Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

It's great that the build up to an ashes test is being built up so positvely.

Even without Swann I would be confident that our bowlers will be able to contain the Aussies.

I can't remember England ever having had such a good chance of winning the Ashes down under, and Swann is the key to that. I heard he has a better record than Warne did at the same stage in his career - I'm not sure if that is true but he is certainly the main man to watch out for from either side.

The fact that Australia have 2 left arm seamers, and lots of left-handed batsmen whom England's seamers will bowl around the wicket to shouldn't be underestimated in the help it will provide Swann also.

Hopefully the rugby union team will have lead where the cricket team will follow and tear the Aussies a new one!

No secret that Swann is key but good to have a blog on the subject to hear people's views.

There will obviously be accusations of hysteria made against England fans bigging up Swann pre-Ashes and, to be fair, we do have a tenedncy to go overboard on certain players at times. However, Swann seems like the real deal. If ability to turn the ball was all that mattered for a spinner then Swann might never have disposessed Monty from the team. However, he is a complete bowler, capable of attack and defence and his cricket brain is exceptional.

His character is also encouraging. Australia isn't a place for people who a) take themselves too seriously (Ponting excepted!), or b) don't like a scrap. Swann seems to relish the competition between batsman and bowler and is happy to play it as either a long game or a shoot out. His general demeanour suggests that he isn't going to be particularly phased by being singled out by batsmen - actually, he gives the impression that he's rather looking forward to it.

I do however, think that those expecting Swann to provide the drama and the excitement in this series may be mistaken. Despite frailties in both batting line-ups, I think that bat will largely dominate ball in this series. Swann's defensive role is more likely to be the crucial difference between the sides than his attacking one.

Personally, I think Swann will end up 2nd highest wicket taker behind one of the Aussie seamers. I don't however, think he'll come home with an average south of 33 (a bit arbitrary, but there you go). It will be his economy that is crucial, and I think that whichever seamer is bowling at the other end to him at any time will have a lot to thank him for.

Who would you pick?

A good article Ben, as you mention by having Swanny in the attack, even on a green surface he will be able to hold up an end, giving the seamers shorter more attacking spells. It will be interesting to see how the Aussies prepare the pitches, especially as they are unsure which spinner if any they will pick. I think a good thing about the England team, is that its settled and balanced, and each player is capable of making an impact. Im looking forward to a few late nights watching hopefully some competitive cricket.

I am so excited about the forthcomign series -now I just have to work out my sleeping patterns over the next couple of months!

I agree that Swanny's ability to constrict the Australian batsmen wil be absolutely key. Despite their recent difficulties, anybody who underestimates the Australians' ability to dig in against the "Poms" will be seriously shocked come the first Test. Expect "under-pressure" Hussey to come out firing....it's just what they do on their own turf(unfortunately!). If Swann can keep them quiet, and more importantly, thinking, one end, then I expect the wickets to be taken primarily by Broad and Finn, with Anderson weighing in with a couple here and there.

This is down to the Australian wickets and Kookaburra ball favouring the taller bowler - and I think Finn will bowl the better lengths while Broad has the cricketing brain to mix things up enought to cause the Aussies trouble.

Nonetheless, Swann remains absolutely pivotal to English success down-under, and hopefully he stays fit for the entire tour.

On a final note, someone who I feel hasn't been given enough credit is Prior - normally at this stage we are bemoaning that awkward glovesman/no.7 issue - something that Prior has made a thing of the past.

Come on England!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's been great to see the whole of the press and supporters in general get behind England on this tour, there's a genuine buzz going around.

With Broad, you feel he is growing with every game, Anderson has something to prove to his doubters - started well so far, and Finn has come in and rounded off the England attack. Swann, you can always count on. As for the batsmen, Strauss looks like he means business. If KP and him fire, the rest will follow.

You can't underestimate the occasion and what it'll do to the players. The aussies must be desperate for the talking to stop, they've been taking a pounding recently. England, for once, have been able to take it easy and let their performances do the talking.

Confidence is the key to an Ashes victory! The Aussies use to have it in abundance! Not any more. It's our guys who will walk out in Perth 'expecting' victory.

I'm not for one one moment underestimating the Aussies or the size of the task ahead, but a belief in yourself and your team-mates goes a long way toward a victory and England have every right to believe this is their time!

Swan will be pivotal for all the reasons mentioned thus far, but his main attribute will be the belief he brings to the side!

I can hardly wait!

Come on England!

