Pick me?

Apparently the Cricket Australia board has been asking questions of the selectors. Has this been leaked to the media to distract from the fact it was the administrators who forced the selectors to announce a squad a week earlier than they wanted to today.

Maybe we've all got the wrong end of the stick, though. Will Sutherland and Hilditch come out with a joint press conference tomorrow?

Sutherland: I know you all thought the new look Ryobi OD Cup was an overly ambitious attempt to change the face of day-long cricket and get a head start for 2015, but in bringing back the 12 player idea, we were actually working towards an agreement for the Ashes. We're still hoping to get a good reply from the ECB, but we're sure the public will love seeing more of the favourite players in the Baggy Green.

Hilditch: We believe we've chosen a great team for a 17-a-side match. Great batting lineup with Haddin coming in at 9. With Johnson, four full-time pacers, Smith and two more spinners with no batting to think of, as well as Watson, North, Clarke and Katich, no captain could possibly run out ideas. Isn't that right, Ricky? This team will really test the English depth.

Putting the Ashes to rest

This was a series which drew interest because of a long history and the fact that neither side was dominant. The cricket itself was a succession of bat-fests, interspersed with some short spells of impressive bowling and/or poor batting which made up the few severe first innings collapses which almost completely decided the fate of the urn. This is the pattern of a lot of international cricket recently, simply adding evidence for the idea that the last ten years has not seen a glut of strong batsmen, but a lack of quality bowlers and/or good conditions for bowling.

Hilfenhaus and Strauss had a good series. Swann did his job. Batsmen such as Clarke and North did well, but mostly when matches were virtually decided. Watson coped well with opening, but doesn't seem a realistic part of future plans in that position, and given that he was in the squad as fix-all, his time with the ball counts against him. Flintoff did enough to have a positive farewell, even if he is still as annoying as ever.

There are calls for Ricky's head. Some have quite rightly pointed out that he isn't really to blame for the result. I don't see why the calls increase after this second Ashes defeat. A captain aims to win, but can only be judged on how well they get the best out of their team and the opportunities afforded. There were enough reasons to question whether Ponting was the best man for this job well before Australia started the recent string of losses. I'm not talking about the trouble in January 08 - the claim that this years' Aussies are 'nicer' doesn't let him off on the basic cricketing aspects of captaincy. Neither does the suggestion that he has done better when given players more suited to his leadership, as in South Africa. Either choose the captain who is best able to lead any of the whole teams he is likely to be part of, or choose a captain indepedently for each series. Picking a skipper and then basing a team round him has, rightly in my opinion, not been the Australian way, whatever occurs in other parts.

The only thing going for Ponting is that it is not the Australian way to play ex-captains, either. This can afford to change. He is not to blame for this loss, but he still isn't the best captain the team could have. The umpires are also not to blame - they were far from perfect, but neither were they particularly one-sided. Brett Lee's injury probably had more impact, and that is not blamable, but simply points to a lack of depth. The selection decisions, on the other hand, have both been questionable almost as long as Ponting's and have played a big part in the last couple of months.

One group of people, for me, did stand out. They weren't on the field, but I very much enjoyed MMM on SBS. Stuey, Mo and Damo were refreshing insightful without being too serious. I came to this conclusion even before they managed to include all my favourite main points when discussing the state of umpiring, and it was probably helped by the fact that I didn't hear the expected self-selection suggestions from Mo until the final day!

Ashes to phoenix, phoenix to dust

Overheard conversation:

"Are you celebrating?"

"Yes. It's good."

"Why aren't you barracking for Australia?"

"I don't like the Aussies."

"You live here."

"I don't think the Aussies can.. cope with..."

"Losing?"

"Yes, losing."

"We haven't had to for 20 years, so why should we? We don't want to."

"You guys..."

"You guys? You're one of us!
My brother is over from South Africa and he hasn't stopped laughing at us."

"I'm not laughing."

"He is."

In 2005, I managed to watch the last day at the Oval as hope slipped further and further away. That was the end of a long summer, in September, and at least there was the distraction of watching my team dramatically progressing through the AFL finals, travelling across London in the middle of the night to watch the Grand Final less than two weeks later, culminating in the club's first premiership in 72 years.

This year, I went to bed at lunch, only hours after Sydney had given up even the most theoretical chance of making the finals, and woke up to find Australia slid down to 4th. At least I am not surrounded by Englishmen this time.

