2011: England’s dominance, India’s collapse

My original plan for this post was a month-by-month review of all sports. I got halfway through May before realising that I was even boring myself and that there was no way anyone else was going to read past the end of the Sydney Test.

I’m not sure if it was the biggest surprise this year, but I don’t think anyone expected England to do as well as we did. England finished 2010 well by beating Australia by an innings at the MCG, but even after the Sydney Test it was not clear if England were very good or Australia very poor. Strauss and Flower’s stated ambition to become number one in the world was clearly possible, but if it was going to happen it looked like it would be a long climb to the summit. Instead it took eight months. India did not play well, but the extent of England’s dominance over the course of the 4-0 whitewash was incredible. There are no weak links in the side; even though Trott finally started to look mortal Ian Bell picked up the slack. He averaged 118 this year, 23 runs more than the next best batsman. Cook was as brilliantly obdurate as ever, KP had a resurgence and Morgan started to look comfortable at Test level. Prior is easily the best wicket-keeper in the world, both with the gloves and with the bat. Broad stopped trying to be an ‘enforcer’ (though I still haven’t stopped making jokes about it) and instead took a shedload of wickets. Bresnan and Tremlett would share the new ball in probably every other country bar South Africa, but right now they can’t both even get into the team unless someone else is injured. Graeme Swann is still the best spinner in the world and Anderson is second only to Dale Steyn. The calm leadership of Andrew Strauss has ensured that no one has got carried away. In eight Tests in 2011 England won six and lost none. They averaged 59.16 with the bat (and that’s the entire XI, not just the top order) and 28.45 with the ball. With Prior, Broad, Bresnan and Swann in the side England could reasonably be said to bat down to number ten. No other side came close to playing better than England in 2011, and the question is no longer if England are the best side in the world but if they can turn their current success into the kind of dominance that the West Indies and Australia did.

Australia did not play for several months after the Ashes, but have made a good effort to rebuild their side. They’re batting is yet to really come around, though Shaun Marsh is talented and the dropping of Phil Hughes for Ed Cowan was long overdue. Ponting and Hussey are still in the side though, and although they made some runs at the MCG they cannot be allowed to stay much longer. They both have had poor years and are in the twilight of their careers. The real improvement for Australia has been their bowling. In Nathan Lyon they finally seem to have found a long term spinner and the injury to Mitchell Johnson was probably the best thing that could have happened. The introduction of Pat Cummins and James Pattinson in particular are major improvements. They still have some way to go, but the strides they have made since the Ashes were clear when they were playing an Indian side who did not adjust at all to being beaten by England. Australia have become a side very difficult to predict, collapsing to 47 all out against South Africa and losing at home to New Zealand, but also recording big wins over South Africa and India. It might be some time before we know how good they are, however; after what should be an easy tour to the Windies next March they do not play again until November.

There was cricket amongst the non-Ashes sides too, although not very much. (It’s not just this year either. If you want to despair look at the number of Test matches in the Future Tours Programme.) The West Indies lost twice to India, and barely avoided losing a Test against Bangladesh. They beat Pakistan in a Test at the beginning of the year though and they made India work for their victories. (Though that’s not too impressive, see below.) All things considered it was probably a positive year, albeit not by much. South Africa didn’t play for nine months after the New Year’s Test, but looked quite good when they did. Then in the Boxing Day Test they looked dreadful and lost to Sri Lanka. It could simply be another attack of their well known mental problems, they’ve lost four Boxing Day Tests on the trot, but their batsmen are starting to age and they will find themselves in a similar position to Australia before too much longer. Pakistan were overshadowed by the spot fixing judgements, but played very well against weak opposition. Statistically they were the second best team in 2011, after England. Sri Lanka had a bad year, but they ended the year on a high with their first victory in South Africa. They need to find more consistent bowling however, over the course of the year only Bangladesh were worse. No one really expected Sri Lanka to play well after the loss of Murali though. Zimbabwe returned to Test cricket and beat Bangladesh and almost beat New Zealand, neither of whom played enough cricket this year to make an impact.

