Continued Inconsistency Plagues Ashes Cricket

It was a tough week to be an Australian cricket supporter. Everything had appeared so rosy after the Lords Test. Order had been restored. Australia had dominated a match on an unresponsive wicket, which meant that everything looked good heading into the final three Tests, and a retention of the Ashes. In eight sessions of cricket, this was blown away in a spate of poor batting, ordinary bowling and some poor fielding, and suddenly the Australians are so far behind the eight ball one wonders how they can possibly recover in time to reverse proceedings.

Whether or not the decision to bat first is seen to have been a mistake is irrelevant in the decisiveness of the loss. The conditions were not so untoward, given Cook suggested at the toss he would also have batted. The fact that Australia's batsmen were unable to make any more than 136 in that innings is where that match was lost. Australia's batting problems have been papered over for almost 12 months now, thanks to the amazing form of Steve Smith and Chris Rogers. Even at Lords, it was their partnership which ensured a huge total batting first, allowing the failures of Clarke, Voges and Mitch Marsh to pass almost unspoken of. At Edgbaston Smith failed twice for the first time in that 12 month period, and the middle order was exposed white bellied, and was gutted unmercifully. And then, even despite bowling poorly, the bowlers could have kept Australia in the match if they had been able to remove Broad or Ali early at 7/190. Instead, the 87 partnership put enough room between the two teams that when Australia's batting failed again it could not be recovered even through the tough work of Nevill and Starc.
So what happened? How did at team that was flogged by over 400 runs a week previous turn it around to win by the better part of seven wickets and over two days? Not to be unfair to England, but it was the Australians who brought it all upon themselves. England certainly improved, but not to the degree that the result suggests.
The truth of Australia's batting is now there for everyone to see, and the good news for England is that there is very little Australia can change to improve it. Take out Rogers' 52 from the first innings and Warner's 77 from the second innings, and ten Australian batsmen over those two innings contributed only 58 runs in total. It is a worrying trend. The swinging ball is again proving to be an insurmountable obstacle to Australia's batting, and precious few look likely to dig themselves in and fight their way through it. The dismissals of Voges and Marsh in particular reveal a technique raised on Western Australian wickets that is not sustainable in English conditions. Voges will be vulnerable in selection for the 4th Test given that the elder Marsh brother has scored a lot of runs in the county fixtures. The fact that they have been scored against substandard bowling attacks will not disguise the fact that he has form on the board, and Voges does not. If the change is made, it will not make Australian supporters feel any more secure, nor will it disappoint England's bowlers to have another left-hander to attack. Mitch Marsh's only replacement could be the recently deposed Shane Watson, but again that change would not really boost the confidence of Australians. No matter what the selection policy is in regards to an all rounders position in the Test line-up, you cannot bat at number 6 in Test cricket without scoring runs, and plenty of them. No ability to nip out wickets with the ball should replace the runs that are a prerequisite of batting in the top six of the Test team.
There seems to be an overreaction once again to an Australian captain who is a little short on runs. We saw it with Chappell, Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. They all had a slump when they were approaching a zenith in their career, and all had their heads called for as a result. each and every one of them fought out of it, scored memorable innings to again prove their talent, and were able to (more or less) leave the game on their own terms rather than on the cry of the media wolves. And now its Michael Clarke's turn. His courageous century in Adelaide last year has been set aside, and the fact that it has been five Tests since then and he hasn't made a 'big' score. That's right, 5 Tests. Not to mention that he top scored in the World Cup final not that long ago. There's no doubt he doesn't look comfortable at the crease due to his well publicised injuries, and opposing bowlers know he has weaknesses because of this that they can target, which they do. And the dropped chance at slip off Ian Bell didn't look good. But seriously, who remembers the last one he grassed? And why does the media feel it must hound a player of Clarke's stature into retirement? If you would back anyone to succeed with his back to the wall, it would be Michael Clarke. His century in South Africa 16 months ago showed that. Clarke has more credits in the bank than just about anyone in Australian cricket. He deserves the leeway from the media and the public to fight his way back into form without his future being questioned at every turn.
What happened to Australia's bowling attack? All five were on fire at Lords and couldn't do a thing wrong. At Edgbaston they couldn't put the ball anywhere near the right areas. They were short, they were wide, they were too full. There was no pressure on the batsmen, and Bell and Root in particular were able to play as they liked. If these two hadn't both thrown their wickets away in the first innings it could have been an innings victory for England. The McGrath comparisons of Hazelwood at Lords dissipated at Edgbaston, his four wickets conceding runs at over 5 an over. Starc was wayward, almost back to his old ways of 18 months ago. Johnson bowled two cracking overs but couldn't back it up consistently. Lyon bowled with surprising penetrativeness without ever really looking as though he could bowl his way through the order. Were they underdone, as some speculated in the days that followed? Surely in this day and age that should not be allowed to occur. Did they take the break between Tests too easy? Did they just believe they had England's measure? None of that makes sense in a professional environment. It was obvious however that, whatever the reason, the Australians as a bowling group was as poor at Edgbaston as they were terrific at Lords.
Will there be changes? It appears highly unlikely. Peter Siddle has been advocated as a possible change to provide stability and accuracy, but at whose expense? And given Australia must now win at least one of the final 2 Tests - and probably both - to retain the Ashes - surely they need their most attacking bowlers in tow? What I wouldn't give to see Fawad Ahmed given an opportunity. It won't happen unless injury strikes Lyon, but seeing him against these English batsmen would be tantalising.

What the 4th Test will come down to is how much Australia want to fight back, and whether it can be done. England will be without Jimmy Anderson, but the possible return of Wood will make England feel comfortable. Their batsmen, Adam Lyth aside, will feel they have the Australians measure. If nothing else, this Test match should be the most competitive of the series so far, and hopefully the most watchable.