England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day

England lean on Anderson again

Whatever they may say to the contrary, England are increasingly reliant on the skill, fitness and reliability of James Anderson

George Dobell at Trent Bridge

July 14, 2013

Comments: 134 | Text size: A | A

England erupt as victory is confirmed, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day, July 14, 2013
James Anderson lead England to a memorable victory but the constant need to turn to him is a worry © PA Photos
Enlarge

It was entirely fitting that James Anderson took the match-winning wicket at Trent Bridge. Never has England's reliance on him been so painfully exposed. Over recent months, England have leant on him like an elderly person might a zimmer frame, or like an alcoholic in search of a drink.

Perhaps that is the better simile, for England's over-reliance upon Anderson is not healthy. The burden upon him, not just in Test cricket, but in ODIs as well, has become immense. While his colleagues lose form, fitness and confidence, Anderson has been consistently excellent for several years, leading his captain to coax just one more over, one more spell from him time after time. England go to the well so often that fears are growing it may run dry.

It looked for a while on the last day as if England had reached that moment. After an immense opening spell of 13 overs that took his tally for game above 50 in unusual heat, Anderson was forced off the pitch with what the England camp insist - an insistence perhaps tinged with hope - was an attack of cramp.

At that stage he might have presumed his work was done. Australia were 80 runs from their target when the ninth wicket fell; his colleagues should have been able to take it from there.

Instead, Anderson was obliged to take on plenty of fluids at the lunch break and found himself forced into service once more after it became painfully obvious that England had no replacement capable of sustaining his match-clinching burst. It took him only two overs to finish the game off and clinch not just his second five-wicket haul of the match but the second ten-wicket haul of his career. His statistics, dented by premature exposure to international cricket, may never show it but his bowling over the last three years has touched a level of greatness to which very few England bowlers have ventured.

Anderson was magnificent in this game. It is not just his skill, but his fitness and reliability that render him such a valuable player. MS Dhoni rated him the difference between the sides after England's Test series victory in India and it was no exaggeration. It is the same in this series: if Anderson were injured, this England attack would hold little fear for Australia.

This surface offered him little. There was just a little conventional swing and seam and minimal pace or bounce. Conditions were much more akin to Ahmedabad or Kolkata than to stereotypical English pitches. But Anderson, with his nagging control and ability to reverse-swing the ball into and away from the batsmen from a well-disguised action, rose above such obstacles to remain a potent force. It was a performance of which Zaheer Khan or Mohammad Asif would have been proud.

He deserved better support, though. While Stuart Broad may be worryingly fragile, he had an increasingly impressive Test, but a couple of other England players would have slipped away from Trent Bridge amid the celebrations, feeling low as result of their personal contributions.

Certainly Steven Finn, cutting a diffident figure for a man capable of such brutish spells, endured a horrible final day. Not only did he miss a tough chance at deep-backward square leg to reprieve Brad Haddin on 62, but he failed to sustain the pressure created by Anderson when he relieved him in the attack. The contrast was unflattering: while Anderson delivered three wicket maidens in the session and conceded only 29 runs in a 13-over spell, Finn was plundered for 15 in his first over and five in his second. He was then removed from the attack and is far from certain to play at Lord's.

Finn is too young and full of potential to be written off but there is a concern about his lack of progress. He was dropped after the Perth Test in 2010 for conceding four an over but conceded 4.68 an over here. While he bowled one decent spell on the first day and another on the fourth, his lack of control has routinely released the pressure on the opposition in recent months. Again, England insist he is fully fit but the suspicion remains that the shin soreness that troubled him in earlier in the summer has robbed him of some confidence and rhythm.

Had England lost this game, it might have been remembered as one of the lowest moments of Graeme Swann's career, too. He has endured disappointing games before - Cardiff and Edgbaston in 2009 spring to mind, as does Brisbane in 2010 and The Oval 2012 - but rarely when so much has been expected of him in conditions so apparently favourable. England had originally planned not to take the new ball on the final day but so unthreatening was Swann they had to, with Alastair Cook admitting that "it wasn't doing a lot for Swanny, so we changed tactics".

Perhaps expectations were unrealistically high. With England bowling last on such a dry pitch and Swann playing on his home ground, events seemed to have been set-up for Swann to strike the crucial blows. But the pitch turned less than had been anticipated and Swann, who has never taken a five-wicket haul in a first-class game on the ground and had not taken a Test wicket here until 2012, was rarely threatening.

He did, however, produce one good spell, late on the penultimate day, that perhaps suggested there was enough in the pitch to help had he bowled with the bite and turn that we have come to expect.

The miles on the clock may be starting to show. Swann has suffered from back and calf injuries in the last few weeks and underwent a second operation on his right elbow earlier this year. While the sluggish pace of the pitch did little for him, that can be no excuse for the surfeit of full tosses he delivered.

That is more of a worry than Finn's loss of form. Swann's prowess had been considered a key factor in the gap between the sides before this series and a succession of dry pitches are anticipated to aid his spin. If he is struggling for form or fitness, England will become even more reliant on Anderson. Monty Panesar remains the second-best spinner in England but has not been at his best in recent months - he was dropped from the Sussex side a few weeks ago - while James Tredwell, in favour with the selectors but out of form with the ball, has an eye-watering first-class bowling average of 428 this season.

It was somehow typical that Ian Bell's immense contribution to this result was overshadowed by the performances of others. He will be consoled, however, in the knowledge that he played the innings that defined this match and, to this point, the most mature and important innings of his career. After a modest 18 months, his confidence and form is as good as it ever has been and he should have proved to himself as much as anyone that he can produce such performances regularly.

Cook's contribution could easily be overlooked on the final day, too. When he first moved into the slip cordon, he was something approaching a liability. Only a year ago, he put down several chances against South Africa that proved hugely costly for England. But, just as he worked on his range of strokes and his issues outside off stump, Cook worked on his weakness until he made it a strength.

Here, as the sole slip fielder and standing closer to the bat than normal to account for the lack of carry from the sluggish pitch, he held on to a couple of sharp chance, the first off Ashton Agar and the second off Peter Siddle. He did provide a reminder that you have never mastered this game by also putting down a relatively easy chance offered by Siddle but Cook, like his star fast bowler, has proved that with hard work and self belief, continual improvement is possible and can lift players to unprecedented heights. Neither Cook or Anderson would claim to be the most talented cricketers their country has produced, but they may well end their careers as the highest run-scorer and wicket-taker in England Test history.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: George Dobell

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by redneck on (July 17, 2013, 3:08 GMT)

@SirViv1973 look im not disputing broad being a test cricketer, however 200 wickets @30.94 doesnt really rate when compared to harris with an avg of 23.63, pattinson with an avg of 24.55 or bird with an avg of 16.18 (ok only 2 tests fc avg of 19.78 to prove the test avg is no fluke) when compared to englands finn avg 29.4, bresnin 32.54 or onions @ 29.9. they pommy bowlers may have played more but if injuries start happening to fast bowlers as the back to back series rolls on then australia will come out of it a lot better than england

Posted by jr1972 on (July 16, 2013, 11:09 GMT)

@whatawicket, the only way that there will be 3 draws in this series is if the weather intervenes. Australia are struggling with the bat and both sides have shown that 20 wickets is realistic.