The worst team in 2011 was surely India. They started the year as the number one Test side, but never looked interested. They did not try to force victories in Tests in South Africa or the West Indies, although the former was to win the series. They never bothered to turn up in England and then used their (self-inflicted) lack of preparedness as an excuse. They didn’t try to improve and looked just as bad at the MCG. That match was only close because Australia are not as good as England and collapsed themselves. As bad as India’s performances were, the fact that they do not seem to care is probably worse. Their batsmen are massively overrated, especially Sehwag, and all of the possible replacements are limited overs specialists. They were the worst team this year and unless there is a massive change in attitude they will be next year as well.

Twenty-eleven also featured the 2000th Test of all time. Officially it was a close encounter at Lord’s in which 20,000 people queued for a mile to get into the ground on the last day and England finished off India in the last session. The actual 2000th Test was a week later at Trent Bridge and saw Stuart Broad and Ian Bell turn a close game into a blowout. Outside of the performances of the individual teams, the year was most notable for the resurgence of bowling and some very close finishes. England twice won a Test in the last session, India drew with the West Indies with nine down and the scores level and Australia won by two wickets and lost by seven runs in fairly quick succession. I lost count of how many debutants took five-fers this year, but I can remember at least four, plus Doug Bracewell’s match winning performance in his third Test. It was a year of fascinating and absorbing Test cricket which highlighted the short-sightedness of the administrators who had been increasingly marginalising the longest form of the game. Hopefully next year we’ll see more good performances and those in charge will give Test cricket the respect it deserves.

Australia win by 122 runs

It wasn’t nearly as close as I expected. Yesterday I thought that 250 was the magic number, and that it would be a very close finish. I did back Australia to win, but I was thinking by about 15 runs. I had forgot, however, about India’s almost complete abandonment not just of technique but of common sense. I’m pretty hard on Brad Haddin for playing stupid shots, but this isn’t the first occasion where India have looked like a team of Haddins. (Except Dravid, I should specify.) Australia’s young quicks did well to move the ball a bit and put it in areas where it could not easily be slogged, but that should not be enough to cause some of the most successful batsmen in history to completely lose their heads as the Indians did.

India actually never seemed to show up at the MCG. Despite starting the day with a clear chance to win (a lot of people considered them favourites) they didn’t seem interested as they tried to finish off Australia. Hussey was struck in front very early on in the innings and whilst India appealed it was very half hearted, despite the fact that the replay showed that it was plumb! The fact that it wasn’t given was not India’s fault, but their reaction showed how uninspired they were. Their fielding continued to be poor as well. Zaheer Khan failed to get into position to catch a top edge skier that was in the air for so long one thought it might have been sucked into a jet engine. Australia took well judged singles and quick twos almost at will and added 61 to the overnight score. India were clear second favourites by this time and it was almost entirely their own doing.

As they came out to start the chase I got to see the usual buzz on Twitter about how Sehwag could take the game away from Australia and get half the runs by lunch or whatever hyperbole is favoured amongst Indians now. The same thing happened in England over the summer and he made a king pair, but no one seems to have noticed. He’s probably the most overrated player in international cricket at the moment, averaging 37 outside the subcontinent. With his feet rooted to the spot he wafted at the first ball he faced and was lucky to miss it. The camera then cut to a sign in the crowd saying that Sehwag didn’t care about footwork, complete with a drawing of him batting sat in an armchair. It was being held by an Indian supporter and appeared to be meant as a compliment, which goes a long way to explaining the form in which India’s batsmen find themselves. Needless to say it wasn’t long before Sehwag made contact with that shot and hit it straight down the throat of Hussey in the gully. I assume as he walked off he thanked Haddin for all the batting tips he’d apparently received. I understand the notion of that being how he plays, and he probably would not score any more runs if he changed his game, but chasing a tricky 292 to win it was probably the worst thing he could do. If India are going to work their way back to the Test summit, or even Test respectability, they are going to have to find a way to rein him in, or simply drop him for overseas tours.

