Australia v England, 2nd ODI, Hobart January 21, 2011

Strauss rues lack of seam options


Andrew Strauss has admitted England fielded the wrong bowling attack in Hobart but accepted that his team should still have been able to chase down a modest target to level the one-day series. Instead they subsided to 184 all out despite Australia losing two frontline bowlers to injury, and now face a tough task to get back into the series.

England twice had the home side on the ropes when they batted. Firstly the new ball reduced them to 4 for 33 after Strauss inserted Australia following heavy morning rain. However, he lacked a fourth seamer to ram home the advantage - instead having to use Jonathan Trott, James Tredwell and Michael Yardy - and the problem occurred again towards the end of the innings when Australia lifted themselves from 8 for 142 through a record ninth-wicket stand of 88 between Shaun Marsh and Doug Bollinger.

"In hindsight we should probably have got the fourth seamer in our side, that was a mistake," Strauss said. "We probably didn't think it was going to be quite as slow and stodgy as it was. A [Luke] Wright or a [Chris] Woakes would have been a good addition to side, but things are always clearer at the end of the game than the start."

The first sign that Strauss was a frontline quick short came when Trott and Tredwell found themselves operating in tandem by 20th over with Australia still 4 for 56. "That's the problem with only three seamers, we were probably a little light of a fourth seamer to bowl at that stage," Strauss said. "The biggest regret is that Doug Bollinger got 30 and put on all those runs with Marsh."

Still, England should have been capable of chasing 231 but, as at the MCG where they managed to post 294, too many wickets were handed to the opposition rather than bowlers having to work for them. Trott pulled a long hop to midwicket, Ian Bell carved to backward point and Michael Yardy was run out. Eoin Morgan was also caught as he tried to clear mid-on having opted to take the Powerplay.

"It was a very poor day, there's no doubt about it," he said. "When you are chasing that score you need one guy to get 80-odd and none of us did that. There we lots of 20s and 30s, too many early wickets and ultimately it wasn't good.

"A lot of us made poor decisions today. There were quite a few soft dismissals," Strauss added. "The one thing I'd say is that we aren't in the business of handing out huge recriminations to our batsmen. We want to see them play positively, that's the most important thing for us. It's worked well for us in the past and that last thing we want to see is batsmen going into their shells. In that sense it won't be all doom and gloom, we just have to play smart cricket and we didn't do enough of that today."

England are also able to point to the absence of James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann. The two quick bowlers are rejoining the squad in Sydney, but Broad isn't expected to play during the series and Swann is out for up to two weeks. They now have an added concern about Tim Bresnan who picked up a calf problem and needed a runner when he batted, but Strauss said an early comeback for Anderson, who isn't scheduled to play until Adelaide, wasn't being considered.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • S.shah on January 22, 2011, 17:24 GMT

    @5wombats lol I am surprised you stopped short of claiming that Indian pitches are programmed via a computer to suit Indian players, one question though, how do u come up with such stuff ??

  • shankar on January 22, 2011, 17:21 GMT

    i think england carryin too much of bits and piece of cricketers.. i still feel they need collingwood very much kick trott out.. he looks lik a selfish player.. he always brings down the run rate comin at the crucial no3

  • Martin on January 22, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    Wrong again @popcorn; the last time England played Australia in ODI's England won the series 3-2 (July 2010). Perhaps you don't follow Australia as closely as you'd have us believe - or perhaps you just ignore draws, defeats or bad performances. Aus did win against Ireland in a ODI (bravo) - but that's the only thing they did win in 2010. They didn't win the Ashes in 2010 either - but I accept your assurances that you are already over it. Perhaps you have already ignored 2010? @Srinivas Pachari; "(Englands) Their batting talent is not good enough". Rubbish. KP, Strauss, Morgan not good enough. You are talking rubbish. @Shakil Commentary Mim; It's India that will choke - players are too old, unathletic, playing in front of their own fans with ridiculous expectations. India's only hope is in the pitches that will be rigged to suit their spinners like they always are.

  • S.shah on January 22, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    @Warnerbasher I havent said anything about the ashes in my comment read again,will you?@5wombats sometimes you need to swallow the bitter pill, nothing personal. If england put up a good performance I would be here praising their efforts bereft of any bias but until then I would like to stick to my opinion.

  • Ashley on January 22, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    Its a four horse race for the WC. Saffers, OZ, India and Sri Lanka. The rest need not turn up. Pakwellwisher the Ashes is the contest, the most famous trophy in cricket. Obscure are you kidding. I must admit that it lost its lustre because England were crap for years but now that they have become South Africa B the contest is back on

  • Rajaram on January 22, 2011, 3:32 GMT

    I predict a 6 -1 victory for Australia, exactly like in England,when they last played against each other in September 2009.

  • Greg on January 22, 2011, 1:55 GMT

    Hmmm.....everybody quick to jump all over England after they have been beaten by two outstanding individual performances that has papered over a still fragile batting lineup. they still have the cattle to take this series if they take the chances when they arise like in the tests. Its probably a stupid question, but why isn't Cook, who scored a zillions runs in the Ashes, playing? Is he injured or is it like the Australian system where the selectors make arbitrary choices about nominating short form specialists (D.Hussey), long form specialists (Katich) or guys who are only good at fielding therefore they play all three forms (Smith).....

  • John on January 22, 2011, 1:49 GMT

    @ JB77, well said my good sir.

  • pavan on January 22, 2011, 1:49 GMT

    " Strauss rues lack of seam options " what does he expect the bowlers to do... bowl out australia for less than 50. bowlers did a good job by restricting aus for 230, whic would have been much less had it not been for marsh. it should have been the batsmen's job to win the match by playing sensibly.

  • Dummy4 on January 22, 2011, 1:20 GMT

    @5wombats, England are going to choke at the World Cup as your batting order is incorrect and I dont think Tredwell should have been selected at all, like there has to be other young talents that can be given some experience in this 7-ODI series in Aus.

    I wouldnt mind seeing England give Shah; Denly; (Adil Rashid - young and decent spinner that could be back-up for Swann and Yardy and he's already in Australia playing for South Australian Redbacks)

  • No featured comments at the moment.