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.
Krish, I have commented on other blogs that the English bowling is underrated, at least of helpful wickets. They will quite often struggle on a road, as we saw in the Caribbean, but they will tend to make good use of a pitch with a bit of movement in it.
At this point, their attack is ahead of Australia’s on points.
Goodcricket,
That’s a big call to make. England had the better of bowling conditions – and fair credit to them for using it, albeit with large doses of brainless Aus batting.
When the conditions aren’t so helpful, England’s bowlers are no better/worse than Australians. A good attack should be able to at least not get whipped as seen in Cardiff.
An attack that had Broad as one their bowlers cannot be rated that high
Just picture it today – if Flintoff was not able to bowl – honestly who could have prevented Aus from scoring ? All credit to Flintoff – but without him they had no hope in hell today.
I have two observations here:
1. It was good to see Flintoff back on form but the fact that he is retiring at the end of the Ashes shows what a big loss he will be to their cricket… I don’t see any allrounder of his stature coming through in the English game.
I agree with Tifosi Guy that the English attack looked good because of Flintoff not as a team effort….
2. Swann has bowled well but I think he understands his role and expectation in the side which is a critical thing for a spinner. The expecation is for him to bowl tidily and the captain trusts him to do the job so he gets the support and confidence in the field and the wickets just come. In comparison Hauritz has no idea what is expected of him and he delivers a mixed bag….
Next test is 10 days away, probably sufficient time for KP and Flintoff to recover. Aus needs to win at least 2 of the remaining 3 tests (Which they are capable of); but the series is well and alive now…
To say that England had “no hope in hell” is wide of the mark. Australia’s poor first innings total was as much to do with the bowling of Anderson as it was Flintoff, and Graeme Swann proved that he is an attacking option by taking the crucial wickets of Clarke and Johnson.
He is far more than just required to bowl “tidily”. Surely that should be the bare minimum for any village cricketer, let alone one of Test standard. Australia’s bowling was anything but tidy during the 2nd test, so you might say that Swann is ahead of most of their attack by himself.
England’s bowling is a little light where backup seamers are concerned, but at this point they are ahead of Australia on the basis that their two spearheads (Flintoff and Anderson) can at least hit the cut strip.
That Australia’s “destroyer” is now on the verge of being dropped and replaced by either a crock (Lee, Watson) or a diminished former crock (Clark) says it all.