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

Strauss rues lack of seam options

  shares 30

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

  • pakwellwisher 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 ??

  • shankyyy 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

  • 5wombats 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.

  • pakwellwisher 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.

  • warnerbasher 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

  • popcorn 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.

  • grg525 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).....

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

    @ JB77, well said my good sir.

  • thewall200c 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.

  • 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)

  • pakwellwisher 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 ??

  • shankyyy 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

  • 5wombats 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.

  • pakwellwisher 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.

  • warnerbasher 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

  • popcorn 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.

  • grg525 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).....

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

    @ JB77, well said my good sir.

  • thewall200c 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.

  • 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)

  • on January 21, 2011, 22:22 GMT

    @pakwellwisher - I am with you. England are going to struggle a lot. One would think that because they have Swan and Yardy, their batsmen will learn how to play good spin. But they do not. 1. Their batting talent is not good enough. They either have unstable boundary hitters or really good blockers, apart from one are two. Most of the batsmen will struggle to regularly take 1s and 2s (that is one of the reasons why most English batsmen were not sought out by the franchicees). 2. They don have part time spin talent. If Swan/Yardy have a bad day, they are done. Why else would Flower want Samit Patel so badly in his team. Look at India, if Harbhajan has a bad day, everyone other than Ghambir can bowl!!! By the time you get to grips with a bowler, he would have bowled 4 overs.

  • JB77 on January 21, 2011, 22:13 GMT

    Wow the 2nd loss and already the 'Eng too tired after the Ashes/Eng not taking this series seriously' excuses come out. I wasn't expecting these until at least Game 4. How could a side not take an ODI series seriously less than a month before the World Cup?! At least most Aus fans had the honesty to admit Aus were simply outplayed by a better team during the Ashes. No excuses - we were (very) poor, England were good and we paid the price. Man-up English fans!

  • Trickstar on January 21, 2011, 22:13 GMT

    I think some people are incredibly quick to jump all over England, that fact is they've just got off playing 5 tests and 3 warm up tests, of practically non stop 2 months of cricket. The fact they are struggling to adapt back to one day cricket, is to be expected by some of the players. Apart from Watson and Clarke not many of the Aussies played any of the Test matches, so they are coming in to this, with a point to prove and a lot fresher than the England players. So far when the England batsmen put up a good total, in the first Odi, the back up bowlers let them down and in the 2nd the bowlers bowled great and the batsmen let them down. It won't be long till both parts of England's game click. The fact is we won't know where this team is till all the players are back, when your missing your front line attack you're always going to be struggling. Winning the Ashes is a curse for the Odi's , as the last couple have shown,but there's still 5 to go,unless the sides run out of fit players.

  • cricket_for_all on January 21, 2011, 21:54 GMT

    AUS always gain their strength beating ENG test or ODI. AUS is gaining momentum right before the world cup (But they are still weak). Sorry ENG no way you can win WC.

  • azaro on January 21, 2011, 21:29 GMT

    Certainly it was really a batting problem but how can you be a seamer short and leave two out of the three with almost two overs to bowl? That's a sign of weak captaincy...surely once Bollinger come in you attack him aggressivley even if you risk bowling them out an over early.

    As to the batting, Prior is not an opening bat - if he plays instead of Davies he should be down the order; we are told he is a better player of spin than Davies so opening? Hmm...secondly Pietersen is always in trouble if he gets in too early...he likes to get on the front foot and he is scared of the quicks early on so either put him at five or make sure the openers have a better stand - he got runs in the first ODI when the openers did there thing. Bell is the most technically correct batsman in the side so with this team he has to open. Trott is stodgy and not really ready for ODI prime time. And sorry, Yardy is a 20/20 player only...actually Pietersen should bowl more in ODI's can't be worse than Yardy.

  • 5wombats on January 21, 2011, 21:00 GMT

    @pakwellwisher; "England team is a one dimensional team which cant play on sub continent wickets". Really ? Where's your evidence? I'm book marking you in order to remind you later on what you said. The moral of the story is - there's 5 of us - and only one of you! @unbiased_referee; "When will England realize there are things in Cricket more topical than obscure Ashes?" - you really haven't got a clue have you!!! NOTHING, NOTHING - IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ASHES. If you don't believe me - ask an Australian. Obscure my eye. Unbiased my eye. "Their ever fragile batting..." yeah yeah yeah.. blah blah. Whatever.