Funny Poms
To hear all the premature crowing from the Poms makes me laugh. We heard all the same stuff before the last whitewash and it will certainly be 5-0 this time too.
You may have beefed up your team with saffers but you will need eleven of them in the team before you could even make Australia break sweat.

Typical poms - crowing before the series and whining and making excuses afterwards. You are boys against men and get used to it.

Swann is a huge asset with all the attributes he brings to the side. However, the thing I'm most impressed with and feel will be key to our success, like someone said above, is the BALANCE of the side. We seem to have the right batsmen in the right places, the correct attack and an ever improving wk between them who scores runs quickly. Essentially, everyone seems to know their job and has the belief that we are going to win. I'm not naive enough to think it will be easy and I know Flower and Strauss will make sure the players don't UNDERESTIMATE the Aussies, something that would surely prove fatal. Pitches and conditions will obviously have an effect on the outcome but I feel we have the players to cope with all situations we will face. Our confidence is sky high and I believe, unusually, that mentally we are currently in a stronger position than them. All I can say is...bring it on!!!

" 9. At 11:14am on 16 Nov 2010, Navel Gazer wrote:

Typical poms - crowing before the series and whining and making excuses afterwards. You are boys against men and get used to it."

I think it's nice for us to be in with a shout of winning down under, so we're bound to be a little confident! Especially considering the Baggy Greens shocking form over the last few months.

Naval Gazer, you sound really unhappy....Is this because you are one of the few Aussies that HAVEN'T been called up for the first test?

The 5-0 prediction could well come back to bite you on the behind, though!

#9, Navel Gazer. I'm guessing that this is another classic example of Aussie pom-baiting. But, you know what, I'm not going to rise to that. Actually, I think you've got a perfectly valid point. I agree that too manay people are underestimating Aus and overestimating England. People seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that because there is a bit of indecision amongst the selectors (which seems prudent bearing in mind the injury situation) that the 11 players who take the field in Brisbane will be somehow less good. The reality is that the whole 17 man squad business is only there because CA stupidly decided they would put the need for publicity and hype ahead of the more important matter of picking a side/squad. Whilst I think your 5-0 prediction is a little overboard, it wouldn't surprise me if Australia regained the urn next year.

Either way, stick to the blog subject. Would be interesting to know your thoughts about Swann and his counterpart Aussie spinners.

Swann is the key bowler for England, he will be the difference between winning and loss sing the ashes for England.

I expect England to win 5-0, England are playing very good and Australia are in very poor form.

But Australia had a excellent home form last year for them! So they can still play very good at home and should win the ashes .

Only 9 days left, so excited!

No need for Aussie bashing Navel, your team and and selectors are doing a good job to themselves.

I think Swann will be key as well Finn

This is bordering on genius, Ben. Our best bowler could be decisive.

I'd love England to win the Ashes down under, but with our batting still fragile and our top seam bowler (Anderson) likely to be negated by conditions and a ball that dont suit I still cant see an England win. If we draw the series it would be a result, but I reckon a loss of 2-1.

And Swann ? I think he's great for the game, the aussie fans will learn to love him because he's always up for it, and he'll take more wickets than any other english spinner since the year dot. But he'll be doing after England have put a below par score and thats were it all goes wrong.

Surely kryptonite is only useful if there is a superman on the other team?

Now I hate to be pessimistic, but like Navel Gazer says earlier I've heard it all before from us Poms, I think people are underestimating how good Australia are at home (and how average we are away from home). It is one thing us beating them on home soil with the Duke ball and swinging conditions, but in Oz it requires a completely different kind of performance to win. These are my thoughts:

Our bowling is good, very good. But it is not proven abroad, I don't see the aussies batting line up crumbling like in England last time. The wickets just don't come along as often!
I do hope Swann takes a shed load of wickets, but it is not likely he can match Warne's contibution in England (2005) and still that didn't win them the ashes!!

Our batting line up, a touch ropey. Except Trott, none of our batters have been able to put in a big score consistantly in the last year. Our batsmen are not used to the extra bounce and pace in Australia, which surely will take a fair amount of time to adapt to, more than a few warm up matches. You need to be capable of posting 450-500 in Oz to compete, where are all these runs going to come from???

All-in all, I am desperate for England to win, but my head says that Australia will win back the ashes, 3 - 1. Why?? We just don't travel that well.

" 9. At 11:14am on 16 Nov 2010, Navel Gazer wrote:

Typical poms - crowing before the series and whining and making excuses afterwards. You are boys against men and get used to it."

Typical Aussie - miserable sounding individual, well balanced with a chip on each shoulder.

18 , you are pessimistic!

