Ashes Predictions in the Dust

Like Ducking Beamers did, I took a look back at my Ashes predictions. It was not a happy experience as I got most of them wrong. Surprisingly though, I got 4 out of 5 Test results right, the only one wrong being the Lord’s Test which went England’s way instead of Australia’s. The caveat is that I thought the last Test would be a dead rubber instead of a decider.

So what went wrong and what went right?

  1. Hughes being dropped after the second Test despite the presence of Hussey who was even worse and did nothing to help Australia.
  2. Pietersen out because of injury. This was somewhat predictable, but I thought Flintoff was more likely to be out by injury than Pietersen.
  3. The two 5-wicket hauls of Stuart Broad. Given enough chances, such performances are perhaps inevitable. I still don’t think he should be in the team, but with Flintoff gone, England do not have any other all-rounder.
  4. I was not wrong about Johnson’s batting, because his South African performances were way beyond his lifetime accomplishments. So it had to regress towards the norm. But his bowling also had a turn for the worse, which I didn’t expect. Nevertheless, he still took 20 wickets, two less than the top wicket-taker, Hilfenhaus.
  5. I didn’t expect Michael Clarke to do as well as he did. But his failures usually mirrored Australian’s failures. So in a way, his contribution to the series was less than what would be suggested by his averages.

Other points were more-or-less a roll of the dice. So I am not too bothered about them.

Should Hussey Be Retained After His Century?

Everyone is talking about how Michael Hussey, a la Hayden 2005, has saved his career with a century in an Oval Test. And that may very well be the case, as the Australian Board may give him a few more opportunities to see if he has indeed returned to form. And if he can turn that into a good streak of form, it would indeed be a career-saving century.

The problem is that, unfortunately, Michael Hussey has been the weakest link in a strong Australian top and middle batting order. Circumstances have conspired to keep him in the team when a similar form by another team member would have found them out of the team long ago. These include the retirements in the team that meant giving a senior player like Hussey more rope than usual.

One has to take Hussey’s century in the full context of the series. What if he had made the century in the first innings of the Cardiff Test and followed it up with the rest of the other scores he made? Would we still be talking about his continued tenure in the team? Most of Hussey’s runs were made in two partnerships (with Ponting and with Haddin) and didn’t make much difference to the outcome.

It does seem unfair to Hussey to drop him after he just made a century. But it also doesn’t make sense to keep someone who will surely retire in the next few years on the basis of performances made just when he is about to be dropped from the team. And while players like Hughes are dropped for far less.

England Win the Ashes

Incredible as the title seems, that is what happened today as England won by 197 runs, after bowling out a sometimes obstinate Australia. A few weeks ago, such a result would have been unthinkable as Australia seemed to have overcome their retirement woes with a new set of world beaters. In a sense, that is still true as Australia have been the better team for much of the series, but England came on top by winning the big moments.

Australia would have retained the Ashes by the fourth Test if only they had found one ball to end the Anderson-Panesar partnership that saved the first Test. They were clearly on the ascendancy in the third Test and may have won it if much time had not already been lost to rain. The story of this Ashes loss has been about two poor first innings at Lord’s and the Oval.

As Ponting pointed (pun intended) out today, the series stats would seem to show Australia as the clear winner. Only 2 centuries for England versus 8 for the Australians. No English bowler crossed 20 wickets in the series, but three Australians did. Except for Mike Hussey, all the Australian batsman ended with a good average for the series.

But the devil is in the details. As Homer explains, the England bowlers took 4 five-for’s when compared to 2 five-for’s for the Australians. And they were bowled out twice a match only in one Test. Also, four of the centuries came in the first Test, two others came while trying impossible chases of record targets never before accomplished in Test cricket and one came in the washed Test. Only one Australian century came when it mattered. England, in contrast, made both their centuries count.

It is a different series than the 2005 one. Partly because the wins have been by huge margins and there has been a see-saw effect throughout the series. Although England had to fight hard to secure their wins, it was only because Australia was chasing that one even gave them a hope against such huge targets. In the 2005 series, the wins were by a nail-biting 2 runs and 2 wickets. This series couldn’t compare to that.

Also, there was nobody like Shane Warne who took 40 wickets in that Ashes tour and hit a lot of runs too. Clarke, North, Siddle and Hilfenhaus had their moments, but nobody dominated the losing team like last time, when Shane Warne tried to do almost anything to prevent England from getting the crown.

On the English side, only Strauss dominated and the other players contributed bits and pieces at different times. Collingwood’s Cardiff moment was almost forgotten by the time we reached the final Test. Flintoff did little of note after Lord’s. Panesar and Bopara were dropped. Pietersen left before the series reached mid-way. Anderson and Swann ended up with 40+ averages, even though they had pivotal moments.

So a series without any big heroes. But that may be good for England as they rely on a team effort to build for future series. Enormous credit must be given to Strauss and Flower that they were able to achieve this result with, let’s admit it, an average team. They kept their cool when things got rough and stuck to their original gameplan.

Spare a thought for Ricky Ponting. One of the greats of the game, but who ends up as the first Australian captain in a century to lose twice in England. He had the unlucky fate to be presiding over the transition of the team. There are quite a few excellent players in the group, but getting them to deliver consistently has been enormously difficult. Will Ponting be able to achieve that before he retires?

