Tag: Australia

New Zealand win by seven runs

The second test just came to a thrilling finish with Australia being bowled out for 233 and losing by seven runs. Doug Bracewell, in his third test, took a match winning 6-40 in the second innings whilst David Warner, in his second test, carried his bat for 123.

It’s a great victory for New Zealand. It’s the first test they have won in Australia for quite some time (25 years?) and they did so after playing very poorly at Brisbane, losing Vettori before the match started and then being bowled out for 150 in their first innings. Australia will have some questions to ask themselves however. They collapsed badly in the first innings to be bowled out for 136 and then lost six wickets for 40 runs in the second. That last one took them from a very strong position to one in which they did well to make the match as close as it was. Some of it was down to inspired bowling, Bracewell in the second innings most notably, but there was a lot of poor batting as well. The shots Haddin played were inexcusable, especially in the second innings. He chased a ball so wide it would not have hit a second set of stumps, despite having edged the ball before between third slip and gully. Warner also displayed some odd decision making late in the run chase. He took a single off the first ball of the 56th over and exposed Pattinson to the bowling of Bracewell. Two ball later Pattinson edged to slip and two balls after that Mitchell Starc was bowled. He continued in the same vein however. Both times there were LBW decisions reviewed against Lyon he was only on strike because Warner had taken a single off the previous delivery. When Lyon was bowled to end the match Warner had taken a single off the first ball. I don’t think that Warner is culpable for Australia’s defeat of course, but a more experienced player might have done a better job of hogging the strike.

Still, Warner ought to be happy with his performance. He scored an unbeaten 123 out of his side’s 233 all out and technically won Man of the Match (though only because Channel Nine let the viewers vote on the award; Bracewell was far more deserving). He is almost guaranteed a spot in the starting XI at the MCG, which can not be said of many of the Australian batsmen. Phil Hughes played very well last night, but lasted only five balls this morning before departing in the familiar manner of c Guptill b Martin. His 20 was actually the third largest score of the innings (fourth largest if you include the 21 extras), but I can’t see it being enough to save his place in the side. At the same time none of Khawaja, Ponting or Hussey did much to improve their chances of selection. Marsh and Watson are likely to return to the side for Boxing Day and whilst both are versatile enough to either open or bat in the middle order, most likely one opener and one middle order batsman will be dropped. With Hughes the only candidate amongst the openers it only leaves a question in the middle order. In many ways Khawaja is the easiest to drop as he is not very well established in the side. He only returned due to the injury to Marsh, so it is logical for him to make way. That would be the easy route for the selectors, however. Hussey looks like he is terminally out of form and if only one middle order batsman goes it ought to be him. That all is assuming that Ponting does not decide to retire, however. If Ponting does retire than Hussey could keep his place, but I would rather see Marsh and Watson both bat in the middle order and Ed Cowan open with Warner. I would actually quite like to see that even if Ponting does not retire. I think it would be a good positive move by the selectors. They’ll be under pressure to do something, certainly. India may have struggled badly in England, but they are a better side than New Zealand and Australia will need to improve to feel confident of victory.

Hobart preview

The second test of the Australia v New Zealand series starts in a few hours. The Aussies are heavy favourites after a convincing win at the Gabba and I don’t see the Kiwis putting up much more of a fight. Although the wicket in Hobart should be more akin to what the Kiwis are used and I think they probably will bat better, to challenge even a weakened Australia they will have to improve almost beyond recognition. They will also have to field far better than they did in the first test, and I doubt they will have had enough time to improve noticeably.

Theoretically the Australians have a strong home field advantage in Hobart having never lost a test there, but there are some considerable caveats to that statistic. The matches there tend to be against weaker sides; in addition to New Zealand only Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies (in 2005) have played in Tasmania. Also, the Bellerive Oval only started hosting matches in 1989, so most of the previous nine matches were during Australia’s period of dominance. New Zealand’s bowling coach is very familiar with the ground having played in Tasmania for ten years during his first class career, so I don’t think the Aussies will actually have a marked home field advantage. That said, I don’t think they will need any home field advantage to overcome New Zealand.

The most interesting part of the test will probably be the selection battles ahead of the series against India. Two batsmen are going to be dropped when Watson and Marsh return and all of them bar Clarke are candidates to make way. The obvious direct competitions are Warner v Hughes to see who will survive the return of Watson and Khawaja v Ponting v Hussey to see who will make way for Marsh. But since Watson can, and many argue should, bat down the order it will probably not be so straight forward. Right now Hughes and Hussey are probably under the most pressure and will need centuries to ensure they retain their place on Boxing Day. Hughes has a good record in first class matches in Hobart, but the conditions are expected to favour swing and seam and I think he will find the going very difficult.