Posted by Moppa on (July 16, 2013, 10:36 GMT)

@Hammond, I hope we get to test that theory...!

Posted by CustomKid on (July 16, 2013, 10:19 GMT)

@SirViv1973 you have a valid point on 200 wickets for broad over the other combined but broad has also played a lot more than the others combined too. He's an interesting one is young Stuart. 128 wickets on home soil at 27. Away 72 wickets at 40. Is it harsh to call him a down hill skier?

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 10:09 GMT)

I think a bowling side of Tremlett, Onions and Bresnan would be plenty enough to beat this Aussie side. Tredwell could come in for Swann, and the bowling attack would still be superior to Australia's.

Posted by brusselslion on (July 16, 2013, 9:59 GMT)

@Cpt.Meanster on (July 15, 2013, 17:45 GMT): I'm not Broad's biggest fan - even less so since the 'walking' incident - as he's inconsistent, but 198 Test wickets 'lucky'? With that sort of luck, I'd be playing every lottery in sight.

Posted by DPhilB on (July 16, 2013, 9:22 GMT)

#Madmasthathi1 said earlier that Anderson's figures outside England were "pathetic", so I took a look. Since Nov 2010 he has taken 64 away wickets @ 28.2, which doesn't seem pathetic to me - "pretty good" I'd say & I imagine most touring captains would be very happy with those figures. Anyway, if 28.2 is "pathetic" then let's look at the away averages of the Indian bowlers of the same period. Zaheer Khan has 27 @ 27.4, which I suppose counts as "borderline pathetic". Prabeen Kumar is a bit better with 27 @ 25.8, which on this scale must count as "poor". But look at the others: Harbajan 28 @ 36.1, Ishant Sharma 45 @ 40. Sreesanth17 @ 51.1, R Ashwin 9 @ 62.8. So if 28 is "pathetic", then the English language isn't rich enough to describe the away form of the last four guys.

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 16, 2013, 8:46 GMT)

Jimmy got 10 wickets. Broad and Finn bowled too short and Swann bowled poorly.

Yes, in this game we needed Jimmy to get the wickets, but this is just one match. Swann has performed well for too long to be written off after 1 match, Broad and Finn are temperamental but it will only take one of them to bag a 5-fer at Lords for the media to start claiming how well rounded the attack is.

Far too early to be panicking.

Posted by Kitschiguy on (July 16, 2013, 8:07 GMT)

England leaned on Anderson in this Test because England were in search of a wicket when time was running out and he's just the most likely bowler to take a wicket not least because the entire Australian team fear him. That is all.

Australia should be more worried about their bowling since it was supposed to be their bowling that was going to save them. So far all the England bowlers have bowled better and faster than all of the Australian bowlers, especially those trundlers Starc and Pattinson. Starc was very disappointing, bowling inaccurately complete with comedy no balls in the low 80s.

Now Australia are saying they have more in the cupboard in the overrated Harris, who will almost certainly break down and Bird and Faulkaner, another couple of trundlers who haven't played Test cricket. While England have a host of bowlers coming through county cricket as well as the excellent Onions, Tremlett, Bresnan etc all of whom have played brilliantly at Test level.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 16, 2013, 7:01 GMT)

@redneck, Really????? going by what happened in this match it's difficult to comprehensively say Starc or Pattinson are any better than Broad. Broad was injured in the first Inns & bowled as well if not better than those 2 when he was fit enough to bowl in the 2nd. Broad does lack a bit of consistency but the guy has got over 200 test wickets, more than Starc, Pattinson, Bird & Harris put together!

Posted by whatawicket on (July 16, 2013, 6:54 GMT)

George thought i would look at the New Zealand tests to see how the wickets were spread about. maybe not ideal in a 2 test series. but as you have used your piece after 1 test, it still gives a better idea looking into your theory. with the same 4 bowlers used in all. ( JA 9 wickets ) (SB 12 wickets ) ( SF 8 wickets ) and finally ( GS 10 wickets ) so maybe a bit over the top on your point. As jimmy is a good old boy from Lancashire and my county i like your thinking. if at the end of these ashes JA has double the wickets of the other bowlers used then your point has more validity at a push.

Posted by fazald on (July 16, 2013, 5:45 GMT)

It makes me wonder why Anderson left the ground just before the delayed lunch break on the fifth day of the match pretending to have a niggle? When he came back to bowl soon after he looked as fit as ever and deadly.Did umpire Aleem Dhar have a good look at the ball?. Australia lost quick wickets soon after a break for drinks, lunch, tea etc like Watson first ball after the drinks break on the fourth day as well as a flurry of wickets soon after the tea break. Until then Australia were cruising along without any problems and were on top of the bowling. Did the umpires have a good look at the ball during overs for anything unusual? Sometime ago the captain of the England team was caught on TV camera rubbing some sand on the ball from his pocket while another player was thought to have a lolly in his pocket which made the ball swing viciously. Well whatever happened to the ball tampering allegation against England in the Champions Trophy? Hope it's not hidden under the carpet.

Posted by Showbags88 on (July 16, 2013, 2:38 GMT)

England should be concerned about the bowling cupboard being seriously bare other than Anderson and Swann. I can see an Australia like fall in bowling standards (like when McGrath and Warne retired) when Anderson and Swann retire.

There is no young spinners coming through to speak of and the pace bowling cupboard is pretty bare.

Posted by redneck on (July 16, 2013, 1:48 GMT)

@Front-Foot-Lunge anderson may be the best bowler in english conditions but in this ashes series you would have to say australia can claim to have the next 4 or 5 best quicks. i think the main thing to take away from trent bridge test is that england need anderson to do all the attacking and without him they look as toothless as a new born baby!!! should pattinson go down injured, we have harris and bird to replace him. should anderson go down then god help england because their other 'quicks' certainly wont!!!

Posted by Shan156 on (July 15, 2013, 23:05 GMT)

@whatawicket, that is because some of these non-England fans think England do not deserve to play cricket with the big boys. They have made up their minds that England is a poor team and has no place playing with the big boys. When we win in India, we are lucky. When we win in Australia, we are lucky. When we win in England, we are extremely lucky. If your trust some of these forumers, you would think that England has no talent, period.

