And so it ends. Australia has regained the Ashes once again (annual cricket contest between England and Australia. 3-0 so far with two tests to play. Pretty ordinary performance for England this year, especially since it has only been 15 months since the last Ashes campaign. Both teams haven’t changed that much after all.
But there are a few key differences. Like all things regarding cricket, the statistics tell the story about the better team.
Firstly, the Australian batting. In the ’05 series, the batsman looked a little dodgy (especially the middle order of Clarke, Martyn and Gilchrist) and it was only the tailender efforts of Shane Warne and Brett Lee that kept us in the fight. This series tells a different story. The Australian middle order batting has been strengthened with the addition of Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke. Bloody hell, where have they been hiding Hussey for the last 5 years? In the 3 tests during the Ashes, he has scored 415 runs at a bradman-esque average of 138.33. Not bad for a guy who couldn’t buy an international game 2 years ago. Still, you can’t blame the Aussie selectors that much; his domestic batting averages in Australian before being picked in the international squad were a bit ordinary (mid 30’s in seasons 2000-2003, raising to 40’s in 2004 and 50’s in 2005 when he was picked). Just goes to show what can happen when you spend too much time kicking ass in England (where he averaged in the 70’s and 80’s).
Michael Clarke has also performed well in this series (373 runs at 124). Being dropped from the Australian Test Team has done wonders for his mental temperament, which to be fair, was a little dodgy. Shane Watson gets injured and in comes Michael Clarke, not a bad swap at all. He will be in the side for a long, long time, unless he steals some of Warnies hair gel. (Or his smokes).
Don't forget the mighty warrior, Ricky Ponting. I thought he was a bit too fired up and a little fragile previously (especially when he had a go at harmless Phil Tuffnell at the Allan Border Medal last year, after the retired English spinner delivered a comedic carve up of Australia’s ashes campaign). However, the rage has worked a treat and he has regained the ashes. He out captained his rival (Freddy Flintoff, who was not the same man as he was last year), kept Warnie out of the nightclubs (and out of the blonds) and was the man the Australians relied on. Also contributed a little with the bat (524 runs @ 104). He will go down as a true great of the game.
On the Australian bowling front, the find of the season has been the form of Stuart Clarke (’06 Ashes results: 16 wickets at 18). The English just couldn’t handle his McGrath-like line and length and his unplayable leg cutters. Not a bad return for a guy with only 7 tests to his name and at the ripe old age of 31. As long as his body stays ok (he tends to be a little injury prone), he will add a few more tests to his kitty in the next 5 years. And the "old firm" of McGrath (13 wickets @ 25) and Warne (14 wickets @ 35) tormented the Poms once again. The disappointment was the form of Brett Lee (8 wickets @ 58). He will have to do better than that in the future if he wants to be the heir to McGrath’s throne.
On the Pommie side of things, the English batting has been a little bit fragile this time around. With the exception of the Warnies mate, Kevin Pieterson (398 runs for the series at 79.60) and Paul Collingwood (345 @ 69) the batting was ordinary. The great man of last year, Andrew Flintoff, has had a disappointing series so far (120 runs @ 24)
But it was the English bowling attack that has been abysmal. Again Flintoff, ordinary (7 wickets @ 49) That’s worse figures than Brett Lee. Giles (3 @87), Anderson (2 @ 155) and the ever-homesick Harmison (6 @ 75) were just there to make up the numbers. The only bright sparks were Matthew Hoggard (12 wickets @ 33) and the amazing Ashes Debut of Monty Panesar (8 wickets @ 29). The fact that Monty went to second on the English wicket taker list for the series after one game tells the story. The Barmy Army must have been thinking, where is Simon Jones when you need him?
So there it is. Two more games in the series to go, but the replica urn is heading back to Australia. Lets hope from the spectators point of view the English continue to fight and Australia don’t fall back into the old trap of "Dead Rubber" syndrome. The inflated ticket prices deserve a competitive contest. Now, if only we could keep the real urn here where it belongs instead of sending it back to some cabinet at Lords.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Why does The Ashes urn go back to England? Do the Poms think we still live in a Convict Colony out here with no security or a safe place to keep it? The Poms do not deserve to have the urn, to win The Ashes for a whole 15 months after years of getting kicked by the Australians, it's just not right.
The Ashes is named after a satirical obituary published in The Sporting Times in 1882 after the match at The Oval, in which Australia beat England in England for the first time. The obituary stated that English cricket had died, and the body will be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia. The English media dubbed the next English tour, to Australia (1882-83) as the quest to regain The Ashes.
Maybe it's correct that the Poms take The Ashes urn back with them. For the last 20 years English cricket has been in "Ashes" and it doesn’t look like it’s going to change soon. So come on Aussie's, lets kick the Poms while they are down and send them home with a 5-0 thrashing. They can take their English Cricket back to England in the Urn as English Cricket (as well as many other sports) has been dead for many years.
Post a Comment