I agree we have strengths and weaknesses in our team but for once I do not think the huge home advantage will necessarily help Australia. At the moment their team is getting a kicking in the Aussie press, they have had an un-precedented run of losing matches and they have so much confusion as to who to play they have gone for a preliminary massive squad in the hope that at least 11 can come through over the next week or so. If Australia fail to deliever their own supporters will eat them alive and add to the pressure they are already under.

If England start well and put the psychological pressure on Australia then I think they will wobble with a collapse here and there. England just need to seize the opportunities and they will win.

My forecast 2-1 England

Urrrrr-mate wrote: You need to be capable of posting 450-500 in Oz to compete, where are all these runs going to come from???
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really think that our batting lineup isn't looking too bad. If I had to choose between the two sides, I would take the English batting. We have a slight tendency in England to remember all the cheap dimissals because we watch our guys so much and scrutinise their every performance.
Strauss - Watson = Strauss (clear winner)
Cook - Katich = Katich (but injury makes this not so clear cut)
Trott - Ponting = Ponting (must be a clear choice but shoudln't detract from Trott)
Pietersen - Clarke = Pietersen
Bell - Hussey = Hussey (but this is close due to Hussey's poor form and Bell's mental disposition v Aus)
Collingwood - North = Collingwood (he can stand up and be counted when needs be, as we have seen)
Prior - Haddin = Prior (he has really made huge strides this year with his batting under the threat from Foster/Kieswetter et al. Looks to me like Aus would like to see Paine force him out.)

And then into the bowlers. Bear in mind that Broad can bat (v Pakistan cannot and must not be overlooked), and Swann hits the odd 50. Even Anderson isn't a complete bunny.

The above are just who I'd be more concerned about if they came to the crease. So can we post big totals?? Yes i think so.

I'd never be bold (stupid) enough to predict an easy series win againt the Aussies, but we do have a real chance of retaining the Ashes this series - for once we are going in as the settled and form side while the Aussies are having some difficulties both in selection and form.

Also the current Australia bowling line up is a long way less classy than the McGrath-Lee-Gillespie-Warne line-up we had to contend with through much of the noughties. Similarly, while less weakened, their batting ilne-up is less destructive in the absence of players like Hayden and Gilchrist.

Yes, ideally I'd like Cook and Pieterson to have shown better form over the summer, and to have more confidence that Anderson will find a way of being effective in conditions that do not suit him much, but I'm quietly optimistic that we can take this series.

Never been much of a fan but i've been focusing on his progression and I really think if England are to win then it will hinge on the performance of Stuart Broad (I'm still not sure if thats a good thing).

His lower order batting and ability to get wickets on flat wickets is telling. I think Swann will do well but maybe Broad is the man to lead this team to victory!

Come on Ian Bell - lets finally silence them doubters

@Navel Gazer

Our cricketers are going to pick up where our rugby lads left off - by differentiating the men from the boys and thrashing the aussies.

I think dummy_half and others are spot on. "Quietly optimistic" sums up my feelings too. Whatever Navel Gazer might think, I don't know any England cricket fan who would EVER crow in advance. I think while many of us suspect we've got the better team (for the first time in many, many years), we also at least half expect to lose. Personally, I've seen Steve Waugh and Ian Healy go from about 80-5 to about 350-5 so many times that I'm physically and mentally incapable of writing Australia off in a Test match until about an hour after we've actually won the game. Let alone a series.

Anyway, I'm quietly optimistic this time.

The two broads to bookend the ozs with men of the series!!

Australia may be on the wane, as evidenced by their defeat by India, but England cannot surely think they can win over there.

I predict, 3-1 to the Aussies.

Enough now. It's time to just play the game and let results and on field perfomances dictate what happens. Much of what is being discussed will count for nothing when we start playing. In the words of the financial markets past performances count for nothing now. Nobody can predict how this series will go really. If England freeze on day 1 then ALL of the previous good build up will be meaningless. If we play well and have character to come back from bad spells then we are in with a good chance.

Well, this blog goes back as far as Colin Blythe, so perhaps a cautionary word from the past would not be out of place:

"It is always said that Australians laugh at off-spinners, and they are certainly inclined to thrash them at, and wide, and over mid-on, with a thoroughness that one often prays to see in English cricket." (EW Swanton: 1954)

Hugh Tayfield (SA) took smiles off Aussie faces and such is the reported spirit in this English squad, we've good reason to hope that Swann can do the same. I heard him speaking to J. Agnew the other day and he certainly seems aware of his team role over and above any personal success he might enjoy.

