Well my heart rate has just about returned to normal following the thrilling finish to the Trent Bridge Test on Sunday. It truly was a wonderful match, encapsulating pretty much everything that is good about the modern game: fast scoring rates, capable lower order batting and a tendency for players to really wear their emotions on their sleeves. Comparisons with Edgbaston 2005 are wholly justified. As was the case eight years ago, I was in the middle of a match myself during the final throes of the tensest of Tests. I remember that day that no-one was paying any attention to our under 15s fixture, not even those who were on the field of play! The rest of us crowded round a tiny TV in the pavilion, nails shortening by the minute. Such was the effectiveness of Brett Lee and Michael Kasprowicz’s resistance that there was time for my match to finish, my kit to be hastily thrown into my bag, my dad to drive me (probably also quite hastily) home with TMS crackling through on Radio 4 LW and me to perch myself on the very edge of a living room chair, eyes transfixed on the much missed Ashes coverage on Channel 4 before England were able to claw themselves over the line.
It may be that I’m eight years older (and probably four years more mature), or that England are no longer weighed down by the dreadful Ashes record that preceded the 2005 win or even that England’s victory margin was seven times more comfortable, but for me Sunday didn’t conjure quite the same level of do-or-die, all-encompassing excitement as that fateful day did. What Sunday did do, however, was round off in spectacular fashion just about the perfect Test match.
It seemed to me that just about everything exciting that can happen in cricket, happened during the Trent Bridge Test. The only thing missing was probably a hat trick, although there were three opportunities for one in the game, so we can’t feel too hard done by. It is said that the best cricket occurs when the ball is slightly superior to the bat, and I feel that was the case here. Although conditions weren’t particularly helpful, and no batter covered themselves in glory for either side in the first innings, we did witness two superb displays of fast bowling from the under-rated Peter Siddle and the superlative James Anderson. These two showcased their craft at the highest quality and must be commended for it. Siddle is more known for his heart and Anderson for his skill, but each proved they had plenty of both. Two deliveries stick in the memory. Siddle’s perfectly pitched yorker to castle a well set Joe Root probably hasn’t received as much praise as it should. Perhaps if it was a Kevin Pietersen or an Alastair Cook that it dismissed then it might have, but it was a special ball produced when it was needed. Anderson surpassed that however, when Australia batted. The Burnley Express is capable of bowling magic balls with reasonable regularity and two stick in the memory. One a comprehensive cleaning up of the hapless VVS Laxman on India’s last tour here, the other an embarrassment of the unfortunate, and perennial pub quiz tie-breaker answer, Australian stand-in wicket-keeper Graham Manou during the 2009 Ashes. His dismissal of Michael Clarke however, raised the bar even higher. Not just for the quality of the batter in question, but the narrower the margins involved. Clarke appeared to be covering all angles with his competent looking defensive push, but Anderson managed to sneak to ball past so it just shaved the off stump. A terrific delivery and one that will surely been replayed time and time again, in Anderson’s dreams and Clarke’s nightmares.
Although from a personal point of view, I relished this spectacle of skilful fast bowling more, the major talking point following the match was the meteoric rise out of the blue of Ashton Agar. The teenager’s debut innings was a perfectly scripted story within a perfectly scripted story. His team’s innings was in tatters as he walked to the crease, yet he set about batting with the nerveless enjoyment that perhaps can only be there on a player’s debut. As he began to get into his stride and play some accomplished proper cricket shots I was put in mind of a club game. Not because of the standard of cricket, but the gradual realisation that this young lad coming in at number 11 could bat, and bat well. Joyous would be the one word I would sum his innings up with. Even when he was tragically but perfectly out on 98, he allowed himself a smile that was tinged with only the tiniest bit of regret. Whether Agar goes on to have a successful career or disappears like the legion of Australia spinners before him he will always be remembered for that innings that displayed the best qualities youth can bring to the art of batting.
The events of last week gave us a real box office start to this year of Ashes cricket and we would be foolish not to expect that tomorrow’s second Test at Lord’s will continue in the same vein. Although Trent Bridge answered plenty of questions, most notably the one of whether or not Australia will be competitive, it also threw up many additional questions of its own.