As far as the result of the match is concerned I’m predicting another heavy victory for Australia, by 250 runs or eight wickets.

Why Phil Hughes should not be dropped

It has been suggested that Phil Hughes will be ‘rotated’ out of the Australian XI for the second test at Hobart. If there is a change it will almost certainly be either Hughes or the equally out of form Hussey to make way for all-rounder Daniel Christian. Hussey has already expressed unease at the prospect of rotation and has counselled Hughes not to change his game. Hussey appears to be worried he will be the one to miss out in a rotation policy and is trying to make sure it’s Hughes instead.

I hope it isn’t Hughes to go, however, I like having Hughes in the Australian side. A look at his career statistics and history shows why. His first class form is very impressive, but in tests overall he averages 36.13 with three centuries and three fifties. That’s six times he’s gone past fifty in thirty innings. Hughes’ career is based almost entirely on the second test of his career, in which he scored 115 and 160 against South Africa in Durban. It was only a decent series apart from that. He scored nought and 75 in his first test and 33 and 32 in the last test of the series before going to England for the 2009 Ashes. He fared poorly against shorter bowling in England and was dropped for the third test. (And announced it himself, on Twitter.) He was dropped to give him a chance to work on his technique, but he never really improved. He had one-off tests against Pakistan and New Zealand after the 2009 Ashes, but his best score in those two matches was 86* against New Zealand. Regardless of his failure to improve, the injury and subsequent dropping of Katich during the 2010/11 Ashes gave him a more permanent place.

Since his debut tour to South Africa Phil Hughes has scored just 633 runs at an average of 27.52. His lone century in that time was against a Sri Lankan ‘attack’ at Colombo a few months ago and he has passed fifty only three times. The only time he has done so against an international quality attack was his 88 in Jo’burg last month. His technique was lacking against in England in 2009 and he has never fixed those problems. His footwork is non-existent and he can only play the short ball in the sense that he can play it in the air to gully. And this is why I want him to stay in the side. I hope the selectors continue to look at his extremely impressive domestic form and drop Hussey instead because in 2013 I want to see him walk on to the pitch at Lord’s on an overcast July morning and face Jimmy Anderson with the new ball. I really, really want to see that.

Australia win by nine wickets

To say that New Zealand played poorly in the first Test is an understatement. Australia did play reasonably well, but the Kiwis failed to put up any sustained fight. The scoreline is probably not indicative of the gulf in talent between the two sides, but it was certainly a fair result given how they played.

The New Zealand top order was the most culpable. It can be reasonably said that they bat down to seven with Vettori, but those seven batsmen averaged just 28 in the match. Without the first innings heroics of Vettori and Brownlie it falls to just 16. Of the 13 top order dismissals, no fewer than nine of them were needless. (That’s including Vettori’s suicidal run out in the first innings, though he deserves credit for having played well up until then.) They looked like they had not realised they were no longer playing one day cricket and were allowed to leave balls outside off stump. When they were in the field they let the Australians off the hook multiple times. They dropped catches, took wickets off no-balls and possibly most damningly allowed Mitchell Starc to score 32 not out on debut as Australia put the match out of realistic reach. They will have a lot on which to work before the next Test.

Australia do deserve some credit. They bowled well enough to induce the brainless errors by the Kiwis and batted with discipline for the most part. (With the exception of Phil Hughes, who is probably nearing the end of his career.) It’s a bit difficult to determine how effective the new Australian bowlers really were; with New Zealand batting poorly and only Peter Siddle against whom to compare them there is an element of guesswork. I think Pattinson looked like a genuinely good find though. He bowled with proper pace and hostility and did pick up a couple of wickets that were not the direct result of poor batting. Lyon looks like he will be the first choice spinner for the foreseeable future, which would finally bring some stability to the role. I don’t think Mitchell Starc had much of a debut though, his unbeaten 32 notwithstanding. He took only two wickets in the match, both off poor shots by Kiwis in the first innings (McCullum and Ryder). He’s the most likely to go when Cummins returns, unless Clarke wants to play a very inexperienced attack against India.

I can’t really see New Zealand winning the second Test, or any Test against a side better than Bangladesh at the moment. They need to improve all facets of their game in the longest format, as right now they are fielding an XI who don’t seem to know how the game is supposed to be played.

