KF on the Ashes 2010-11: (Part 4)- World Domination Beckons

[KF's final commentary on the 2010-11 Ashes]

Having identified from my couch by the end of the 4^th Test that the two things you didn’t want to do in this series was win the toss or bat first, I near choked on my midnight Pimms when Michael Clarke foolishly won the toss and then batted at Sydney. Strewth. When the boat is fast taking in water, you can do without the skipper merrily urinating in the bailing bucket. An atrocious start for Australia’s captain-elect which was compounded when England went on to clobber their biggest ever (EVER) total down under. It’s obviously not all Clarke’s fault but first impressions count apparently. Like the whole series for Australia, it could have been worse, but not much.

Electing to bat in conditions English bowlers can usually only dream of, in no time the hapless hosts were 189-8 and in all sorts of disrepair. As usual, this was down to a mix of Australian inconsistency and English consistency. However, while sticking to a successful field plan for the ‘recognised’ batsmen, Strauss almost collaborated with the Australian tail opening up large gaps and failing to attack in any sense. Johnson & Hilfenhaus made hay while the sun shone.

Strauss appears to be a top class captain for England as an opening bat, an ambassador and man-to-man, but to me his biggest weakness is his ultra conservative tactical intransigence. It allows situations to be wrested from England’s control when a much more positive approach is called for and would surely do no worse. While it ultimately made no difference to the outcome in this match, the difference between say 195-10 and the actual 1^st innings total of 280 shows an area where Strauss needs to seriously improve. Another example I’d suggest is his use of Swann, which at times appears to me to be more like he’s tried everything else and now it’s the spinners turn, rather than thinking of Swann as a genuine attacking option.

One big positive for Australia in a sea of negatives was the first impression from Khawaja. Australia’s crackpot selectors only decided to ask the debutant to fill the shoes of some hacker called Ponting and save the series. Despite this idiocy (why not move Clarke & Hussey up one and ease Khawaja in a bit more?) his attitude showed no signs of inhibition. But worryingly in the short term, he looks to have as many Achilles heels as Hughes when examined closely by the relentless England attack. Both these Aussie ‘youngsters’ need work and if they’re able to shore up the leaky defensive shortcomings and develop like I’m sure they will, they look really sensational when they’re attacking and if you’re Australian, neutral or just pro-cricket, promise to shine very brightly in future. The reversal in Alastair Cook’s fortunes is as far as they need to look for inspiration.

While football still holds out against the inevitable introduction of ‘video technology’ I find it interesting to watch the ongoing development of its use in cricket. What can’t be questioned is that more correct decisions are being made which is brilliant. But there is still a bit of controversy. You may have heard Sir Beefy calling Hughes a cheat for claiming a catch when the ball was shown to have bounced first. A couple of things here. First, pre-technology Hughes/Australia may have been awarded the catch and history may have unfolded differently (if only the DRS was in place when Kasprowicz was incorrectly given out in that 2005 cliffhanger at Birmingham with 2 runs needed to go 2-0 up with 3 to play in a series England ultimately won 2-1). But now, all players know that they are under the scrutiny of hotspot, hawkeye and super slo-mo and therefore if they claim something they know to be wrong, the 3^rd umpires decision will be along in a minute to expose them on the big screen to the whole crowd. In time, I’m sure the use of ‘technology’ will force players to play more fairly, a process I think has already started. Surely a good thing. Bottom line is that more correct decisions are being made, games aren’t being spoiled by howlers from the umpires and players are in the main being forced to be more honest or being exposed when they aren’t (the sooner its in the East League the better…).

Secondly, for England or Sir Ian to throw cheating accusations is very rich. Suppose England appeal for an LBW and the umpire says not out. Then England don’t review the decision, as has happened on many occasions, why were they actually appealing? If they think its out, appeal and if it’s not given, review it. Otherwise I’d suggest appealing for a wicket when you don’t think its out is cheating also. Or what about Ian Bell being asked by Nasser Hussein “yes or no, did you nick it” referring to the hotspot/snicko anomaly that got Bell off the hook after being given out caught behind. A hundred word answer followed that didn’t include the words ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Hussein persevered asking if Bell had heard a sound. “There may have been a sound” he replied. Beyond reasonable doubt I’d say he nicked it and knew it but decided to review (or as Sir Ian might say cheat) it purely because it was a free review (somewhat undermining my argument about increasing honesty, but when a review can be called for is one of the ongoing aspects of the DRS evolution).

Another area where England have massively poo’d all over Australia is in the realm of luck. To pick one example, Alastair Cook holing out on 46, giving Beer his first Test scalp, before Silly Bowden asked upstairs whither the Beer ball was a no ball. A further 143 Lazarean runs were consequently pocketed by the Ozzies arch slayer. Prior benefited similarly at Melbourne. Various Aussies have been grumbling including all time leading chunterer Glenn McGrath. Whatever the ins and outs, the grey areas in the process etc, fact is, they were no balls, the batsmen weren’t out and the correct decision was reached. When you’re generally better, you’re generally luckier. How lucky England have been at times, I don’t think I can even recall the Aussies being lucky once, is yet another illustration if any were needed that England have been so much better in this series than their hosts (as I was trying to convince you Shifters in the St Vincent after 2 Tests (3 innings defeat FFS)).

Lastly, if you haven’t seen it I’d suggest you look at Will Swanton’s (anagram Wanton Swill) unerringly incorrect Ashes preview entitled 10 Reasons Why Australia Will Win The Ashes. I’ve been heckled before for not making more predictions, this is what happens when you do!!!!