It is really sad.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (July 15, 2013, 20:42 GMT)

What we can all say about James Anderson after one Ashes test is that he bowls faster than Pattison and is worth more than the entire Australia bowling attack combined.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (July 15, 2013, 17:45 GMT)

The scoreline should read Anderson 1 - Australia 0. Because, that's the truth behind the matter. Without Anderson, England looked poor and below average in their bowling effort. For England's sake, Anderson needs to be fit till he's a 100 cause I can't see any other bowler in the entire English set up come close to him. Finn started out good but has lost it in recent months. Broad is lucky, period. And who else have we left ? Bresnan is a trundler at best. And then the list ends. These are the cold realities of England's bowling. If I were Australia, I wouldn't worry too much going into the next test. It's all about application against Anderson and then should handle the rest with ease.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (July 15, 2013, 16:36 GMT)

Lean on Jimmy.

Lean on me, when were not strong, I'll take wickets, Broad will leak runs. Our offie has niggles & he's getting on, Even teens on debut aren't fooled by Swann.

Just call on me Cookie if the run rate is bad, We all need a bowler to lean on. I might have the cramps but I'll understand, If I don't roll them, the Urn will be gone.

Lean on me when Finn's wobbly knee. Is gifting Clarke another century. If Steyn we had nicked instead of Jade D, No marathon spells would be needed from me!

Remind the selectors, against spin Oz are weak, Jadega tore through them & he's a leftie. Swann Root & KP are righties that tweak, For the break we need, bring back Monty!

I have a plan - disguise Morkel as Finn, I need a quick to lean on. Its real easy, they're both tall & thin, He needs his hair dyed & stubble on his chin.

Lean on me, Bresnan's lost pace, Onions is fried, Woaks & Stoaks have no place. I'm Jimmy the skilful, at swing I'm the Ace, I'll keep the Ashes & win back the Mace.

Posted by SamRoy on (July 15, 2013, 15:37 GMT)

On this wicket England would have won easily if they played Anderson, Broad, Swann, Panesar. Since Broad has regained his pace he is obviously better than Finn.

Posted by whatawicket on (July 15, 2013, 15:32 GMT)

why is it most seem to take the moral high ground that Australia were sorely done to. they used their DRS badly were England did not. but the DRS treated England badly in so ar as Trott hitting the ball but been given out on no evidence that he had not, with dars feeling on that decision quite plain to see. then the 3rd umpire give a batter not out were his foot at best nothing behind the line. which cost England big time.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 15:29 GMT)

History huh? Had Australia's Jimmy Anderson (Glenn McGrath) not rolled his ankle before the 2nd test in the 2005 Ashes, we may well have seen a different result in that series and perhaps with the invent of 20/20 cricket, the death knell of all test cricket! There is no doubt that England winning the 2005 Ashes gave test cricket the 'shot in the arm' it needed at the time and ironically, Jimmy's 10 here and the flow of the match have once again provided the injection of excitement needed to keep test cricket on the mainstream radar. Gratz to both teams and bring on Lords!

Posted by voma on (July 15, 2013, 15:29 GMT)

Jimmy Anderson is the 2nd best fast bowler in the world , fact . So why are we surprised that he keeps taking bucket loads of wickets against teams . I personally think this is a very poor Australian Batting line up , come Lords i see Broad and Swann coming to the party . Why change a winning side .

Posted by whatawicket on (July 15, 2013, 15:23 GMT)

ahernepaull. that's very true if mcgrath had not trod on a ball the 05 ashes i guess the result would have been different. what we got yesterday was a man JA at the top of his game,these days he can bowl on most surfaces. in the Aussie 1st innings the problem was broad could only bowl under 7 overs and what overs he did bowl i was quite happy with.

Posted by garibaldi on (July 15, 2013, 15:22 GMT)

@Navneet Mittal - what about the crucial wrong decisions which went against England, like the Trott dismissal, the Agar stumping, and even Joe Root's dismissal in the second innings, which had he reviewed it may have gone the other way? As even Aussie fans are quick to acknowledge, umpiring errors tend to even themselves out over the course of a match. Incidentally I assume you mean the Broad (non) dismissal as one - which other one was obviously wrong?

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 15, 2013, 15:14 GMT)

@Rockwin, England have a histroy of starting poorly in a test series then gaining in confidence, look at India in 2011, Even against SA last year they started to improve and were it not for the KP fallout may have won at lords (they may not as well but we will never know).

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

@DeckChairand6pack Yeah England are now 3rd Indias test position is flattering as since 2010 they have played a weak Aussie side twice - a weak NZ side twice and a weak but improving West Indies side once and won all of those. They have not played/or lost to the stronger test teams. Not played SA or Pakistan in tests this decade and were beaten soundly home and away by England. And next India are off to play Zimbabwe!! Easy to have decent results if you play the minnows over and over and avoid the strong teams. We'll see how good India are in January 2014 when they take on South Africa in South Africa (where England drew their last series and won the series before that)

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

I'm an Indian, but I can feel for Australia..Two crucial wrong decision against Australia was painful to see.

Posted by Tlotoxl on (July 15, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

64blip on (July 15, 2013, 7:44 GMT) I'm not the one putting the negative spin on it, the writer of the article is! I was just pointing out that Anderson is not the be all and the end all of the England team, Swann and Broad are very good as well and we have a wealth of talent with Finn, Onions, Tremlett & Panesar all have a lot of talent and could fill in and work very well and I would suggest better than SA without Steyn as the CT proved.

Posted by brusselslion on (July 15, 2013, 13:10 GMT)

Whether England are over reliant on Anderson (and Swann) is one thing but few would doubt that they are England's best bowlers. And therein lies a problem as both are the wrong side of 30. With any luck, we may get another 2 seasons of top quality bowling out of them but then who steps up? Onions & Tremlett are also 30+ so are not long term options. Stokes and Woakes have been found wanting at England 'A' level. Surrey are doing a pretty good job of ruining Meaker. Harris? Jordan? Overton? Topley? Plenty of names but none have proved themselves at even England 'A' level.

Onions and Monty will probably be able replacements if either Jimmy or Swann gets injured this time round but long term, we have a potential problem.

@SirViv1973: I wouldn't say that Tremlett is no where near ready to return but, you're right, he's not ready at the moment. Hopefully, by the Oval Test and then on the winter tour. @madmasthathi1: Have you bothered to look at Anderson's record since 2010?

Posted by Rockwin on (July 15, 2013, 12:54 GMT)

Australia are a young and inexperienced team yet they have already come close to winning against England who were very strongly favored. They have already benefited from the coming of a new coach. They will benefit even more from this first near victory and the advent of Ashton Agar. Remember he was bowling with a cut finger! Next time they are going to be tough antagonists. Time favors the younger bowlers of Australia. As the series goes on England's particularly Jimmy Anderson will find it more and more difficult to maintain the same level of success. Michael Clarke has already learned from his failures with DRS. Look forward to an exciting series of 10! matches! I think that Australia will get stronger with every match.

