North: Root’s side are more together than 2013/14 rabble
Before this series started, I wrote and predicted 3-1 to Australia, and it may surprise quite a few of you that I am sticking with that prediction… Just! The 5-0 defeat the hosts inflicted on England four years ago looms large in the opinion of many, but this group of players is very different from the touring party back in 2013. There were a lot of issues in that camp and a lot of personality clashes. What was once a great ‘group’ of players was right at the end of its journey, and the fallout that followed was evidence of that.
During that series, there were certain players – I believe – who just didn’t want to be there. But this group, under Joe Root, is more cohesive and there isn’t the same baggage. They are capable of playing good cricket too, but they are just losing the crucial sessions at the moment and the lack of first-innings runs is killing them.
The big problem with England is there is no middle ground. They win; they lose; they win; they lose. We saw it in the summer. They were hammered by South Africa at Trent Bridge and the critics were circling, but they then bounced back to win the series 3-1, and pretty emphatically, too.
In Adelaide, they were handed a way back into the game after Steve Smith’s decision to not enforce the follow-on and while they delivered a decent fight back, they were always a long way behind. Even during the evening session on the fourth day, when the Aussies were under a bit of pressure, you knew as soon as a wicket fell there would be a release and when Pat Cummins jagged one back into Dawid Malan’s stumps, I felt England’s chance had gone.
On Smith’s decision not to enforce the follow-on, he followed the recipe that has been set in stone for Australia for some time. They simply aren’t a ‘following-on’ side, but the day-night conditions dictated that Smith should have put England back in. He got away with it and if he is in that situation again, he won’t be doing the same.
But it was a decision based on ‘sport science’, with the premise of protecting his trio of fast bowlers who are the big difference between the two sides. I think Smith knows he is pretty lucky to have Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood all fit and firing. All three have had injury issues, chronic in Cummins’ case, and if one of those players were to break down it could expose the home side because there isn’t a lot waiting to come in off the bench. So it does work both ways; there would have been uproar had Smith bowled again and one of those three suffered an injury blow.
Moving onto Perth, where I played my State cricket, there is a lot of talk about the wicket and the pace unsettling England. But it’s not extreme pace, and nothing like the WACA deck of old. What England must be focused on is playing the ball on length because there is very good carry there, so expect plenty of action in the slips.
This is something England’s bowlers can really work on; by pitching the ball up more, they will be asking questions of the Australian top-order. Cameron Bancroft, as we have seen, is a ‘nicker’ of the ball, while Peter Handscomb is just rooted to the crease and cannot get forward. I can’t see Australia changing their side; it’s not the way they do things when they are winning. So Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad and Chris Woakes need to identify a plan and stick with it because all is not well with the home side’s batting.
It will be tough, no doubt. But there is still some hope for England in Western Australia. They need big runs and they need to take hold of the game in their first dig. We have seen that their bowlers, if they have something to work with and a score on the board, can be a handful.
Smith followed a recipe that has been set in stone for some time: Australia simply aren’t a ‘following-on’ side