What an amazing Test match. The frills and spills, the ebbs and flows, the heart-in-mouth moments, the triumphant heart-fluttering moments, the relief and the heartbreak. This match had it all. Australia did very well to come within a whisker of claiming a famous victory in this First Test, although I think we had it in us to get over the line; we were very unfortunate not to claim a win in this Test. Here's my match report.
England First Innings
Australia may have lost the toss and, by extension, our preferred opportunity to bat first on the First Day pitch, but it soon became clear that bowling first may, in any case, have been the better option, what with the muggy overhead conditions and all. Indeed, the very first balls of the innings gave elaborate, shapely swing for the likes of James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc. Had Australia batted first, Jimmy Anderson might have wreaked havoc with the new ball and seen Australia off for a total even more measly than 215.
The first innings was undoubtedly owned by Australia. After the new ball quietened down, Peter Siddle came in to flush the English out. With first innings figures of 5/50, he masterfully dispatched Root (30), Pieterson (14), Trott (48), Bell (25) and Prior (1) in succession. At that point England were reeling at 6/180, having suffered what could only be termed a nervous collapse. Siddle had done his job by then, and Starc and Pattinson finished off the England innings mercilessly, leaving England in a precarious position with a total of only 215.
It looked like the bad old days were back. It looked like Australia, having been written off and sneered at in the British press, had rediscovered their cricketing ascendancy. With England reeling and in disarray after that incomprehensible innings, Australia looked much more threatening, much more like the big bad Australia of old that had sent England into 16 years' of Ashes exile, than the Australia they were expecting.
Of course, in the Aussie camp, everyone knew that the onus was on the Australian batsmen to follow through with the positive work done by the bowlers. That's what made us nervous.
Australia First Innings
We always knew there was a danger of this happening. The opening partnership looked good, before it was scalped barely in its infancy, triggering a top-order collapse that left Australian fans looking on in horror, helpless as Australia went from 0/19 to 4/53 in the space of eleven overs. Michael Clarke, the only batsman we could truly rely on to make a big score, went for a duck off six balls.
Steve Smith, the next Steve Waugh, the comeback kid, the lad who made 92 in India while all around him the Aussie ship was capsizing, surely, would save the Australian innings. Indeed, he made a well-earned, tension-easing half century, but it wasn't good enough. Smith failed to do his duty, and by then we were getting into the tail with only the serial dud, Phil Hughes and the resurrected wicket keeper Brad Haddin left to rely on.
The Australian collapse resumed unabated. After Smith went, Australia standing at 5/108, Haddin, Siddle, Starc and Pattinson followed, making all of five runs between them, leaving Australia seconds from death in the risible position of 9/117. We had squandered this opportunity to stamp our mark on the series by winning the First Test. We would, by our own incompetence, gift England a lead of nearly 100 runs, which would become 600 by the time England's second innings was finished, and we would be humiliated, gutted, thrashed, flogged, mutilated, ravaged and wrecked in our second innings, losing the Test by an innings and 400 runs, which would set the tone for the rest of the series.
But then our saviour arrived. An inoffensive-looking lad of 19 years who seemed, in all honesty, out of his depth, came on at no.11. His being there was just a formality. He would go next ball, or else give the strike to Hughes in order that he would snag a couple more runs before Australia's last wicket inevitably fell.
But he didn't go. Turns out the kid was quite nifty with the bat, scoring a few quick runs for Australia off his own steam. The kid was very enthusiastic; he almost got himself run out, but the DRS saved him. "All right, laddy," the England bowlers said. "Let's see what you make of the short ones." Short ball after short ball England bowled, which Agar neatly pulled, cut and hooked away to the boundary, unfazed.
Who was this kid? He just wouldn't go. England were visibly frustrated, and out of ideas as to how to get rid of this uppity debutant no.11, who showed no signs of weakness as he brought up his fifty, amazingly levelled the scores - to great relief from the Australians - and edged closer and closer, at an alarming pace, to his hundred. At 98 not out, every Australian fan was sitting on the edge of his seat, the tension unbearable: this debutant, nineteen-year old no.11 was about to make a hundred on debut. His heroics had already saved the match for Australia. But, eager to get those final, unattainable two runs, he lobbed one into the air, not sending it quite deep enough.