I remember Australia building out of the 80s, and supporting the utterly hopeless Swans of the early 90s. I suppose what goes up, comes down. I might have something to say about the actual cricket once I want to think about sport again...

Law 36

I'm getting the feeling that none of the umpires in this series have taken Daryl Harper's approach of increasing the range of LBW appeals that they will answer in the affirmative based on having seen Hawkeye. The exception, of course, is the Mitchell Johnson dismissal at Lord's.

Double international no longer so Dutch

The Aussie selectors have decided that got something wrong in the plans for the T20 world cup, and Dirk Nannnes has finally been called up. The losers in this are the Netherlands, and possibly England, who don't have a great record against the Victorian quick.

Meanwhile, the selectors aren't acknowledging any mistakes from the beginning of hte Ashes and are also reported to be dropping Clark for the final Test. While a spin option could be valuable, and Swann did take Clark to task at the end of the last match, this seems to seriously understate his worth to the Australian, or just about any, team.

More Leeds, please

A lot (too much?) has been and will be said about the performances in the Fourth Test, and where that leaves Australian and England with one match to play. There's enough there to talkk forever about psychology and momentum. I'm not going to try to say anything serious, but will only comment that my enjoyment on this match is just the latest part of a love affair I have with Headingley.

It started in 1989. It grew with a grandfather's stories of seeing Bradman there. Teh 2005 schedule was a disappointment. Whether it has been simply a good match, or good performances for Waugh and other favourite players, Headingley has a special place in my cricket watching. I could say more, but I will simply suggest that you read Nestaquin's ramble, if you haven't already.

Holding on Australian batting

No, not Australian batting holding on. They did that, in another match where bowlers only held sway for a session or two, but I'm talking about Michael Holding's comments on the first innings at Edgbaston.

He voiced the thought that the Australians were having trouble with English wickets since they don't have as much bounce as our local versions, and so were getting out to shouldering arms to balls that at home would pass over the stumps. Usually, I'm all for theories which point out how the neglect of or inability to cope with foreign conditions is hampering cricketers. On this occasion, the analysis describes a very believable situation, but when I look at the innings itself, I really can't see what Holding is talking about.

Is it the Mitchell Johnson wicket? Yes, he shouldered arms, and the most relevant person thought that the ball was heading for the wicket, but I'm sure even that in hindsight even the umpire would agree that Johnson wasn't too wrong there.

Anyone else? Yes. Hussey was out exactly as Holding describes, but he was the only one. More to the point, hasn't he played more cricket in England than anyone else in the team? He's not a good candidate for an example of not being used to English conditions!

Australia coming from behind

I've been too busy to say anything about the 2nd Ashes Test until now. It could have been a fairly dull draw if not for the fact that England capitalised on the opportunities they had. Australia was firstly beaten comprehensively in the first innings, and then, I think (in hindsight) Strauss made the right choices concerning the follow-on and the declaration. It's good to see England playing to win.

Speaking of playing to win, it must be said that even during Australia's winning streaks, they were well behind after the first two innings quite often. Some would say they deserve more of a reputation for being slow starters than for being able to win coming from any distance behind. In any case, they weren't invincible, they simply had a culture of taking on the challenge to win in any situation.

I am convinced that such an attitude has been part of the difference between Australia and some other teams. Fortunately, they still seem to have it, even without the same quality to actually pull it off. Hopefully it won't be crushed by a few more failures...

Of course, such an optimistic outlook also means that fans are left wondering whether a few umpiring decisions had gone a different way. While it wouldn't have made much difference, Australia did seem to cop most of the questionable ones this time. The Katich wicket is a good example of why it is foolish to only look at appeals when judging umpire competence. Anyone who says Strauss knew he didn't catch the ball doesn't understand what they are seeing in the replays, but the earlier Hauritz catch did look at least as clean as that one.

From one point of view, the rules call for inconsistent use of tv replays in these circumstances, but on the other hand, they are not that helpful at the moment, and as long the umpires do not use a broader standard of doubt than they do without the presense of a 3rd umpire, the game isn't any worse off. As for the referral system, while it has a lot of potential, I don't understand the commentators who have suggested it would have solved the problems in this particular innings. If the plans for later this year are the same as the trials, then the Hussey (non-)edge would have been the only one of the much discussed decisions to be overturned.

