When historians sit down at their special historical desks in decades to come and compose their unarguable histories of the year 2011, they will scratch their history-loving chins, twiddle their retrospectivising pencils, and wonder to themselves: “What was the most important thing that happened in that famous year? Was it the wave of popular revolutions around the Arab world? The forces of technology-enhanced democracy unleashed around the planet? The European economy Titanic-ing itself into an iceberg of idiocy? The violent deaths of some of the universe’s least desirable dinner companions? Or was it the rebirth of Test cricket, as a new generation of star fast bowlers emerged, and groundsmen around the world remembered that their principal purpose in life is not to bore spectators to tears and make fast bowlers wish their parents had never met?”

Time will tell which box they tick on their multiple-choice answer sheet. But they will surely give considerable thought to the last of those options. Some may even choose it. They would, of course, be wrong. And, hopefully, fired from whatever professorship they happen to occupy.

However, the last couple of months have been the most exciting for the Test game for a considerable time, a catalogue of engrossing contests in which momentum has shifted with each couple of wickets and each partnership of 30 or more, decorated by individual performances of enticing promise for the future. Test match cricket has been buffeted about like an unwanted penguin in an uncaring tumble dryer in recent years, but that penguin has emerged, flapped its wings, barked, and resolved to give flight another wholehearted attempt.

The year ended with the two teams that had begun the year tussling for the No. 1 Test spot sink to disappointingly supine defeats. India caved too easily in the face of excellent Australian fast bowling, whilst South Africa, for the third series in a row and fourth in six, contrived to lose a 1-0 lead, this time to an inspired Sri Lanka, who claimed their first win of the post-Murali era, at the 16th attempt. In a country where they had never previously won. And where they had averaged 209 all out per innings in their previous eight Tests. Seven of which they had lost (four by an innings), with one rain-aided draw. And with a bowling attack that had not taken 20 wickets in its previous 12 away Tests over three years. It was one of Sri Lanka’s greatest wins.

It was also one of South Africa’s worst modern defeats, rounding off a deeply disappointing year in both Tests and ODIs, in which a team that has almost all the component parts of a great side consistently proved itself not to be one. Yet. The Proteas can look like a top-end Rolls Royce in one match, but when the clock strikes 1-0, they seem to turn into a pumpkin, with Graeme Smith sitting confusedly at the wheel of the pumpkin like a disappointed Cinderella, banging the pumpkin dashboard and muttering, “Where’s the accelerator on this thing? Vroom vroom. Come on. Vrooom. Ah, shucks. I could have really done with more from that Prince.”

Dhoni’s India picked up where they left off in England, batting with insufficient technique and application against the moving ball. A questionable tactic, at best. From a position of first-innings control, if not dominance, they lost 17 wickets for 237, thus counteracting both their own strong team bowling performance and Australia’s own insufficient technique and application against the moving ball.

India should be in a better state to recover from their first-Test blooper than they were in England, whilst Australia have shown that they have the capacity to lose a match from almost anywhere. An intriguing series looms as these two fragile giants trade cricketing slaps with each other.

One of the prominent trends this Test year, and particularly of the 2011-12 season so far, has been the performance of bowlers new to Test cricket. In Melbourne, Pattinson again looked a potential world-beater ‒ how was he allowed to slip through England’s global recruitment net ‒ and Yadav confirmed his promise with another muscular and skilful display.

(Strap in, stats fans. I’ve spent far too long working all this out, to give statistical backing to an already widely observed phenomenon, so you can all damn well read it to justify me staying up well past my bedtime for a prolonged and intimate session with Statsguru.)

Bowlers who have made their Test debut in 2011 have, between them, taken 319 wickets at an average of 28.8. (I have included bowlers and allrounders, but not batsmen who dobble a few down every now and again. Even if they have taken wickets. They have no place in the numbers. I don’t care if it is allegedly the season of goodwill.) In 2010, debutant bowlers took 165 wickets at 41.4. From 2000 to 2010, the average yearly haul by bowlers in their debut Test year was 152 wickets at 38.7.

Furthermore, over the last 12 months, debut-year bowlers have outperformed those who had played Test cricket before 2011, who collectively averaged 33.5. Thus, bowlers new to tests in 2011 have been 16% more effective than their more experienced colleagues – from 2000 to 2010, bowlers in their first year of Tests had, on average, been 15% less effective than those who had already played.

Nor is it that these statistics have been skewed by one or two particularly outstanding newcomers. Bowlers who have debuted this year have taken 18 five-wicket hauls, shared between 12 different players from eight different countries, all of them under the age of 27, six of them aged 22 or less. Only England, who did not give a debut to a new bowler this year, and Sri Lanka, cannot boast a newcomer with a five-for this year.

By comparison, in 2010, seven five-wicket hauls were taken by players new to Tests; there were five newcomer five-fors each in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2001 and 2000; only one apiece in 2005, 2004 and 2002; and a slightly rogue 10 in 2003.

Of course, these numbers are, by their nature, a little random – a bowler who makes his debut in a Boxing Day Test has less opportunity to shine in his debut year than one who prances onto the Test scene in January; and due to not wanting to wake up in the morning with pages of meaningless numbers drifting before my eyes, or to alienate my children at breakfast with exciting discoveries about the performance of bowlers in their debut years during the 1890s, my research only goes back to 2000. Even Statsguru was begging me to leave it alone by the end.

However, the sheer number of newly blooded bowlers who have made an immediate and striking impact on the Test scene this year bodes well for the next few years. Not for batsmen who do not particularly like playing pitched-up swing bowling (i.e. all batsmen), but for Test cricket and its supporters, for whom memorable bat versus ball contests have not been as plentiful as they would have liked. Provided, of course, that all these new bowling stars do not simply disappear into the Twenty20 ether, fall to pieces under the merciless hammer of the international schedule, or decide that banging it in short of a length outside off stump to keep the runs down is the way to bowling nirvana.

Next time: The Confectionery Stall 2011 Awards Ceremony.

Comments (21)

In the 2015 previous Test matches that have adorned the history of the universe, few, if any, passages of play can have matched the barking-mad cricketing melodrama that unfolded in the 2016th in Cape Town on Wednesday. On a lively but scarcely fire-breathing wicket, mayhem reigned as the moving ball and the DRS ran amok like a porcelain-loving bull in a well-stocked china shop.