Posted by talkcric.com on (July 15, 2013, 12:44 GMT)

@Talkcric says, If England have any sense, they bring back Tremlett. He is quality line and length and the sight of him running in frightened the Aussies to death in the last series but he also took lots of vital wickets.

If its a toss up of Bressy or Tremlett its Tremlett for me. He offers real nasty bounce from a different place to the other bowlers. If it isn't swinging then Bresnan id expensive as well as Finn.

Come on England bring back Tremlett.

Posted by DeckChairand6pack on (July 15, 2013, 12:13 GMT)

Congratulations to both teams for putting on some great entertainment and a superb advert for test cricket. This match was won in the end by the team that was least bad over the 5 days with both sides living up to their mid table world rankings. It is doubtful whether the next challengers to the Proteas were on display at Trent Bridge over the weekend. Whilst the game reached heady heights it cried out for a bit more quality. But it was a great match to watch and both sets of fans do know how to get behind their teams.

Posted by WhoCaresAboutIPL on (July 15, 2013, 12:11 GMT)

I sometimes wonder at the lack of understanding of some of your respondents. As far as I could see, the wicket actually became much easier to bat on with time - it lost pace, did not turn nearly as much as was predicted, and although a little up-and-down, this hardly caused any problems, again because of the lack of pace. Some correspondents are saying Swann is finished even though in his previous matches he took 10 wickets (here Jimmy took only 2 - were there calls to drop him?) At the end of the day, and despite all the arguments about umpires and DRS, the only factor which made the match last to day 5 and be as close as it was, was the Agar miracle innings. Will he ever repeat this? Without it the margin would have been 150-200 runs. Time will again tell which of these results reflects the real Oz.

Posted by ahearnepaul on (July 15, 2013, 12:07 GMT)

So by this rationale, were Australia over reliant on Glen McGrath in 2005?

Nonsense to say that England lean on Jimmy, yes he's our best but the others step to the fore often enough. A one off 13 over spell and five-for's does not equate to leaning on him, it just means he had a heck of a game!!

Finn wasn't at the races (especially seconding innings), I'd be getting Tremlett back (but they haven't) or giving Onions a run out (but they wont), they'll start with exactly the same XI at Lords.

Posted by Hatter_Mad on (July 15, 2013, 12:05 GMT)

Great teams in history have often relied on one stand-out seamer, doesn't seem to be a huge issue. Broad tends to get break-through wickets rather than a whole fistful, Swann wasn't at his best but maybe allowed the pressure to get to him and will hopefully improve. So the bowling isn't that far amiss. I would question Finn's involvement, if only on the grounds that he made some bad choices in his bowling and I reckon a few of the Australian batsmen will now target him as the weak link. I think the 1st Test was the best relut for England, a win but one so close that they will now wake up and put Australia to the sword in a more ruthless fashion. Having said that, I would prefer a close series with Australia getting at least 1 win. With England having such a poor record at Lord's then there's every chance ...

Posted by insightfulcricketer on (July 15, 2013, 12:00 GMT)

There was something about Jimmy in that 2003 World Cup you could see.But now oh man how he has grown. A lot of respect for him.You make this game immensely watchable. No wonder Sachin could never play him with confidence as Jimmy can at will pitch the ball at same length and make it deviate in or out at pace. Good on you mate. Now I think if only Cook can get Monty in- the margin in the game will widen. Monty is not only a left arm spinner but bowls at a faster speed than most of his ilk which makes him more difficult to handle on a drying pitch.Just ask the Indian batsmen who can play left arm spin with eyes closed most of the time.With him around it will make Swanny's job easier too.

Posted by whatawicket on (July 15, 2013, 11:46 GMT)

aussiesam i can understand the comments you made just a couple of points. i don't expect us to wrap it up as soon as you have said. also i think they will have to take JA kicking and screaming to get him out of the selection process, unless of course he is injured. i expect a very hard slog over the next 4 test. i believe it will be 1 - 1 with 3 drawn

Posted by SA-4natic on (July 15, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

@ NUFC-OMS

65 tests 332 @ 22.65 21 5fers 5-10fers - a guy called dale steyn

so no he is not the best bowler in the world not even close buddy as much as u want him to be. Great bowler and i'm a huge fan of his skills one of the modern greats for sure but dont make things up check the rankings and where was he against SA last year? 9 wickets @ 40

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 11:43 GMT)

Anderson in the last 3 years : 152 wkts @ 24.73 - top of the wickets taken list, top effort. True he's taken more tests than most (35), compare with Siddle's 25 (98 wkts @ 26.21) & Steyn's 24 (121 wkts @ 21.83).

Posted by jb633 on (July 15, 2013, 11:32 GMT)

Intersting thoughts and I agree with the writer but not in reference to this game. I thought Broad bowled very well in the second innings and took the two most important wickets. I must confess I am not a fan of Broad bit his bowling this summer seems as good as I have seen it for a few years. It is very encouraging to see him hit the high 80's and not bowling long hop after long hop. For over a year now there has been problems with our bowling attack and it seems like everyone has chosen to ignore these and put the inadequacies down to things like complacency, tiredness etc.. Whilst it is great to win Ashes tests the real litmust test comes against SA, who are the undisputed best side in the world. Lets not hide away from this, we were awful with the ball in that series and were awful with the ball in the away series against NZ. Anderson and Swann are world class performers but we need to think carefully about our other seamers.

Posted by djkaria on (July 15, 2013, 11:29 GMT)

I agree with Michael Holding that Broad should be punished the way Ramdin was punished but I don't see that happening as Stuart's dad is a member of the ICC referee commitee. Stuart has many many times behaved like a school kid with umpires but never punished or banned. When it was shown on the big screen that Broad edged it then the third umpire should be allowed to inform the on field umpire that he has got it wrong. Salem Dar is a good umpire but should be rested from international cricket for a while as he has given many poor decisions not only in this match but others as well.

Finally I believe the law should be change in that if the umpire does not give out a LBW decision & the hawk eye confirms it was clipping the stumps then it should be given out and not left it to the on field umpire. If the ball is hitting or clipping the stumps it should always be given out. At present two different umpires will give 2 different decisions if they feel if it clipping the stumps or not.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 15, 2013, 11:14 GMT)

@whatawicket,

I'm actually think the good weather allowed the groundsman to over prepare the pitch such that it was far too dry, which can happen, I suspect lords will be a little different. Old trafford have had problems with thier wickets all year so dont be suprised if its a very low scoring game.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 11:11 GMT)

Monty monty monty, what happened to him, seems to reserve his best only for india, swanny is no longer thw force he is and with finn's up and down form , england basically have Anderson and broad , the only potential wicket takers left. If anderson gets injured then even this batting lineup of australia will be more then a handful for england and remember DRS wont come to their rescue everytime. early warning signs for england in their 10-0 ashes campaign quest.