Sehwag’s opening partner, Gambhir, was almost as bad. He went the same way he did in the first innings, hanging his bat outside off. His dismissal also said a a lot about the Indian mentality. Hawk-Eye showed that the ball had moved after pitching, but not much, almost exactly half the width of the bat. Gambhir would have middled it, but did not adjust at all to the seam movement. I understand that it is harder to play the moving ball (that’s the point) but for a Test batsman to be so careless ought to be unacceptable. The vast majority of the Indian batsmen played in a similar style, however. Only Dravid kept his dignity intact; he merely misjudged the line of a Pattinson delivery and was bowled through the gate. Tendulkar edged a ball half a metre outside off to gully; Laxman was caught in the same way that he was twice at Lord’s, trying that hybrid pull/flick; Kohli went across his stumps and was plumb LBW (and then stood there a bit before going off muttering and shaking his head, for no reason that anyone can fathom) and Dhoni inside edged the ball onto his stumps playing a horrific mow across the line, though it was over by then anyway.

India have two young batsmen who are good in ODIs, but do not appear to be Test quality, Raina and Kohli. The culture of the Indian team is such that those two aren’t going to have a chance to improve. The ten batsmen bar Dravid went out and played like it was a fifty over match. They seemed incapable of just leaving the ball when it was not in a position to hit. After the 4-0 whitewash last during the summer I read and heard a slew of excuses for the Indian team’s performance. The point about injuries was a reasonable one, but this match shows how specious the rest of them were. India refused to learn the lessons of that series and this is the result. They have only themselves to blame.

MCG, day 3

Australia’s day. Yesterday I said India gained an advantage without looking comfortable. Today they looked only a little bit worse and conceded that advantage. The day got off to a terrible start for them, as Dravid was bowled in the first over. This time it was off a legal delivery and left India 214-4. (And fulfilled Geoffery Boycott’s adage of adding two wickets to the score, as they had been 214-2 last night.) It also left them with a new batsman and a nightwatchman at the crease. It’s never a good situation, but Sharma batted with poise and demonstrated why he was given the role. In particular he dealt with the short ball well, but the rest of the Indians apparently weren’t watching and collapsed in a heap. There was some pretty good bowling, but the batting was distinctly ordinary. It was certainly not the work of the pitch, which was still only displaying the bit of nip it had on the first two days. At their nadir India were 259-9, having lost 7-45. In the midst of all this, however, Clarke did something which I thought was odd. Peter Siddle had Laxman caught behind in the 73rd over to make the score 221-5. With the seamers having taken two middle order wickets and a new batsman batting with the nightwatchman Clarke decided to take off a seamer and put on Nathan Lyon. I understand wanting to save the seamers for the new ball, but they were doing fine with the old ball. Clarke could have waited to take the new ball and given his seamers a proper go with their tails up, but he didn’t. It did not cost Australia, but Lyon didn’t get a wicket and he let off some pressure. It was not until Clarke went back to two seamers that a wicket fell and it did so immediately after the bowling change. I’ve never really rated Clarke as a tactician (though he’s better than Ponting) and this was another example. (He also had a deep fine leg to a tailender which is is only acceptable if it’s to catch a top edge which this wasn’t.)

I can’t really say India’s last wicket partnership spared their blushes, they only got the score to 282, but the 23 they put on was the highest of the day for India and the third highest of the innings. It meant that Australia had a very handy looking lead of 51 and just needed to bat well to get themselves into a position where India would be under real pressure. They didn’t, of course. Warner and Cowan went out and appeared to have switched bodies. Warner blocked and left and nudged singles (and actually faced every ball of the first three overs) whilst Cowan hooked one which went for four off the top edge. It was only a matter of time before Warner’s patience ran out, though, and you have to think the Indians knew that. The 27th ball he faced was wide outside off and he dragged it on to his stumps. He had made only five. Cowan went three balls later, but refused to do so in such a way as to support my body switching hypothesis. Instead he played one of his almost trademark (if a debutant can be said to have a trademark) leaves to one that nipped back from outside off. It hit the pad, looked a good shout live and the umpire sent him on his way. It probably was not the greatest shot (or lack thereof) selection, given that nipping off the seam was one of the few things the pitch had been doing pretty consistently. Hawk-Eye showed that the ball was actually missing off by a fraction, but it was so close that one could not blame the umpire. (It was Umpire Erasmus, I think.) Apparently Tom Moody on ESPN Star Sports especially could not blame the umpire, and he spent the next several minutes talking bollocks about batsmen leaving the ball too much. Fortunately Marsh played on a few overs later, giving him the chance to talk about something else instead. (Weirdly, he did not mention that Marsh ought to have left that ball outside off.) Marsh’s dismissal was actually a bit impressive. The ball was quite full and well outside off and I still can’t quite work out how Marsh got it onto leg stump. Clarke then went to a much more orthodox inside edge onto the stumps and it was 27-4.

