Time for a fresh start

Both for this blog, and more importantly, for the England team.

That has to rank amongst the more abject bowling and batting performances I've ever seen, I think. The wagon wheel for the first five overs of England's innings summed the batting up pretty well - two solitary scoring shots. Strauss made something of a return to form with the bat, I guess, and Bopara shows promise, but the rest? Pretty dismal. Bowling wise? Not much better, really, although to be fair I'm not sure what they could have done with Smith in that mood.

The future, then?

I have to say, I think Fletcher's time's up. The tactics he's been mandating for this competition plain do NOT work - no-one else is using them, and quite frankly without Trescothick to start the innings? Not a prayer.

What'd I do?

Sack Fletcher. I'd have loved Woolmer for England, God rest his soul, but in his absence it's tough to know who to pick. Tom Moody, perhaps?

Get Tresco's head straight, get him back in the side ASAP. Wrap him in cotton wool so it doesn't happen again.

Drop Vaughan, send him back to Yorkshire until he remembers how to bat. Give Strauss the one day captaincy. He did a pretty decent job last summer once he settled into it.

Forget Mahmood till he can land it on a good length and line at LEAST five balls out of six.

Oh, and pay Troy Cooley whatever the hell he wants, and pay someone who understands /proper/ spin bowling to teach Monty about variation and having the balls to toss it up in ODIs.

[composed and posted with ecto]

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!

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

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.

T1D4: Australia 602-9d (Ponting 196) & 202-1 (Langer 100*) v England 157 (Bell 50, McGrath 6-50) & 293-5 (C'wood 96, Pietersen 92*)

Ok. That was... like an improving curate's egg. Better in parts.

Some responsible batting by England, dragging them back from the depths of 36-2, particularly from KP, who did what he does best: consolidate, then start farming the bowling. Warne in particular got slapped through mid-on for several exquisite shots.

On the downside:

Strauss needs to either stop hooking or get a lot better at his shot selection: twice in two innings, straight down the throat of long/fine leg. 'Injuducious' doesn't begin to cover it.

Collingwood was doing so well, until he had a rush of blood to the head: charging Warne? Not the best move unless you are really seeing it like a football and you need to score runs. All he needed to do was Not Get Out. Muppet.

And as for the skipper? Freddie... Freddie. KP has his eye in: slapping him through mid-on when you're past 50 and seeing it well is one thing, hoicking him straight down Lander's throat when you've only just got in... quite another.

So, realistically? We're looking at Jones and Gilo 50s, an hour of Hoggy being his obdurate self, while KP sticks around for a double ton, and the forecast rain to turn up early...

For small values of 'realistically'.

T1D3: Australia 602-9d (Ponting 196) & 181-1 (Langer 88*) v England 157 (Bell 50, McGrath 6-50)

Some days, it's better staying in bed with the radio off.

Hard to find any plus points about day 3 - the one bright spot has to be Bell's fifty, which considering he was a practical non-participant with the bat last summer, can only be a good thing. Kind of a shame no-one else was around to support him.

The other intriguing thing? Ponting didn't enforce the follow-on. Why? I can't see England winning if he did. In fact, the only /small/ chance England have is if Australia bat on too long tomorrow, and they manage to get their act considerably more together than it was in the first innings.

Somehow, though, I can't see it. Ponting probably just wanted to rub England's noses in it even more than he already has :)

T1D2 - Australia 603/9d (Ponting 196), England 53/3

Well, if it's any consolation, we bowled better. Both Harmison and Anderson managed to get wickets, though the former was thanks to Warne gloving an awful strangle down the leg side to Jones. Flintoff continues where he left off yesterday, Boys' Own hero again, finishing up with four wickets. It'd have been a lot better if the tail, specifically Stuart Clark and Brett Lee, hadn't wagged quite so successfully, but even so, 600 was never that unlikely on this track.

Strauss will be kicking himself, getting out hooking: Brett Lee copped a raking from Hussey's studs as they both went for the catch, so you /could/ claim first blood for England there. :) Cook out next ball won't have helped Strauss' mood - or Fletcher's - nor will Collingwood getting foxed by a genuinely good ball not that long later.

53/3.

It could be a long summer. But then, we probably thought that at the end of the Lords' test last summer.