Posted by Dirk_L on (July 15, 2013, 10:58 GMT)

As far as an off-spinner goes, why not do as Pakistan (Hafeez) and South Africa (Duminy) do? Promote Root to a 15-overs-per-innings bowler, and there's the batting all-rounder England has been lacking for so long.

Posted by thebeardedblunder on (July 15, 2013, 10:47 GMT)

To lesson the load on Jimmy how about this idea - Prior at 6 (sorry Bairstow you're 12th man), Bresnan at 7, Finn keeps his place as he does well at Lord's and hopefully he can prove his worth, and the rest of the team as they were. I know England like to go with a four-pronged bowling attack at home but weather-wise it's going to be another scorcher for the Second Test. We've got 9 more Tests against the Auld Enemy and we need to keep our prize asset Jimmy Anderson in tip-top working order!

Posted by whatawicket on (July 15, 2013, 10:45 GMT)

George as normal seems to have spoken to soon,on a pitch as barren as i have seen in the UK in many years, with neither pace bounce or turn. if we think these indian type pitches are the way to go, i hope not. just because the Aussies struggled in India were they played against 3 spinners. JA is now just the complete bowler on any surface. over the years countries who were lucky enough to have more than 1 great bowler have been very lucky. with them turning to that bowler whenever a wicket is needed. some of our bowlers just seemed under cooked. i expect SB and GS to be better with this run out and Bresnan come in for Finn. then George i hope the wickets will be more spread out just to make you happy

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 15, 2013, 10:31 GMT)

@Valvoluox, Personally I don't mind if nobody in Aus rates Finn or Broad. However Broad does have over 200 test wickets & he wil end up taking a lot more so he really can't be too bad. Finn was very disappointing in this test but he has a formidable test record on his home ground where conveniently the next match happens to be played. You obviously don't follow Eng cricket either if you think Tremlett should be in the side. If you have seen him play this year or even bother to look at his stats you would know exactly why he isn't in the side. Judging by the comments on this site from other Aus fans regarding Ian Bell I don't think too many rated him either, but look at his inns here under immense pressure. The fact Eng have won this match is an ominous sign for Aus as Eng always start poor & get better, question is can Aus get better & play well consistently over the next 4 games?

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 10:24 GMT)

Finn must go. I am ashamed to say I don't follow the county game like I would ideally want to, but what abt Onions or Tremlett? I would like to see Tremlett, as b4 his injury he looked VERY threatening. OR....If this beautiful weather continues, how about having Monty in the eleven? It worked in India, and as this report states, Trent Bridge was similar to an Indian pitch. The fact is England ARE over-reliant on Jimmy, and this cannot continue.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 10:22 GMT)

I think in all bunch of bowlers Broad is over hyped bowler. He is T20 skipper,, but he never led team for full series,, He never bowls any wicket taking deliveries. Even KP is also over hyped batsman,, He looks over aggressive,, he thinks to hit not sixer but "12" runs in every ball,,, its easy to get him out,,,,,,,

Posted by Gandery on (July 15, 2013, 10:20 GMT)

Finn looks like he is carrying an injury. I would bring Bresnan in. They have to look after Jimmy because 10 tests in back to back series will take its toll and the spells he did last night was huge. Big heart Jimmy! Keep well as 9 more games to go!

Posted by pom_don on (July 15, 2013, 10:13 GMT)

Great that this was so close especially for England, I think it has given them the 'wake up call' they needed & settled them as they appeared very nervous at the start of proceedings, let's hope the umpires bless 'em settle too as they made more blunders than normal, it is a hard job let's not forget.......shame they insist on a full compliment of neutral umpires as those from the UK & AUS are really high quality professionals & where they are from should not be an issue.......no one questioned Shep & Harold Bird & all respected them, so a mix would be fine one UK one AUS + third neutral.........simple really.

Posted by salazar555 on (July 15, 2013, 10:01 GMT)

@ Hugh

No one is suggesting changing Anderson, Broad or Swann. Finn's place was the one in question before this test started and he is the one who bowled poorly in the game. If the captain doesn't trust you to bowl which Cook doesn't and you can't bat either then you're not much good to the team. Finn needs to go, the other 3 bowlers are just carrying him

Posted by NUFC-OMS on (July 15, 2013, 9:53 GMT)

I would stick with Finny for Lord's. The pitch should offer a bit more pace for him which he will hopefully exploit. Bresnan can be very frustrating with bat and ball and I think he'll probably be more suited to Old Trafford which will be a low and slow pitch like Trent Bridge was. Either way I'm pretty comfortable that we won't bat as poorly as we did in the first innings again and we've already proved taking 20 wickets won't be beyond us. Although I would hope the next four tests are a little less tense thanks!

Posted by salazar555 on (July 15, 2013, 9:53 GMT)

@Paul Rone

There's no way Panesar is better than Swann and the numbers will tell you that. Panesar is a second spinner for when England go to the sub continent. In fact I think the young lad at Lancashire (Kerrigan) should be the second spinner, Panesar is in his 30's now and England need to look at who is going to replace Swann long term

Posted by AussieSam on (July 15, 2013, 9:49 GMT)

Before the series I thought people were hyping Anderson too much and giving him too much credit although I always knew as an excellent swing bowler he was going to be the biggest threat to our batting. He showed me that he is not just a great bowler but truly one of 'The Greats'. What a performance. He showed amazing skill, incredible fitness and also the temperament needed to perform under pressure. It seems like the inconsistency (results wise) he was known for has disappeared with experience.

With 9 tests to go it's definitely a major issue for England that if he breaks down they won't be nearly as strong. I have a feeling that England will rest him towards the end of the series for this reason, so they will be hoping they can wrap the series up in the next two Tests. And as outstanding an athlete as he proved he is, he is mortal and can't be expected to bowl as much as he did here in every Test so England will be also hoping the others can step up.

Posted by NUFC-OMS on (July 15, 2013, 9:39 GMT)

Of course we're going to be reliant on him he's the best bowler in the world!!!!

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 9:36 GMT)

I'm an Aussie and isn't it great to have the Ashes back. No 20/20 or ODI could possibly have the drama of the past 5 days. Those that don't get it can go to their shortened form of the game and sit in the stadiums that Test Matches built. I don't care as long as they pay their rent and leave Test cricket alone. Test cricket - going strong after 136 years. ODIs dying after about 40 and 20/20 won't last that long......Can't wait for the next match.

Posted by CricChina on (July 15, 2013, 9:29 GMT)

Having said all about cricket as a team game, in most cases for any team to win, require one or perhaps two individual outstanding performances of the day. In this case, J. Anderson is the man of the match! I don't think over-reliance of a certain player is the issue, the question is how many players a team can rely upon to shin on any given day...for England perhaps, the next test may be Swann's test. I'd love to see KP make some runs in this series, Swann will have more runs on the board to attack, right Swanny?...