In any case, we now go on to Edgbaston with England on the front foot and the effects of ever-present English weather firmly in England's favour. Unlike 2005, there hasn't been a tornado in Birmingham this time, but I suspect the Thrid Test will have more impact on later selections than on the series scoreline. Speaking of selections, it is hard to believe reports that Hughes has been dropped for Watson! ABC Radio says the inside word is that Siddle makes way for Clark, which is less surprising. I'm glad I'm not a selector right now.

Tas v Eng day 2

I think we can definitely say that the English won the first innings, but the Australian top order has hit back. They need to go on as they have started, since the most dangerous option on the bowling attack available to Ponting at the moment would appear to be runs on the board.

This is the fourth Test in a row where the Australian attack hasn't featured any of the NSW first-pick bowlers, unless you count the man who turned the usual saying on it's head, by getting his Blues call-up immediately following his recall to the Baggy Greens. He is, however on of three Tasmanian-born members of the team - I can't image that has happened before!

This blog's policy on the state allegiances of Hauritz (and Krejza), is to use either their place of birth and childhood or current affiliation, depending on their recent performance. So, it was a Tasmanian who leaked runs, along with the pace bowlers, for most of the morning. But then, once a fair bit of damage had been done, the bowling tightened, at least enough to trouble tailenders, and it was a player from my local club who took the tenth wicket four times in the last over.

Now, a lot rests on the current partnership, led by the other Sydney-dwelling Tasmanian. 700 would be a good target. Otherwise, the batsmen might need to do it again just to save the match.

Danger and ashes

Is it safe to be an umpire in Britain? First the tour match between the Lions and the Australians was ended when an umpire collapsed. Now there are reports that an umpire in Swansea has died after being hit in the head by a throw from a fielder.

Not pleasant stuff, but less disturbing than the lead-in to the previous Ashes series in the Old Dart. It is four years and a day since London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games, and four years to the day since the city was hit by terrorist attacks. Since the days when players are targets in such attacks and umpires are killed had not yet arrived, the series went on and lived up to all the hype that had preceded it.

This time, much of the possible hype has been eclipsed by big events in a form of the game that had hardly taken root back then. There is potential for quite an intriguing series, even though neither team is at the strength they were in 2005. As the original Test rivalry begins again at Test cricket's newest venue tomorrow, I'll be ready, like many times before, for cricket through the night.

England are lacking in recent serious experience. Australia still have spinning/selection issues. Their batsmen, and even Brett Lee, seem to have found a bit of form in the warm-ups, although Lee's series is starting to look like McGrath's in 2005. I don't doubt this series means a lot to the Aussies, but I don't think England will be napping like the South Africans. I am young enough that I can say I don't remember a night-time Ashes series won by England... will this continue?

Whinging at Poms

Now Ricky Ponting has joined the discussion about the forthcoming opening Ashes Test's 'move' from Lord's to Sophia Gardens. Since pres-series interviews these days tend to be exercises in psychology rather than honesty, I don't think we can conclude that he actually expected the schedule to resemble that of 2005 to start with.

What is the effect he's after, though? All I can think is that he wants to remind the English (and Welsh?) of their poor record in St John's Wood to maximise Australia's 'psychological advantage' in the 2nd Test. Maybe if he'd pulled it off, he just might have been able to make it sound like England have resorted to such scheduling because they don't have much hope otherwise. In reality, he just comes across as a whinging schoolboy who wishes things were more "comfortable" for his team.

Spinning Wel(sh)

It seem that it's not just the subcontinent that produces Bunsen burners hot enough to annoy the officials. Apart from the fact that the E(&W)CB's penalties seem harsher than anything the ICC hand out, a domestic game policed by the local board seems a good place to discuss the actual issue of what is "excessive" turn. Unfortunately, I've only got a scorecard, which doesn't really tell us anything. Anyone know anything about how the pitch actually played?

Of course, I doubt this has much relevant for the ground's First Test match later this year, despite all the noise. It seems a bit of an isolated event. Perhaps more interesting are the more cultural factors surrounding Test cricket's Welsh debut. That argument could go on and on, but I do wish people would stop suggesting that Sophia Gardens has replaced Lord's. The Mancunians and Nottinghammers migth be annoyed, but Shane Warne's comments aside, it should be noted that the 2nd Test will be at Lord's, just as it has been since 1981 - the only exception was 2005.