Test 3 Day 2

The day panned as expected.

England bowled better lines and lengths, Australia capitulated. England then worked themselves into a fairly decent position before taking the light ( a move that I have never quite endorsed but in the context of the game, pardonable).

Day 3 beckons with Australia having to do all the running. An early start and a ball that is 36 overs old means that Australia are more or less in the same position England were in at the end of Day 1. But while England were guilty of bad bowling, the same cannot be said of Australia. Australia has to think wickets, not containment , if they have to stay in the game. And they have to do this despite Rudi Koetzen.

Which brings me to this - should 100 tests be the cut off for the life of a Test umpire? Steve Bucknor was one who went over a 100 tests and the less said about his umpiring, the better. Ditto Koetzen. And with technology becoming more integral in the game today, is it time for the ICC to expand its Elite panel by compulsorily forcing each test playing nation to volunteer atleast two Test umpires?

On Cricinfo

my comment in response to Sambit Bal's article

Make Test cricket more elitist and still Test cricket will wither and die if they continue to play the game on the roads that masquerade as wickets these days.

If I have to watch a game on a road, I would rather waste 3 hours of my life watching a game with a definite result instead of spending 30 hours watching a bore fest.

And that is what Test cricket these days is.. Administrators want to maximize revenues ( gate, TV etc) and so would much rather the Test go the distance. Heck, the administrators at Cardiff did not even try to hide this fact when talking of the type of wicket that would be rolled.

And then there is the ICC with its own "blue print" for what is a good wicket. The Kanpur wicket gets called for having "excessive turn" when what we witnessed was a tight 3 day contest.

Deny people a contest and they will divert thier attention to something else.

T20 gives them a contest in an abbreviated time span. Test Cricket doesnt.

Good luck then saving Test cricket!

Brilliant!

"If I get hit out there, make sure you stop mum from jumping over the fence."

Test 3 Day 1

In my previous post, I had alluded to Ponting's decision to bat first a mistake. 126/1 in 30 overs later, I see no reason to change my opinion on that call.

the reasons I would have bowled first are fairly simple

1. The pitch has been under the covers and sweating.

2. The outfield was impacted by the rain and therefore, slow.

3. A shortened session meant that the bowlers could always regroup if things went wrong for them while the batsmen would have to start from scratch.

Also, this gave Australia the opportunity to get Johnson back in the swing of things. With Watson coming as cover, Australia have more depth in their bowling resources. This would then have allowed Ponting to attack from the get go.

Also, if I were captain, I would look at the England team sheet and see Bopara and Bell at numbers 3 and 4. If my bowlers got the early break through, I had two batsmen, both low on confidence, to contend with. And if I did not make the early break through, I still could control the tempo of the game by shutting shop and along with it, the flow of runs. And I could always come back tomorrow and rethink the game plan.

Also, with a make shift opening pair, the odds of the shoe being on the other foot are high. Had two marginal LBW calls ( one each against Watson and Katich) gone the other way, it would be I who would have to play the waiting game.

And finally this - Australia have to take 20 England wickets to win the match. With rain becoming a factor, time is of paramount importance. So, by batting first, Australia have to set themselves to batting only once, batting big and batting fast to give themselves enough time to force a result. But with the weather forecast being what it is, it is the Australian batsmen who will have to face the start stop start situation - not ideal when you are trying to bat fast.

Having said all that, England looked at Ponting's gift and decided to up the charity stakes. If Australia could be charitable to let the England bowlers first under helpful conditions, England would repay in full by bowling too short or too full. Thereby squandering all advantage accrued.

Plus with Strauss unwilling to stem the flow of runs and England unable to take wickets, the end result was that Australia ended with 126/1 with Watson scoring a 50 at the top of the order.

For England now, the priority is to slow the run flow. If they can choke off the free flow of runs, Australia will be compelled to play outside of their comfort zone because they will have to force the pace. And when that happens, the risk increases. And with increased risk comes the opportunity to take wickets. However, if England continue to play they have on the first day, they can forget competing in this test.

For Australia, more of the same please. Coupled with not losing wickets. The longer each partnership plays at a fair clip, the more pressure Strauss will face because he will have to contend with time no longer being an ally. And if England have to play 2 innings on the back foot, odds that they will fold under the pressure increase.

Now, if I were the batting captain, I would write this match off. Instead I would set stall to bat all 5 days. The reason is simple really - with back to back tests, it is in my interest that England's bowlers bowl for as long as possible. And with Flintoff nursing a bad knee, it is definitely in my interest to render him hors de combat before Headingley. And what better way to achieve that than by having him bowl in excess of 50 overs for the match!

A mistake

A new opening pair, a truncated session,a ground soaked by rain, a heavy outfield, the pitch under covers and therefore sweating, and Ricky Ponting elects to bat first.

Nice!

On Selection

Over the weekend, I read more news paper columns and blog posts highlighting England's selection travails in the post KP setup than is healthy.

Yet, for all of England's tribulations with selection, there is atleast no ambiguity on who the replacements are. Ian Bell, whatever his shortcomings, was the man identified almost immediately the moment KP went under the knife.

Harmison is the go to guy if Flintoff is not available.

Yes, the caliber of the players is not the same and yes, the England game plan will have to change to account for the two high profile players, but England have had 9 days between the tests to come up with alternatives ( In fact, Andy Flower went on record as soon as the Lords test was over about England's prospects in the sans KP, sans Freddie scenario).

Contrast that with the travails the Australians face.

Their one 95 mph bowler is hors de combat, the other one has let his mother's sledging get to him.

And given that Johnson is the sensitive sort ( highlighted ad infinitum in newspapers), how exactly will he take to being dropped from the squad?

And with back to back tests, the odds of Lee, with no match fitness to speak of, making an Headingley appearance is an idea fraught with risk.

Then there is the opener, who makes runs by the ton against second Division county sides but has not been able to match those performances when it really counts.

Then, there is the spinner, dealing with the after effects of a dislocated middle finger on his bowling hand. While he has gone about his job manfully, how much long term damage will he do to his finger if his work load keeps going up ( as it is expected to).

Then there is the all rounder - blond, athletic and currently making a persuasive case for inclusion. But he is known to break down mid test, and there are back to back tests to be played.

And then there is Ginger.

Point is, Australia have as many, if not more, selection issues compared to England.

And unlike, Ricky Ponting, I dont believe Australia has enough time to turn the series on its head. If England win at Edgbaston, Australia will have to win both Headingley and the Oval to retain the Ahes. Which, with the current resources on hand, is a bridge too far.