As far as this summer’s Great Cricketing Menu is concerned, cooked up by the English Cricket Board, we’re almost through the first course – the desultory Test and one-day matches with the West Indies. It looked appetising and turned out to be underdone. Next comes the rather fishy 20 overs World Cup (for almost a whole month all major cricket in England is going to be played in this most limited of limited overs’ format. I wonder how many of us will finish what’s set upon our plates?) Thereafter follows the sumptuous main course – the Test series versus Australia, and lastly what may well be a tedious dessert – seven one day internationals against the same opponents. If we’re well and truly on the losing side by then, expect a lot of sickness and vomiting.
Viewed from a distance, my American friends, this intense sporting rivalry between England and Australia must seem parochial and perhaps even a trifle forced. It’s not only about cricket, although it is chiefly so. Equally high passions can be induced on the rugby field. In swimming the Australians assume they’re much better – which they are. In track and field and field hockey the two nations are evenly matched. In tennis, we’re both weak – the Australians surprisingly so. In football (soccer) the Aussies are also-rans in world terms. They always have been bar a brief flourishing about ten years ago.
The shameful thing is – there are three times as many of us as there are of them, which tells you a lot about attitudes to sport in the two nations, and perhaps also a little about the respective climates. It’s rather slack stereotyping to say that the sunshine makes Australians outgoing and ebullient, and that our cold and rain makes us huddled and withdrawn, but there often appears to be an element of truth in that. The average Australian sportsperson isn’t given to understatement in respect of their own superhuman potential and the incredible goofiness of the opponent. We English have been known to be unconvincing once out of our own specialist field of self-deprecation. There may be interesting questions of genetics to be discussed – the convict issue is one which is always likely to surface at moments of high alcohol consumption. But in fact both countries have benefited from immigration. In this Australian team there’s a Hauritz and a Hilfenhaus, and Di Venuto and Dimattina have, amongst many others, provided a touch of the exotic to the sound of their domestic cricket rosters. Often it’s only people of gumption who get up to move to the opposite end of the world. And you can’t go much further than Australia. Culturally of course the poor dears will always be challenged, for this precise reason – which is why it matters so desperately to excel at sport, I guess. Loss of empire is usually our excuse.
I’ll leave you to read elsewhere the much documented and quaint story of how cricket matches between the two countries came to be known as a contest for ‘The Ashes’. If you like Beefeaters and royalty, you guys will love it. It’s a useful reminder in times of stress that the essence of sport is the trivium at its heart.
Suffice it to say, there’s a great deal of anticipation here and there about this sporting contest. We surprisingly beat the Australians in 2005, in a series of such nail-biting tension that many of us were regularly cowering behind our sofas, gibbering. It was possibly the best series of five Test Matches ever. Possibly the most exciting sport ever. England thought they might do well in Australia two years later, and were done up like a kipper. In public relations and playing terms it was a near disaster. This time the two teams are said to be neck and neck. It’s proposed that we have some exciting talent, while they are restructuring. I don’t agree, and fear a nasty surprise awaits anyone who thinks this will even be close, although like everyone else I’m hoping something of the spirit of ’05 can live again. Apart from anything else the camaraderie displayed between some of the principal actors was good to see. Expect no repeat of that this time out.
The Australian team for the first Test in Cardiff is likely to be as follows, in batting order: Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Johnson, Lee, Hauritz, and either Hilfenhaus or Clark (the former for my money).
The obvious weakness is the lack of a top-class spin bowler. Hauritz is a tall off-spinner (that is, he spins it into the right hand bat from the off or right-hand side). His height enables him to get bounce when the pitch is hard, but it’s difficult to see him as a major threat. For this reason, even at Cardiff where the pitch may be more conducive to spin than elsewhere (although there may be an element of disinformation about that!), the Australians may decide not to play Hauritz. Spin support will supposedly come from Michael Clarke’s orthodox left arm twirlers, which need to be taken seriously and Katich’s box of unorthodox assorted, which really don’t.
Their quick bowling is the worry. This time Mitchell Johnson will provide the shock and awe, a role formerly played by the once super-quick Brett Lee. Johnson has the additional weapon of being a left-arm bowler, and very fast left-armers are rare. The only one in recent memory was Pakistan’s Wasim Akram, a very different sort of proposition to Johnson. Akram had an incredibly fast arm, and even off a very short run was capable of devastating speed which must have appeared to the batsman to come from nowhere. Johnson isn’t yet in Akram’s league, but still expect speeds in the middle nineties once the weather warms up, and together with the awkward angles he generates this spells danger, particularly for the likes of right-handers Bopara and Pietersen who tend to play across the line. Lee is now a more mature bowler, a little less quick, but perhaps more subtle. I like the look of Hilfenhaus very much indeed. He has good pace, and swings the ball late away from the right-handed batter. His action reminds me of Ian Botham and in England he may prove to be the trump card. Stuart Clark has proven success in England behind him, and if the pitches are in any way green (which would suit the English bowlers) he’ll be a handful too. Watson is a useful fifth seamer with points to prove. If Lee is crocked (and there must be doubts that he’ll last the summer) Peter Siddle is a promising replacement.