To put that in perspective, when Australia were bowled out for 98 at this time last year their fourth wicket fell for fifty-odd. Their tail was probably stronger then too, and Ponting and Hussey weren’t looking terminally out of form. (Or at least Hussey wasn’t.) Today though Ponting and Hussey put on a stand of over 100. It was probably worth at least twice that, given the position in which Australia had been, and it served to highlight how good the pitch really was. It did not completely take the game away from India, but the body language of the fielders clearly dropped. If Ponting had kept batting the contest might be all but over now, but he let India back in to the game with a loose shot to a wide delivery from Khan that went straight to gully. Haddin did the same thing shortly thereafter, though to an even wider delivery. Haddin’s dismissal actually pleased me considerably, as I predicted the manner on Twitter about two minutes before it actually happened. Admittedly it isn’t too hard with Haddin, but it was still gratifying. Hussey stuck around with the tail (though was fortunate to be dropped by Dravid off Ashwin) and Australia ended the day 179-8, a lead of 230.

I expect tomorrow to be the last day. Hussey might be able to shepherd the tail a bit, but I can’t see Australia getting too many more. If they do it’ll probably be game over though, as India will be hard pressed to chase anything considerably over 250. Right now it is very, very finely poised. Fielding may turn out to be the difference. Both these sides fielded poorly and ran between the wickets poorly when they were losing to England. Since then Australia look like they have made a concerted effort to improve, but India have not. Ricky Ponting’s fifty came when he hit a ball toward third man that pulled up inside the rope. The fielder (I think it was Sehwag, but it might have been Laxman) pursued it very casually and what ought to have been a three became an all-run four. I doubt Australia will win by that one run, but it is indicative of a difference in attitude which may cost India.

MCG, day two

India are on top, but not in an orthodox way. If you look at the scoreboard you’d say that they are dominating the match. Australia only made 333 and in reply India are 214-3. When a side trail by only 119 with seven wickets in hand they ought to be well on top. India probably are, but they aren’t dominating the game. They’ve looked just a bit off through most of the day. They got a couple of quick wickets at the start, but they couldn’t get the Australian tail out as cheaply as they ought to have. Peter Siddle made 41 but when he was out it was still only 291-8. Pattinson, Hilfenhaus and Lyon conspired to put on another 42 however and lasted almost all the way to lunch.

When India finally did bat they did not look particularly settled. Gambhir made only three in a stand of 22 before edging Hilfenhaus behind. He was batting with Sehwag, so it’s not surprising that he did not dominate the partnership, but Sehwag looked a bit skittish too. He made 67 off 83, but managed to do so without ever looking really settled. This was a far cry from the Sehwag of the subcontinent. (He averages 60.91 on the subcontinent and 37.91 everywhere else.) Only once did I see him middle a ball to the boundary. Most of his aerial drives were leading edges and he was dropped three times. One of those was a pretty inexcusable miss from Haddin, who is not justifying his selection at the moment. Sehwag continually had trouble controlling the ball that came up at his ribs, but it was a fuller one that did for him. It seamed back in, took the inside edge of his drive and went onto middle stump. During all this Rahul Dravid had played in his usual restrained style. He did well, but he did still hang his bat at the odd delivery going away from him. I even saw him chase a wide one. He looked uncomfortable, but not as bad as Sehwag had done. Tendulkar came in to the usual massive (and well deserved) ovation. He almost played the second ball he faced onto his stumps before trying to gift Michael Hussey a wicket just before tea. He failed, as there wasn’t a fielder close enough. (Because it was Michael Hussey bowling the last over before tea to Sachin Tendulkar. I’m surprised Clarke didn’t have everyone on the boundary.)

