Tag Archives: Ashes 2013

The Ashes: 4th Test Preview

August 9, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Time has travelled at break neck speed at times during this Ashes series: it seems like only yesterday that fans were debating the selection of Agar over Lyon for the first test. All of a sudden the Fourth Test is upon us from the Chester-le-Street ground in Durham. The good news that this brings is that Australian fans are only 2 test matches away from hosting the return battle between these two teams.

The Ashes will remain in the hands of England regardless of the result of the next two test matches but for the Australians there is much to be gained from pushing for a draw in this series, particularly given the thoughts of most when it came to Australia’s prospects at the start of the tour and again after the Lords debacle.

Here are my keys to victory for the fourth test:

1. The Pitch: Reports from England suggest that the pitch that has been presented for this fixture again meets the guidelines for pitches set by Andy Flower and the ECB: it is again dry and hard. Only four test matches have been played at this venue and all of them have been won by England. That said I do not really consider there to be a form line coming from this result given that past combatants at the ground were Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the West Indies. Wicket takers at the ground have been the fast bowlers rather than the spinners so the doctoring of the pitch may have little play in the result. That said, if the wicket turns, as it would appear it is designed to do, the match will really be in the hand of Graeme Swann.

2. England’s tactics: There is less to be gained for England in a win than in just playing for a draw given that they have already won the Ashes. The English can afford to play defensive cricket and are, seemingly, quite proficient at it. That said, a negative or defensive mindset may play right into the hands of Australia who will be going all out for a victory.

3. The Toss: The winner of the toss in each test match has been the team in this series so far that has had the better of the test. This again looks like a test match where the team batting first will be very difficult to best. That team will be looking to score, as a minimum, 400 and bat midway into the second day.

4. Is Ryan Harris fit? The best bowler in the third test was Ryan Harris and he has a history of not playing three test matches consecutively. If he plays for Australia in this test match it will be a massive fillup for the team. This focus on Harris is not to say that Jackson Bird will not be a good replacement however Harris provides an X factor to the Australian team which is hard to define. Simply, if Harris is in the team I think Australia has a better chance of victory.

5. Can Jimmy bounce back? England’s best bowler and a bowler many argue is a better bowler than Dale Steyn (I respectfully disagree) had a test match he would rather forget at Old Trafford. 0/116 off 33 overs does not make for pretty reading and whilst he secured two wickets in the second innings they were when Australia was chasing fast runs and where lower order. When Anderson bowls well and takes wickets England are very tough to beat.

This will be another enthralling test match. For England there is an 11 game streak of failing to lose a game at stake whilst Australia is trying to avoid adding to a 7 game losing streak. Cue the late nights, coffee and banter!

The Ashes: 4th Test fun fact or worrying statistic depending which team you follow

August 9, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , 1 Comment

Many people have wondered where England’s recent dominance of cricket at Test Match level has had its genisis. One only needs to look at this fact for an answer: in the last test match played at Chester-le-Street Englands bowling attack was Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Onions and Swann. For this test match their bowling attack will be made up of four of those very same five bowlers. Whilst there have been some minor tweaks to the English bowling line up in the intervening period it is apposite to note that there has been remarkable consistency in the selections of England’s bowlers in the last 4 years. Steve Finn and Monty Panesar aside, players selected outside of the five “in play” for the fourth test match (Tremlett, Tredwell, Patel, Shahzad and Sidebottom) have been selected as injury cover on basically all occasions.

If you need further convincing of England’s consistency in this area consider this: England have played in 53 test matches inclusive of the last time they played in Durham on 14 May 2009 and since that time Messrs Swann, Anderson and Broad have played in 49, 49 and 44 of those test matches respectively.

Conversely, in the same period the Australian selectors have deigned to select the bowlers from the following phalanx of players:
PM Siddle
MG Johnson
BW Hilfenhaus
NM Lyon
RJ Harris
NM Hauritz
SR Watson
DE Bollinger
JL Pattinson
MA Starc
JM Bird
SPD Smith
PJ Cummins
XJ Doherty
GJ Maxwell
TA Copeland
SR Clark
MA Beer
AC Agar
PR George
MC Henriques
JW Hastings
CJ McKay

During the same period in question Australia has played in 49 test matches. At the top regarding number of test matches played during the period is Siddle with 37. Thereafter, players no longer in the mix for test selection in the form of Messrs Johnson and Hilfenhaus are the next most used during this period. It has been argued that Australia’s bowling attack has been in a state of flux since the retirements of McGrath and Warne and these numbers do not lie. What these numbers also suggest though is that Australia has either suffered an injury epidemic during the same period OR simply has not had the confidence in its own bowlers to stick with them after a poor performance.

