Thursday, December 14, 2006

T3D1: Australia 244 (Panesar 5-92), England 51-2

I'm not going to say it.

Really.

I'm not.

Oh... the hell with it.

Told you so!

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

T2D5: England (5551/6d & 129) lost to Australia (513 & 168-4)

Words absolutely fail me.

That has to rank amongst the most abject capitulations ever, even outdoing the litany of hopelessness that was the 2001 Ashes series. Days 1 and 2 of the second Test were England the way we know they can bat - reducing the Aussies to a somewhat dejected-looking bunch chasing leather. Day 3... was fine, barring a drop from Giles that you'd have backed him to take 4 times out of 5, which would have put the Aussies on 70-odd for 4 with danger man Ponting back in the hutch. Catches win matches, the saying goes, and even with hindsight, I'd lay odds that one would have. It wasn't trivial, but at the point where you manage to get both hands to it, it's really in your and the team's best interests to hang the hell on, not palm it over the bar.

Day 4 suffered most immediately, I suspect, from Freddie's apparent problem with his ankle. Hoggard bust a gut for England on both days, and there's no way you can fault him for sheer dogged determination, putting the ball in the right place time and again, but where was his support? Answer? Back in the pavilion, or occasionally carrying drinks. There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of Panesar would have made a massive difference to the England bowling in both innings: a foil for Hoggard who would have wheeled away as accurately as the latter, with markedly more chance of taking wickets than the lacklustre Giles. I was pretty cheesed off when he wasn't picked for this Test - now? I'm absolutely fuming. Maybe Panesar would have dropped the same catch Giles did? But equally, if he's that bad, would he have been fielding there? As for the rest? Harmison was a non-entity and a shadow, Flintoff had already bowled himself into the ground being the Boy's Own Hero, and Anderson seemed decent but ultimately out of his depth with no support.

Close of day 4? Looking good for a draw, which is in and of itself galling, because by God at 551-6 and Australia at 76-3? We should have been in for the kill. Strauss and Bell looked in decent nick. I went to bed on Thursday night, reasonably confident - it looked, as the saying goes, 'drawish', dmmcricket had that as his most likely result, but did say, with eerie foresight: "...the other option is that, somehow, Australia manage to take a swag of wickets early this morning, and bundle England out by midway through the second session. If that happens, they'll have added maybe another 100 runs, and Australia will have a 200-run canter home in 40-odd overs."

Yeah. Right. Thanks, DM.

My radio went off at 6.25, just in time to catch the 6.30 news. England 129 all out. From 59-1, for heavens sake. 70 runs, 9 wickets. On a pitch that Geoff Boycott's grandmother could have got runs on with the proverbial stick of rhubarb. The only name that merits any mention is Collingwood, for sticking it through until he finally ran out of partners, rather than throwing it away, He's evidently learned his lesson from that rush of blood in the first Test.

I crawled downstairs to watch a few minutes: Pietersen at one end, for heavens sake. On what planet is Kevin Pietersen your best bet to stop a rampant Ponting and Hussey scoring? And Giles was, frankly, rank. He looked to have about as much enthusiasm for the cause as my Christmas turkey for the oven, and his bowling, lucky wickets notwithstanding, was as inviting as any buffet. I actually had to turn it off, 'cause I couldn't stand any more, long before we became the side to make the highest EVER declared total batting first and then lose. Pathetic.

But we shouldn't have let it get to that stage. Never in a million years. And no amount of special pleading that Jones and Giles deserve their place on the strength of their batting will convince me that it's the right approach. That 551 was largely down to the people who are, by God, paid to bat, numbers one to six. It helps if the keeper and a couple of the bowlers know a bat from Boyc's Gran's stick of rhubarb, but if one to six can't deliver the goods, we have a much more serious problem that we shouldn't be trying to fix by taking away a strike bowler and the better keeper. Frankly, on present form, if we need another bat that badly, dropping Giles, Harmison and Jones for Read, Panesar and Mahmood would at least improve the quality of the bowling attack.

As for the Ashes? Unless we buck our ideas up and pull off a major miracle? Not staying in this country

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Catchup

Sorry for the postless void from this corner. Last week was my last week in my old job, and I'll be starting my new one on Monday, so things got a bit hectic and busy.

So, where to start?

T1D5 is best summed up as the inevitable end to a rather dismal England performance. Once KP got out in the first over, it was (if it ever wasn't) doomed.

Three major questions in the intervening week:

1) "Bouncebackability." Could England pick themselves up?
2) Could Steve Harmison make up for his dire performance in the first Test?
3) Will Fletcher pick Panesar?

If I'd posted this on Thursday, my answers would be 1) I hope so, 2) who knows, and 3) he must, surely.

After day two of the second Test, and Collywobbles and KP's record partnership of 310 (a record for the fourth wicket in Ashes Tests), it seems the answers are 1) hell yes, 2) we STILL don't know, and 3) apparently not.

More on Panesar after this Test, I think.