Australia, from a position of total dominance, lost, in quick succession: a few early wickets; their marbles; and control of the game. Haddin, in particular, seemed to be spooked by the scoreboard (which read an admittedly alarming 18 for 5), and forget the match situation, which was, effectively, 206 for 5. Philander and Morkel took full advantage, and the game was not so much turned on its head as flipped into an impromptu quadruple somersault, before staggering groggily to its feet, muttering: “Who am I and what am I doing here?”

Australia had history and an immortal entry in the annals of sporting ineptitude within their grasp – at 21 for 9 after 11.4 overs, they were within one more inept waft of registering the lowest-ever completed Test innings (New Zealand’s 26 against England in 1954-55), and the shortest-ever completed Test innings (South Africa’s 12.3 overs at Edgbaston in 1924). Siddle and Lyon stapled a small fig leaf of dignity to Australia’s obvious embarrassment with a last-wicket stand of 26, and History mopped its brow and toddled off. But it did not leave empty-handed. Here then, is a multiple-choice quiz about the unforgettable day two of the Newlands Test. Each question has multiple answers. Do not attempt if you are (a) an Australian batsman, or (b) an Australian of nervous disposition.

1. What did Nathan Lyon do on Thursday that no other human being has ever done?

(a) He walked out to bat in a Test match with his team at 21 for 9. The previous worst score facing a No. 11 was 25 for 9, when Lyon’s baggy green predecessor Tom McKibbin marched to the wicket at The Oval in 1896 thinking, “Oh dear. This is a disappointing score. I bet no other Australian will ever come to the wicket with a worse score than this on the board.” He smote a defiant 16 before being caught, taking Australia’s score up to 44 all out, leaving Hugh Trumble chuntering into his moustache at the non-striker’s end that he had taken 12 for 89 in the match and still been on the wrong end of a shoeing.

(b) He broke the 300-mph barrier on a unicycle. Unicycling has been introduced to the Australian training regime by their new coaches, as a means of improving balance and self-confidence. Lyon took a morning pedal up to the top of Table Mountain, lost his balance whilst looking for a yeti, and careered down to Newlands at breakneck speed.

(c) He became the eighth No. 11 to top-score in a Test innings.

(d) He walked on the moon.

ANSWERS: (a) and (c). (b) has not been ratified by the World Unicycling Federation, as it took place outside of official competition.

2. What do WG Grace and Philip Hughes have in common?

(a) Both men are no longer as effective as Test Match batsmen as they once were.

(b) Both have been played by Hollywood actor Val Kilmer in films.

(c) They have each taken part in one of the only two Tests ever played in which 23 batsmen have been dismissed in single figures in the first three innings of the match – Hughes at Newlands this week, Grace in the Lord’s Test of 1888.

(d) Both have featured prominently in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s dreams in the past week.

ANSWERS: (a), (c) and (d).

3. What has Australia as a nation experienced three times in the last 16 months?

(a) An infestation of pterodactyls.

(b) It has watched in gaping-mouthed astonishment as its once-mighty cricket team has been bowled out for under 100, on three separate occasions – 88 all out against Pakistan in Leeds in July 2010, the Boxing Day MCG abomination against England (98 all out), and now 47 at Newlands. Three times in 12 Tests. They had posted a two-figure score just once in their previous 277 Tests over 25 years. They had not been skittled for under 100 three times in two years since 1887 and 1888 – when they had to regroup and take the positives after eight different sub-100 totals. In six matches. It is fair to say that Australian batsmanship improved thereafter.

(c) A creeping sensation that Silvio Berlusconi’s behaviour might not be entirely prime ministerial.

(d) It has seen its cricket team win a Test match – in their previous four series, they won three, drew three and lost six. The previous time they won three or fewer games in a run of 12 Tests was between December 1987 and June 1989. At which point, they ground England into a fine pulp, kick-starting a decade and a half of unremitting Ashes dominance. Is this all part of Cricket Australia’s masterplan?

ANSWERS: (b) and (d).

4. Why might Vernon Philander and Shane Watson have spent Thursday night discussing plans for a massive 30-foot-high commemorative bronze statue of themselves to be erected on the concourse at Newlands?

(a) Because they had just overheard Peter Siddle and Morne Morkel discussing erecting a 29-foot-high commemorative bronze statue of themselves on the concourse in Centurion.

(b) Because they had just become the first pair of bowlers from opposite sides to take five-wicket hauls for fewer than 20 runs in the same Test.

(c) Because 18 wickets had fallen in 23 overs of Test cricket, and they had been the principal agents of batting doom – both took five wickets in 20 balls. Eighteen wickets tumbled for 68 in 138 balls. Think about that. Have you thought about that? What do you think about that? This included 16 for 44 in 115, as South Africa lost their last seven wickets for 23 (their lowest such total since their first Test after readmission in 1991-92), and Australia lost their first nine for 21 (unprecedented at least since before the dinosaurs were still at the crease). Holy smokes. The apocalypse is coming. No doubt. Look at the Eurozone. Then look at the scorecard from Newlands. Then look at Alastair Cook’s Test average over the last 12 months. There is no other conclusion to draw.

(d) Because, during the tea interval, they discovered a method of converting the noise of lbw appeals into electricity, thus solving all the world’s energy problems, and rightly believe that their breakthrough should be recognised in artistic form.

ANSWERS: (b) and (c)

5. Before the Newlands Test, what had happened only twice since the First World War?

(a) Another World War.

(b) Both teams had been dismissed for under 100 in the same Test. It happened when India and New Zealand went head-to-head in a loser-loses-all collapse-off in Hamilton in 2002-03, and when South Africa and Australia span each other silly in Durban in 1949-50, and it has happened in Cape Town this week.

(c) A member of the Bush family had won a US Presidential election.

(d) Australia had lost a Test Match after taking a first-innings lead of 188 – their Newlands lead after skittling South Africa for 96. Those two occasions are quite highly regarded matches – Headingley 1981 and Kolkata 2000-01. If Australia lose this match, it will be the eighth highest first-innings lead to have resulted in defeat (excluding the Hansie Cronje’s Magic Jacket match in 1999-2000, when the middle two innings were forfeited and England technically won after conceding a 248-run lead).