On another matter, expat fans will not be able to get TMS (says Adam Mountford). We're left with night-time live text and I wonder whether the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú will be leaving 606 open to accompany it. Anyone know? - If not, it's gonna be Ashes in the cold, in the dark and in solitary!

11. At 11:33am on 16 Nov 2010, AerospaceMango wrote:

Naval Gazer, you sound really unhappy....Is this because you are one of the few Aussies that HAVEN'T been called up for the first test?


This didn't half make me laugh!

You know, I think a lot can be made of a little optimism. What seperates us from the Aussies is that they always believe they not only can win, but will win. Even now, with a clearly below-par Aussie line-up most of them predict a 5 - 0 whitewash. The fact of the matter is, they look very precarious indeed and are in very bad form. We are not. In my opinion Australia without Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist is a timid creature.

Now, our bowling, this article is great - Swann is everything you could hope for in a cricketer - he doesn't just bring fantastic averages but a real sense of character to the team (just follow his tweets for a day or two). But what really astounds me (apart from the fact that he has the second highest wicket count in test cricket and is a ENGLISH spinner) is his record of taking a wicket in his first over of a spell. As a batsman, that would make me feel very uneasy indeed. Anderson and Broad are both capable of genius and Finn may well find his momeny down-under.

Now, with the batting, I would take Strauss as an opener over most others in the world and feel he has immense strength of character, and as a Captain I think he is fantastic. Trott has the stamina to lock down an innings when it counts, but the real pride I have in the batting line up is the length. I think we have the longest tail of any side (exception of maybe India) and are capable of huge scores lower down the order - take a bow Swanny again. My only concerns are Cook and Pietersen - I fear the Aussies may tear Cook apart, and who knows with Pietersen. But let's face it, when we leave out players of Morgan's quality we must have some talent.

Ultimately, I think this is going to be one hell of a series and I can't wait!

@Turbulent_Times

I cannot take ALL the credit for that line.....

I think it was Aggers who used it at Jim Maxwell, through the wonders of Twitter! Just thought it was worth repeating!!

I'd LOVE to think that we could stuff the Aussies, but I know how easy it is for the wheels to fall off....very quickly....!!! The Aussies are at their weakest since before I can remember (Back to mid 70's) and I DO think we have the upper hand, but I'd never write them off!

I'd like to think we can win the series 3-2, but also, we COULD lose the series 3-2....That's how close it could be!

Come on England!!!

If you're looking for evidence to say that finger spinners have a hard time in Australia, it's even more certain if you move away from the Ashes and check spinners from other countries in the era of covered pitches.

Harbhajan Singh - 4 Tests in Australia, 9 wickets @ 73.
Murali - 5 Tests, 12 wickets @ 75.

Not great viewing. The interesting one to check are spinners with a command of flight. Bhaji certainly isn't an off-spinner famed for flight and I'd argue that Murali relied far more on outrageous turn than devious flight. For flighty spinners, I'll put forward three names and publish their records in Australia:

Lance Gibbs - 14 Tests, 59 wickets @ 33.
Bishen Bedi - 7 Tests, 35 wickets @ 27.
Erapalli Prasanna - 8 Tests, 31 wickets @ 31.

On the Indian tour to Australia of 1977-78, Bedi and Chandrasekar, a quicker spinner, took a lot of wickets:



So how does all this relate to Swann? My feeling is that a spinner has to be prepared to take some stick in order to get wickets in Australia. Kumble accepted this in the latter half of his career. He was prepared to concede some runs in exchange for more wickets and he did give the ball more air than he had done previously. Figures of 2 for 75 from 30 may look tidy but any player would prefer going for 50 runs more in exchange for another 3 wickets to that analysis. When Phil Tufnell started with England, he gave the ball air and bowled beautifully in Australia. Sadly the captains of that era demanded he bowl flatter and frequently around the wicket. Much is said of how Hick was ruined by poor management and I'd put Tuffers in the same category. Flight is vital in Australia.

Someone on the blog said "Swann's defensive role is more likely to be the crucial difference between the sides than his attacking one."

The best way to defend against Australia is to take wickets. The idea of utilising Swann as a defensive bowler is not right. He is an attacking weapon as powerful and as potent as any quick bowler. His change of pace, drift, and good flight will take wickets but he needs to be allowed to go for 4 or maybe 5 an over providing he is taking wickets or looking threatening.