For England, it is a question concerned with selection, and it is a tricky one to answer. Steven Finn’s place as the third seamer is certainly in a lot of jeopardy. We saw the best and the worst of Finn in the first Test. In his first spell in Australia’s first innings he looked at his unplayable best, steaming in, bowling at pace in the right areas and proving himself a genuine wicket-taking threat. In contrast, his final spell of the match was two overs of the worst panicky, rabbit-in-the-headlights type of bowling synonymous with many a young England seamer thrown in at the deep end in the 90s. When a player is struggling, normally the problems have their roots in one or more of the four key coaching areas: physical, mental, tactical and technical. Finn is physically in excellent shape and, whereas a fair few people have criticised Finn’s technique pointing to his infamous and now hopefully forgotten habit of kicking the stumps over, for me his technique is fine and the primary reason for his struggles is a real lack of confidence. It may be that England are using his attributes wrongly in their bowling plans, but whatever line and length he is attempting to bowl, he doesn’t seem to run in with any conviction. Surely then, if that is the issue, the best way to fix it would be to show faith in him by giving him a starting spot tomorrow and to drop him would be to further dent his already visibly diminished self-belief.
A factor firmly in Finn’s favour is the venue for the second Test. Not only is Lord’s his home ground, but his record there is impressive for both Middlesex and England. When a bowler is feeling under the pump, how comfortable he feels playing at a ground takes on greater significance. The two possible replacements for Finn are Tim Bresnan and Graham Onions, who both have contrasting records at Lord’s. Although he is perceived to be the favourite to replace Finn, Bresnan’s record is pretty dismal whereas Onions’ is very reasonable indeed. Understandable when the bowling styles of the three are considered. Onions and Finn rely more on seam movement, something which the Lord’s slope assists greatly, whereas Bresnan’s forte is swing. His batting shouldn’t be a factor in the decision, given the strength of England’s top six and the inevitable presence of Broad and Graeme Swann in the lower order. Both Onions and Bresnan have clearly been affected by injuries, but the vibe is that England trust Bresnan more, perhaps due to his contributions to the one day team. It doesn’t help that Onion’s last England appearance was a pretty chastening one at the hand of the West Indies last year.
One additional knock on effect of dropping Finn is that, with England losing his pace and bounce, it may be that the team will look to Stuart Broad to alter his bowling to replicate that of Finn. They like having variety in their attack and, regardless of whether it be Bresnan or Onions who comes in, it wouldn’t be a like for like replacement, although Bresnan’s natural length is perhaps similar. Therefore the fact that England haven’t included the likes of Chris Tremlett or Boyd Rankin in their squad may be a concealed hint that Finn will retain his place, or that may be reading too much into it. Back to the Broad issue, the enforcer role is one that he has attempted manfully in the past, but it is abundantly clear that not only is he definitely not suited to it, but he is often potent when he pitches the ball up looking for swing. Whether consciously or sub-consciously, I can envisage Broad being drawn to that back-of-a-length length in the absence of Finn, and it being to his, and England’s detriment.
In my opinion, it is worth persisting with Finn on his home ground. He may be slightly mercurial at the moment, which isn’t ideal in a four man attack, but the Lord’s factor swings it in his favour for me. There is a perception around that every Yorkshireman wants Bresnan in the team come what may, but this isn’t true. I, along with the GLY (Greatest Living Yorkshireman) Geoff Boycott, would rather Onions come into the team if Finn were to be dropped, his superior record at Lord’s and his better suited bowling style being the deciding factors here. In truth, I believe England won’t go along with me, as well they might. I expect Finn to be dropped in favour of Bresnan. They like to put out in the media that they aren’t a ruthless team in terms of selection, but that masks the truth somewhat in my opinion. Just ask Monty Panesar, Nick Compton, James Taylor and arguably Onions himself. The bowling coach David Saker has always had very apparent reservations, or maybe frustrations, about Finn for whatever reason and he will perhaps be more vulnerable to the chop than the norm whilst Saker is there.
For Australia, it has once again been off the field events that have dominated their preparations, but as I said in my last post, it is the cricket itself that will be of the only concern in this series. Selection-wise, the only player at real risk is Ed Cowan, who was disappointing at Trent Bridge. For me, it is not a question of whether he belongs in the team, just that fact that he is not a number three. That position is arguably the most important in the batting line up and Cowan isn’t suited to it. I would personally move him up to open and drop Chris Rogers into the crucial number three spot. Cowan would be more comfortable in his usual opener’s role, it would give Australia a handy left right hand combination at the top of the order, and with Rogers having played plenty of cricket at Lord’s with Middlesex, a move one place down shouldn’t affect him greatly. Again, I don’t believe this will happen, as Australia very deliberately set out their stall before the series by naming their opening pair. To change it one match into the series would be a rare admission of a mistake by an international cricket team.