(e) A Test team had lost eight wickets for 10 runs or fewer. Australia collapsed like a narcoleptic house of cards on a bobsled going down the Spanish Steps in Rome as they subsided from 11 for 1 to 21 for 9. Only twice before had eight wickets fallen for as few runs in a Test, and both times New Zealand were the untriumphant team involved – when Saqlain and Sami carved them up in Auckland in 2000-01 (121 for 2 became 131 all out); and when, on the first day of post-war Test cricket, in Wellington in 1945-46, the Kiwis celebrated the return of peace by slumping from 37 for 2 to 42 all out. They followed this up by losing 6 for 6 during their second innings, and Australia, so appalled that such ineptitude should be allowed on a cricket pitch, did not play another Test against New Zealand for almost three decades. Will they be hoist by their own petard?

ANSWERS: (b), (d) and (e). And (c). And (a). If you count the international dispute over the UDRS as a World War. Which you should not.

Here endeth the quiz.

What a day. I think cricket needs a cup of tea and a sit-down. For mercifully different reasons than it needed a cup of tea and a sit-down last week after the spot-fixing trial. The third day may provide yet more twists, and after the excellent Test matches in Zimbabwe and India, these crazy Cape Town capers have been a further reminder that cricket is generally far more enjoyable when it is being played and watched on the pitch rather than in a courtroom.

Comments (59)

England’s flawless tour of Australia has continued impressively with two superbly constructed defeats in the opening two one-day internationals, confirming that the England management will leave nothing to chance in their pursuit of ultimate success.

The immaculate, all-encompassing preparation that helped secure the Ashes (where every detail, from sweatiness of fielders’ hands, via Alastair Cook’s four-year undercover operation as a middling Test opener, to injecting psychotropic substances into the Australian selectors’ breakfast sausages) is now being applied to the World Cup campaign. Strauss and his team, well aware that they could not sustain their Ashes form until April 2, have tactically dipped at just the right time. They will be looking to endure at least a 6-1 drubbing in the Commonwealth Bank series, before slowly finding their game again during the month-long group stage of the World Cup, then exploding into form for the crucial quarter-semi-final week at the end of March.

England proved their mastery of the well-timed Test match defeat in Leeds in 2009 and in Perth in December, brilliantly allowing Australia to believe that everything was just fine, that England’s brief and uncharacteristic dalliance with excellence was over, and that normal service had been thoroughly resumed. Then, with the Baggy Greens still high-fiving themselves in delight, they burst out of their tactical Trojan horse like the modern-day Odysseuses they are, and skewered Australia like a cheap kebab.

For their part, Australia will be delighted that, having underperformed with such determined persistence in the Ashes - or, as Cricket Australia has now officially rebranded them, “The Commonwealth Bank Series Official Six-Week Curtain-Raiser” - they are now proving that, at the business end of their international summer, they can still perform like the Australians of old. They too still have plenty of players nicely out of form two months away from the key games, as well as players in form who have not been selected for the World Cup, so whose inevitable drop-off will not affect the team as they push for a fourth consecutive trophy.

India and South Africa are also not quite bubbling under nicely. Both will be happy with not taking a decisive lead in the ODI series, and be hoping that rain in Centurion tomorrow removes the possibility of either of them winning. A notable victory against a strong opponent at this stage is likely to prove fatal for their World Cup hopes.

Both teams also took every available precaution to make sure they did not win the final Test of the three-match series recently concluded, avoiding the EPM (excessive premature momentum) that all coaches fear. (It was a disappointing end to a compelling series akin to Shakespeare writing Act V of Hamlet as a single scene in which Hamlet does a crossword, eats a packet of nachos, and twangs a ruler on his desk, or Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier concluding the Thriller In Manila by spending rounds 14 and 15 filling in their tax returns and phoning their accountants to check what they were allowed to claim as expenses.)

India’s glut of injuries also bodes very well for the tournament favourites. Those players should be in peak condition come March 23.

New Zealand’s win over Pakistan in Wellington (described as “worryingly comprehensive at this stage of our preparations” by Daniel Vettori) should not detract from their expertly crafted 11-match losing streak that preceded it, whilst their opponents know that, such is the fluctuating nature of their cricket, how they are playing now bears no relation to how they will play in late March (indeed, how they play in late March will have no impact on how they play five minutes later in March).

Sri Lanka and West Indies are no doubt practising half-heartedly to make sure they do not hit the ground running in their three-match ODI series beginning on January 31, whilst Bangladesh are keeping a low profile after whitewashing of New Zealand, desperately hoping they will not take that form into the early stages of the World Cup. All in all, the tournament is still anyone’s.

Meanwhile, the Chairman of Baggy Green Selectors, Andrew Hilditch has, after an investigation lasting two weeks, issued the Official Cricket Australia List Of Positives To Be Taken From The 2010-11 Ashes. It reads as follows:

1. Selectors seek consistency from their players. Many of the team provided us with admirably, almost unprecedentedly, consistent performance levels. The captain, as so often, led the way, churning out a series of scores that were so consistent as to be barely discernible from each other. He was ably supported in this by his vice-captain, whilst Ben Hilfenhaus set new standards for reliable, guaranteed consistency with the ball.

2. Sportsmen are never more determined than when they set out to “prove the critics wrong”. By garnering for themselves a record number of critics, Australia’s cricketers will be more motivated than ever, and will play for the next 25 years in an almost hypnotic trance of critic-disproving frenzy.

3. The pain of defeat in 2005 and 2009 was exacerbated by the the fact that had one ball happened differently in each series, the result would have been reversed. If Lee had slapped Harmison’s full toss either side of the fielder at Edgbaston in 2005, or if the umpire had given Kasprowicz not out to a marginal caught-behind appeal moments later, and if one of the 35 balls bowled to Panesar in Cardiff in 2009 had, as might reasonably have been expected, cleaned him up, then Australia would have triumphed gloriously. Life is too short for “what ifs”, so, by being obliterated by an innings in three Tests and conceding a record statistical superiority to England, the Australians will now be able to proceed happily with the rest of their lives, unencumbered by nightmares of the ones that got away.

4. Since the retirement of the irreplaceable Shane Warne in 2007, Australia have been trying to replace him, and find a spinner who is indispensably crucial to the side’s success. Over the course of the Ashes, Nathan Hauritz grew into that role.

5. The international game is short of star names. In this series, Australia created a new generation of potential world superstars – Cook, Trott, Bell, Anderson, Tremlett, Bresnan, to name but six.