One drawback with a four man attack is that there is no obvious guy to do the donkey work in the style of Hoggard last time we went to Australia. Finn hasn't got the consistency for me to do this nor possibly the physical strength, and Broad isn't a donkey bowler. I think Anderson has to shoulder that responsibility to an extent, not to the point of bowling 30 overs a day, but being able to choke an end up. He knows that the ball is going to lose any swing quickly and that the wickets aren't going to be green seamers for the most part. Looking at how he ended up bowling this summer, it appeared to me that the slight reduction in pace coupled with improved accuracy and some decent bounce was a pointer for how he will be asked to bowl in Australia. I'd also suggest that Collingwood's ability with the ball is going to be as important in this series as it ever has been. I expect him to play a useful role for England.

I can't England losing the series, and a draw would be good enough...

England have great depth in their batting this time around, which makes up for the slightly fragile top order - Prior at 7 has a better batting average than most of the top 6, while Broad and Swann are both capable number 8s (i.e. one of them is place too low).

Unlike 4 years ago, England have the settled and successful team, while Australia are the ones with injury and form problems. The names on their teamsheet just aren't scary anymore.

I always find it curious that an Englishman who predicts 2-2 or 2-3 is being arrogant, but an Australian who predicts 5-0 is just telling it like it is.

We've won in Australia three times in my living memory. In 1972 we beat a pretty decent Australian side, somewhat unexpectedly. In 1978 we beat a side in turmoil (although any team with Border, Hughes, Hogg, Hurst, etc is not as weak as the revisionists like to make out). And in 1987 Mike Gatting's "can't bat, can't bowl and can't field" side came up against a side with even more problems than them (in the 1st Test in Brisbane the Australian seamers had 8, 1 and 0 caps respectively). The 1987 win was totally unexpected because the team had such awful form before the Test series started, but had a useful attack and a batting line-up that defied its early form. The side also proved a point by beating the West Indies in the Perth Challenge, showing that winning the Tests wasn't entirely a fluke.

2010 is harder to call. In a way it is similar to the 2004 Caribbean series where the West Indies were clearly in decline and England were clearly improving, but no one was quite sure what the relative strength of the two sides was in what had previously been barren territory. England haven't lost any of their last six series and, lest our rivals scoff and whinge, they did include series against South Africa and Australia and we did beat Pakistan. Although there have not been many huge scores, they have not been needed to win matches and W12 L3 in 19 Tests in those six series is a decent record, so the team must be doing something right. Australia, on the other hand, are getting into a habit of dire batting collapses. Both Tests in India were lost from apparently safe conditions due to massive collapses and the one against Pakistan was also something totally new from an Australian side. The Ashes in 2009 were lost due to an innate ability to counterpoint huge scores when they didn't count for anything with even bigger collapses when the chips were down. It's all very un-Australian and suggests that the script in 2010 is rather different to that of 2006. It doesn't mean that England will win, but it does mean that they should be able to hold their own. I'd bet on 2-1 to England, or 2-2.

Contrast the build-up to this series with the much-loved series in 2006/07 and you do see a few differences. Then Australia's form before the series had been imperious and England's dire. England were riven with injuries and Australia settled. England had a stand-in captain who was not up to the job and Australia had a settled and successful captain. And, above all, Australia had one of the best attacks of any side in the last 50 years! At least this time there is no excuse for losing badly.

Dirsy - here's another interesting role Swann is playing in the build up to the Ashes: no-one is really talking about KP, who seems to be quietly edging his way back into form and belief. If he hits the ground running and catches the Aussies by surprise, then added to the rest of the England package it could garner crucial early momentum. Because you have to wonder, if the current Australia team lose the first Test and go behind in the second, will they stop believing?

Good blog - let's have a few more of these and get the Ashes build-up going properly. First test is in 9 days and Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has devoted little web-space to it so far.
As an Englishman I'm getting a bit annoyed with the likes of Allan Border mocking the English for having so many South Africans in the team. You can only pick the best players available to you and I see Usman Khawaja (born in Pakistan) is in the Australian squad which, since he qualifies to play for them, I have no problem with.

Can't wait for the 25th Nov at the Gabba - come on England!

#32, AndyPlowright: Excellent and interesting post - cheers for that fella. Think you quoted my comments about Swann's real significance in Oz to be his ability to bowl defensively. I agree with you that the best form of defence for a bowler is to take wickets - its a no brainer really. However, I think that finger spinners have to be more pragmatic, not just in Oz but anywhere. Ultimately, a game can be taken away from a side in one session of destructive batting and Australia have a few players capable of that (though not as many as in yesteryear). Sometimes, a bowler has to cut his losses.