It is amazing that after a 51 month hiatus in test matches at Chester-le-Street that the same bowlers will be used by England as the last time a game was played there. It is not amazing that England have retained the Ashes and have been dominant during that same period: they have been consistent in their selections and their players have responded. That fact is a sad indictment on either the efforts of the Australian NSP OR their medical staff.

The Ashes: The Silicon Tape Fiasco … what do the laws say?

August 7, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Much has been made in the press, Australian principally granted, of an allegation, which has been denied in the strongest possible terms, that certain players participating in the current Ashes series have used silicon tape to mask the hotspot “flare” caused by an edge.

Law 6 of the Laws of Cricket deals with the Bat and provides:

1. The bat

The bat consists of two parts, a handle and a blade.

2. Measurements

All provisions in sections 3 to 6 below are subject to the measurements and restrictions stated in Appendix E.

3. The handle

(a) One end of the handle is inserted into a recess in the blade as a means of joining the handle and the blade. The part of the handle that is then wholly outside the blade is defined to be the upper portion of the handle. It is a straight shaft for holding the bat. The remainder of the handle is its lower portion used purely for joining the blade and the handle together. It is not part of the blade but, solely in interpreting 5 and 6 below, references to the blade shall be considered to extend also to the lower portion of the handle where relevant.

(b) The handle is to be made principally of cane and/or wood, glued where necessary and bound with twine along the upper portion.

(c) Providing 7 below is not contravened, the upper portion may be covered with materials solely to provide a surface suitable for gripping. Such covering is an addition and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

(d) Notwithstanding 4(c) and 5 below, both the twine binding and the covering grip may extend beyond the junction of the upper and lower portions, to cover part of the shoulders as defined in Appendix E.

4. The blade

(a) The blade comprises the whole of the bat apart from the handle as defined above. The blade has a face, a back, a toe, sides and shoulders. See Appendix E.

(b) The blade shall consist solely of wood.

(c) No material may be placed on or inserted into either the blade or the lower portion of the handle other than as permitted in 3(d) above and 5 and 6 below, together with the minimal adhesives or adhesive tape used solely for fixing these items, or for fixing the handle to the blade.

5. Covering the blade

All bats may have commercial identifications on the blade. Type A and Type B bats may have no other covering on the blade except as permitted in 6 below. Type C bats may have a cloth covering on the blade. This may be treated as specified in 6 below.

Such covering is additional to the blade and is not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

6. Protection and repair

Providing neither 4 above nor 7 below is contravened,

(a) solely for the purposes of either

(i) protection from surface damage to the face, sides and shoulders of the blade or

(ii) repair to the blade after damage material that is not rigid, either at the time of its application to the blade or subsequently, may be placed on these surfaces. Any such material shall not extend over any part of the back of the blade except in the case of (ii) above and then only when it is applied as a continuous wrapping covering the damaged area.

(b) solid material may be inserted into the blade for repair after damage other than surface damage. Additionally, for protection from damage, for Types B and C, material may be inserted at the toe and/or along the sides, parallel to the face of the blade.

The only material permitted for any insertion is wood with minimal essential adhesives.

(c) to prevent damage to the toe, material may be placed on that part of the blade but shall not extend over any part of the face, back or sides of the blade.

(d) the surface of the blade may be treated with non-solid materials to improve resistance to moisture penetration and/or mask natural blemishes in the appearance of the wood. Save for the purpose of giving a homogeneous appearance by masking natural blemishes, such treatment must not materially alter the colour of the blade.

Any materials referred to in (a), (b), (c) or (d) above are additional to the blade and not part of the bat. Note, however, 8 below.

7. Damage to the ball

(a) For any part of the bat, covered or uncovered, the hardness of the constituent materials and the surface texture thereof shall not be such that either or both could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(b) Any material placed on any part of the bat, for whatever purpose, shall similarly not be such that it could cause unacceptable damage to the ball.

(c) For the purposes of this Law, unacceptable damage is deterioration greater than normal wear and tear caused by the ball striking the uncovered wooden surface of the blade.