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 9:24 GMT)

I think this is more about Finn and Swann. Swann has one good test followed by 3 or 4 average ones. It should have been apparent in India that on SLOW turners, Panesar is the better bowler. When the ball turns slowly and the pitch is slow and low Panesar is a far better prospect than Swann. At times Sanns bowling was terrible. He'd have been taken off in a village match for some of the overs he bowled late on the fourth and on the 5th day. A couple of times he bowled overs with 3 full tosses in them and was incredibly lucky not to get collared (his reputation probably helped him here). I wouldn't drop Swann, but he needs to buck up, overall his bowling here was pretty poor. As for Englands reliance, well I don't see it quite as starkly as you George. Broad and Swann are capable. At the moment though Finn isn't. If Agar had been given out as he should have been for 6 then the game would have been over midway through day 4 at the latest and all of this would have been moot.

Posted by salazar555 on (July 15, 2013, 9:24 GMT)

Onions is an option to come in for Finn as he is bowling well this year, I think they'll go for Bresnan though as he is always consistent and he can bat too.

Finn needs to go and play some county cricket and get some consistency going with his bowling. The captain doesn't trust him and doesn't want to throw him the ball

Posted by calcu on (July 15, 2013, 9:13 GMT)

England are way too reliant on Anderson. If he gets injured, Eng bowling will be in serious trouble.

Posted by Redxabi on (July 15, 2013, 9:09 GMT)

Cook needs to get his head right as he is bowling Anderson into the ground. 5-6 over spells max. If he breaks down or burns out (which will happen) we could end up with a Mcgrath situation where a injury to a key bowler completely changes the momentum of the series.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 9:08 GMT)

Cant agree with this writer. England has just won a thrilling nail biter and this piece seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the winning team! How crass is that?? Swann and Broad have won games for England in the recent past without much assistance from Anderson whose performance at TB was simply magnificent.But please dont devalue the skills of the other bowlers for England it is quite humiliating for those others who have worked their butts off fo their country. The same ill conceived logic of the writer can be extrapolated to say that without Bhuvansh Kumar India cannot win! Perverse logic to say the least

Posted by Reg_Dyer on (July 15, 2013, 8:49 GMT)

I think the heat might be getting to George or is it just the English instinct to see a problem where there might not be one? Does anyone remember any Australian worrying they might be 'increasingly reliant' on Alderman (and Alderman and Anderson are remarkably similar in what they do with the ball and the long spells) when he took over 40 wickets in 1981 and 1989? When you have a bowler at the top of their game they tend to take a lot of wickets!! And your hope is the other bowlers chip in with twos or threes, which is what happened here. Swann took four in the match, Broad three; not match-winning and work still to do, but no disaster. Finn, however, is not in a good place but whoever replaces him, we should expect anywhere from three to five wickets in the test to be a decent contribution.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 15, 2013, 8:49 GMT)

For those calling for Tremlett to be involved you need to look at his stats for this season he is nowhere need ready to return to the team.

Posted by hotcric01 on (July 15, 2013, 8:43 GMT)

This is correct.England too much depend on Jimmy.If he gets injured or is in out of form,they are in a serious troule(Just like Steyn for SA).Australi is strong on that point.They doesn't depend on just one bowler.If Siddle gets injured,I don't think that is big worry for them

Posted by Bubba2008 on (July 15, 2013, 8:42 GMT)

It is true that England have an obvious reliance on Anderson as their primary bowler. The extended spell he bowled on the last morning, even when Cook had the likes of Finn and Broad to replace him, is testament to the enormous value he holds in the captain's eyes.

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 15, 2013, 8:41 GMT)

It was obvious that nerves were jangling amongst the England bowlers; Anderson just managed to hold his better than the others. Finn did bowl the odd good spell and was unlucky a few times not to pick up an edge / play-on etc. In amongst those good spells were (once again) some pretty ordinary deliveries, however, hence he's being singled out the most. I was hoping Bresnan would have played, but in a game like that I'm not saying it would have made much difference really. Cook was awesome in the slips by the way; he deserves as much credit for those late wickets as Anderson.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 15, 2013, 8:38 GMT)

I don't really agree with this piece. Jimmy was fantastic & pretty much always is at Trent Bridge. Swann took 10 wickets in his last match & although TB is his home ground he has a poor record there. 2 Tests ago Broad destroyed NZL & in this game contributed vital runs without which Eng would not have won this game. I agree Finn's form is a concern. He was excellent with the new ball on day one but at best was wayward during the rest of the match. Eng will consider dropping Finn for bresnan at Lords but I'm not convinced they will he test record there reads 29w@20.24.

Posted by valvolux on (July 15, 2013, 8:31 GMT)

Anderson in England is the most dangerous fast bowler out there. Even so - day 1 it was swinging conventionally with movement of the seam and in the second dig there was plenty of reverse for both sides - this is the best of Anderson and he's unlikely to bowl better in the series. No one in Australia rates Finn or Broad and it was on display again in this test match - we know there isnt any depth in England, so as we learn to combat Anderson the contests will continue to get tighter. Swann continues to underperform in the Ashes, however that could change. It was brilliant to see all aussie bowlers get it to reverse as much or more than any english bowler - someone has obviously spilt the "secret", which I have a feeling is something a bit dodgy. You can see the difference in control though between them and Anderson. England would be mad not to bring tremlett back in for broad or finn - anderson needs a real new ball partner and they will skittle the aussies.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 15, 2013, 8:26 GMT)

Only weeks ago, Swann took 10 wickets in a test, the week before Broad took 8. Anderson also played a crucial role but the idea that England are completely reliant on him on the evidence of a single match is rather far fetched.

@Sathyadeep Appaji - Some of the decisions went Australia's way.

Posted by anver777 on (July 15, 2013, 8:23 GMT)

What a game of cricket....... it was a "Sunday Special" for Ashes fans all over !!!!! Long live Ashes !!!!!

Posted by cozens on (July 15, 2013, 8:19 GMT)

Anderson really is a superb bowler, but the fact he has 2 excellent bowlers along side him (Swann and Broad) allows him to perform to his very best.

Interstingly if you go back a year and to the Lords test v West Indies, Anderson has taken 59 wickets (in 27 innings) Broad 51 (in 24 innings) and Swann 44 (in 21 innings). meaning they have all taken 21-22% of wickets available in matches played. Yes Jimmy is superb and would be sorely missed, but he does receive excellent support from the other 2 'main' bowlers.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 8:17 GMT)

Judging by the comments it is so obvious people have thier own agenda/bias.Both teams suffered from umpiring errors but biggest of all was the (un)stumping of Agar which cost England around 160 runs and a win within 3 days.Surprise, surprise Ajay Pathak memory is so selective

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 8:15 GMT)

Any good attack has a leader and the bowlers who support that leader. It is harsh to say England are over-reliant on Anderson. It is true that, the other bowlers prosper in the company of Anderson. But, without the support act, England could not have won so many test series. Remember Broad's contribution in the series against India and NZ? I though public memory in India was not that long lived...

