Top 5: Observations from the First Test

The First Ashes Test at Trent Bridge was a great example of why Test Cricket is a great game; 5 days of play came down to the last day with the last batsmen trying to scrape runs together and save the day.

That it came to such a dramatic end will surprise many, particularly those who were making comments about this being the worst Australian touring side to visit England since the mid-eighties and more recently when James Pattinson bowled a wide for the first ball of the Test.

There was a great deal of controversy throughout the game, not least involving the Decision Review System (DRS), which is nothing new.  The system that allows team Captains to review a certain number of umpiring decisions through the course of a game is never going to be an exact science.  Give the power to the third umpire.

Aside from this though, there were several other notable observations, including:

England have 3 bowlers: 
While England named 4 bowlers (Finn, Anderson, Broad and Swann), only 3 of them looked like they were actually wicket takers.  Finn stopped being dangerous once the pitch changed after Day 1 and was largely responsible for helping Ashton Agar (the Australian number 11) get his eye in and hit a world record 98 on debut. 

Joe Root managed to chip in and get the wicket of Ed Cowan in the second innings, though this was more due to Cowan than any effort on Roots part.

The bowling stocks were so empty by Day 5 that Alastair Cook, the English captain, simply bowled his best bowlers (Anderson and Swann) into the ground, there was simply no-one else to go to.

Starc is the #11:
Australia tried a different batting line-up in both innings, with Agar coming in at #11 in the first, then #8 in the second.  Most of the other bowlers moved around the order to accommodate this, apart from Mitchell Starc, who kept the #9 position and made 1 run for the match.  Given that Siddle and (particularly) Pattinson both scored valuable runs or at least looked like they could, Starc should be moved to #11 where his T20 swatting belongs.

Australia need a time machine: 
While Australia where able to stay competitive in the match, it was largely due to the ability of the bowlers to take 10 wickets for relatively low scores in both innings.  Further, the wickets were spread amongst the bowlers, showing that there is some balance and options in the side.

The (known) issue here is the lack of experience and skill amongst the Australian batsmen.  Chris Rogers showed his team-mates how one can bat in England, playing the ball late and guarding his wicket.  Rogers also seemed to provide confidence to Shane Watson, who had his best match with the bat (and ball) in a long time.

While the some of the other batsmen (Smith, Hughes) are still young & could be forgiven for not having the experience needed, the same cannot be said for Clarke or Cowan.  Clarke has scored more than Wilt Chamberlain did off the field of late, so should be given some leniency

Cowan, though, has only one test century to his name after 18 tests and clearly needs to develop the type of calm Rogers has at the wicket if he is to survive, but where is this experience to come from?

Ideas, anyone?

 
Cook is no Captain: 
Slightly controversial, particularly given England won the game, but one of the big weaknesses of the England team seems to be strategy and leadership. As mentioned earlier, Cook seemingly had no idea on how to win the game, so simply kept bowling Anderson and Swann until they were knackered.  This is a poor plan for winning what is essentially a ten-test series.

Further, the fields set for Agar were all short, looking to prevent singles.  Once Finn started bowling short & Agar started pulling, no adjustment was made until he was already set.  England looked slow and arrogant in their belief that Agar couldn't bat.

Another solid strategy from the school of Captain Cook.

Once things did start to get tense there were meetings happening all over the ground, with even past-captain and seemingly fringe team-mate Kevin Pietersen getting involved.  It certainly didn't seem like the English team had a plan with each player knowing their role.

2013 is so 2005:
As mentioned earlier, many English commentators were expecting to win this series comprehensively due to their seemingly all-around superiority, this doesn't seem so likely now. 

What it seems we have now is a very good, experienced team that has a few stars and is on the wane playing against a largely inexperienced team with lots of potential.  If anything, this reminds me more of the 2005 Ashes series, which England won 2-1 by overcoming the famed Australian team that had started to age and wane.

Incidentally, Australia won the first Test in 2005 before losing that series.  An omen for this one perhaps?