8. Contact with the ball

In these Laws,

(a) reference to the bat shall imply that the bat is held in the batsman’s hand or a glove worn on his hand, unless stated otherwise.

(b) contact between the ball and either (i) the bat itself

or (ii) the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iii) any part of a glove worn on the batsman’s hand holding the bat

or (iv) any additional materials permitted under 3, 5 or 6 above shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being struck by the bat.

The placing of silicon tape on the bat for a purpose other than as an adhesive or to prevent or repair damage to the blade, shoulders or edges of the bat would obviously fall foul of this law.

The question then becomes: what is the punishment for breaching Law 6?

There is no specific provisions of the Laws that deal with punishment for breach. The ICC Code of Conduct for Players does provided some guidance however. It provides inter alia that the following will be Level 1 offenses under the Code:

1. In clause 2.1.1 a breach of the ICC’s Clothing and Equipment Regulations during an International Match; and

2. In clause 2.1.8 conduct that is relatively minor but that brings the game into disrepute or is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Apropos clause 2.1.1 above the ICC Clothing and Equipment Regulations provide in Part D Section 2 that:

It shall also be prohibited under these regulations for any individual to wear any clothing or use any equipment that has been changed, altered or transformed (whether to comply with these regulations or otherwise) in any way that, in the opinion of any Match Official, undermines the professional standards that are required of all elite players.

The penalty for such an offence, if proven, is set out in Article 7 of the Code of Conduct which prescribes that for a first offence the sanction is a warning / reprimand and/or the imposition of a fine of up to 50% of the applicable Match Fee.

It would seem likely, in my view, that if a player has put silicon on the edge of his bat for the explicit purpose of defeating the DRS there is another possible charge that could be laid that carries with it much more severe sanction. It is a Level 2 offence under the Code for a player to make any attempt to manipulate an International Match for inappropriate strategic or tactical reasons. An argument could be made that wilfully purporting to defeat the DRS is an attempt to manipulate the game. The penalty for such an offence is the imposition of a fine unto 90% of the players match fee and / or unto two Suspension Points. A single suspension point would see a player miss a One Day Match or a T20 International. A penalty of two suspension points could see a player miss a test match.

All in all this is a sorry saga that needs to be dealt with with alacrity. If there is a case there for anyone to answer, the match referee must move swiftly to deal with it. The more likely course though is that there is no case to answer because the test match in question is completed and no complaint was made during the match.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what steps are taken by the MCC and ICC in the next round of rule changes to pre-empt attempts to thwart the DRS and to install a clear offence in the Code for doing just that.

The Ashes: The Poms retain the Urn … what now for Australia?

August 6, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

It is trite to say it but if the Ashes are staying in England what really is the interest for Australia and its fans in the last two test matches of the series? That statement belies the fact that no Australian cricketer, pundit or fan would accept anything other than a supreme effort against the English and a focus on beating the enemy that they are. That said: when I started thinking about this post I was definitely in the camp of using the next two test matches to experiment with the line up to find what is our best line up in advance of the “return” bout between the two teams starting in Australia in November.

With that in mind I was pondering resting Ryan Harris for the next test match, both to rest his injury prone body and at give Jackson Bird a run. I was also going to suggest that James Faulkner be given a run to give him experience and that the batting order be tinkered so as to give Matthew Wade a run and to try Phil Hughes in his “best” position (opening).

Then I had an epiphany of sorts: one of my biggest complaints as a fan of the game and someone who blogs about it is that Australia has, in recent years, changed its teams, at times, with an alacrity akin to that of the Red Bull pit crew (except when it is Mark Webber’s tires they are changing), particularly when the team has been losing. By extension I have complained vociferously that the Australian NSP has made too many changes and has not stuck with players. To go down the path of using the next two games as trial games of sorts would have been to suggest that the Cricket Australia do exactly that which I have been so swift to lament.

That being the case, my immediate answer to the question I pose is this: from Australia I want to see more of exactly the same as that which we saw at Old Trafford and I want to see if from the same team, injury permitting. My premise is, if this is the best team Australia can put on the field then the selectors need to stick with that team and back it to win.

Of course I am worried about Ryan Harris and his knee BUT the importance of getting on a roll against England in advance of the “return bout” in Australia and to have the team that played so well in Old Trafford build into a consistent unit in advance of that bout at Chester-le-Street and the Oval is more important than being conservative in the “management” player health.

