1. Swann can be played. Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test. As it was Anderson had to do the work.
2. England are reliant on Anderson. He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming. Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent. When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game. It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday. If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.
3. The Aussies need to bat somewhere between all out attack and all out defence. In the first innings the Aussies attacked too much. Only Hughes got the balance right. Agar did well largely because England were taken unaware when his attack was so skilled, and his skill and confidence did the rest. In the second innings they alternated between too defensive and a watchful aggression. Watson and Rogers were rotating the strike, putting away the bad balls, and defending or leaving the good ones. Clarke by contrast was extremely defensive in mind set. Rogers got bogged down batting with Cowan and Clarke, and then went out. Haddin, in conjunction with the "tail" seemed overall to balance attack and defence. It is the balanced approach of the openers and Haddin that all the batsmen will need to use.
4. England won because they used the DRS better than the Aussies. England, with one exception, only used the DRS when they were convinced that the decision was wrong. The one exception was Haddin's wicket at the end of the match, where it was an educated gamble. They still had one other review available, and if they did not get the decision, the match was almost over anyway. The Aussies seemed to use the DRS on close calls. Worse, they used them on close LBW calls. As a bowling team, reviews should only be used for LBW decisions if the decision makers are convinced that it will hit middle stump, and pitched in the right areas. Had they done this, Broad would have been out earlier, they could have chased a smaller target, and perhaps the result would have been different. Certainly England would have been under far more pressure.
5. Ed Cowan has at most one more test to prove himself ready for this challenge. The quiet accumulator whose main skill is lasting a long time at the crease looked skittish and rattled. Perhaps he needs to ask Clarke to bat him at 11 as both batsmen in that position seemed to have found good form for the Aussies. More seriously though, he is likely to find Hughes taking his position at 3 and either Warner or Falkner his place in the team unless he can contribute significant scores in any chances he is given going forward.
6. Cook has limited ideas when under pressure. When Agar was putting England to the sword, Cook looked at a loss as to what to do. When Andrew Strauss was asked what he did when number 11 Tino Best did a similar thing to England a couple of years earlier, he answered that they hoped he would tighten up as he approached his 100. From the time Agar reached 50 that seemed to be Cook's tactic too. Luckily for him it worked. In the second innings he kept handing the ball to Anderson. The key for the Aussies will be to put England, and thus Cook under pressure. When plans A and B don't work, Cook doesn't look like he can come up with plan C without help (read David Saker the Aussie who is England's bowling coach and plotted Roger's demise).
No comments:
Post a Comment