6. Taking positives from abject defeat is long-established as a method of helping captains avoid breaking down in tears of humiliation at post-match interviews, no matter how spurious and desperate those supposed silver linings dully glistening around the mushroom cloud of defeat may be. Australia helped prove that taking negatives from victory is an equally valid procedure. As Ricky Ponting said in Perth, after leading his team to a thumping victory: “Well, obviously we’re delighted with the win, but let’s not forget we can still take a lot of negatives away from this victory. Our top-order batting was useless, we were bailed out by Hussey yet again, and there is absolutely no way he can do that for five Tests in a row, and only two of our bowlers took any wickets, one of whom blows notoriously hot and cold, the other of whom picks up injuries like Warren Beatty used to pick up women in his prime. So, all in all, whilst we cannot deny that we did win this game, there is still much to be downbeat and pessimistic about, and we’ll focus on that carrying that forward to Melbourne.”

Comments (46)

The Confectionery Stall Perth Test Diary. Written in London, from in front of a television

Day 1
England rampaged to within a millimetre of Ashes victory today, obliterating the Australians for a paltry 268 and then blasting their magnificent, golden-tinged way to an imposing 29 for 0 at close of play. If the Australian cricket team were the Labrador they have always dreamed of being, they would have been taken to a vet and humanely destroyed.

As England progress serenely to their inevitable triumph, there is an unusual feeling amongst England fans. This Ashes has been like watching a lion toying with a zebra-print balloon. Yes, you can still admire the majesty of the great beast, but it would be more interesting to see him decimate a worthier foe than the zebralloon.

Their imminent crushing victory will be so conclusive, routine and majestic as to become rather boring, and not a little awkwardly embarrassing. And the dark, dark Ashes years of 1989-2003 and 2006-07 are receding into the murky swamp of history, as if being tugged underneath by an unusually peckish shark.

Day 2
Morning session: A characteristically brilliant start by Cook and Strauss, surely now England’s greatest-ever pair of men, has put England in total, unremitting command of this game. Australia’s bowlers seem more likely to find the Pope hiding in Ricky Ponting’s kitbag than they do to take a wicket. In fact, it is all so one-sided, predictable and uninteresting that I think I’ll pop off for a quick snooze. I’ll just think of Geoff Marsh batting, that should do the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Afternoon session: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzzzzz. Zzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Evening session: That was a good snooze. Hilfenhaus still has not taken a wicket since the first over of the series. Would you believe that? Phil Hughes looks all over the place. Ricky Ponting couldn’t hit an egg in a chicken enclosure at the moment. Finn should pitch it up a bit more. I can’t believe India played so poorly in South Africa – are these supposedly top-class batsman completely devoid of skill against the moving ball? England must be at least No. 2 in the world rankings now.

Day 3
I wonder what happens if you try to eat a sandwich whilst having a shower?

Day 4
It’s nearly Christmas. Yippee. Sounds like Ricky Ponting will have to play on with a broken finger. Ouch. Nothing is going right for him this series.

I’m taking the family to Rome tomorrow. I wonder if we’ll be able to catch the end of day five at the airport on the way out? Let’s hope so.

Comments (35)

With the world’s top eight-ranked Test nations all in, or soon to be in, action,
I sat down in front of a mirror and interviewed myself about the current spate of Test cricket.

Confectionery Stall Hello Andy, thanks for talking to The Confectionery Stall.

Andy Zaltzman It’s a pleasure. A lifelong dream fulfilled.

CS It’s all happening on Planet Test Cricket. The unofficial quarter-finals of an as-yet-still-non-existent World Championships – top-ranked India against eighth-placed New Zealand, world Nos. 2 and 3, South Africa and Sri Lanka, against sixth-ranked Pakistan and seventh-ranked West Indies. All whetting the appetite for one of the all-time classic mid-table confrontations – fifth-ranked Australia against their statistical nano-superiors, fourth-placed England.

AZ What? Are you telling me, and the rest of the English media, that this is not the ultimate clash of the two greatest teams in the history of cricket, with the eyes of the universe fixed immovably on it?

CS It’s fourth against fifth. Out of, basically, 8.

AZ Well, can you perhaps explain why, given that Australia (340) and England (312) have both won more than twice as many Tests as any other nation, they are not ranked 1 and 2?

CS I think it’s because the rankings don’t take into account how good teams were in the 1890s.

AZ I prefer to look at the big picture. It’s One versus Two.

CS Let’s start with batting. If it has been a good month for fans of engagements in the British royal family, it has been an even better one for the world’s batsmen.

AZ Sure has. What is going on with all these triple-hundreds in Test cricket? Correct me if I’m wrong, but Chris Gayle’s against Sri Lanka was the ninth in just 380 Tests since May 2002. There had only been eight in the previous 44 years and 1148 Tests.

CS You are wrong. You meant there had only been only eight triple-centuries in the previous 44 years and two months and 1149 Tests. But your point basically stands. Three hundreds are being scored at a breakneck rate of one every 42 Tests. Instead of once every 143 Tests in that 1958-2002 period you keep prattling on about.

AZ Crumbs. If that rate of increase in triple-hundreds continues, by the year 2643, roughly, every single Test innings will be a triple-hundred.

CS It’s what the advertisers want. This millennium has been like the 1930s all over again, but less so – there were five triple-hundreds in just 89 Tests, all of which lead inexorably in 1939 to the start of the most devastating conflict in the history of the world. The ICC needs to clamp down on big scoring, or the world at large could suffer.

AZ Are you claiming that, if South Africa had not declared with AB de Villiers on 278, the world would have been shunted closer to Armageddon?

CS Yes, I am. Can you prove otherwise?

AZ No.

b>CS Point proved then. De Villiers and Morkel posted the 21st tenth-wicket century partnership in the history of history. Harbhajan and Sreesanth put up the 20th just a week before.

AZ
So you’re telling me that almost 10% of all 100-plus last-wicket partnerships have been scored in mid-November 2010, whilst, as all schoolchildren know, there were only two such stands between 1903 and 1952 – the same number as there were World Wars in the same period.