India looked at their most settled after tea. Clarke seemed to have run out of ideas and Tendulkar started scoring at a run a ball. It was quite fun to watch. He went past his far more senior partner with a selection of picturesque drives. It isn’t original, but he is one of the mot pleasant players to watch. It’s actually a bit frustrating, because I really like him as a batsman and I’ve heard he’s a great bloke in person. The problem is that his fans (or at least the more vocal ones) are some of the most irritating people with whom I have ever interacted. (I mentioned on Twitter that he’s quite like Jesus in that regard.) I never want to hear about his ‘100th 100’. I never want to hear anyone suggest that he’s better than Bradman. Coupled with India’s opposition to the DRS it all makes me want Tendulkar to fail, just to avoid his fans. It’s harsh of me, I know, and I feel bad about it. Still, when he was bowled through the gate for 73 I was very happy to know that those incredibly annoying fans were very sad. (It also made for a good object lesson: Even if you are the best batsman since Hutton you still shouldn’t play across the line when the ball is doing a bit off the seam.)

The day’s play ended shortly thereafter. Tendulkar’s 73 is the highest score in the match so far, though Dravid is 68 not out overnight. Dravid settled in during a lot of Tendulkar’s innings (at one point Clarke brought David Warner on to bowl) but he was bowled off a no-ball by Siddle and after that he went back to looking unsure. It summed up India’s day: Successful without looking comfortable. Australia will have possibly their best chance to bowl tomorrow morning. The first half hour to an hour is always a bit tricky and they’ll have fresh pacemen going against a nightwatchman and an uncertain looking Dravid. Pattinson and Siddle both had fantastic spells today and they are likely to get some rewards if they continue. It will be interesting to see if India can come up with a proper lead, or if they will collapse as they did at Trent Bridge over the summer.

The DRS must be mandatory

I have not always been a supporter of technology in cricket. I’m a traditionalist at heart and love the old fashion notion of walking off stoically even when you’ve had a howler. I was very happy in 2009 that the system was not trialled in a series as important as the Ashes. Subsequent debacles in South Africa and the West Indies ought to have deepened my distrust, but the more I saw it used the happier I became with it. Part of it was just a matter of getting used to it, but also there was the added comfort of knowing that our batsman weren’t going to be given out to a howler at a crucial moment. The poor showing in the 06/07 Ashes was not entirely, or even mostly, down to umpiring decisions, but they played a part. They also started a slide that could have ended Strauss’ career, and England would probably not be as good now without him. It is frustrating for one’s side to get a wicket and have it not be given, but it is more frustrating I think to have a batsman unfairly given out. Even in its early teething problems the DRS leaned more toward keeping batsmen in than giving them out.

The DRS today still isn’t perfect. It never will be, of course, nothing is. HotSpot has trouble detecting faint edges, especially in warmer climates. Sometimes Hawk-Eye gives very odd looking results, and the display could be altered to more adequately reflect the margin of uncertainty. (It is certainly more variable than just ‘half a ball width’.) The manufacturers of HotSpot have already worked to improve their system and Hawk-Eye will improve as cameras get better and better as well. Even if the current technology were as good as it would ever get, however, I would support making it mandatory. Even now it is better than the human umpires. As much as I like Jonathan Agnew, his suggestion that technology not be adopted until it is 100% is silly. Any improvement is a good thing, any time a poor decision is overturned the game is better off for it.

It is also not true to suggest that having the DRS encourages players to disrespect or undermine umpires. In the time when the quality of an umpires decision could not be immediately and independently inspected it was true that players could undermine the umpires by questioning the decision, but that is not the case anymore. Now the umpire is going to be undermined if he makes a poor decision with or without the help of the players. If an umpire gets one wrong everyone in the ground or watching on telly will see the mistake immediately and it will be all over the back pages the next day, undermining him far more effectively than a player ever could. I doubt there is a single umpire in the world who thinks that he never makes a mistake (although I can’t remember the last time I saw Simon Taufel make one) or who would rather have that mistake shown endless times on TV than have it be simply corrected and the game moved on. By the same token it is quite possible to respectfully question a decision. No one is suggesting that players be allowed to crowd around an umpire like footballers (or Australians at the MCG last year).

