The Ashes 2005 How to beat the Australians - or at least have a good go at it

[Beny]

England learn from Indian rubber

The Ashes 2005 How to beat the Australians - or at least have a good go at it

Paul Weaver
Wednesday November 10, 2004
The Guardian

England have not won the Ashes since 1987, when they won in Australia. Eight series later, they have not even been close. But now, in the bright new dawn of Michael Vaughan and his young team, hopes are higher than they have been for a cricketing generation.



The giants of the Australian team are getting old or have retired, Steve Harmison tops the bowling rankings, the batsmen are showing grit and consistency. This coming summer must surely be England's best chance to end that 18-year drought. However, India's cricketers, who have just suffered a demoralising 2-1 series defeat by Australia, do not share that positive view.

Anil Kumble, India's most successful bowler in the four-Test home series, said last night: "I would like to join in all the optimism because I know it's been a long time for England. But having seen the Aussies at close quarters in the last few weeks, I think they will make life extremely difficult for England.

"I make Australia firm favourites. They are so thorough and professional in everything they do."

Rahul Dravid, India's captain in the second half of the series, agrees with the bespectacled leg-spinner. "The secret to how we did well in Australia last winter was that all the batsmen made runs. Our lowest total in a completed innings was 286. "You have no chance against them without putting runs on the board. They will invariably make a lot of runs with their batting line-up, so you must match that to have any chance of causing an upset.

"It helped us in Australia that we were very positive in our approach, something we were unable to do this time."





India's coach John Wright also emphasises the positive approach. "If I hear England or anyone else saying they can be competitive against Australia, I will know that they are going to get beat," he says. "They must think they can go out there and beat them. And as long as they believe that, and they play well, I really think they can do so."

How England should bat


Kumble says England's fortunes will rest on how their openers shape up against the new-ball attack of Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie.

"England's biggest challenge is to see off the new ball, it's as simple as that," he says. "McGrath is almost as good as he ever was. Physically I think he's in great shape. Some people say he's not as fast as he was, but maybe they're just looking at his age and making assumptions.

"The thing about Glenn is that he's always appeared quicker than he really is because of the way he bowls, a little short of a length and with plenty of bounce.

"And Gillespie is probably better than ever. They're very mean, and patience is absolutely vital. As for Shane Warne, he has more variation than ever and is virtually bowling at his best.

"The secret for England's batsmen is controlled aggression. They must not be too passive. They must make sure they put away the bad ball, though I'm afraid there won't be many of them. [Australia] bowl nothing short, so you can't cut or pull. And there won't be anything to flick away off your legs, so it's tough.

"But putting runs on the board is the key to the Ashes for England. In this series we saw that Australia looked vulnerable when we managed to score over 300.

"The thing that really impressed me is the professionalism of their preparation. They have done their homework on every batsman, even the tail-enders, to stop him scoring. Whenever I came in they put a deep point out because they knew that's where I score a lot of my runs. England's homework will have to be just as good."

How England should bowl


Kumble says: "England must avoid the temptation to be too attacking just because they have a couple of decent fast bowlers. Always have fielders deep, even if the bowlers are on top. That's because the Aussies always come at you. They will attempt to dominate and score four runs and they get very frustrated if you can stop them doing that.

"Harmison must be told that his opening spell is critical. He has a reputation and the Aussie batsmen's attitude will be to go at him from the start."

Wright says: "England must concentrate on bowling a full length. Never give them the chance to play off the back foot because there they can murder you."

Kumble sums up: "The pitches are also very important. We beat them in Bombay by producing a surface that suited the spinners, though I think we went a little bit too far on that occasion.

"Traditionally England have had success playing on slow seamers, and that's what I would produce next year. Then, with Harmison and Andrew Flintoff, they have a chance, though I have to say that Australia will go into the series with the upper hand.

"I give the Aussies the edge because they have Adam Gilchrist coming in at seven, when the bowlers are often tired."

Wright adds: "The only way to beat them is to put them under a little pressure. They don't handle that well because they're not used to it, as we saw in Bombay.

"The Aussie way is to boss matches. If you can stop them doing that you're in with a chance." Even McGrath agrees with that. "India put us under pressure in the last match and I'm afraid we didn't respond very well," he says.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Wright

Wright says: "England must concentrate on bowling a full length. Never give them the chance to play off the back foot because there they can murder you."

So much for the theory that the Aussies will not like Harmison and Flintoff targetting their bodies with short pitched stuff: as many of us have been saying on these boards of late... the Aussies are too good to be bothered by that sort of thing. In England, especially, the answer remains disciplined work on line and length in the corridor of uncertainty... encouraging the batsmen onto the front foot.. and hoping to induce a misjudgement through lateral movement (ideally in the air as there's seemingly ever less to be had off the pitches these days).