CS Precisely. So a lack of century last-wicket stands is clearly linked to global war. De Villiers apparently asked his captain to declare even earlier than he did. So by deliberately avoiding scoring a triple-hundred, and by coaxing Morne Morkel to play his part in a 100-partnership, de Villiers has made himself hot favourite for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

AZ Wow. What a man. The Henry Kissinger of South African batsmanship. Have you got any more statistics on rates of high scoring in modern cricket?

CS
Yes. But I’m not telling them to you now. You’ll have to wait for another blog.

AZ
Oh shucks. That’s ruined my week.

CS
Good stats come to those who wait.

AZ Hey, here’s a question for you. What do the three Test double-centurions of November 2010 – Gayle, McCullum and de Villiers − have in common?

<

CS Do they all…

CS Are they all pre-op transsexuals?

AZ Not that I know of. One more guess. I’ll give you £50,000 in non-sequential banknotes if you get it right. Don’t tell the ICC.

CS Did they all endure prolonged century-less spells earlier in their careers, all beginning in 2005 and lasting for more than 20 Tests? At a guess, I’d say Gayle did hit a ton for 24 Tests from April 2005 to December 2008, McCullum didn’t trouble the honours board for 26 games between August 2005 and March 2009, and de Villiers specialised in single- and double-digit scores for 23 Tests in the two-and-a-half years to January 2008.

AZ Bingo. Good guess. Did you look that up on Statsguru?

CS No.

AZ Promise?

CS Yup.

AZ Okay. I’ll trust you. Here’s your money.

CS Thanks. Ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty-seven, seventy-seven...

AZ Can you count it out later? We’re mid-interview.

CS Sorry. No problem. Was that a 17-pound note?

AZ Let’s move on.

CS Did you draw that yourself?

AZ Let’s move on.

CS It had Graham Gooch’s face instead of the Queen’s.

AZ He’s the rightful King of England. The point is, just because a player doesn’t score a hundred for over 20 Tests, it doesn’t mean he won’t spank a double-hundred a few years later.

CS So England should pick Monty Panesar for Brisbane. He’s clearly got a massive innings stored up inside, just waiting to burst out.

AZ And the other point is, three simultaneous high-scoring drawn Test matches in a week makes Jack a dull boy. And by “Jack”, I mean “Test cricket”. Especially when “Jack” is conducted by unadventurous captains on stodgy pitches.

CS So, Andy, who do you think will win the Ashes?

AZ None of your business.

CS Actually, I think it is my business.

AZ Is it? Fair enough. I think England will win the Ashes. Or at least not lose the Ashes, which is more important.

CS Really? What makes you think that?

AZ Don’t know. Bit of a hunch. Plus they are mostly in form. Even Alastair Cook, who so often bats like a visit to the doctor about a gastric disorder − awkward and only occasionally effective − has found some form, whilst the batsman formerly known as Ian Bell has been playing with a dominance befitting the official new name the ECB has given him to make him sound more intimidating for this series: “The Sledgehammer Of Eternal Justice”.

CS Yes, Eternal Justice could be an absolutely crucial player in this series. Surely as a long-standing England follower, all this must make you extremely uneasy.

AZ I admit it does feel slightly like the opening scene of a horror film, when everything is obviously too idyllic, and you know that inevitably something absolutely terrible will happen. In this instance, instead of a chainsaw-wielding maniac leaping out of a cupboard and starting to chop American college students to pieces, I’m worried that Mitchell Johnson will suddenly leap out of a cupboard and find a tidy line and length on day one in Brisbane.

CS Or that Xavier Doherty will emerge from the pavilion wincing in pain, with bloodstains all over his shirt, having just had Shane Warne’s arm surgically grafted onto his shoulder.

AZ That’s a possibility, certainly, but the way things have been going for Australia recently, they would probably balls it up and graft Warne’s left arm onto Doherty, not his right. Mind you, looking at Doherty’s first-class figures, that may still be worth a punt. With a bowling average of 48, he could prove to be to spin bowling what 93-year-old wartime singing sensation Dame Vera Lynn is to heavyweight boxing.

CS Sounds like a bit of complacency might be creeping in to your Ashes preparations, Andy.

AZ Far from it, Confectionery Stall. I’m fully focused on what I have to do on Wednesday night – sit down in front of the television and watch cricket. I’m not thinking beyond that. Besides, after the disasters I’ve experienced watching the last five Ashes tours, I’m taking nothing for granted. And I think the Australians would be mad to play a debutant spinner with no track record in the first Test of an Ashes series on a potentially seam-friendly wicket in Brisbane. That would be the tactical equivalent of eating your goldfish for dinner because you once had a fantastic fillet of sea bass in a Michelin-starred restaurant.

CS I’ll take your word for that, Andy.

AZ I’ve researched it extensively. The comparison stands.

CS Unless Doherty is much better than everyone in England seems to assume.

AZ Good point, Confectionery Stall.

CS Anyway, I think you’re wrong. I think Australia will win the Ashes.

AZ What makes you think that?

CS Don’t know. Bit of a hunch. Plus they have much greater experience in Australian conditions, particularly the bowlers. England’s have struggled overseas for years. And the Aussies have points to prove. And unwanted places in the history books to avoid.

AZ What do you think the key areas will be?

CS England’s batting, Australia’s bowling, both sides’ fielding, Strauss’s captaincy, Australia’s batting, Ponting’s leadership, and England’s bowling. In no particular order of preference. Plus luck.

Mrs Zaltzman Andy. Come and help me make dinner for the kids.

AZ Can’t Confectionery Stall do it?

Mrs Z No. You’re their father. Besides, Confectionery Stall frightens them.

CS They can’t handle the truth.

AZ But we haven’t finished previewing the Ashes yet, dear. Or analysing the strengths and weaknesses of India and South Africa as they prepare for their table-topping showdown.

Mrs Z I’ve heard what you have to say about India’s bowling options and South Africa’s lack of killer instinct, and, frankly, it can wait. If you’re not in that kitchen in 60 seconds, I’m confiscating your Denis Compton autographed snuggle blanket.

AZ I’ll be there in 59 seconds. Better go, Confectionery Stall. Lovely talking to you.

CS What are you doing? No, no, don’t shut me in the attic again. I promise I won’t wake you up with queries about how much tail-end batting averages have improved in recent years, or players who have emerged from prolonged career slumps to re-find their best form, or whether teams are statistically better off with an inferior spinner and better balance or a superior fourth paceman and reduced variety, or whether Harbhajan Singh is the greatest batsman of all time, no, not the attic, please, not the att...