Haddin isn’t the best wicket-keeper I’ve seen, but he’s adequate, and his batting has often kept an under-performing Australia afloat over the last year. Like the English the Australians sport two left-handed opening batsmen – which isn’t ideal (better to have one right-hander and one left-hander to confuse the bowlers’ lines of attack). Katich is having a renaissance, but may be vulnerable. Hughes, as previously billed, is the one to watch this time round. Ponting is world-class as a batsman, if not as a captain. Get him early or you suffer. Clarke is due a better tour than last time. Hussey is a formidable accumulator. I back him to score a double-hundred sometime in the series. Seven or eight years ago I saw him compile 329 for Northamptonshire, and was in awe of the fact that at that time he couldn’t make the Australian team. He went on and on batting, with no seeming weakness. If Watson gets going he can be destructive. All the Australians know how to bat. All have resilience. Often they will be five wickets down cheaply, and still manage a good score. Johnson’s recent record is as good as any top-order batsman.
On the English side, I fear a weakness of character which will lead to batting collapses at significant moments. There are signs that the bowling is acquiring the penetration required to work their way through the Australian batting, but it requires a fully fit Flintoff to apply pressure while Anderson and Broad get the wickets. In 2005 it took four quality England quicks to undo the Aussies, and I don’t know where the fourth is going to come from this time – Onions (perhaps?) Bresnan ( no!) Sidebottom (might have done 18 months ago, but has lost form). Then, dear God, we’re down to the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood. So if Flintoff doesn’t recover quickly we’re in trouble. And paradoxically his presence creates a weakness in the batting line-up. I hope in all the great efforts to get his body ready to hurl down 90 mph thunderbolts, the coaches don’t neglect the fact that if he plays we need a minimum 250+ runs from him during the series.
In an alternative universe, the English would prepare pitches where the ball bounced and spun from day 1 of each Test match, and Swann and Panesar would repeatedly expose the Australian batting in an area where they were unable to respond. And there goes another little pink pig floating past my window…
2-1 or 3-1 to Australia. Reach for the indigestion tablets, folks.
Viewed from a distance, my American friends, this intense sporting rivalry between England and Australia must seem parochial and perhaps even a trifle forced. It’s not only about cricket, although it is chiefly so. Equally high passions can be induced on the rugby field. In swimming the Australians assume they’re much better – which they are. In track and field and field hockey the two nations are evenly matched. In tennis, we’re both weak – the Australians surprisingly so. In football (soccer) the Aussies are also-rans in world terms. They always have been bar a brief flourishing about ten years ago.
The shameful thing is – there are three times as many of us as there are of them, which tells you a lot about attitudes to sport in the two nations, and perhaps also a little about the respective climates. It’s rather slack stereotyping to say that the sunshine makes Australians outgoing and ebullient, and that our cold and rain makes us huddled and withdrawn, but there often appears to be an element of truth in that. The average Australian sportsperson isn’t given to understatement in respect of their own superhuman potential and the incredible goofiness of the opponent. We English have been known to be unconvincing once out of our own specialist field of self-deprecation. There may be interesting questions of genetics to be discussed – the convict issue is one which is always likely to surface at moments of high alcohol consumption. But in fact both countries have benefited from immigration. In this Australian team there’s a Hauritz and a Hilfenhaus, and Di Venuto and Dimattina have, amongst many others, provided a touch of the exotic to the sound of their domestic cricket rosters. Often it’s only people of gumption who get up to move to the opposite end of the world. And you can’t go much further than Australia. Culturally of course the poor dears will always be challenged, for this precise reason – which is why it matters so desperately to excel at sport, I guess. Loss of empire is usually our excuse.
I’ll leave you to read elsewhere the much documented and quaint story of how cricket matches between the two countries came to be known as a contest for ‘The Ashes’. If you like Beefeaters and royalty, you guys will love it. It’s a useful reminder in times of stress that the essence of sport is the trivium at its heart.