Where's that leave England? With worries that Harmison will consistently find a good length (and from the off, with the new ball, rather than just after a spell or two to settle down and find his rhythm)... with concerns that when conditions don't suit, Hoggard is going to be vulnerable... and with concerns that Flintoff can't actually do much in the way of deceiving with lateral movement even when conditions DO suit.

Roll on Ashley Giles... and let's hope either Jones or Anderson can come of age over the winter to the point of taking the new ball and helping lead (rather than support) the attack.

[The Great DonTalon]

I think England goes ito this series with a great chance to beat Australia..they have the batsmen to do the job and the bowlers to compete. Two simple things England has to do to do well against Australia : (1) Restrict them to 270-290 runs in any days play and (2) England has to on any given day three straight sessions with 3-4 wickets in had upon starting their forth batting session.

And I am going to add a third one...I think the 1st test will set the tone for the England confidence A draw will be good and a win will be better. Australia despite their dominance still want to retain the ashes as this tradition is optimum to their supremacy .The ashes is what they most treasure and to lose the first test will really set their plans back and throw then off psychologically .


1. They need BIG partnerships from the openers.
2. They need their talisman Flintoff to get 2 hundreds and at least 4-5 fifties ( the team will feed off his performances)
3. They need Gerient Jones to get runs ( for some reason I think he'll be crcial in the batting order to shore up in case Flintoff fails)
4 ANDREW fLINTOFF HAS TO GET AMONG THE WICKETS

Atotal team effort will be needed

[Occasional Fan]

Your last line is the most important, Don, in my opinion. There's a lot of talk about Andrew Flintoff and Steven Harmison winning The Ashes. On their own, though, they haven't got a prayer: the other nine blokes have got to do their stuff as well. Second most important is to take the first test. If England doesn't draw first blood, the Aussies will be on a roll. And the third most important is to thump the South Africans this winter. England must go into The Ashes with their tails up.

Overall, I think England can do it this year (though 2006/7 is more likely). But they can't go in thinking that it is going to be easy. Fortunately, with Michael Vaughan at the helm no-one is going to be allowed to think that.

[The Great DonTalon]

I watched Michael captain ENG for 8 tests this year and he looks a cool customer..but he was never pressured.

when the pressure was on he had his hands up to his face and his head shaked etc etc . so far from what I have seen of him he has made the right changes at the right time and is just experienced a man to be respected and young enough to be approachable by the guys in the team.

is michael vaughn a good captain?
can he handle pressure?
can he handle being 3-0 down in a 5 test series?
can he inspire men down on confidence?

TIME WILL TELL

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

from the Guardian]England have not won the Ashes since 1987, when they won in Australia. Eight series later, they have not even been close. But now, in the bright new dawn of Michael Vaughan and his young team, hopes are higher than they have been for a cricketing generation.

What I have been saying for months, now is the turn hopes and dreams into reality.

Originally Posted by Beny

from the Guardian]The giants of the Australian team are getting old or have retired, Steve Harmison tops the bowling rankings, the batsmen are showing grit and consistency. This coming summer must surely be England's best chance to end that 18-year drought.

And there can be no dispute that I have consistently posted these same comments.

Originally Posted by Beny

From the Guardian Rahul Dravid, India's captain in the second half of the series, agrees with the bespectacled leg-spinner. "The secret to how we did well in Australia last winter was that all the batsmen made runs. Our lowest total in a completed innings was 286. "You have no chance against them without putting runs on the board. They will invariably make a lot of runs with their batting line-up, so you must match that to have any chance of causing an upset.

Well I would have thought that went without saying, if the batsem don't make runs, then any team will lose "almost"
I can remember the great Windies sides bening bowled out cheaply a time or two, they just retaliated by bowling us out more cheaply, so everything is not always black and white as it appears.

Originally Posted by John Write

India's coach John Wright also emphasises the positive approach. "If I hear England or anyone else saying they can be competitive against Australia, I will know that they are going to get beat," he says. "They must think they can go out there and beat them. And as long as they believe that, and they play well, I really think they can do so."

Just what I have been posting for weeks now, if not months, a few days ago, I posted"self belief and confidence DO matter", or words near as damm it, the same applies to every game.

Originally Posted by Kumble

Kumble says England's fortunes will rest on how their openers shape up against the new-ball attack of Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie.