Australian ‘cricket’ grounds

One of the first things I noticed last night whilst watching the Gabba Test was the odd colouring of the seats. It’s something I remember from previous Ashes; they’re designed so as to give the impression of a full house even when there isn’t one. (One can infer then that there wasn’t a full house and that the seats don’t do a particularly good job of disguising that fact.) I think it’s pretty stupid, but it’s part of a much broader dislike of most Australian grounds.

Many Australian grounds are not owned by their clubs, but by the state government, and are used for multiple sports, most notably Australian rules football (AFL). As anyone who has tried to watch baseball in a multi-purpose stadium knows, this all but ruins the ground. The Gabba and the MCG are the worst. They’re just great monotone concrete bowls. There is no variation, no individuality, no character. Neither of them have individual stands anymore, they are just unbroken rings of seating. The pavilions in both grounds are little more than greenhouses set into the massive stands and the players emerge from tunnels.

What is this, football? (Image from Channel Nine)
Worst, they have to use drop in pitches because the AFL players don’t like being tackled on the hard wicket. (Apparently AFL players, like NFL players in the USA, are soft.) [Edited to add: I have been informed in the comments that this is also to protect the wicket from AFL players.] They aren’t cricket grounds anymore; they are AFL stadia in which cricket is sometimes played. The MCG at least has a history of being a dual use ground and at least it can mostly fill the seats during the cricket. (If Australia are playing well.) The Gabba has shown that it can’t and shouldn’t be used for cricket. The SCG isn’t immune either unfortunately; the gorgeous old pavilion is overshadowed by stands on either side.

The rot is spreading too. The Adelaide Oval is being renovated to increase capacity for the AFL and there are plans for the SCG to become more like the MCG. (Though that is at least for partly cricketing reasons, specifically the World Cup.) The WACA is the only ground that is not often used for AFL and it’s also the only ground with a sensible renovation plan.

I should point out that English grounds are not perfect. The Point at Old Trafford is a monstrosity which at the very least ought to have been placed opposite the pavilion instead of literally overshadowing it. And the Edgbaston renovations aren’t brilliant either. They are both an attempt to improve the grounds suitability for cricket though, which is their actual function. They aren’t built for football at the cost of cricket.

Aus v NZ preview

On paper this ought to be a one sided series. New Zealand have played varying degrees of poor cricket for years now and barely beat Zimbabwe. Meantime Australia are historically a pretty strong side. The recent contests haven’t been worth watching; New Zealand haven’t won a Test in Oz in 26 years. The fact that it may be any sort of a contest this year is a mark both of how far the Aussies have fallen and the extent to which injuries have taken their toll.

A lot of the build up to this series has focused on the Australian injury crisis, with five players pulling out before the first Test. The speculation about the replacements was curtailed, however, when the selectors named a squad of only 12. Peter Siddle was named leader of the attack, though since he is the only one of the pacemen to have ever played in a Test match he was rather the obvious choice. Nathan Lyon will probably also play (though Clarke said that if the wicket looked juicy he would be willing to play four quicks) meaning that one of James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc or Ben Cutting will probably be carrying the drinks at the Gabba. It will also mean that Chris Martin will have twice as many career wickets as the entire Australian attack combined.

There are still question marks about Australia’s batting as well. In the absence of Shane Watson, David Warner will open with Phil Hughes. Warner is in form, but unproven in first class cricket and Hughes is a bit rubbish. The middle order of Clarke, Ponting, Khawaja and Hussey is also a bit suspect. Ponting managed to get some runs against SA and now he’ll have a pretty weak Kiwi attack against which he can boost his credentials for the series against a pretty weak Indian attack. Clarke scored an incredible 151 in his first innings against South Africa and then managed just 15 for the rest of the series. He struggled in the Ashes last year as well, so it’s hard to be sure how he will do. Khawaja is still yet to really get going internationally, but he did score important runs against South Africa. Hussey looks like the weakest link of the chain. He was under considerable pressure before the last Ashes and responded by scoring buckets of runs in the first three Tests (and very few in the next two). With the dearth of Test cricket played by Australia since then he hasn’t had many more questions asked about his place in the side, but he scored just 60 runs against South Africa with a top score of 39. Combined with the last two Ashes Tests, his last eight innings against high quality bowling have yielded just 113 runs. Admittedly he won’t be up against strong bowling during the Australian summer (NZ and India) but it must still be a worry for the Australian selectors. If he doesn’t excel against the Kiwis I think they ought to look very hard at him being the one to miss out when Watson returns from injury.

