Stuart Broad posts bail after taking the wicket to Todd Murphy of Australia. Photo: Andrew Boyers/Reuters
We will all miss Stuart Broad. I have been a big supporter of him ever since he started playing for England. I loved his bowling, he had guts and spirit and was the best opponent.
All he wanted to do was take the batsmen out, so he begged for reconsideration every time the ball hit the batsman's pillow. It was great theater and annoyed the hell out of Australians too. I liked it.
They were upset that Broad went on bail for Marnus Labouchagn and then he went on the next ball that England knocked out of him. He did so in the second innings as well, before taking his last two wickets in Test cricket. Why are Australians upset? It wouldn't bother me in the slightest, and things like that shouldn't freak you out.
If this affects the batsman's thought process in any way, then he should not play Test cricket. If Labuschagne or the Aussies are blaming this, it's just a lame excuse. Same with their complaints about England changing the ball for a better one and then knocking out Australia. They feel the need to blame England for some harsh practice to justify their unsportsmanlike behavior against Johnny Bairstow in Lord's.
Broad had a great time in that Ashes and his bowling was amazing. What a way to get out. He leaves his old friend Jimmy Anderson, and the question arises, what to do with him next?
He took five wickets in the series of 85.4 runs each. He says he's going to continue. I think he has a role in the future, but not like he was, opening a new bowler ball. England will go to India next year to play on flat fields that will require youthful enthusiasm and physical fitness, because the seamstresses there are so damn hard.
Fields start dry and then turn. India will make spinning fields for Ravi Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeya and will not make green seamers for Jimmy. His job should be to give out the first change. He is so economical that no one beats him. Ben Stokes will be able to control the match with Jimmy because his accuracy is excellent.
Expecting him to play with the same verve and energy with a new ball is asking too much at 41. But he can give England control and take a couple of wickets. In this series, he did not swing much and did not stitch. When he goes straight up and down, batsmen don't miss him at test level. You need lateral movement. So I would go with Josh Tong and hope Mark Wood could also play with the new ball and then use Jimmy as a backup.
The Ashes series was full of wonderful, exciting and interesting cricket that was a great advertisement for test matches.
Stokes needed good batting fields, preferably with some pace, and he got them. Brandon McCallum needed batsmen who could impose themselves on the opponent or shape the course of the match. And so it happened.
It's a different view of cricket because they only see the positives or what impact a batsman can have in a match, not his faults or shortcomings. The only thing the coach and team got wrong was their thinking in the first two tests. They got hooked on this Bazball idea and kept telling us they wanted to have fun and didn't care if they lost.
Well, as they realized when they lost 2-0 and the country was disappointed, to say that victory does not matter is a bunch of old nonsense. They had to pull themselves together. Then England played the same positive cricket but also gave it some thought and as a result they could have won the last three Tests if it wasn't for the rain at Old Trafford.
If we're really honest, England could would have won all five tests, they were certainly good enough to win 4-0. They won 90% of the time at Edgbaston, and they were even at Lord's until a mindless blow cost them the wicket.
The Australians come home with the Ashes, but their series was just a remake of Steve McQueen's 1963 film The Great Escape. They were completely outplayed in three Tests, while England lost in the other two. That's the sad part of it all, because England was excellent.
Look at Zach Crowley. He had several innings that were outstanding. The 189 was a real blow to Australia. After that, they looked like they were beaten in the ring by a boxer.
England's choice was inspired. Moin Ali handled them brilliantly. Yes, he has some very ordinary deliveries, but he has a knack for taking wickets. And he did it at the end of the fifth test when he had a groin injury. It's priceless. Well done, well done.
I enjoyed watching Tongue bowl at Lord's. He was great and it was unfortunate that he didn't play anymore. He's definitely for the future. Chris Wookes was perfect for the English conditions. Not overseas, forget it. But at home, he does a great job with an English-style seam.
Wood's fit gave them extra speed. Not only did he take wickets, but he also helped the bowlers on the other end. Travis Head spent more time jumping in the air than standing on the floor. He jumped up and down more than a hare.
How did they not cling to him all the time? This is my only observation. Also, stop bowling with bouncers flying over the batsman's head. They look good but are ineffective. Much better to hit the ball in the ribs, under the arm.
Johnny Bairstow played three shock innings. He embodies the mindset of a captain and coach. On account of his six failures and one unsportsmanlike dismissal. But in three innings, he was great. I usually want six good pitches in a series. This is a lot of fun. Just give us three impressive innings. This is their theory. Hey, I'm not saying it's wrong. It works for them.
It was a great series and England were the best team in the park. The only pity is that they got carried away in the first two Tests.
Свежие комментарии