AZ Good boy. I’ll bring you a sandwich on Wednesday.

Comments (6)

As the cricket match-fixing scandal pinballs around between annoying, disappointing depressing and alarmingly sinister, this blog will ignore for now the murky morass that threatens to swamp the international game, forget about the potential implications of Zulqarnain’s unscheduled London jaunt, and distract itself from the grim realities of reality with an altogether chirpier topic (from a pre-Ashes England supporter’s point of view) – Australia being not very good anymore. Not bad – just not very good.

I have outlined in previous blogs the reasons why England are unbeatable and heading for a thrashing, and why Australia are in prime position to administer that thrashing, like a grumpy 19th-century headmaster who has been doing strength and conditioning work on his caning arm in readiness for the arrival of a particularly objectionable and naughty boy. Here, to conclude this decisive proof that England or Australia will win or lose the Ashes, is unarguable, laboratory-tested, player-by-player evidence that Australia are definitely going to lose.

Simon Katich
Bums-off-seats left-hander has scored just 134 runs at an average of 22 in his last three Tests, and red-facedly owns up to a 1980s-Australia-throwback Ashes average of just 33 in 11 Tests. Furthermore, he has scored fewer Ashes runs in Australia than Monty Panesar.

Katich is also reported to be suffering from an existential crisis of confidence after accidentally seeing video footage of himself batting (Cricket Australia had successfully protected him from seeing himself for years, using a series of increasingly convoluted distractions, including puppet shows. Katich loves puppet shows. Can’t get enough of them. He owns DVD box sets of all TV puppet shows. And if that is not true, let him sue me.) “Oh my god, no,” he said, dumbfounded, after watching himself ungainlily nudge a leg-side boundary. “I thought I played like David Gower.”

Shane Watson
Like most of his team-mates, Watson is on the slide. Admittedly he has not slid as far, fast or slidily down that slide as some, but after averaging 65 in 2009, he has posted a figure of only 38 so far in 2010. This clearly does not bode well for the New Year Test in Sydney, and the less said about Watson’s 2012, when he looks set to average 16, the better.

He averages only 30 when Australia lose the toss (compared with 47 when they win it), suggesting that Ponting’s coinflipwork and Strauss’s head-or-tail preferences could be crucial to Watson’s success or failure. He also has the >third worst conversion rate of any Australian top-six batsman with 10 or more Test fifties – he has turned just two of his 14 scores of 50-plus into centuries.

Rumours that he is an allrounder may prove unfounded. As a bowler, he has never taken more than two wickets in a Test innings in Australia, and has no Ashes wickets under his belt. He bowled just eight overs of purest garbage in 2009, so will have some persuading to do to convince England that he is not rubbish. Mind you, Glenn McGrath was in a similarly unconvincing position after his wicketless Ashes debut in 1994-95. If only Australia had done the decent thing and permanently jettisoned McGrath after that match, as England sportingly disposed of the obviously superior Martin McCague (two wickets in the at Brisbane Test)... if only England had stuck with Gloucestershire left-armer Mike Smith after his wicketless Ashes bow in 1997... if only, if only...

Ricky Ponting
Anyone telling you that Ricky Ponting has not declined over the last few years is either talking about a different Ricky Ponting, or has been poisoned with a mind-altering potion, or has seriously misheard the question, or is Ricky Ponting, or is trying to wilfully engage you in an unwinnable argument whilst their accomplice steals your electrical goods and/or priceless collection of David Boon memorabilia.

Australia’s “Best Since Bradman” has, for the last four years, been approximately Australia’s 27th-best since Bradman – he has averaged 43 in his 41 Tests since the pivotal Adelaide Test of 2006-07, with six centuries (stats eerily similar to Ian Bell’s over the same period, a time in which Ponting proudly boasts the 43rd best Test batting average in world cricket, behind, amongst others, willow-wielders extraordinaire Darryl Tuffey and Brad Hogg, and current table-topper Kane Williamson).

The self-styled “Tasmanian Ian Bell” has averaged over 50 in just three of his last 12 series, having done so in nine of the previous 10, and has scored only one Test century in 16 Tests since the Ashes opener of 2009 − a double against Pakistan after Mohammad Amir dropped a possibly-with-hindsight-although-equally-plausibly-perfectly-above-board-but-still-suspiciously-easy sitter when the Australian captain was on 0.

And if the series gets tight, Australia might as well drop their captain for the final two Tests – over the last four Ashes series, he has averaged under 30 in Tests 4 and 5.

No Australian captain has ever lost three Ashes series. Ten years ago the prospect of Australia losing three Ashes series in the rest of eternity seemed remote. But then again, they said man would never walk on the moon. Ponting is all set to become Australia’s Neil Armstrong.

Michael Clarke
Beset by media and public grumblings, largely due to insufficient runs and insufficient Aussieness, Clarke has averaged just 21 in his last four Tests, including only one score above 15 in his last seven Test innings. After a golden period from 2006-07 up to Headingley 2009, in which he averaged 62, he has averaged only a middling 42 since the Oval Test.

Michael Hussey
Hussey’s almost unprecedented career rocket has altered its course from heading to a place amongst the all-time great, towards crash landing amongst international cricket’s plodding journeymen in three anti-climactic years. Has averaged 25 in his last seven Tests, and just 34 in his last 34, with a pitiful three centuries and a strike rate of 43 (compare this with his first 20 Tests – an average of 84, eight hundreds, and a strike rate of 53). He was once within touching distance of Bradman. Now he rubs statistical shoulders with Wavell Hinds, Manoj Prabhakar, and Chris Tavaré. Could still bump his average back up into the 80s this Ashes, but only if he scores 2500 undefeated runs in the series. This seems unlikely. Hussey has averaged 35 or less in seven of his last nine series, and 25 or less in five of his last 11.

Marcus North
After smiting three centuries in his first six Tests, North has averaged 29 in his last 13 matches. Traditionally in Australia, this leads to impeachment by Parliament and disappearance to the Dirk Wellham Memorial Gulag, 150 miles outside Darwin. North has been out for 10 or less in more than half of his 32 Test innings, and his five ducks make him the most regular duck scorer in the Australian top six since the 19th century. To where some Australian supporters seem to want him to emigrate.