New Zealand look like they will play a very similar side to the one that scraped to victory in Zimbabwe. Jesse Ryder and Tim Southee will almost certainly come into the side and both are probably good additions. Ryder certainly is, he is a very powerful batsman. Southee is in for Jeetan Patel and is good in that he is a seamer replacing an unneeded second spinner, though he isn’t necessarily a better bowler. The Kiwis still don’t have a lot in the way of batting however; Ryder and the captain Ross Taylor are the only two who average over 40. Their only world class bowler is Vettori, though a case could also be made for Chris Martin. Bracewell looks a decent talent, but has only played against Zimbabwe. Southee is essentially a county bowler.

Australia are weak and have serious questions about most of their squad, but those questions are unlikely to be asked by New Zealand. For the Kiwis to make the series close they will need virtually all of their players to step up. Their batsman in particular need to put pressure on the inexperienced Australian attack. The Australian batsmen have the motivation of knowing that one of them will be dropped when Watson returns and should not have undue difficulty facing the Kiwi attack, though it will be interesting to see how Bracewell fares. If the Gabba track is as flat as it was last year I think the first Test will be drawn, though I doubt either side will score 517-1. I think some life in the pitch will help Australia more than New Zealand though. The last thing the Aussies want is for their debutant bowlers to toil for hours on a flat surface and return 0-100. With a bit of encouragement from the wicket they could put some real pressure on a fairly brittle Kiwi batting order. Ultimately I think there will be enough in the pitch and the Kiwis will be sufficiently ill-disciplined that Australia will win both Tests.

Australia’s XII

In between Swann’s comments about ODIs yesterday and the thrilling finish to the Mumbai Test I have neglected to look carefully at the Australian squad for the first Test against New Zealand. There are only 12 in the squad this year, instead of the 17 they famously picked before Brisbane last year, so it gives a pretty clear indication of the likely XI.

David Warner will open, as I predicted, though Eddie Cowan made 145 for Australia A. It’s an interesting selection in many respects. Warner has some international experience in the limited overs realm, but he has played just ten first class matches. (He has played over a hundred domestic T20 matches.) He does average almost 60 in those matches however. Cowan, by contrast, averages 37 in over fifty first class matches, but he has passed fifty in twenty of them. He is also in very good form recently, as his score for the ‘A’ side shows. In essence, Cricket Australia have gone for a basher. It’s not surprising given the traditional ethos of the side, but one might think they would know that T20 stars are not always the best Test batsmen. Last winter they got to watch Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott score a combined 1211 runs at an average of 110, but with a strike rate barely above fifty. Philip Hughes looks like he might be the next to get the axe though, so Cowan may yet get his chance.

It’s possible that my predicted XI will be off by one. Ben Cutting was also included in the squad and could come in for Peter Siddle. Siddle might have been axed for Jo’burg if Harris hadn’t been injured, so it would not come as a shock if Cricket Australia wanted to look at someone else before India arrive. It’s also possible that they will choose all four seamers and Lyon will miss out. I’d be a bit surprised if Siddle were dropped. Whilst he looks a long way off from the bowler who took a hat-trick on the first day of the Ashes last year, to drop him would be to select an pace attack with precisely zero Test caps. (And a spinner with only five.)

The most notable omissions to the squad were probably Trent Copeland and Matthew Wade. Copeland played in the series in Sri Lanka and whilst he did not look like a world beater he did not do anything specific to cost him his place in the side. Wade, meanwhile, scored 53 against the New Zealanders for the ‘A’ side. With Haddin under some pressure it might have been worth to give Wade a call up. He at least looks like he knows better than to try to cut a ball on the stumps with the score 18-5. I’m not surprised that Australia left them both out, but with a weak opponent touring it is a good time to gamble.

I don’t think too much should really be read into the squad though; it’s an injury hit side and they are only playing New Zealand. Selecting Warner over Cowen and leaving out Copleland are sure to raise questions however. Australia will almost certainly win regardless of the XI they select so I think the selectors could have been a bit bolder, but this is a decent start.

A makeshift XI

Despite only playing two Tests in South Africa, five Australians have managed to pick up injuries to rule them out of the first Test against New Zealand. Shane Watson, Shaun Marsh, Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson and Pat Cummins are all unavailable for the Aussies. It’s enough injuries that there don’t appear to be clear cut replacements for a lot of them, so it’s a lovely welcome for new chairman of selectors John Inverarity. It also looks like Mickey Arthur’s first job will be to introduce a conditioning regime that allows them to play more than two Tests without half the side injuring themselves. This also means that Ponting and Hussey will be assured of their places and Khawaja will be very likely given another chance to prove himself.