Swann however, is different from many finger spinners - esp. the left armers that we have often taken down under. If, for example, Giles had been asked to bowl a defensive line then it would have been a case of over the wicket to pitch outside leg and the chance of wickets would have been massively reduced. Swann however, has a naturally aggressive line even when bowling more defensively. I also don't think that Strauss would be telling him where/how to bowl - Swann has always struck me as a bowler who plays ball by ball rather than over by over or session by session. He just loves that cat and mouse aspect of the contest with an individual batsman. That he is mentally strong enough to keep this up all day is a great credit to him.

As I suggested earlier, I think Swann is capable of taking many wickets by proxy simply by strangling the batsmen at one end and putting some scoreboard pressure on them. I would expect our seamers to reap some rewards.

Re your stats: they are illuminating, but I'd be interested to see the economy rates of the bowlers as well (apologies - could probably look this up myself, but you clearly love your stats and I'm lazy), as I think this could give a more accurate reflection of the role of finger spinners in Oz. (Although to be fully comprehensive then they'd need to be placed alongside economy rates of the other bowlers in their side etc etc etc!)

How wonderful that Chris Tremlett took 4-54 as England dismissed Australia A for 230 in their final warm-up match before the Ashes, on the very day that William and Kate announced their engagement.

i would still love to know exactly what went on in the dressing room when swann was a youngster with england is south africa. whatever it was it looks like a huge blessing in disguise. i have absolutely no doubt that australian batsmen fear him.

Monty had a great 18 months but tailed off after everyone got a look at him. The Aussies will target Swann and it will be the ability of our seamers on the dry bouncy pitches that will decide if his numbers matter. For me its the batsmen that will dominate the series. It all rests on Cook and KP.

#39 - Thought it was Sri Lanka, or at least somewhere on the subcontinent? Could be wrong.

Deep-heat:

Can a game be lost with one session of batting in Oz? Maybe in India where a pitch can change so quickly on the fourth and fifth days and you have a Sehwag character but I don't think this is common in Australia. Shipping 150 runs in a session would be bad but you're not going to play on a big Indian crumbler in Australia for the most part. Last time in Australia, the adelaide Test was lost purely down to our poor batting and Warne's big of magic. Australia haven't got anyone in the side who can do what Sehwag can do.

"As I suggested earlier, I think Swann is capable of taking many wickets by proxy simply by strangling the batsmen at one end and putting some scoreboard pressure on them. I would expect our seamers to reap some rewards."

Why should the spinner be the one who has to do the strangling? That's precisely the sort of attitude to spinners certain England captains had with Phil Tufnell. On his day, Tuffers had absolutely beautiful flight. On others, he was being told to bowl over the wicket defensive rubbish. There have been a few times in the ODI arena that I've questioned Strauss when it comes to slow bowlers. It was notable that batting powerplays when England were fielding were met by Strauss instantly bringing the seamers back on. As I wrote on Oliver Brett's blog earlier this year:


"The other issue that really got to me was the lack of bowling for the slow men, Swann in particular. The final ODI was a case in point. Yardy and Swann bowled a grand total of 13 overs between them for 51 runs, Swann claiming 3 wickets. What made this stranger was Swann being taken off after six overs and two wickets for 18 (I think) when the batting powerplay was taken. Strauss seems very afraid of bowling spinners when the powerplays are going. Why? The final ODI saw the seamers being taken apart in that powerplay. In all during that powerplay, seamers bowled four overs for 53: Swann bowled a solitary over of spin for 10 after coming back on after three overs of seam that went for 42. Swann then goes and gets the crucial wicket of Marsh, bowls that successful over for 4 runs... and gets taken off."


That was pretty consistent during the ODI matches this year. Strauss seems to have a certain caution with spinners that we didn't see in the T20 in the West Indies under Collingwood. He really backed his slow men and that was refreshing to see. Strauss didn't have that same belief in his slow guys this summer at times. Now, if Swann goes at five an over at the WACA but still looks threatening, will Strauss automatically go on the defensive? It does feel to me that Strauss gives the seamers more slack if they go for runs than he'd give to a slow bowler.

The stats I posted up weren't looking for economy rates. It was to demonstrate that the flightier bowlers, of which Gibbs and Bedi are great examples, tend to be the more successful ones Down Under. The economy rates would be a fairly poor way of measuring success, as run rates in 1977 were somewhat trundly compared to now and a reduction in conservative batting and the flatter pitches of today. The stats for the 1977-78 India-Australia series where Bedi took so many wickets are here:



The person to look at would be Anil Kumble in detail with his trips to Australia. He made his Test debut in 1990 so had several years to develop until his first trip to Oz in 1999. Indeed, by the time of that first Test in Australia, Kumble had played 57 Test matches and taken 257 wickets. He was a lot more experienced than Swann will be come the time of his debut Test in Australia. Kumble then returned to tour Australia in 2003 and 2007. The stats:

1999/00 series - 3 Tests, 5 wickets at 90, SR of 175, ER of 3.07.

