5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval Aug 21-25, 2013

[MUFC1987]

The thing with Kerrigan though is, yes he was obviously nervous, hence some bad balls. But he's spent the season taking plenty of wickets on pitches that have turned quite a lot. He's now come in to a test against a better quality of opposition, on a pitch which isn't doing any where near as much as he's used too, so he doesn't know how to bowl to keep them quiet.

That being said, it's a learning curve that will do him good and a dead rubber of a Test match is the best place to learn it, so I'm not against the decision to play him.

 

[barmyarmy]

I think the Lions game should have been a clue that Watson wasn't going to show him much respect.

 

[sifter132]

^England couldn't have expected Watson to go past 20-40 though, you can understand their planning

Thank god for that, we need these 100 monkey off our backs.

Oh hell yeah...Watson in particular has been walking around with King Kong on his back. Couldn't be happier this morning, I've always stuck up for him. Please do it again soon Watto!

Clarke's innings was interesting to watch. Looked bad, but honestly the England bowlers should get credit. I only counted about 3 balls to him that weren't right on target, incredible accuracy. 1 or 2 short ones from Swann, one wide one that Clarke slashed at and missed from Anderson I think. Everything else was right on the money, great mix of short and top of off bowling. And it paid off - he never settled, looked jittery and they got him. Nice bowling England.

 

[Owzat]

Isn't it the same for Woakes - and he got more than a few ODI/T20 starts before today and seems a lot less nervous!

A lot less nervous, but not a lot less ineffective.................. Could never have guessed he would be next to useless, I think Boycs summed it up by saying he's a fourth seamer and ineffectual on any pitch that isn't typical swinging British conditions.

With Kerrigan a silly selection and Woakes barely any better, we relied on Anderson, Swann and Broad. Broad has had his good performance for the series, usually manages one to persuade the selectors he should be everpresent. Anderson was the pick of the bowlers, Swann tidy, but overall we may have won this series 3-0 with this to play, but the aussies may well end having dominated two Tests and are pretty unlucky not to be coming out of it with at least a draw.

Woakes looks a typical journeyman cricketer, might make a good career for himself in the counties but not quite the stuff top England/international cricketers are made of. If England think he's an all-rounder in the making they should think again, he only has a mid 30s 1st class batting average thanks to 1/4 of his innings being not outs. I reckon he might be another Ashley Giles, capable of batting, capable of picking up wickets, but without the advantage of being a slow leftie so tying up the run rate by bowling into the batsman's legs and across isn't an option.

And with Woakes batting 6/7 we've got a long tail, Prior is in poor form (14.33 average for the series), 1/3 of Broad's runs have come in that infamous innings Lehmann has referred to, and that's only to mention a couple out of nick in the lower/middle order. Trott is averaging just 24.25 and Cook 27.25 which includes three fifties, none better than 62.

If the aussies have got their bowling attack just right then England could be in trouble, anything over 450-500 and it could be 1-3, too late to change the series but maybe a sign of things to come

 

[barmyarmy]

I always say that England are weakest on flat decks and this one looks pretty flat.

 

[Owzat]

I always say that England are weakest on flat decks and this one looks pretty flat.

When the ball isn't swinging all over the shop, or the batsmen in the middle of a complete road, they don't look half the dominant side.

I came back to say I find it very funny that Watson has had so much focus and been so criticised, yet he has not been the worst aussie in the side and now ironically has dominated the 1st day's play of possibly the only Test the aussies will win in the series.

This knock will take his average over 40 for the series, overtaking Rogers and Clarke on aggregate runs and only Bell has scored more runs now, those for England. Only once has he not made double figures and this is his fourth score of 30+ compared to some pretty ordinary efforts from some the rest.

aussie 30+ scores (batsmen/keeper)

4 Rogers : 110, 84, 52, 49
4 Watson : 176, 68, 46, 30
3 Clarke : 187, 51, 30no
3 Smith : 89, 66no, 53
2 Haddin : 71, 65no
2 Warner : 71, 41
1 Hughes : 81no
1 Khawaja : 54
0 Cowan

The return of the prodigal plonker, Warner, has produced 126 runs in five innings @ 25.20 . Fair enough Cowan played one Test, scoring 14 and 0, Hughes two and Warner and Khawaja only three apiece, but still 4/9 is as good a ratio if not better than any of those who haven't played all five Tests/batted nine times - Warner 2/5, Khawaja 1/6, Hughes 1/4 and Cowan 0/2. Sure 30+ isn't a high benchmark, but it's the same level, high or low, for all.