Although there are purists such as the aforementioned Aggers who oppose the DRS, most of the vocal opposition has come from India. They are the main reason why the ICC has not implemented the DRS full time and they are the only board who still refuse to use it in their series. I have never heard a good explanation for their opposition, apart from the fact that they don’t think the technology is reliable. (Which is patently untrue, otherwise there would not be an option to use it at all.) They certainly aren’t traditionalists or interested in maintaining respect for the umpires. The refused to use the DRS for LBWs in England and it hurt them when Broad took his hat trick at Trent Bridge, but it was worse for England who had a few plumb decisions turned down. Now in Australia they refused any sort of DRS and have got two dodgy wickets for it. It’s probably not going to happen, but the other boards need to force the Indians to use the DRS next time the ICC meet. In the meantime I can only hope that Tendulkar gets a few horrible decisions in this and subsequent series.

Morning at the MCG

As I write this it’s raining at the MCG. It started just before lunch, and we’ll lose almost half of the afternoon session. It’s already been a very good morning, however and there should be a lot about which to talk by the end of the day.

Michael Clarke won the toss at the start of the day and chose to bat on a green wicket. I didn’t, and still don’t, agree with the decision. India’s bowlers are shaky, and there’s every chance that Khan or Sharma will go down with injury at some point in this series. (Sharma looks more likely; Khan, to his credit, looks like he’s in much better shape than when he was in England last summer.) Even if those two do last out the series, a green wicket is probably the best conditions they’ll get in Oz. With Australia’s batting still looking either very inexperienced or very frail it is unwise to give India’s bowlers what would probably be their biggest advantage of the series. A year ago today on a similar (though I think even greener) pitch Australia were bowled out for 98. On the green pitches of England India did not manage to score over 300 in eight innings. If I were in Michael Clarke’s position I would have much rather seen James Pattinson bowling at an Indian batting order that looked unable to play the moving ball in England than an Indian attack probably at their peak bowling at an Australian order who have failed to play the moving ball for four consecutive Tests.

Australia actually had a go at proving me wrong. (And they still might, lots of time left.) Ed Cowan, on debut, and David Warner got off to massively contrasting starts. It wasn’t particularly surprising, Warner being the T20 specialist and Cowan being brought into the side almost specifically because of his patience. At one point Australia were 25-0 with Cowan not out on two. Warner raced to 37 off 49 balls, including a hook for six. He tried to hook a ball that wasn’t really there, however, and was caught behind as it popped up off his glove. Cowan, by contrast, has 29 off 77 as I type this. He kept his nerve when the going was very tough in the morning and kept the innings together after Warner and Marsh went in quick succession. In particular he showed excellent judgement outside his off stump, something badly lacking in the Australian batsmen of recent Tests. Despite this, there were complaints of him being ‘boring’. It’s the same charge that is often levelled at Alastair Cook, who averaged over 80 this year, and is just as ridiculous. In particular I could hardly believe that any Australian would make that complaint. Did they not watch Cook and Trott grind them into the dust last year? Did they not watch their batsmen flash at everything outside off and collapse to 98 all out a year ago, or 47 all out a few months ago. I agree that it is more fun to watch Ian Bell bat than Alastair Cook, but Cook is just as much of a match winner. Australia don’t have an Ian Bell type player, and if they want to start winning Tests again they must embrace Cowan’s style of play.

Australia are now 116-2. The pitch has flattened out and Ponting and Cowan are looking settled. His critics probably won’t mention it, but Ed Cowan’s assuredness may have saved his captain some blushes.

Hilfenhaus plays, Christian doesn’t

Australia have announced their XI for the Boxing Day Test. There’s nothing too surprising in the selection, the XI is Warner, Cowan, Marsh, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Hilfenhaus. I am not convinced the selection of Hilfenhaus was wise, Starc didn’t bowl particularly impressive against the Kiwis, but nor did Hilfenhaus look even competent against England. I don’t think two Tests is really enough to write off Starc, but Hilfenhaus has had plenty of chances. It does look like it might be a ‘six down is all out’ sort of XI, so it’s quite good that they resisted the temptation to play Christian as an all-rounder in place of Shaun Marsh. As well as Warner did against New Zealand and as well as Cowan has done, they are still largely untried at this level. With Hussey and Ponting still looking terminally out of form, only marsh and Clarke inspire any sort of confidence. (And Clarke has been quite mercurial recently.)