Brad Haddin
The new Adam Gilchrist – in that his most recent performances have not been particularly impressive. Haddin averages 20 in his last five Tests, and 31 in his last 10 since being injured during the 2009 Ashes. In stark contrast to Watson, Haddin averages 33 when Australia win the toss, and 48 when they lose it. The selectors must be bold, and speculatively drop one or the other. Or both, to be on the safe side.

Mitchell Johnson
Eleven wickets at 43 in his last four Tests, has failed to take more than one wicket in 10 of his last 14 innings - Johnson is becoming the Australian Steve Harmison. If Harmison bowled one of the great series-losing balls in Ashes history in Brisbane four years ago, Johnson bravely attempted to steal his thunder with one of the immortal series-losing spells in Ashes history with his geometry-expanding effort at Lord’s. Having come to England with a reputation as a bowler who could bowl unplayable balls, he proved that reputation well deserved - albeit that the balls were only unplayable due to their being unreachable.

Increasingly expensive, Johnson conceded more than 3.5 runs per over in none of his first seven series, but has done so in four of his last six.

Since apparently breaking through as a top-class allrounder against South Africa in 2008-09 (400 runs and 33 wickets in six Tests), not only has Johnson explored all regions of inconsistency with the ball, he has averaged just 13 with the bat – further evidence of him stepping snugly into the Harmison mantle.

Nathan Hauritz
Since filling his boots against the staggeringly, persistently inept West Indies and Pakistan last Australian summer, Hauritz has taken 10 wickets at 65 in his last four Tests. Statistics can, and often do, lie, but if Hauritz is a genuine match-winning Test-class spinner, then his first-class bowling average of 43 must be in line for Porkie Of The Year. Successor to Shane Warne. In the same way that Graeme Smith is the successor to Rudolf Nureyev. He is OK.

Peter Siddle
Since helping skittle England in their tactically masterful fourth Test complacency-inducing megacapitulation in Leeds, Siddle, who skipped away from Headingley thinking he had cracked Test cricket, has taken just 15 wickets at 41 in six Tests. He averages almost 35 in Australia. He has been injured for a while. He is not as frightening as McGrath, McDermott, Merv Hughes, Lillee or Thomson. Or as good. He is OK.

Doug Bollinger
Has never dismissed an Englishman in a Test. Largely through lack of opportunity, admittedly. Has also been injured, and might not play in the first Test, extending his lifelong habit of not dismissing Englishmen in Tests. Startlingly inept batsman. Possibly hair-replacement-themed teasing victim.

Ben Hilfenhaus
Has never taken five wickets in a Test innings, nor six wickets in a match. Has only played one Test in Australia, and is an English-style bowler who averages 38.7 outside England. He is OK. If Australia pick him and Bollinger, they will lose. The last time they picked two seam bowlers with tri-syllabic surnames – Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005 – they lost.

So there it is. It is or isn’t looking good for Australia.

On previous Ashes tours, England’s positive statements in advance of their inevitable first-Test mincing sounded not so much like men clutching at straws as men pointing their fingers nervously at what they thought might be a straw, and mumbling something about being confident that it was probably a straw, and that they were definitely planning to try to think about clutching it. This time their public confidence is well founded. England are quite a good team. As are Australia. It will be a draw. A glorious draw.

Comments (268)

With three weeks still to go before the much-awaited mid-table clash of the hemispheres begins in Brisbane, between Europe’s No. 1-ranked cricket nation and one of Oceania’s strongest teams, attention turned once again to India, and Virender Sehwag’s continuing campaign to make the world’s bowlers wish they had been born in a non-cricket-playing country, as a woman, to parents who disapproved of all sport as a worthless and flippant pursuit, in the mid-15th century.

Sehwag’s eventual dismissal, to a concrete-footed, cross-batted, across-the-line prod reminiscent of a young Alan Mullally, ended another masterclass of twhackmanship from one of cricket’s greatest treasures. The greatest praise, however, must be reserved for Rahul Dravid’s extraordinary display of humanitarianism at the other end.

Dravid is a gentleman. He knew New Zealand’s bowlers were fragile after a testing couple of years, he knew the wicket would offer them little assistance, and he had seen Sehwag bat before. Therefore, Dravid, cleverly using the cloak of supposed poor form, sportingly minimised the trauma of Sehwag’s onslaught by stodge-blocking for a couple of hours, comforting the bowlers like an award-winning priest until the worst was over. Thereafter, he unfurled Chapter 2 of the MCC Coaching Manual, and humanely finished off the job like the master surgeon he would have been if he had been given a scalpel for his fifth birthday instead of a cricket bat.

Australia, meanwhile, have continued their Ashes build-up with another perfectly judged defeat in the first ODI against Sri Lanka. This was clearly part of a wide-ranging tactical masterplan that has included:

1. Striving ceaselessly to engender complacency in the England ranks. This will not be easy in the modern, professional, hyper-prepared age of English cricket, but you can only admire the persistence with which Australia are going about their task, throwing away winning positions like an attractive but committed nun discards Valentine’s cards. The English press have taken the bait, hook, line and over-excited sinker. Will the team be so easily duped?

2. A long-term economic scheme concocted by the Australian government and Cricket Australia, to unnaturally strengthen the Australian dollar, thus pricing out all but the barmiest of England’s Barmy Army from travelling south. Due to UK government cutbacks, the real army is no longer in a position to supply reinforcements or air support to the Barmy Army, who may be reduced to relying on the Territorial Barmy Army and mercenary sports fans from Serbia and Colombia, and disillusioned former members of the French Foreign Legion.

3. Hoping that Nathan Hauritz is hit on the head by a piece of falling masonry, and wakes up thinking he is Bill O’Reilly.

4. Hoping that the falling masonry then ricochets onto Michael Hussey’s head and he wakes up thinking he is Michael Hussey, 2005-2007 version.

A few weeks ago, I outlined the statistics that prove that England (a) will, and (b) won’t, win the Ashes. I will now do the same for Australia, who can be shown to be either (a) a collection of world-beaters about to explode into life, who, with a small amount of luck, would have won the Ashes in England and drawn an away series in India; or (b) a ragtag baggy-green band of has-beens, haven’t-beens, crocks and losers barely fit even to try to spell the word Bradman.