  • unbiased_referee on January 21, 2011, 20:09 GMT

    England dressing room is under awe of having won the Ashes; and seems to have absolutely no idea about any other form of cricket that exists out there! If services of Swann, Anderson and Broad were unavailable, why play non-starters like Tredwell and Yardy who are no replacements for the missing lot--so nuch so you have to bowl Trott at crucial stages where you could have delivered the killer punch. Furthermore, while chasing a mediocre 230, their ever fragile batting, known more for collapses than anything else, was enough to give Aussies 2-0 lead that might culminate into a 7-0 result at the end of it all at a crucial juncture when World Cup is just round the corner. When will England realize there are things in Cricket more topical than obscure Ashes? Maybe we'll have to wait till they loose the bid to host the World Cup just as they did in Football not so long ago!!

  • libra0619 on January 21, 2011, 19:57 GMT

    @Sanketmonus : l0o0o0l read it carefully : writer is talking about two Austrialian bowlers who got injured in this match : Tait and Hauritz :))))

  • pakwellwisher on January 21, 2011, 19:39 GMT

    England will walk in to the world cup as minnows and most of the teams with good spinners would fancy their chances against them.England team is a one dimensional team which cant play on sub continent wickets and I am sure most of their fans dont have high hopes for the world cup.However in this series they are missing some bowlers which could have tilted the scales in their favour.

  • 5wombats on January 21, 2011, 19:26 GMT

    @landl47; I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine. I certainly agree that you can't take too much from this series - and I had a funny feeling that it might be like this after the Ashes. God! weren't England amazing in the Ashes! So, like everyone else I feel this ODI 7 match overkill - was never going to come close. The players must feel this too. In this game the batting was flat and - just awful - like the hopeless England ODI games we used to see back in the bad old days. The symmetry is there; Win Ashes/lose ODI's. I would say this - England are not as bad a one day side as we are looking at the moment, Australia are almost as bad - but England have a reason for their poor turn out - "Ashes Hangover". (Aus have no excuse for being bad). Doesn't justify it, still not good enough - but you can see how it happened. Better to get the flat mindsets & bad performances out of the way here against a weak Aus team. I don't mind that. We'll do better in the World Cup I'm sure.

  • daniraza on January 21, 2011, 18:51 GMT

    Australia still showing what they r capable of...Despite eng superb performance in Ashes,there is some kind of spark missing surely in them....!!!

  • SanketGandhare on January 21, 2011, 17:27 GMT

    "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." which bowlers australia losing ...its england dude...thats rediculus....

  • D-Train on January 21, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    What is Strauss on about? It was the batting that let them down and if it wasn't for Marsh and Dougie B the Aussies would've been bowled out for 160

  • bouncedout on January 21, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    @gogoldengreens. Firstly, its Choked, and secondly, England just batted poorly as happens sometimes. The convicts have had one good performance in each of the first two ODI's match and that has been the difference. To be honest I can't see either side winning the WC.

  • Kyle_Jones235 on January 21, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    I seriously don't think the english batsmen are taking this seriously at all. Some of the shots they palyed in this series.. just handed wickets away when they didnt need to... Way different from the tests where the aussie bowlers had to work so incredibly hard to get one wicket. I understand if you are chaing 280+ scores you need to go in an attacking mentality but 231... should have been textbook :S.

  • landl47 on January 21, 2011, 14:53 GMT

    Although every series is important (especially against Australia), you can't read too much into this. England are still in the withdrawal period after the Ashes win and their bowling is not up to strength. 4 years ago England beat Australia in the ODIs after losing the Ashes 5-0. Australia went on to win the World Cup. England just need to keep their heads and their spirits up and they'll be fine. Their side is much better suited to the subcontinent than Australia's and I expect to see them do well. As for the 4th seamer, yes, it would have been nice, but that's England's problem- they don't have a genuine all-rounder. If Colly isn't in the side, they don't really have a 6th bowling option at all. However, Bollinger had a career TOTAL (not average) of 4 runs in ODIs before this one and he went crazy. His pop-ups fell safely and he hit a couple of good shots. Marsh played brilliantly. Sometimes these things happen.

  • on January 21, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    It is 2-0 now. Plain and simple England is not a great ODI outfit. They do not have big hitters save for Pietersen. Winning ashes doesn't mean the WC is guaranteed and favorite tag.