2003/04 series - 3 Tests, 24 wickets at 29.58, SR of 51.5, ER of 3.44.

2007/08 series - 4 Tests, 20 wickets at 34.45, SR of 54.4, ER of 3.79.


It's been oft said how Kumble changed his approach to Australia. The accurate slow-medium man that he was on his first tour to Australia in 1999 was replaced by someone more willing to flight the ball and give the batsman a chance to score, thus opening up the chance to take wickets. Those stats show the point I was trying to make about a bowler willing to become more attacking, thus giving more runs away but snaring more wickets in the process. Kumble learnt how to bowl on Australian wickets and developing his ability to flight the ball and bowl at a reduced pace was a vital part of his success. Swann turns the ball more than Kumble did and has that excellent change of pace, especially to left handers. I have a feeling it'll take him a little time to get the flight right for Australia but he will learn, and this is why I'd like Strauss to have a little patience with him if he does go for a few runs. I have absolutely no doubt that Swann will succeed. When he played at Cardiff, he looked nervous and bowled like a drain. I expect him to bowl a lot better in his debut Australian Test.

I would like to know which side of the fence Mark Nicolas is on. Watching the game last night, Mike Atherton's comments re the Australian depression when he entered the country were mentioned on the Channel 9 commentary. Mark Nicholas said 'what does Atherton know he has only been in the country 24 hours'. Is Mark Nicolas more interested in his Channel 9 commentary contract than England winning the ashes? He could have easily said 'well he has a point'. I suggest Nicolas should be fired from Britain's Best Dish in view of his bias!!

Can't wait for the start of the action and even Monty looks like Jonty Rhodes

I completely understand your frustration VerticalMarket, his bed wetting excitement at anything Australian is embarrassing. As for his dialled in performances on Britain's best dish, the less said about that the better.

I'm really excited but also frustrated as they'll be no live coverage other than text-commentary on the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for us mere mortals in South America.

Four years ago England did not prepare adequately and lost Vaughan, Trescothick and Jones to injury, while the Aussie old guard of Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, etc wanted to go out with a bang and had a point to prove after they had lost the Ashes in 2005.

On paper England are the favourites but in practice Australia at home are almost impossible to beat, England capitulate almost too easily plus I think the pressure will show much like England at the WC in SA. We can but dream though!!!!!!!!

ITV have secured the rights to broadcast the highlights of the Ashes!
Deal was done today!

This is probably an irrelevant topic on this blog, but it is important news for all those free views who watch cricket!

Read more about it by clicking link:

As stated,ITV have won the rights for Ashes highlights and have decided to stick them onto ITV 4!!!!,can anybody from the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú explain why they have lost out on broadcasting 1 of the most eagerly awaited series of cricket in a long time?,if ITV have won them and shoved them out to 1 of their satellite/cable channels,the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú must have either not wanted them or been sitting on their hands,seems as if somebody has got some explaining to me!!!.
Enough of the rant!,Swann will be the key man in the series as he can change a game,is head and shoulders better than Australia`s equivelent and more importantly supports NUFC,ok the latter is not important but the previous 2 most definately are!.

Four years ago England did not prepare adequately and lost Vaughan, Trescothick and Jones to injury, while the Aussie old guard of Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, etc wanted to go out with a bang and had a point to prove after they had lost the Ashes in 2005.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

#42, AndyPlowright: Thorough reply mate - cheers!

You ask why the spinner has to be the one to do the strangling. To be honest, my answer to that is fairly straightforward: I think that Swann is our only bowler good enough to tie up an end. That isn't to denigrate our seam attack, but I have not seen them bowl a consistent defensive session against quality batsmen and I don't believe they're reliable enough to be asked to do so. In addition, the physical toll of bowling in hot and hard conditions with only a 3-man pace attack would make the necessary discipline a great challenge. Finn is showing promise that given a couple more years experience he may be able to fulfill this role but he is still pretty green. I live in hope that the need to adopt such tactics will not arise, but despite the frailties of the Aussie batting line-up, they are capable of accelerating the scoring at quite a rate. If Hussey finds form he is quite able to do this (slightly at odds with his image), as is Haddin, Johnson etc. If Ponting does hit his straps, he can do pretty much whatever he feels like.

