Reflections on defeat

Tuesday 21 December 2010

As promised, here are some further reflections on England's defeat in the 3rd Test: 1. Even though this is one of the better England cricket teams of modern times - a team which is also very professionally coached and generally well captained - there always seems to be one match in a Test series in which the team does not perform to its own high standards. This happened at home against Australia in 2009 (bowled out for 102 on the first day at Headingley, losing by an innings and 80 runs) and once again only four months ago against a poor Pakistan side (lost by 4 wickets at the Oval). Both matches were characterised by batting collapses similar to those experienced in Perth. The key point is that in both cases the team was able to bounce back straight away by winning the following game. There is no reason why this should not be the case again here. 2. There is no doubt that the Perth wicket suited Australia far more than England - and always has done on previous tours. The four Aussie fast bowlers consistently recorded speeds of 140 km/h whereas England's three seamers were generally nearer 130. Regularly achieving 10 km/h more on a fast bouncy wicket can make a huge difference at this level. Moreover, the potency of England's world class spinner Graeme Swann appeared to be negated by the surface - to the extent that he was barely used during Australia's second innings. Neither Melbourne nor Sydney are likely to provide surfaces which are as fast or bouncy as Perth - whatever the last ditch efforts of the groundsmen to favour the home side. 3. In Test cricket it is a truism that three days of good performances can be undone by an hour or so of poor play. But England's problem in Perth was that they delivered numerous passages of play, each of which could have lost them a tight Test match. I counted at least six: - letting Australia reach 268 on Day 1 after winning the toss and reducing them to 68 for 5 - collapsing from 78 for 0 to 98 for 5 in a crazy hour before lunch on Day 2 - after a partial recovery to 181 for 6, losing their last four wickets for only 6 runs - making it so easy for Watson and Hussey to put the match all but out of England's reach on Day 3 - collapsing again at the end of Day 3 to 81 for 5 after the bowlers had given England a sniff of a chance - capitulating embarrassingly in only 45 minutes on Day 4 to be bowled out in a pitiful 37 overs.

While this is not a silver bullet, I fully agree with the clamour for Ian Bell to bat higher than number six at Melbourne - a straight swap with Paul Collingwood at five looks to be the least disruptive solution. Comments please.

[Original comments]

Glenn December 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I find myself in the very strange position of agreeing with almost everything you say - must be too much Glühwein!!

However, I say "almost" as I am concerned about the switch to the faster track in Melbourne... I wonder how "last minute" this is, or whether it was always part of a cunning plan. Of course, that would imply clever tactics from Australians - so maybe you're right after all ;)