----------

The thing with Kerrigan though is, yes he was obviously nervous, hence some bad balls. But he's spent the season taking plenty of wickets on pitches that have turned quite a lot. He's now come in to a test against a better quality of opposition, on a pitch which isn't doing any where near as much as he's used too, so he doesn't know how to bowl to keep them quiet.

That being said, it's a learning curve that will do him good and a dead rubber of a Test match is the best place to learn it, so I'm not against the decision to play him.

Not sure what England's 'thinking' behind playing both Woakes and Kerrigan was. I hope they aren't thinking of taking both on tour, or England reverting to five bowlers - this match showing that quantity is not enough, you need quality.

For all the raving about Anderson and others to lesser degrees, Broad despite picking up 11 wickets at 11 apiece last Test has the lowest series average for any frontline bowler for England of a modest 28.11


Oh and if England were going to try Kerrigan and Woakes in Tests, why not against the kiwis?!?!? Maybe England underestimate the aussies, whereas before they faced four reasonably seasoned pros they now face three seasoned pros and two "help yourself" bowlers. I'd suggest Warner, Clarke and Rogers should be kicking themselves for getting out cheaply, but I would hope Lehmann has already seen to it

 

[ferg512]

Wow Kerrigan looked hopelessly out of his depth. I know its his first day of test cricket and all but this does have to put his FC record into perspective a little bit. He didn't look like he'd be much more of a bowler than Vettori, and looks as though he would be more suited to one day cricket. Maybe the cupboard isn't as full for England as we initially thought, although tbf Tremlett or Finn (Onions if not injured) should definitely have played ahead of Kerrigan or Woakes.

----------

A lot less nervous, but not a lot less ineffective.................. Could never have guessed he would be next to useless, I think Boycs summed it up by saying he's a fourth seamer and ineffectual on any pitch that isn't typical swinging British conditions.

Hard to disagree with that, he played for Wellington at the start of last season (our pitches have been relatively flat of late) and he took 4 wickets in 3 FC games iirc. He really does not look like the kind of bowler who can take wickets in unhelpful conditions (like Bresnan) and from what I've seen from his batting (in ODI cricket) doesn't look as though he could bat higher than 8 in test cricket. Some really puzzling selections from England and Australia as well. The last case I can think of where a team successfully played five bowlers with the all rounder at 6 or 7 was Flintoff (which was quite a while ago now).

 

[Owzat]

The last case I can think of where a team successfully played five bowlers with the all rounder at 6 or 7 was Flintoff (which was quite a while ago now).

You could argue the Saffers do if you count Kallis as an all-rounder, I consider him a batsman who is also a very good bowler part-time.

Not sure the Flintoff era success was that great, for the narrow Ashes win in which he, Jones, Hoggard and Harmison bowled brilliantly and Flintoff batted well for one of his rare big scoring series you also have the whitewash down under.

We had two good series in a row, I think beyond that our record with five bowlers including Flintoff was ok but not that fantastic. We played the windies and kiwis a lot, he missed the home win over Pakistan but not the loss in Pakistan and draw in India

Series results where Flintoff bowled 80+ overs

01/02 India (a) L0-1
2002 Sri Lanka (h) W2-0
2002 India (h) D1-1
2003 South Africa (h) D2-2
03/04 Sri Lanka (a) L0-1
04/05 South Africa (a) W2-1
2005 Australia (h) W2-1
05/06 Pakistan (a) L0-2
05/06 India (a) D1-1
2006 Sri Lanka (h) D1-1
06/07 Australia (a) L0-5
2008 South Africa (h) L1-2
08/09 India (a) L0-1
2009 Australia (h) W2-1


01/02 New Zealand (a) D1-1
03/04 West Indies (a) W3-0
2004 New Zealand (h) W3-0
2004 West Indies (h) W4-0