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 15, 2013, 8:12 GMT)

Why do people mention the root dismissal every thing I've seen suggests he got bat on ball so it was legitimately out without question, the fact that they didnt review it speaks volumes as to the case.

Posted by gm47 on (July 15, 2013, 8:07 GMT)

@ Bhavesh Buch on (July 15, 2013, 6:44 GMT) """ but Cook won the match by sheer luck,,,"""""

I see so that explains it... :)

I thought it was because 1 of the best bowlers in the world took 10 wickets and England scored more runs..... silly me !!

Posted by gm47 on (July 15, 2013, 8:00 GMT)

@ alipk52 on (July 15, 2013, 3:04 GMT) In the end, broad controversial not out being the top reason for Aussies lost, Aussies played far more better than England,

Strange I thought England won because they scored more runs :) I see you choose to forget the extra 150 runs that Aus made when Agar was given not out on 6 or Trott being not out. I guess you believe that al England batsman are always out but the Aussies were just unlucky and it was DRS's fault.

And they talk about whining poms...... Jeez...... :)

Posted by Cyril_Knight on (July 15, 2013, 7:59 GMT)

The point raised in the article where England insist that Finn is fully fit is interesting. I find it hard to believe that bowlers of the size of Finn and Broad can ever be 100% while bowling. Sore shins, ankles, shoulders are par for the course, they just have to get on with it. It worries me that Broad and Finn seem to welcome injuries, almost as an excuse not to bowl to their best. Both dropped their pace considerable as this match went on. Finn also ran in noticeably slower than when he is on form.

Big fast bowlers will always have niggles, you see this remedied live when they routinely take painkillers and other pills after spells. The pill-popping is rarely shown on TV as it is done on the boundary away from the action. But this too worries me, if bowlers are continuously under the influence of painkillers they are masking niggles that could develop into more serious injuries like tennis elbow or shin splints.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 15, 2013, 7:59 GMT)

@RohanMarkJay, TMS is probably as unbased as any home nations radio broadcasts, I was in Aus for 2010/11 and the ABC broadcasts were just as biased in regards to Australia, until they started to loose.

Aggers is very much a sit on the fence, boycott can be critical of any batsman regardless of the team he plays for and very gushing in praise as well, just as he was for Agar during his 98 runs.

Posted by jackiethepen on (July 15, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

I don't think it is accurate to describe Cook and Anderson as not talented cricketers. They both showed exceptional promise early on and were spotted young. That is the sign of natural talent. If you have an international Test career of any longevity you have to constantly work on and develop your game because nothing stands still and the opposition are always trying to work you out. Bell's contribution is hardly overshadowed by Jimmy's effort as one is in the department of batting and the other in bowling. One without the other can't add up to victory. Bell's innings and crucial partnerships delivered England from certain defeat. It was close enough! Every run vital. Broad was magnificent. You have to remember Broad was bowling after a long period batting in the heat. Bell's modest 18 months is a stats assessment but he has delivered key innings to the team throughout that time. He was the man for the job and now he's delivered an Ashes match winning century. Consecutive Ashes tons!

Posted by Lmaotsetung on (July 15, 2013, 7:57 GMT)

Hmmmm, let's see...Aus bowlers had the best of bowling conditions (Day 1 - hot humid, cloud cover, ball swinging all day long), England were basically down to a 3 man attack in both innings, 10th wicket partnership kept Aus in the game and without that this match would have been over inside 3 days. If I'm an England fan, I'm glad we won the first match (we all know how England struggle in first inning of first test of almost every series they've played) and knowing that Trott is bound to play 1 or 2 anchor innings in this series, that KP will at one point win a match single handedly, that Cook has 1 or 2 centuries in him in this series and I fully expect the 2 yorkshire lads to contribute at some point. My only worry is Prior's form (plenty of first class cricket before the ashes with little to show for) and the 3rd seamer spot. If I was an Aussie fan, I'd be worried that a short handed Eng bowling attack has gotten Aus to 117/9 and 231/9.

Posted by 64blip on (July 15, 2013, 7:44 GMT)

Thanks for the stats Tlotoxl. Take a fantastic individual performance and put a negative spin on it, why don't you? What team wouldn't be weaker without the best seamer in the world? But when Broad and Anderson both show up, like they did against NZ when it was supposed to be Swann's day, watch out!

Posted by Tlotoxl on (July 15, 2013, 7:29 GMT)

@Jay.Raj on (July 15, 2013, 4:27 GMT) you are exactly right, Broad scored an an extra 28 runs while the Agar/Hughes partnership put on another 150 runs after Agar was stumped and was not given out and Trott averages nearly 50 with the ball and that is not even taking into account Root.

Posted by Tlotoxl on (July 15, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

Look at the last 12 England wins and who got the most wickets: 1st test Aus - Anderson 10 wickets 2nd test NZ - Swann 10 1st test NZ - Broad 8 3rd test India - Anderson 6 2nd test India - Panesar 11 2nd test WI - Bresnan 8 1st test WI - Broad 11 2nd test SL - Swann 10 4th test Ind - Swann 9 3rd test Ind - Anderson & Broad 6 2nd test Ind - Broad 8 1st test Ind - Broad & Anderson 7

seems to me England are reliant on Anderson, Broad & Swann, in this test Broad was off the field in the first innings and Swann had a bad test so Anderson had rather more responsibility than usual, in the next test it is just as likely to be Broad or Swanny who get the lions share of wickets.

Posted by Wozza-CY on (July 15, 2013, 6:53 GMT)

Australias top three (Rogers, Watson & Cowan) combined test batting averages are 87. At the other end of the order (Starc, Pattinson & Agar) their combined averages are 111. Until this little oddity is addressed, it won't matter who is bowling for England they will win more than they lose. Ironically these are both our respective countries 'devils number'.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:44 GMT)

Yes, AFKgamer,,, England is largely dependent on Anderson. When Haddin and pattinson were going after every ball,, Cook looked helpless. Imagine if before lunch Anderson's cramp was bit worse then??,, Broad is useless as bowler,, I dont know why he is continued,,, Bresnan , Onions are far batter than him. Swann struggled against no 11 batsman. England would not have won this match without Anderson. Broad never had any wicket taking deliveries,,, Cook does not have any creative thinking head like Clarke,,,though clarke on losing side,, but Cook won the match by sheer luck,,,

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:42 GMT)

I disagree. Apart from the opening four sessions, it was really hard for all bowlers on a pitch like that. Jimmy Anderson is one of the few bowlers in the World that bowls well on any surface. I would like to see a Lords pitch with more bounce so Broad, Finn and Swann are brought into the game.