So, on the premise that Australia must select the same team as that which played at Old Trafford and does so, what else must we see from the Australian team for this tour to be considered to be a success? Here are the three further things I want to see from the Australian team:

1. Australia needs to win: It is all well and good for Australia to lift their performance like they did in Old Trafford. However, performing better than expected and not winning is only a habit that can go on so long. The losing streak of this streak (draws including) is becoming ever longer and a win would do wonders for the confidence of a rebuilding team.

2. A hundred from a batsman OTHER than M Clarke: Michael Clarke continues to score runs in difficult circumstances. The fact is that the last time an Australia batter other than Michael Clarke scored a hundred was 22 innings ago on 22 November 2012. Someone else needs to share the load of scoring runs for Australia and take some of the pressure of the Captain and his ailing back.

3. The Captain supporting the spinner: I mentioned in my post from earlier today that I did not think that Michael Clarke had captained Nathan Lyon particularly well at Old Trafford. Limited bowling time on day 3 when the “going got tough” was a strange move and smacked of the Captain not particularly supporting his spinner. This must change in these coming two tests because there are at least 3 test matches in Australia where the bowling of a spinner will be vital to victory.

So there is my wish list: the same team, a win, a hundred and the spinner getting a fair go. If that it what Australia presents in the next two games then I will be very happy and a reckon most Australian pundits and fans will be too.

The Ashes: 3rd Test Player Ratings

August 6, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 2 Comments

Here are my ratings for each of the Australian players involved in the 3rd test at Old Trafford which ended in a draw over night:

Shane Watson: 5 out of 10 Again made starts with the bat. Got a good ball in the first innings. Bowled with his usual tightness: there is none better in this current line up at locking up an end.

Chris Rogers: 7.5 out of 10 Brilliant knock in the first innings got Australia away to a flyer. Out in the second innings trying to force the issue. Is an obviously good team man and buzzed around the field.

Uzman Khawaja: 4 out 10 Got a woeful decision (which still would have been out if DRS was not in use) and was bowled around his legs by a Swann corker in the second. Needs time at the crease.

Michael Clarke: 9 out of 10 The Captain stood up when it mattered most for his team and scored another big hundred. Was tactically astute albeit could have used Nathan Lyon more for mine.

Steve Smith: 7.5 out of 10 The other half of Australia’s biggest partnership nearly 12 months and but for a brain fade would have scored his maiden hundred. Has secured his spot in the team.

David Warner: 4 out of 10 All at see in the first innings and gold medal winner for worst review in the test match and possibly the summer. Got runs in the second innings when under no pressure.

Brad Haddin: 7 out of 10 If Lords was one of his worst games with the gloves this was one of his best. Got vital runs in the first innings.

Peter Siddle: 7.5 out of 10 Yet again was excellent with the ball in this game bowling with aggression and purpose everytime he got the ball.

Mitchell Starc: 5.5 out of 10 A strong burst in the middle of the first innings aside bowled with line or length or seemingly a plan that could be identified. Needs to find a way to be consistent. His ability with the bat continues to grow.

Ryan Harris: 8 out of 10 Australia’s best with the ball and does not get the plaudits he deserves. Allows looked like getting a wicket and, indeed, the body language of the English suggested relief whenever he left the bowling crease.

Nathan Lyon: 3.5 out of 10 Queue all of the Lyon bashers out there again but can anyone convince me that he was well captained in this game? Bowled well in the afternoon of the second day and the morning of the fourth but the third day was disappointing. Not given enough time by Clarke after Pietersen went after him.

The Ashes: 3rd Test Day 5 … Rain, Ryno and the Urn

August 6, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Well the inevitable happened over night: it rained all but for 90 minutes of play on Day 5 of the 3rd test and a draw ended up being the result of a match that Australia, by any measure, dominated.

The 90 minute burst from Australia that saw 3 wickets fall and a dropped catch from the captain, served a significant purpose in the sense that Ryan Harris, if he needed to, solidified his standing as Australia’s premier bowler. His spell was 7 overs of pure joy for members of the fast bowlers cartel and fans alike and all eyes will now be on how his knee pulls up given that the 4th test commences in 3 days time.

So, that is that, the English retain the Urn as the best available result for Australia is that the series is drawn. Attention now turns to the Chester-le-Street ground in Durham for the 4th test starting on Friday.