At Least England Won’t Lose 0-5

The first day of this Test was, without any doubt, the worst day of the series for England and it promises to get even worse. Australia seem intent to inflict as much pain on England as possible. And unless England do something truly amazing in the second innings, the match is as good as lost.

Which, in the greater scheme of things, is not so bad at all. At the start of the series, you would have been hard pressed to imagine England leading at the mid-point mark. So even if everything goes south for England from here on, they will only lose the series 1-2 which is quite a comeback from their 0-5 thrashing on their last tour of Australia.

And of course, England can always hope for the next Test. An Australian victory in this Test would set it up nicely. A win or draw in the final Test will help Australia retain the Ashes. England have to play for a win. A draw in this Test would have meant England trying to play for a draw in the final Test which would have made for dull viewing.

An Anti-Climax

It was never going to be an easy task for England to force a win and so it proved. Australia lost just three wickets all day and did not invite England to bat again. As I mentioned yesterday, Australia’s one hope of winning was if they were bowled out with a 100+ lead and they came back to knock England out. The slim pickings of the English bowlers proved both a blessing and a curse – it allowed Australia to reach safety, but it offered them no hope of bowling England out.

Michael Hussey made a fighting 64: not enough to keep the critics quiet, but just enough to be retained for the next Test. A great catch by Anderson ruined Marcus North’s perfect 50-to-100 conversion rate. And Clarke made his second century of the tour, though his slow-down tactics at the end seemed weird – maybe he was just put off by North’s dismissal. If it was meant to mess with England’s head, it probably backfired when the bails failed to topple once and when he was caught off a no-ball. Manou did not have much time to make an impression.

On the other side, while the English bowling has been better than expected, they have been found missing in many sessions during this series. If they have to keep Australia under pressure, they need to strike more consistently. Also, in retrospect, Anderson should have bowled earlier in the day – lightning doesn’t strike twice!

So it is down to the final two Tests. England need to draw the next two or win at least one. Australia need to win just one more. A draw or an Australian win in the next Test will leave all to play for in the final match.

What to Look for on Final Day of 3rd Ashes Test

Once again, it feels very strange to see England in the driver’s seat in a Test against Australia. After the Cardiff Test, many people pointed out that England, having been outplayed, had no right to celebrate. But right now, it looks like Anderson and Panesar marked a change in England’s fortunes. Since then, Australia have had very little to cheer.

I would plump for 75% chance of a draw tomorrow, 20% an England win and 5% an Australian victory. If the latter happens, it would probably be accidental than deliberate. For example, if Australia get bowled out with a 120+ lead and England chase and have a sensational collapse. I don’t think that Australia are likely to try to set England a target and go for a declaration. After all, Australia simply need to draw the series to retain the Ashes. They don’t want to lose the Test and end up having to win the next two matches.

There are 98 overs tomorrow. An England victory requires England to take the remaining 8 Australia wickets within 60 overs or so, leaving them a chase in 35-odd overs. This is assuming that the run rate is well under control because of wickets falling. On the other hand, if the Australians are more belligerent, England has to wrap it more quickly.

I guess the first hour or so will determine the outcome. A couple of quick wickets putting Australia on the backfoot will set up things nicely. Australia would consider itself safe if it can reach a lead of 100 with less than 3 wickets falling. The Australians, like the English, have a tail that can make some runs.

The people to look for on the final day? Hussey is surely playing for his place in the team. If he misses out and Australia lose, I cannot think of any reason why he should still be playing in the next Test. Manou has the opportunity to make a mark. The rest of the Australian side looks safe, though North has not done much after his unbeaten 125 in the first Test.

Swann may play a greater role on the final day – he bowled just 2 overs in the first innings taking one wicket. Broad, wicketless in the first innings, needs to step up. Will England overbowl Flintoff on the final day? Anderson and Onions have a chance for glory here with a ten-wicket match haul, if they can take advantage of early conditions tomorrow.

Get Andrew Strauss Early

If Strauss, who is on 64 not out in the present Test, makes another 36 runs, he would have made 19 centuries against 14 fifties. That would raise his conversion rate to 58%, making Strauss mid-way between Bradman and the rest of the competition. This is an astounding conversion rate, all the more so because it is over a career of 65 Tests, not an anamoly of playing a few Tests and having a purple patch.

On the other hand, Strauss’s career average is a respectable, but not outstanding 45.09. The contrast between this average and his tendency towards centuries is very stark. So what is going on here? Well, here is a graph to explain that:

strauss-scores-breakdown

Strauss has been dismissed for single digits every fourth innings and under 20 every third innings. Talk about early nerves. Once he crosses 50, the game changes. He is still more likely to fall in the 50′s or 60′s, but he has only fallen once in his 70′s and 80′s. And as every cricket fan now knows, he is getting that century.

Ominously for Australia, Strauss seems to have overcome his very early jitters recently. His last single digit score was almost 15 innings ago. He is still making those scores in the teens. Australia need to come up with a plan to find out how they can take him out early, otherwise he is going to stick there and the Ashes will stick with him.

Hughes and Hussey

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)

hussey-average-after-each-innings

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)

hussey-rolling-average

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

hussey-scores

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.

New Faces for the Edgbaston Test

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.

Flintoff and Swann Clean Up Australia

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.