  • 5wombats on January 21, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    Australia are a pretty poor side - but that's no consolation. You can't dress up a performance like that. Losing to a poor side; shows just how bad England were. It was the batting - No excuses please Andrew about not picking bowlers, etc. I thought our bowling looked alright. Fielding much improved. But the batting was pathetic. Reminded me of Australia - except that ONE of their batsmen fired - one - that's all it took. It shouldn't be that only one decent performance (Marsh) is enough win you a game - and that's twice in a row it's happened. The only thing that gives hope for the World Cup is that we should have our best bowlers back in place by then. But if England bat like that they ain't gonna win zip. Anyway - Stuff this series - the England players aren't taking it seriously so why should we? Lets get on to the World Cup!

  • Something_Witty on January 21, 2011, 13:46 GMT

    Typical - the bowlers cop it from the captain when the batsmen get bundled out for under 200. Excuses excuses Straussy old chap. Come on, chin up and "take it on the chin" as you're fond of saying.

  • gogoldengreens on January 21, 2011, 13:43 GMT

    I wish the poms chocked like this during the tests

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • gogoldengreens on January 21, 2011, 13:43 GMT

    I wish the poms chocked like this during the tests

  • Something_Witty on January 21, 2011, 13:46 GMT

    Typical - the bowlers cop it from the captain when the batsmen get bundled out for under 200. Excuses excuses Straussy old chap. Come on, chin up and "take it on the chin" as you're fond of saying.

  • 5wombats on January 21, 2011, 14:12 GMT

    Australia are a pretty poor side - but that's no consolation. You can't dress up a performance like that. Losing to a poor side; shows just how bad England were. It was the batting - No excuses please Andrew about not picking bowlers, etc. I thought our bowling looked alright. Fielding much improved. But the batting was pathetic. Reminded me of Australia - except that ONE of their batsmen fired - one - that's all it took. It shouldn't be that only one decent performance (Marsh) is enough win you a game - and that's twice in a row it's happened. The only thing that gives hope for the World Cup is that we should have our best bowlers back in place by then. But if England bat like that they ain't gonna win zip. Anyway - Stuff this series - the England players aren't taking it seriously so why should we? Lets get on to the World Cup!

  • on January 21, 2011, 14:15 GMT

    It is 2-0 now. Plain and simple England is not a great ODI outfit. They do not have big hitters save for Pietersen. Winning ashes doesn't mean the WC is guaranteed and favorite tag.

  • landl47 on January 21, 2011, 14:53 GMT

    Although every series is important (especially against Australia), you can't read too much into this. England are still in the withdrawal period after the Ashes win and their bowling is not up to strength. 4 years ago England beat Australia in the ODIs after losing the Ashes 5-0. Australia went on to win the World Cup. England just need to keep their heads and their spirits up and they'll be fine. Their side is much better suited to the subcontinent than Australia's and I expect to see them do well. As for the 4th seamer, yes, it would have been nice, but that's England's problem- they don't have a genuine all-rounder. If Colly isn't in the side, they don't really have a 6th bowling option at all. However, Bollinger had a career TOTAL (not average) of 4 runs in ODIs before this one and he went crazy. His pop-ups fell safely and he hit a couple of good shots. Marsh played brilliantly. Sometimes these things happen.

  • Kyle_Jones235 on January 21, 2011, 15:25 GMT

    I seriously don't think the english batsmen are taking this seriously at all. Some of the shots they palyed in this series.. just handed wickets away when they didnt need to... Way different from the tests where the aussie bowlers had to work so incredibly hard to get one wicket. I understand if you are chaing 280+ scores you need to go in an attacking mentality but 231... should have been textbook :S.

  • bouncedout on January 21, 2011, 15:41 GMT

    @gogoldengreens. Firstly, its Choked, and secondly, England just batted poorly as happens sometimes. The convicts have had one good performance in each of the first two ODI's match and that has been the difference. To be honest I can't see either side winning the WC.

  • D-Train on January 21, 2011, 16:56 GMT

    What is Strauss on about? It was the batting that let them down and if it wasn't for Marsh and Dougie B the Aussies would've been bowled out for 160

  • SanketGandhare on January 21, 2011, 17:27 GMT

    "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." which bowlers australia losing ...its england dude...thats rediculus....

  • daniraza on January 21, 2011, 18:51 GMT

    Australia still showing what they r capable of...Despite eng superb performance in Ashes,there is some kind of spark missing surely in them....!!!