Good England Start with Hiccups
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:
- Collingwood throwing away his wicket. I wouldn’t blame him. He probably spent his full annual quota of concentration in the Cardiff Test.
- 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.
- 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.
- Broad in the team. He needs to stay with the captain tomorrow and hit something. Nobody expects him to take wickets.
- Pietersen. Curiouser and curiouser. No big scores against the enemy yet. What happened to him?
- Johnson. 19-2-107-2. Trash bowling except for the wicket-taking balls. Most responsible for England’s good strike rate.
- 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.
For some reason, Clarke has the knack of taking wickets when you least expect him to.
I would suggest that he takes wickets when you don’t expect him to because he doesn’t take many wickets, and hence we never expect him to take wickets. 18 wickets in 48 Tests, 6 of them in a few overs in Mumbai.
Flipping the original statement around: when you don’t expect Clarke to take wickets, he occasionally takes wickets.
England’s middle order is far too predictable, they fail when you expect them too. Collingwood’s dismissal didn’t surprise me, there was no crisis, what was the point in staying on? But that Bopara is one dullhead, another limited overs’ kid, and to hell with those hundreds – even Monty plays straighter than him.
Thought Clarke would’ve bowled at Cardiff – he brings some edge, just that creepy way of his; North too passive.
Not sure what kridaya meant. Wondering if he meant something like “Clarke took his wickets in Sydney, but in the next match, Ponting bowled him earlier, and gave him a few more overs than normal, and I think he didnt do that well”.
Something like, when it is a win-win situation, when even if Clarke fails to take a wicket, nobody’s gonna complain, he does take wickets but when he is taken as the spinner in the team with 4 other medium pace bowlers making up the bowling unit, he doesnt deliver?
Ok, I’ll make that simpler “Clarke fails to take wickets under pressure, when put in the spotlight as a bowler who can take wickets”
Raj, Barry: I would agree with that assessment. Michael Clarke obviously does not perform as a regular spinner. But if he can sometimes take wickets unexpectedly, why not throw the ball at him in the final overs of the game.