. If England manages to squeak by with a win, they can consider themselves lucky. Mind games and strutting are for champions, not upstarts.

First of all, I am flabbergasted that England is even in a position that it could tell Australia to follow on. How many people would have bet on that before this game? Especially after they just managed to hang on to save the Cardiff Test.

There were good reasons for England to have enforced the follow-on. There is the possibility of rain. The pitch will remain playable on the last two days. A huge England target with less time (5 sessions) may get Australia playing for a draw on a dead pitch.

That is all true, but I think it misses the big picture. England are the underdogs in this contest and, regardless of all the PR talk, they probably never backed themselves to be in a winning position against the Australians. While the 2005 series was great, that team was coming off a high with several victories in hand, while the present team could not even beat the West Indies in their away tour.

So now, they find themselves dominant. The important thing is to preserve and protect the gains and ensure that there is no likelihood of a loss. If England manage to bat till lunch tomorrow, the chances of Australia winning are infinitesimal. Even if Australia manage to draw, that is okay.

It is different with a team like Australia, who are natural-born winners. When they are ahead, they have the confidence to back them. If Australia were in the same situation, they would have asked England to bat on, and then bowled them out in no time.

But England will always have Adelaide – the match they should never have lost. As long as those memories remain, they will never attempt any risk from a winning position. Safety first. Whether that is right or wrong is a different matter.

At the beginning of the day, England would have been happy with 364/6 at stumps. But considering that they had a close-to-double-century opening partnership, they could have done much better. But most of the wickets were prised out, not thrown away. And Strauss is still there, hopefully to grab a few more runs with the tail to put England with something significant to defend.

There were quite a few surprises:

1. Collingwood throwing away his wicket. I wouldn’t blame him. He probably spent his full annual quota of concentration in the Cardiff Test.
2. And gifting it to Clarke. This kind of thing makes you wonder why Ponting did not try him against Anderson and Panesar. Remember his 3 wickets in the penultimate over against India. For some reason, Clarke has the knack of taking wickets when you least expect him to.
3. England literally hitting Hauritz out of the attack (by hurting his finger). All the more reason why they shouldn’t have allowed another spinner to take a wicket. Apparently, nothing was broken, but I wonder if Hauritz will bowl tomorrow. And if he doesn’t bowl well, will Ponting think it is because of the finger and send him out to pasture.
4. Broad in the team. He needs to stay with the captain tomorrow and hit something. Nobody expects him to take wickets.
5. Pietersen. Curiouser and curiouser. No big scores against the enemy yet. What happened to him?
6. Johnson. 19-2-107-2. Trash bowling except for the wicket-taking balls. Most responsible for England’s good strike rate.
7. North bowling so many overs. Economical, but shouldn’t Australia be mixing it up a bit?

This is no surprise: Andrew Strauss making another century after reaching his fifty. He now has 14 fifties and 18 hundreds. It is his fourth century this year. Since his last fifty in August 2008, he has made six centuries without falling between 50 and 100. Surprisingly, his highest score is only 177. Now is as good a time to make a double-century as ever.

As for the Australians, I am sure that Johnson will make a strong comeback with his bowling, but if he doesn’t, Australia has a dilemma on its hands. Johnson brings significant strength to the lower batting order, but Australia’s top order is already strong and they are stuck at seeing the England batsmen hang around for too long. England survived 105 overs in both innings and Australia probably lost a chance to win the match when Swann and Anderson made 68 for the ninth wicket. Someone like Stuart Clark would be more than useful.

Stuart Broad, to me, seemed the person most likely to be dropped from the team. He has been very ineffective with his bowling and England really need wicket-taking bowlers. I thought Harmison would replace him. But it seems that he will be playing at Lord’s. This is probably his last chance, because when England loses, he will be the one to go.

And how tragic for Panesar! He is the only person dropped from the England team that played at Cardiff, despite having played his part in a brave partnership that saved England from losing. Still, it was to be expected as his bowling was pretty average and England’s plans for this match did not involve two spinners.

England once again bat first. If this was a match between two equal teams, they would have had the last shot at the Australians on the pitch. But if the Australians continue to make monumental scores, England will be the one trying to save the match once again on the last day.

England are on a temporary high after saving the Cardiff Test against the Australians. But make no mistake – they start as overwhelming favorites to lose the Test. The Australians proved that their batting was as strong as ever and their bowling was good enough to win if rain had not intervened. History is also against the English as they have not won a Lord’s Test since 1934, or, rather more pertinent, Australia have only lost ONE Test ever at Lords in the last and this century.

I am not sure why England has never won for so many decades despite it being a home venue and Australians having had their downs during some of those years. Sports has its crazy streaks (like the Boston Red Sox for so many years) and this is one of them. Can the English reverse the curse? If they do, the Australians will have nowhere to run?

I also wonder how the Cardiff Test draw will pan out. Will it be like the previous Ashes tour by Australia where the last Australian pair saved the Old Trafford Test only for them at Trent Bridge? Or will it be like the last India’s tour where Dhoni and rain combined to deny England a victory and then the Indians won the series?

A few things that we don’t know how it will affect the Test:

1. Ponting is ticked off. Will he will respond with another century? Or start making petty points while Australia is fielding?
2. How much will England’s relief translate into momentum for a resurgent performance?
3. Will Freddie play? Or will Bell take his place?
4. England is very likely to drop Panesar. It is too bad that he just saved a Test for them. Or will they keep him in out of gratitude?!
5. Broad is the person most likely to be dropped. Harmison? Onions?
6. Australia don’t look like changing their team. Will there be any last-minute surprises?

In any case, the Ashes starts from 0-0 once again. Has England re-booted enough to trouble Australia?