The announcement of the XI, whilst not surprising, also made me wonder again why Australia usually announce their starting XI so early. In recent times England have named their XI at the toss. This seems like the best course of action, even when the XI names itself, to wait to see the state of the pitch and any late fitness concerns.

Some friendly advice for Australia

This is a point upon which I touched last night, but now that Australia have announced their squad for the Boxing Day Test I want to go into more detail on it. Specifically I have this bit of advice for John Inverarity and Mickey Arthur: Do not attempt to shore up the bowling by playing one fewer batsman. I know I’m on record as wanting you to fail, but I’m being serious this time. England have been the most successful side in the world over the past two years which is roughly since we started playing just four bowlers. It may not be because we are playing four bowlers (correlation does not imply causation), but it certainly hasn’t been a hindrance. Admittedly, I would actually like Andy Flower to be a bit more flexible about this (since Matt Prior tends to score a shedload of runs and Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan are perfectly good all-rounders we could easily play one fewer batsman; it’s not like we really need all of 710-7 declared), but I think four bowlers will suit you well on Boxing Day.

True, your quicks aren’t as good as Anderson and co, but really only Dale Steyn is that good right now so that’s hardly a criticism of your bowlers. James Pattinson certainly looks very good and the sooner Pat Cummins returns the better, for you. They look like they will form a formidable new ball pairing and Nathan Lyon is a proper world class spinner. Admittedly Siddle, Starc and Hilfenhaus aren’t as good, but they probably don’t need to be. If you watched India over here last summer you will have noticed that their batting occasionally looked a bit suspect. And by ‘occasionally’ I mean ‘anytime the ball was doing more than it does in the subcontinent’. Yes it would be nice if Cummins was fit and if you had a third seamer to match his skill, but you’ve already had Glenn McGrath. Don’t be greedy. Your bowling has not been your problem recently, at least not since the Ashes. Your problem has been your batting, which is why you don’t want to weaken that further to improve your bowling.

Since the start of the previous Ashes series your top seven average a bit over 34. The only countries worse are Bangladesh, the West Indies and New Zealand. England’s top seven average almost sixty in that time, so you are some way off the pace. You’ve certainly made improvements recently; Warner looks good and most of Oz seem willing to canonise you for finally dropping Hughes for Cowan. (Which seems more like a decision that ought to have been a given, but well.) Your middle order does not inspire confidence, however, and the last thing you need is to make it weaker. There is a rumour that you might play Daniel Christian as an all-rounder, but the easiest player for him to replace would be Marsh. Marsh who admittedly has been injured, but who may be the best batsman in the middle order. (It’s either him or Clarke.) Do not do that. If he must play it’s imperative that he replace Ponting or Hussey (where he could not possibly make the batting any weaker), but the wisdom of effectively ending one of their careers for the sake of what is basically an experiment is suspect. I don’t really see that happening anyway, given the support you have given that pair recently.

Ultimately, of course, I won’t mind if you just ignore my advice. You’re being paid to do your job and I’m not, unless you count the revenue I make from ads on this site. Mostly though you’re Australian (or at least working for Australia) and if you lose it doesn’t really bother me. Quite the reverse, actually.

Australia v India preview

I have been reliably informed that the Boxing Day Test at the MCG is the most eagerly anticipated day on the Australian cricket calendar and this year should be particularly good. (For the Aussies, anyway. As far as I’m concerned there is no way it could top last year’s Boxing Day Test.) Last time India came to Australia the hosts were starting to fade and it was only a year before India replaced them at the top of the Test rankings. That series featured one of the most contentious Test matches since the bodyline series and the tour almost ended early. I don’t see this series being quite so heated, though, as both Australia and India are some way from their peaks now. Of the seven Tests they have each played against England and South Africa in the previous 13 months Australia have two wins and four losses and India one win and five losses. Neither records could be seen as flukes either as both have looked distinctly ordinary, especially against England.