There’s probably a bit of pressure on the players currently contesting an ‘A’ game against the New Zealanders. That game seems like the most likely place from which replacements will be picked. The match is only half over, so all the players with a reasonable chance to be picked will have another chance to try to prove themselves. Right now David Warner and Eddie Cowan, the two openers competing for Watson’s spot have scored 65 and 60 not out, respectively. Warner has scored almost twice as fast which should not matter, but if it starts to look like a tossup may come into play. From the bowling side, James Pattinson is probably the front runner. (Though his name is almost synonymous with selectoral incompetence.) He took four wickets in the first innings of the tour match and is one of the few bowlers not to have been humiliated in last year’s Ashes. After that it’s will be interesting to see if the selectors go for the tried-and-failed Ben Hilfenhuas or the uncapped Mitchell Starc. It may be a bowl off in the second innings of the tour match.

Right now I think the Australian XI for the first Test will probably be: David Warner, Phil Hughes, Michael Clarke, Ricky Ponting, Usman Khawaja, Michael Hussey, Brad Haddin, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon.

It’s late and I’m tired

As I write this it’s just gone past 03.00 CST. I haven’t been to bed yet. It’s Sunday morning so this isn’t too unusual, but I got up earlier than I had planned today so I’m quite tired. South Africa are 255-5 and they are holding my attention well, which is good because I want to see how the day’s play pans out. If the Proteas get another fifty Australia are probably just about out of it. They only got near 300 in the first innings because of Watson and Hughes, but neither of them, nor anyone in the Aussie batting order, can be relied upon to get a score in the second innings.

It’s the run chase to which I am looking forward. Amongst other things it could be the last time we Ricky Ponting play for Australia. As much as I have enjoyed seeing him struggle, especially during the last Ashes, he has had an excellent career and it will be interesting to see if he can prolong it. If he can’t it is always nice to have watched such endings instead of reading about it in the papers the next morning. Even if he fails it may not be his last innings; he has said that he wants to keep playing and the Australian selectors have not had a good year. Other, though slightly less likely possible departures are Brad Haddin, Michael Hussey and Mitchell Johnson. If the new chairman of selectors decides to really wield the axe most of the players that I so enjoyed watching during the last Ashes may be gone. (Though I only really enjoyed watching Hussey bat in the last two Tests.)

I don’t think they will be that ruthless though. Ponting ought to go, though it would not be unreasonable for him to get a farewell series at home. It’s hard to think that a wicket keeper could do much worse than Haddin is currently, but I don’t think Australia have a clear potential replacement for him so he might stay. There is a clear replacement for Johnson though, so he will be lucky to face New Zealand. Ironically given the difficulties Australia have had in finding a spinner, Nathan Lyon is probably more secure in his place than most of his team-mates.

South Africa have lost another two wickets though, so it’s game on. A win for Australia may save a few careers.

Can Australia bat?

We’ll find out tomorrow; South Africa were bowled out for 266 today, rather sensationally after being 241-4 at one stage. Australia did reasonably well, but South Africa were a bit brainless at the end. (A cruel person might make choking sounds here.) Australia will be a bit disturbed though that in an innings of only 71 overs they used seven bowlers. (Well, I say ‘bowlers’ but Hussey had four overs.) Clarke was one of them and he took 2-6 at the end of the innings. Part of this was because Watson pulled up in his fourth over, but that won’t make Australia feel much better. Also problematic is that Johnson and Cummins only took one wicket apiece. Siddle, who might have missed out if Harris had been fit, took three and their current spinner, Nathan Lyon, took two.

Still, this does give Australia a good chance to level the series, if they can bat well this time. It’s a big ‘if’ though. Watson is out of form, and carrying a knack now, Hughes hasn’t been in form for a few years, Ponting hasn’t had a big score in some time and may be playing in his last test, Khawaja has only played three tests and hasn’t amazed anyone, Hussey is back to his pre-Ashes form and Haddin clearly doesn’t have the nous to bat in a pressure situation. That just leaves Michael Clarke as the only batsman in the top seven in which Australia can be even remotely confident. He was up to the task in the first innings of the first Test, but failed along with the rest of them in the second innings. Australia cannot rely on him scoring two hundred again, so they will need a few of the other batsmen to step up. There’s really no-one who stands out as being that batsman, however. We’ll see tomorrow if one of them can, but right now 266 looks like it might be enough for a first innings lead.