"England's biggest challenge is to see off the new ball, it's as simple as that," he says. "McGrath is almost as good as he ever was. Physically I think he's in great shape. Some people say he's not as fast as he was, but maybe they're just looking at his age and making assumptions.

Just what I posted either yesterday, or the day before, all England need to do, is see of the new ball, and yes I am looking at his age and making assumptions, as I have every right to do at McGraths age, but no matter, Englands openiong batsmen, will have to gring the opening Aussie bowlers down, I have posted this.

"The secret for England's batsmen is controlled aggression. They must not be too passive. They must make sure they put away the bad ball, though I'm afraid there won't be many of them. [Australia] bowl nothing short, so you can't cut or pull. And there won't be anything to flick away off your legs, so it's tough.

"But putting runs on the board is the key to the Ashes for England. In this series we saw that Australia looked vulnerable when we managed to score over 300.

Well you could be talking about playing any team here, the same applies to Australia when they are playing us, runs have to be got, and Australia's bowlers are not supermen as this paragraph would have us believe, and in Thorpe and Butcher, we have just the men for this job.

Originally Posted by Kumble

Kumble says: "England must avoid the temptation to be too attacking just because they have a couple of decent fast bowlers. Always have fielders deep, even if the bowlers are on top. That's because the Aussies always come at you. They will attempt to dominate and score four runs and they get very frustrated if you can stop them doing that.

Dont agree with Kumble here, Englands best chance is to attack Australia, they are not used to that, it will bambozzle them to a point, I agree with some fielders deep, I think there may well be some miss timed hook shots.

"Harmison must be told that his opening spell is critical. He has a reputation and the Aussie batsmen's attitude will be to go at him from the start."

Wright says: "England must concentrate on bowling a full length. Never give them the chance to play off the back foot because there they can murder you."

Kumble sums up: "The pitches are also very important. We beat them in Bombay by producing a surface that suited the spinners, though I think we went a little bit too far on that occasion.

Yes Harmisons opening spell matters, but is not crucial, this guy comes back, and to bowll on a full length all the time, well Australia will love that, they will "DRIVE" our seamers out of the attack, I agree we should pick the preperation of the pitches, every other nation does.

"Traditionally England have had success playing on slow seamers, and that's what I would produce next year. Then, with Harmison and Andrew Flintoff, they have a chance, though I have to say that Australia will go into the series with the upper hand.

I would like to see the pitch a bit harder, yes keep the ball up, yes bowl fast bouncer, mix it up, but you cant do that on a slow seamers wicket.

"I give the Aussies the edge because they have Adam Gilchrist coming in at seven, when the bowlers are often tired."
"The Aussie way is to boss matches. If you can stop them doing that you're in with a chance." Even McGrath agrees with that. "India put us under pressure in the last match and I'm afraid we didn't respond very well," he says.

Yes Gilchrist coming in at 7 is a worry, we have no like for like answer to that, we will just have ti find a way to keep him quiet, and work on the tail.

No team likes being under pressure, if pace is not working, then Giles and Flintoff in defensive mode, is a weapon we have.

Ern.

Originally Posted by Rachael

So much for the theory that the Aussies will not like Harmison and Flintoff targetting their bodies with short pitched stuff: as many of us have been saying on these boards of late... the Aussies are too good to be bothered by that sort of thing. In England, especially, the answer remains disciplined work on line and length in the corridor of uncertainty..

Write may be wrong, has that never occured to you, and this "corridor of uncertainty", was coined by Boycott, not sure which series, all it means is bowling a line accurate just wide of off stump, hoping the batsmen will makw mistakes, Mike Hendrick used to bowl that, but although he was never expensive, he never got that many wickets, fraser was the best bowler for this type of bowling, well we dont have a fraser any more.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Roll on Ashley Giles... and let's hope either Jones or Anderson can come of age over the winter to the point of taking the new ball and helping lead (rather than support) the attack.

Well they will have to earn it, or wrench it out of Flintoffs hand, he has been getting wickets, the likes of "Lara and Sarwan", being used as a strike bowler.
And Rachael =Beny ect, how come you think Australian batsmen will fair better than the "world record holder Lara", and more than capable batsmen like Sarwan.

The Great Done Talon]1. They need BIG partnerships from the openers.
2. They need their talisman Flintoff to get 2 hundreds and at least 4-5 fifties ( the team will feed off his performances)
3. They need Gerient Jones to get runs ( for some reason I think he'll be crcial in the batting order to shore up in case Flintoff fails)
4 ANDREW FLINTOFF HAS TO GET AMONG THE WICKETS

Stating the obvious really, but are you saying here, there is only Andrew Flintoff in the team, or almost?
I expect our openers will get runs, and Flintoff is the most dangerous player in the world, G O Jones, my one major worry, next to injuries.