Part (A): The Indestructible Ricky Ponting And His Fearsomely Invincible Ashes-Scalping Band Of Warriors, set to extend a record of one defeat in their last 13 home series, and 19 wins in their last 26 home Ashes Tests.

Simon Katich
The supernaturally awkward-looking left-hander may look like he is playing a different sport in a different universe to David Gower, Richie Richardson or Mark Waugh, but Katich has a better Test average than any of them. Until the recent India series, he had averaged over 40 in all 10 series since his 2008 recall, in which time he had an average of 54. Also bowls wrist spin. Since June 1993, Australian wrist spinners, collectively, have taken 239 English wickets at 24. Admittedly, other Australian wrist spinners than Katich have taken 238 of them. But the point stands. He is basically Bradman and Warne rolled into one.

Shane Watson
Since his recall as a makeshift opener during the non-victorious 2009 Ashes, Watson has averaged 50.44, making him a 16% better Test opening batsman than Mark Taylor and 53% better than Victor Trumper. You cannot argue with a statistic like that. Because if you did, the statistic would run away and hide. But this one would stand its ground like a man: Watson has reached 50 in 46% of his innings in Australia’s top order (batsmen 1 to 5). Only two batsmen can better that. One is Bradman, with 52%, although if he had played in the modern era, his figures would have been considerably worse (on the grounds that he would have been initially very old, and, latterly, dead). The other is Darren Lehmann (46-and-a-bit%). The new, improved, post-recall Watson can also chuck a bowling average of 24 into the teapot. He is basically Bradman and Warne rolled into one.

Ricky Ponting
Unquestioned member of Tasmania’s All-Time Greatest XI, nominated for ESPNcricinfo’s all-time Australian XI (ahead of Greg Ritchie, Trevor Chappell and even Garfield Sobers), a giant of the modern game with career averages of 54 in all Tests and 60 in his 79 matches at home. Ponting averaged 12 in his first home Ashes, 52 in his second (up by 40), and 82 in his third (up by 30). He will therefore improve by another 20 to average 102 in this, his fourth. The last time he tried to regain the Ashes, he began the series with 457 runs in two Tests, treating England’s bowlers like a hungry lion devouring a bucket of zebra-print hot dogs. Look out England, the baggiest of all the greens has statistics on his side, and statistics are more powerful than God, as the Pope himself must surely acknowledge, privately if not publicly.

Michael Clarke
Averaging 54 since being dropped five years ago, Clarke might have been officially awarded Australian Cricket’s Least Threatening Face Since Kim Hughes at the International Sporting Intimidation Foundation’s recent Hall of Shame Awards (surprisingly defeating Nathan Hauritz), but Clarke can waggle an Ashes average of 55 in England’s direction. No England batsman can waggle anything close to that back at him. (Apart from Trott, who has only played one Ashes Test, an insufficient waggling sample).

Michael Hussey
Despite his recent slump, Hussey can still boast a career average of 49 – better than any England player to have made his debut since Ken Barrington in 1955 (other than the still-early-in-his-career Trott). He has also been building up his confidence by going to sleep in pyjamas embroidered in solid gold thread with his averages in all home Tests (62) and in the 2006-07 Ashes (91). He wakes up every morning, folds his pyjamas neatly, puts them under his pillow, and mutters, “I’m not finished embroidering you yet, Mr Jim-Jam.” Was averaging close to 100. Now chips in with occasional useful knocks. He is, therefore, basically Bradman and Warne rolled into one.

Marcus North
The most devastating batsman in the history of Test cricket. Once he passes 21 (10 innings, five hundreds, four more innings over 67). As soon as those first 21 runs are out of the way, he basically becomes a more reliable version of Bradman. Also a better bowler than Warne (based on best Test figures at Lord’s – 6 for 55 versus 4 for 57).

Brad Haddin
A significant improvement on the painfully run-of-the-mill Adam Gilchrist. If you only take the last two-and-a-half years of Gilchrist’s career (average 30, to Haddin’s 38). Haddin also lines up 44 boiled eggs on his breakfast plate every Sunday morning, representing his average in Tests in Australia. He then draws an England wicketkeeper’s face on each one, and says, “I’m going to have you on toast,” whilst telling his wife and son that England’s wicketkeepers in Australia have, between them, averaged 20 in the last 35 years.

Mitchell Johnson
Bowled like a distressed haddock in the 2009 Ashes, and still took 20 wickets (more than any English bowler) at a not-nearly-as-shambolic-as-you-would-expect-and-better-than-Brett-Lee-ever-managed-in-an-Ashes-series average of 32. If he even bowls as well as psychologically well-adjusted haddock this time round, he could cause major damage. Has taken 84 wickets at 25 in his 17 home Tests. Aerodynamic face could prove useful in warmer conditions.

Nathan Hauritz
The lynchpin of Australia’s Inculcating Complacency strategy, Hauritz exudes the fearsome threat and intensity of a soldier. Unfortunately, the soldier in question is a small rectangle of buttered toast, not a hollering, scimitar-toting warrior. But Hauritz took 29 wickets in six home Tests in 2009-10, at an average of 26, and had a better average than Swann in 2009. He averages 34 with the ball and 25 with the bat in Tests, compared with 50 and 16 in other first-class cricket, making him 50% better at international cricket than normal cricket and thus, statistically, the greatest big-game player in cricket history. Probably.

Ben Hilfenhaus
Top bowler in terms of wickets (22) and average (27) in the 2009 Ashes, and averages a 19th-century-style 14 in home Tests. Albeit in only one match. Against West Indies. In previous Ashes series in Australia, England have had problems with bowlers possessing Hilfenhaus’ two main characteristics as a bowler − he swings it, and he’s Australian.

Doug Bollinger
A strong if belated start to his Test career has brought him 49 wickets at 23 in 11 matches. Glenn McGrath’s first 11 Tests brought him 34 wickets at 33. If Bollinger plays another 113 Tests like McGrath, and maintains the same statistical superiority, he will end his career with 836 wickets at an average of 15.2. Charges in like a vengeful Halloween pumpkin seeking retribution for having its flesh ripped out and replaced with a cheap candle. May scare Ian Bell.

So, it appears that England have absolutely no chance, and should regard a 4-0 defeat with a freakish thunderstorm saving them in the fifth match as a national triumph. Or should they? Tune in next time to find out why Brigadier Stats says that Australia are heading for the mother-in-law of all whoopings.

Comments (83)