Suffice it to say, there’s a great deal of anticipation here and there about this sporting contest. We surprisingly beat the Australians in 2005, in a series of such nail-biting tension that many of us were regularly cowering behind our sofas, gibbering. It was possibly the best series of five Test Matches ever. Possibly the most exciting sport ever. England thought they might do well in Australia two years later, and were done up like a kipper. In public relations and playing terms it was a near disaster. This time the two teams are said to be neck and neck. It’s proposed that we have some exciting talent, while they are restructuring. I don’t agree, and fear a nasty surprise awaits anyone who thinks this will even be close, although like everyone else I’m hoping something of the spirit of ’05 can live again. Apart from anything else the camaraderie displayed between some of the principal actors was good to see. Expect no repeat of that this time out.
The Australian team for the first Test in Cardiff is likely to be as follows, in batting order: Katich, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Watson, Haddin, Johnson, Lee, Hauritz, and either Hilfenhaus or Clark (the former for my money).
The obvious weakness is the lack of a top-class spin bowler. Hauritz is a tall off-spinner (that is, he spins it into the right hand bat from the off or right-hand side). His height enables him to get bounce when the pitch is hard, but it’s difficult to see him as a major threat. For this reason, even at Cardiff where the pitch may be more conducive to spin than elsewhere (although there may be an element of disinformation about that!), the Australians may decide not to play Hauritz. Spin support will supposedly come from Michael Clarke’s orthodox left arm twirlers, which need to be taken seriously and Katich’s box of unorthodox assorted, which really don’t.
Their quick bowling is the worry. This time Mitchell Johnson will provide the shock and awe, a role formerly played by the once super-quick Brett Lee. Johnson has the additional weapon of being a left-arm bowler, and very fast left-armers are rare. The only one in recent memory was Pakistan’s Wasim Akram, a very different sort of proposition to Johnson. Akram had an incredibly fast arm, and even off a very short run was capable of devastating speed which must have appeared to the batsman to come from nowhere. Johnson isn’t yet in Akram’s league, but still expect speeds in the middle nineties once the weather warms up, and together with the awkward angles he generates this spells danger, particularly for the likes of right-handers Bopara and Pietersen who tend to play across the line. Lee is now a more mature bowler, a little less quick, but perhaps more subtle. I like the look of Hilfenhaus very much indeed. He has good pace, and swings the ball late away from the right-handed batter. His action reminds me of Ian Botham and in England he may prove to be the trump card. Stuart Clark has proven success in England behind him, and if the pitches are in any way green (which would suit the English bowlers) he’ll be a handful too. Watson is a useful fifth seamer with points to prove. If Lee is crocked (and there must be doubts that he’ll last the summer) Peter Siddle is a promising replacement.
Haddin isn’t the best wicket-keeper I’ve seen, but he’s adequate, and his batting has often kept an under-performing Australia afloat over the last year. Like the English the Australians sport two left-handed opening batsmen – which isn’t ideal (better to have one right-hander and one left-hander to confuse the bowlers’ lines of attack). Katich is having a renaissance, but may be vulnerable. Hughes, as previously billed, is the one to watch this time round. Ponting is world-class as a batsman, if not as a captain. Get him early or you suffer. Clarke is due a better tour than last time. Hussey is a formidable accumulator. I back him to score a double-hundred sometime in the series. Seven or eight years ago I saw him compile 329 for Northamptonshire, and was in awe of the fact that at that time he couldn’t make the Australian team. He went on and on batting, with no seeming weakness. If Watson gets going he can be destructive. All the Australians know how to bat. All have resilience. Often they will be five wickets down cheaply, and still manage a good score. Johnson’s recent record is as good as any top-order batsman.
On the English side, I fear a weakness of character which will lead to batting collapses at significant moments. There are signs that the bowling is acquiring the penetration required to work their way through the Australian batting, but it requires a fully fit Flintoff to apply pressure while Anderson and Broad get the wickets. In 2005 it took four quality England quicks to undo the Aussies, and I don’t know where the fourth is going to come from this time – Onions (perhaps?) Bresnan ( no!) Sidebottom (might have done 18 months ago, but has lost form). Then, dear God, we’re down to the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood. So if Flintoff doesn’t recover quickly we’re in trouble. And paradoxically his presence creates a weakness in the batting line-up. I hope in all the great efforts to get his body ready to hurl down 90 mph thunderbolts, the coaches don’t neglect the fact that if he plays we need a minimum 250+ runs from him during the series.
In an alternative universe, the English would prepare pitches where the ball bounced and spun from day 1 of each Test match, and Swann and Panesar would repeatedly expose the Australian batting in an area where they were unable to respond. And there goes another little pink pig floating past my window…
2-1 or 3-1 to Australia. Reach for the indigestion tablets, folks.