After punching the air in triumph, every Australian's face suddenly fell as we watched the ball fly into the taunting hands of Graham Swann as though magnetised. Heartbreak. Disbelief. Frustration. It was Mitchell Starc's 99 all over again, except the disappointment was much, much greater. We had cheered on this prodigious debutant no.11, who had seemingly come from nowhere, as he heroically saved the Test for us, this complete nobody showing the kind of confidence and skill that were painfully missing from the top order. We so, so wanted him to get his century, but, in the end, he was as eager as we were, and made his first fatal mistake of the innings.
It wasn't just a good innings, it was a classy and skilful innings. Agar had left the England bowlers completely powerless, and seemingly with no idea what to do as this slip of a boy bashed them to the boundary again and again, clocking up the runs at an alarming rate. It was luck, and Agar's own nerves, more than anything, that finally got the better of the kid. Who knows how far he would have gone if not for that vital, and, as it seemed, uncharacteristic mistake?
So Australia, having come from complete disarray to being undoubtedly in the stronger position, went into England's second innings ready to fully take advantage of their lucky recovery from near-death. If only.
England Second Innings
Didn't that look like we were on top again? 1/11, Root goes for 5. 2/11, dangerous Mr Trott goes for a golden duck. The Australian fans were licking our lips, ready to plough through the England batting order once more. We were slightly disheartened when the next wicket didn't come, though. Danger man Kevin Pieterson had made his half century and was cruising into the sixties before he was neutered by Pattinson. Alastair Cook was, thankfully, soon to follow shortly after making his fifty. A brief blip, nothing to worry about, we assured ourselves; Siddle and Co. would work their magic again to get through this innings quickly - wouldn't they?
But the wickets didn't fall fast enough. 4/131 - 5/174 - 6/218. Even as Bairstow and Prior added useful runs to England's total, Bell looked immovable. His partnership with Stuart Broad had us biting our fingernails again, willing Siddle or Pattinson or Starc or Agar or someone to make a breakthrough soon.
And it looked like we had. Anyone watching would have known we had. Stuart Broad knew we had as he followed the ball in horror as it left the edge of his bat and flew neatly into Michael Clarke's hands at first slip. So clear-cut was that dismissal that Clarke didn't even bother appealing, at first. But Aleem Dar, inexplicably, didn't budge, not even as the Aussies crowded around him screaming at him to raise his bloody finger. Broad, cleverly arranging his face to make it look as though he hadn't a clue what the Aussies were appealing for, walked over to his partner and, amazingly, stayed put. He didn't walk. He didn't even have the grace to acknowledge that he was out but that he was choosing to stand his ground - rather, he was dishonestly pretending he didn't know what had happened. With no reviews remaining to right this wrong, Australia were left utterly helpless.
Play returned with the Australians fuming. Robbed of the wicket they dearly needed, they stalked off the field at the end of the third day in bad blood. Returning the next day, they pointedly declined to clap Broad when he brought up his fifty - a tainted fifty. His eventual dismissal brought a savage pleasure to every Australian fan watching, although in fairness, this time Broad walked off without waiting for the umpire's decision, showing perhaps that he regretted what he had done the previous day.
Soon after Bell brought up his hundred, a genuinely good innings that had put England back into a dominant position. Thankfully for the Australians, England's innings were wrapped up quickly, with Bell going for 109, Swann for 9, Finn for 2 and Anderson for 0.
The Australians were feeling very fortunate that England's lower order could not bat as strongly as Australia's, as Australia were left with a total of 310 to chase. Certainly not unreachable, but, knowing Australia's batting lineup, any more may have simply been too much.
Australia Second Innings
What Australia really needed was a good opening partnership. Then, the middle order - the likes of Clarke and Smith - would not be under as much pressure. Not least, it would mean we would have a buffer against a middle-order collapse.
And, indeed, the opening partnership looked good. Shane Watson, declining to attempt to dominate the bowlers as he tried to in his first innings, played it safe, played calmly, and steadily clocked up the runs. Chris Rogers looked safe, a veteran of English conditions he, frustrating the bowlers with his adroit batwork. As Watson and Rogers brought the opening partnership closer to the 100 runs mark, Australians' breathing began to ease as Australia edged into safe waters.