Australia have had more selection difficulties than India, though their bowling looks reasonably settled. Ryan Harris is unlikely to have proven his fitness before the start of the Test, so Mitchell Starc looks likely get the nod despite not particularly impressing against the Kiwis. Shane Watson is also struggling with his fitness, and if he cannot bowl it looks like Daniel Christian could replace him in the side. That said, England did very well against India with a four man attack, so it can be done. Given Australia’s batting woes I think it would be wise to lean toward more batting than more bowling, even at the risk of not having enough firepower to bowl out India’s batsmen twice. The big selection choice, however, is that of the batsmen. Phil Hughes has not done anything to encourage selection whilst Ed Cowan has scored a century against some of the Indian squad in the second tour match. This should make the selectors job pretty easy and I don’t see how they could possibly select Hughes over Cowan at this point. It is possible, of course, that Watson will be fit and return to open as he has done recently, but not only is his fitness a major doubt he will probably fit in better down the order. Shaun Marsh may also return to the middle order, and if Daniel Christian does make his debut it will be at the expense of a batsman. Any of them returning would mean that one of Khawaja, Ponting or Hussey will be dropped. The rumours have been that Khawaja will make way for Marsh, with Watson unlikely to be fit.

(Edited to add: Cricket Australia named a thirteen man squad for the first test and omitted Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja in favour of Ed Cowan and Shaun Marsh. Ben Hilfenhaus has also been added, slightly oddly. The balance of the side is still in question, but it looks very likely that Ed Cowan will open.)

India also have injury worries, with Ishant Sharma having bowled only 5.3 overs in the first warmup match and taking no part in the second. Zaheer Khan is always a worry and he missed the first warmup match, though with no specific scare. India seem to be trying to reprise their preparations for the tour of England last summer and I think they’ll continue to get the same results if they do not take the tour matches seriously. Yadav did bowl well in the first warmup match, but that was not against a testing batting order. India are helped by the fact that their top seven select themselves; barring injury, Gambhir through Dhoni are all a guarantee. Ashwin will certainly be the first choice spinner and if fit Khan, Sharma and Yadav will be the three seamers. The ‘if fit’ is a major caveat though and there doesn’t appear to be a clear replacement if one of the first choice bowlers goes down. Although their first XI is much more settled than Australia’s they are also a lot more mercurial. Their batsmen are ageing and cannot be relied upon to make the scores they once did (as we saw in England) and the fitness of their bowling is very suspect. If all their players fire they are a side worthy of challenging for number one in the world. If not we get the 0-4 that we saw in England.

The two sides complement each other well; India are strongest batting and Australia are strongest bowling. I think the series will be decided by India’s batsmen. If they can dominate Australia’s young bowlers they stand a good chance of winning, but if they fail as they did in England they will find the going very difficult. I don’t see either side dominating the other and I think the Australian’s home field advantage will allow them to shade it 2-1.

Australia unknown XI v Indian out of form XI

The Indian touring party to Australia finished a two day warmup match yesterday. One could be forgiven for not having noticed this. With the Big Bash League having already started the XI against whom the Indians played (the Cricket Australia Chairman’s Invitational XI) was comprised entirely of players who weren’t contracted to play T20. With Ed Cowan having to miss the match for that same rather foolish reason (Jarrod Kimber wrote a good takedown of the decision in Cricinfo) there wasn’t a lot to interest a neutral spectator, such as myself. I had not heard of any of the players in the Chairman’s XI before now, though I certainly don’t have an in depth knowledge of Australian cricket, and it hardly looked intimidating. Still, a players-who-weren’t-good-stroke-famous-enough-to-play-in-a-fairly-experimental-T20-league XI should not have presented much of a challenge. With that in mind, Australia ought to be quite pleased with the result.

Although not a lot of the order made runs, the fact that the third wicket put on 226 will certainly throw up red flags for India. They fielded what would probably be considered their first choice bowling attack minus for Zaheer Khan, but they still conceded 398-6. Ishant Sharma bowled only five and a half overs in the innings, as he is nursing a sore ankle. He injured the ankle in England and with India’s busy schedule it has not been repaired. Australia have had a lot of trouble with the swinging ball (to say the least) and if Sharma cannot play a full part in the series it will be a big blow to India. Yadav was their best bowler in the match, but we saw with Praveen Kumar in England last summer that one man cannot carry the attack. The drawback for the Aussies is that the Indian batsmen mostly seemed in good nick, but with the Chairman’s XI bowling being as anonymous as the batting I don’t think too much can be read into that score.