Flintoff is a dual role bowler, if conditions are nor right for striking, he (and I think even Rachael will concede this) is one of the most accutate bowlers in the world, bowling just back of a length., so wickets while needed, not always nessessary from a bowler like Flintoff.

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Overall, I think England can do it this year (though 2006/7 is more likely). But they can't go in thinking that it is going to be easy. Fortunately, with Michael Vaughan at the helm no-one is going to be allowed to think that.

,I agree OF that they can't think it will be easy, but they have to believe they can win.

PS Dont believe all you read in the Guardian.
Ern

[Notts Exile]

I think we do have a lot to be positive about. Certainly unless England mess up in South Africa they will go into the Ashes with a lot of confidence. We don't need to underestimate the Aussies but I don't believe there is any chance of that. At the same time there is no need to build them up as super-heroes or Gods, 'cos they aren't.

This business about them being too good to bowl short at is rubbish, as Ern says Lara and Sarwan have been undone by it, Bradman was (too a certain extent!). I don't mean bowling short and wide erratic stuff but controlled aggression aimed at the body (into the heart). No batsman in the world likes that.

Their bowling is still very good but with the new mindset of the english batsman we are better equipped to take them on than previously. Warne will not have the hold over the top order as he has had before (many will disagree with this, especially those who live in that strange culture void down under). McGrath will be a threat, Gillespie more so and if Brett Lee plays then England will probably emerge victorious!!

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Warne might not have bowled at test level at alot of the current england setup so oddly he might be a ab it of an unknown quantity for most of our top 5, certainly if butch doesnt play.

Dont buy into the to this aussies cant be undone with short stuff rhubarb either. Both harmisson and freddie (harmisson in particular) roughed up the ausseis in the ODI match inb sept.

[The Len Ganley Stance]

There has been a lot said about the Ashes and I feel any England fans believing we are not the firm underdogs are getting carried away. Much can change in the intervening period in terms of injuries although both sides seem to be fairly sure on 9 of the 11 places.

England have to decide on the Anderson v Jones dliemma and have a nice problem at no 3 with Key v Butcher v Bell v Pietersen. Australia have to perm 2 from Clarke\Katich\Lehman and Brett Lee might be staking a claim for Kasprowicz's place. Other than that both sides are well settled.

The bowler who needs to perform if England are to prosper is ,I feel, Giles. The Aussies regularly field 5 left handers in the top 7 although Clarke's emergence might limit that to 4. Even so, Giles will have a plenty of bowling into the rough outside the left-handers off stump. If he bowls well at the LHB and restricts a) the scoring rate of the 2 most destructive players (Hayden and Gilchrsit) and b) picks up some wickets, we only need the more "glamorous" players Freddie and Harmison to pick up a couple of wickets each in order to have the Aussies in trouble.

Giles performed well against the Windies side this summer which featured Gayle, Devon Smith, Lara and Chanderpaul in the top 6.
Analysis of his wickets in this series reveals he accounted for Gayle 3 times, Lara 3 times, Chanderpaul 3 times and Devon Smith twice. So he dismissed a LHB top 6 player 11 times in 4 matches.

So against the Aussies he will have a similar numer of lefties to bowl too (although slightly a class above the Windies ones) and if he repeats this summers performances England may have an outside chance.

[Beny]

ODI's dont mean anything in Test Matches. If it had been a test match then batsmen could just defend against it. The basics are that if you simply bowl bodyline (yess I see what you're up too), then you risk getting smashed for four and you decrease you're chance of taking wickets.

The comparison with the WI is compleatly unfair.
1. We have more depth in our batting.
2. He made 400 runs against you!!!

Originally Posted by Ern

Dont agree with Kumble here, Englands best chance is to attack Australia, they are not used to that, it will bambozzle them to a point, I agree with some fielders deep, I think there may well be some miss timed hook shots.

Ern,
You can just about predict the oppisiton saying this everytime they come to Aus. Batsmen should only be attacking the bad bowls and keeping out the good bowls no? Unfortunetly with McGrath and Gillespie you are not going to get that many bad bowls so you may have to attack the good bowls and thus get yourself out.

Originally Posted by Ern

Write may be wrong, has that never occured to you,

The guy has been playing against us since last year so you would think he might pick something up. Not to mention that he is an Aussie.

Dont believe all you read in the Guardian.

As far as cricket is concerned they are ussualy preety good.