Together Watson and Rogers made 84 runs before Watson was unluckily dismissed LBW on 46. Cowan came to the crease, on a pair, every Australian watcher sending him the same message: please, please don't cock it up. He looked precarious, making the same wild swipe at a wide ball that saw him dismissed for a duck in the first innings, but, luckily, the ball didn't find the edge this time. Getting himself off the pair, and taking three boundaries, he almost looked set to continue Watson's good work. Almost. Dismissed for 14, he left Australian fans glumly wondering why he was even in the side in the first place.
Then the collapse started. At first it didn't seem like a traditional collapse, rather a slow-motion, tortuous execution as the drip-drip of falling wickets allowed Australia fleeting glimmers of hope before the next wicket fell and we became disheartened again. By the time Michael Clarke's wicket fell, it seemed England had grown tired of playing the psychopath serial killer who plays with his food before he eats it. The wickets of Clarke and Steve Smith fell one after another, and Phil Hughes went for a duck two overs after Smith, Australia standing on 6/164.
With Haddin and Agar at the crease at the end of day four, Australia allowed ourselves some hope. There was over a hundred runs to go, but yet we still had four wickets in hand. And our in-form batsmen were by no means finished; Haddin had proven himself over his Test career to be a solid, competent batsman, and hadn't Agar performed magnificent heroics with the bat in Australia's first innings? Still yet, Starc, Siddle and Pattinson could all bat. This match was by no means finished yet.
Agar declined to play in the same attacking way he did in his first innings, being very defensive and careful. Perhaps it was to his detriment as he went cheaply, having contributed only 14 runs off 71 balls. Starc, who showed in Perth against South Africa this summer that he could hold his own against quality pace attacks, went for 1. Siddle went for 11 soon after.
This was frustrating. We had blown it again. We had deluded ourselves into thinking the Australian side had any chance in an Ashes series in England, and were about to find out the hard way how wrong we were. Pattinson would go for something measly like 2 or 3 like his fellow tail-enders, and Australia would lose comfortably and anti-climactically by around 80 runs.
But he didn't. Haddin and Pattinson stuck in there, putting runs on the board quite quickly. Cynical resignation turned to a faint glimmer of hope. A faint glimmer turned to a genuine belief that these two could make it. When Anderson, the scourge of the Australian batting order, limped off the field, having seemingly injured himself fielding, genuine belief turned to slightly astonished confidence as we thanked our luck and were ready to see Haddin and Pattinson gobble up these last few runs or so with England's most dangerous bowler out of the picture. Australia looked set to bury the ghost of Edgbaston 2005, comparisons with which were irresistible.
But he came back on. Bugger. Haddin and Pattinson brought Australia tentatively to fifteen runs to win before the appeal came. It was a desperate, unconvinced, pleading appeal more than anything. Aleem Dar gave it not out, as they expected, but with Australia fifteen runs to victory, why not review it? Alastair Cook threw his protocol to the wind in the hope that hotspot might show some tickle of an edge.
And it did. An inside edge on Haddin's bat that carried to Matt Prior. The viewers watching at home already knew: there was no other explanation for that noise. The England team squealed and punched the air in disbelief at their luck: they had won the First Test - off an overturned decision by DRS. England win by 15 runs.
Summary
What Australia really needed to do in the First Test, to stamp their mark on this series, was not only to win it, but to come in, guns blazing, and utterly overwhelm England, leaving them reeling, dazed and confused about what had just transpired. Australia showed signs of doing this early on in the match with the ball, having dismissed England for a paltry 215, but failed to follow through with the bat. If it weren't for a young nineteen-year old debutant, Australia would have been utterly decimated in this First Test, and may not have recovered to make any impact on the rest of the series.
Australia did well to lose by such a small margin, but Jimmy Anderson won the day with his ten wicket haul. Australia will struggle against him. It is tempting to presume Michael Clarke, Shane Watson, Steve Smith, Chris Rogers will not be as quiet in future Tests as they were in this one, but with Jimmy Anderson, "the magician", spearheading England's attack, it might be a presumption too far. Perhaps the Australian batsman actually did well to hold Jimmy off as they did, and even more comprehensive devastation is ahead?
My tips for the next Test at Lord's: Cowan out, Khawaja in. Starc out, Bird in. Keep Agar at #8.
NOTE: Future match reports probably will not be in this format. This post went on for far longer than I had anticipated.
No comments:
Post a Comment