I've split it into tough-ish series and not so tough, Sri Lanka were below par in 2002 and the aussies in 2009 but I've classed them as tough(er). That's just four series wins against anyone other than West Indies or New Zealand where Flintoff has played a reasonably active bowling part (80+ overs), that out of 14 series against the better Test sides. Considering we played a blinder in that South Africa series, and played very well in 2005 only narrowly winning the two Tests we did win (2 runs and 3 wickets)

So I'm not sure the evidence is great for the five bowler "Flintoff era". Only once did we beat decent opposition by a two Test margin and that was a below par Sri Lanka at home. We didn't beat India in a series once in four attempts, and arguably our biggest and most convincing win of that time period was when he wasn't in the side and we played four bowlers! (vs Pakistan 2006)

Those two series wins in 04/05 and 2005 were massive, but perhaps not reflective of the state of our cricket which was reliant on individuals to shine, I mean Flintoff had a cracking two series with 47 wickets and 669 runs across the two, but those were by far his best two wicket taking series with the next best just 14 (vs West Indies) and then 13 in Pakistan (L0-2)

For all his talent, I'm not sure Flintoff lived up to it. Maybe he was batted one position too high, although his average at #7 is practically identical to that at #6. For his supposed greatness he had a disappointing bowling average of 32.79 , never taking a 10-fer and only taking 3 5-fers. And only five career hundreds in 130 innings was also disappointing, considering he made a fairly respectable 26 fifties at 1/5

 

[barmyarmy]

Bottom line is that Kerrigan is a decent championship bowler for a second division side. Added to the fact that this is a batter's pitch and the decision to play him (and then bowl him at Watson before lunch) looks more and more foolish.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

'The weather's set fair for a month'... yeah, right!

 

[sifter132]

I came back to say I find it very funny that Watson has had so much focus and been so criticised, yet he has not been the worst aussie in the side and now ironically has dominated the 1st day's play of possibly the only Test the aussies will win in the series.

This knock will take his average over 40 for the series, overtaking Rogers and Clarke on aggregate runs and only Bell has scored more runs now, those for England. Only once has he not made double figures and this is his fourth score of 30+ compared to some pretty ordinary efforts from some the rest.

Yep Watto's the #2 run scorer in this series which I find amusing. In fact if you made a combined XI for the series I think there'd be more Aussies in it than English! Let's have a go:
1 Rogers
2 Root? Guess it has to be, unless Watson opens
3 Watson - even if he hadn't made big runs this time, his bowling may have tipped the scales. That's how mediocre the run scoring has been.
4 Clarke (c)
5 Bell
6 Pietersen/Smith - about the same aggregate for the series. KP made a century and not much else, Smith's made some 50s and taken some wickets
7 Haddin
8 Broad
9 Swann
10 Siddle
11 Harris
12 Anderson
Anderson's done not much since Trent Bridge, especially vs top order. Have no problem leaving him as 12th man. That gives me 6 Aussies definitely, Smith as a possible 7th in the XI. Just shows that Bell has dominated the series. Without him England would have 1 win - at Lord's, and even that would have been a heck of a lot closer if Bell were hypothetically replaced by Joe Average middle order player.


Australia's toss and weather luck is once again working a treat. Finally win the toss - but it's in the dead rubber. Then when you're ahead it rains again....

 

[barmyarmy]

Home advantage...

 

[ferg512]

Can someone who follows county cricket tell me how wide the gap is between the divisions? Just interested as in regards to Kerrigan I've seen a lot of people putting an asterisk on the wickets he has taken because they are in Division 2.

 

[Umair7]

100 up for SMITH

 

[Owzat]

Well I can only conclude the poor selection of Kerrigan and Woakes has given Trott a wicket taking opportunity he shouldn't have got. You go with five bowlers you don't expect to need a part-time wobbler like Trott to be given the ball.

12 Anderson

Seriously? You'd pick Siddle (17) and Broad (18) over Anderson (20) ? Broad has had one good game, taking 11 wickets. People have highlighted Anderson's two off games (5/233), Broad had THREE (6/312) before he had a blinder last match and now he's back to just blind (faith/selection)

Fair does you can argue in Siddle, steady eddie bar his last three bowls producing 2/108 which is not great. That comparison does show the 3-0 margin is perhaps not too representative, England have had the rub of the green, better 'luck' with reviews and their use, and when the aussies have been on top the English weather has rained on their parade.