Don't misunderstand me about Swann - as I said earlier, I still think that he will be England's highest wicket taker and have no doubt that he will be used as our most offensive weapon, I simply think that it is great for England to be in a position where they have a bowler who is able to fulfill a defensive role whilst maintaining the chance of a wicket, as opposed to the left arm over option we seem to have had for years prior.

He has been pretty open himself about looking forward to the need to bowl containing sessions. He knows that these periods have a chance of bringing about wickets in a different way.

Regarding the management of Swann by Strauss, Strauss has already intimated before (when he was being asked about Panesar) that he has faith in Swann's cricket brain and as a rule doesn't tell him how he wants him to bowl or how to set his field, so I wouldn't worry about that side of things. I haven't yet seen Swann bowl what I would call an irresponsible session in the context of a test, i.e. chasing wickets at the expense of England's position in the game.

Your comments re Kumble are very interesting - have to say that I've only seen highlights of India's tests in Oz, so wouldn't have noticed an adjustment in his approach to the wickets. Will be very interesting to see if Swann does something similar.

Deep-heat:

There's different ways of tying an end up. Lots of people will remember the leg theory employed by England with Ashley Giles to frustrate Tendulkar (and frustrate him it did: Giles is still the only Test bowler to get the Little Master out stumped). Obviously we won't get that with Swann but it does worry me when a lot of voices out there think Swann is going to keep things tight and take wickets. The Aussies will go for him, of that I am sure, and so people have to have some realistic expectations. I don't want our best spinner for generations to have to do the holding role as well.

This is why I say James Anderson is going to have to shoulder some of that. Broad and Finn aren't holding bowlers, no matter how many times people compare Finn to McGrath. Anderson this year was really getting into the role of cutting back the pace and improving the accuracy when things weren't swinging for him. In Australia, he's going to have an interesting role for me. In the first ten overs, he's got to give it everything. Finn will come in and have a similar spell whilst the ball still has a bit of hardness to it. In the middle overs from 30 to 80, the seamers will need to keep it tight as the older ball will lose pace, bounce, and swing. Without a reverse swing bowler in our first choice three, tightness will be the key. That's the period when I think Collingwood will be out with his cutters, maybe three or four overs, see what happens. Of the seamers, Anderson is the one with the old ball for me who is going to be the tight man, and I liekd what I saw of his change of approach when the ball wasn't swinging this summer.

My worries over Strauss being conservative I hope won't come true. He doesn't strike me as a captain who acts on instinct or hunches, something Vaughan did do. When it comes to slow bowling, I like a captain who backs the bowler. There was a great example last time in Australia with Panesar. You can find Youtube footage if you hunt for it. Symonds clonked him for 17 in one over, two big sixes and a four, and even Richie Benaud was suggesting that a change would be the right thing. What happens? The captain backed Panesar, gave him another over, Symonds played a horrible leaden cut shot, and gets caught behind. It was a great example of a captain backing his slow bowler even after that bowler conceded runs. That over by Panesar wasn't poorly directed, it was purely decent balls met by a powerful Symonds blade. It was then countered by faith in Panesar being rewarded with the wicket.

Kerry O'Keefe had a lot to say about Kumble. I freely admit to being geeky enough that I keep links saved on bowling. As a former slow bowler, any information on how a bowler works out opponents is fascinating and this link is one of my favourites:

What this England team have is a positive and united team spirit. What happened in 2005 was one for all and all for one, so even if one member of the team failed, another one stood up. It was remarkable in 2005 to see how we thought England were totally stuffed, and suddenly another member of the team did the right thing, coming up like mushrooms after rain. That's team spirit, and it seems to me that the current Aussie team don't have that sense of togetherness. England can capitalise on that fact.

I remember that in 2005 man for man, the England team looked pretty jolly ordinary, but Vaughan and Fletcher exerted their influence, inspired their team, and helped to produce one of the greatest sporting tournaments of all time. I'm not saying that the series down under will be in that very special category, but the current England team are not facing Warne and co in their pomp. I would never ever discount the Aussies,and complacency is utterly inappropriate, but as Strauss observed a while ago, they've lost their aura.

The England preparation for this series has been absolutely impeccable. Whatever the outcome, I take my hat off to them for it. Also delighted that they've been utterly tight-lipped and have let the Aussies shoot their mouths off in time-honoured fashion.

Go England......

@40, Philip, do I really have to explain why any comparison of Swann and Panesar is utterly fatuous to anyone who has seen both bowl? Swann is better in every department except rpm. Monty was rumbled because he lacked variation. Swann won't be rumbled in the same way, he's just an excellent bowler. Graeme Swann is the real deal, and the backbone of our Ashes defence.