Posted by Rahul_78 on (July 15, 2013, 6:24 GMT)

I guess Cook needs to be very very careful in handling of Anderson. For starters he can look at his selection of Steven Finn who proved to be weakest link when the pressure and chase was on. Young Agar has shown that even left handers can take on Swann. After Agars handling of Swann I dont think Aussie will be looking at Swann as the main threat of English attack. If any of the Aussie front line seamers get injured or dropped it is not going to affect the team balance that much as they have like for like replacements. But in case if Anderson gets injured or needed to rested then the million dollar question is who is going to replace him in England attack and take 7-8 wickets in the match? If Anderson goes down Aussie will come hard at each and every English bowler and in this scenario England will have to play defensive game and their batsmen will be consistently under pressure to put 450+ score on the board. I guess we are in for truly epic series here.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:23 GMT)

Despite the Umpires and the DRS combining on their side , they could beat AUS by just 14 runs, had any of the decisions gone the aussie's way, it would have been a different result altogether. For all the hype and the hoopla about the english team and their great bowling attack no one except Anderson even looked like taking a wicket. A reality check for English team and their media, their team is really not as great as they proclaim it to be..

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:16 GMT)

great match, England win with help of some bad umpiring, but in remaining series it will tough for them to sustain pressure on Aussies, only Anderson will not help them to win the series, Aussies batsman must hit the form now, specially clarke, if he make runs than it tough for england in this series. good luck aussies from remaining series, good fight back in this test match, welcome ashton agar, fresh breath of air in test cricket.

Posted by differentView on (July 15, 2013, 6:11 GMT)

Brilliant, brilliant game. A few final words on sportsmanship here: both Teams fought hard and within the rules of the game. In fact, as the Aussies came so close, a lot of English supporters, me included, would not have denied them victory, appreciating their efforts against so many Odds. True Spirit of the Game on behalf of the fans, really. The Broad incident: The Aussies were totally ok with it, knowing how the game is played today. BUT... you can´t actually compare the Haddin or Clarke dismissal with that of Broad. Nothing wrong with waiting for the decission of the umpire when there´s some doubt about an edge, a catch, etc. However, Stuart´s nick was so obvious that I really would have liked him to walk. I won´t go so far to call him a cheat, but this obviously gave him the opportunity to set something right that was clearly wrong. Anyway, great match, both teams made me proud to be a cricket fan.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:07 GMT)

@madmasthathi1 Before calling Anderson an overrated bowler, just check his record. It speaks for itself. And it is an insult to compare him to Ishant Sharma. Have you ever watched Anderson bowl? I bet you haven't otherwise you wouldn't have even thought of degrading him like that!

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:01 GMT)

On slow, low bounce wickets, Finn will be useless, and Broad almost so. If England is going to prepare low bounce, slow wickets, Monty should play instead of Finn and give England more weapons. In such a case, also worth considering getting Prior to no 6, and having either Woakes or Bresnan replacing Bairstow. If the pitch is quick, then Tremlett or Onions can replace Finn, he just looked out of sorts...England were down to three bowlers.

Posted by PFEL on (July 15, 2013, 5:59 GMT)

@Sumitava Sarkar, your comment makes no sense, if there was no DRS then Broad would still have been not out. And this game proves once again, that without DRS there would have been many more wrong decisions.

Posted by RogerC on (July 15, 2013, 5:46 GMT)

A few more test like this will put DRS to rest permanently. Unreliable and useless.

Posted by Wealwayslosethecricket on (July 15, 2013, 5:45 GMT)

I agree with most of what was said regarding the seamers. The difference between Anderson and every other fast bowler in the match was extremely noticeable; that isn't limited to the English bowlers. Whereas Anderson notably worked hard for wickets, most other bowlers received gifts based on a series of rash shots from nervous batsmen. I'm not so sure if I agree with what you say about Swann. I still remember the English tour of India, where Swann and Panesar dominated, which was shortly followed by Australia's tour of India, where the contrast between the two touring sides was clearly the quality of the spin bowlers, at least as far as bowling is concerned. Finn bowled terribly- Broad bowled well in patches, and it seems likely that Swann will hit form sooner or later during this series. As an Aussie, I'm desperately hoping that Agar can show something special with the ball. I'm less concerned about our Seamers- I have no doubts Pattinson and Siddle will be dominant before long.

Posted by RohanMarkJay on (July 15, 2013, 5:39 GMT)

I agree with CustomKid and Insult_2_Injury. Good to see there are some England fans who talk good cricketing sense on these boards. Certainly beats the ridiculous one eyed bias of the present BBC Test Match Special team of Boycott, Agnew, Tufnell and Vaugn. Seems to be the same with the Sky tv commentaters too.During the days of Brian Johnston and his BBC Test Match Special team you wouldn't never hear the kind of one eyed biased commentary that comes out of the BBC TMS these days.At least there was McGrath, Neville Oliver and Jim Maxwell to balance it out a bit.TMS need to be more impartial. This isn't a great England side or a great Aussie side, but they are playing for the Ashes. England has had a pretty good run in the last 10 years,but that run is now coming to an end, England must make sure they don't revert to the form of the 1990s, but they are far from a great side today. Australia look they could be a good side again in the future although that remains to be seen.On to Lords.

Posted by jr1972 on (July 15, 2013, 5:29 GMT)

I don't think that there is an over-reliance on Anderson. He is just a top performer who stood up and did the job, just as he has done for the past 3-4 years. However I do think that he is absolutely vital to this England side and I don't think that I was the only one who got a bit nervous when he went off in the morning session looking like he had an injury. Broad bowled ok, and Swann was decent on a strange surface that looked like it was going to give a lot of encouragement to the spinners, which didn't quite materialise. Recent history tells us that Trent Bridge is not a spinners wicket, Old Trafford and the Oval are and Swann will be a real danger at both venues.

Posted by cric_J on (July 15, 2013, 5:24 GMT)

(cont...) Broady bowled well IMO. He kept some pressure on , showed control , didn't overdo the short delivery and caused some doubt's in the batsmen's minds. He was unlucky on a few occasions to not get a wicket. But he was much more effective than the other two and offered considerable support to Jimmy. Not many complaints with Broady dear as far as I am concerned.

The fact that England could not even get that last 1 wicket and gave away 60 runs in that time without Jimmy worries me. That they could not build pressure on the Aussie batsmen , which built pressure on Jimmy worries me even more. I'm sure the scariest moment of the match for me was when Jimmy limped off the field after bowling those 13 overs, eventhough it was only cramps.

But I agree with @land47 and nonetheless believe that this was just a one off for Swann and Finn and that they should be much better come Lord's.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 5:24 GMT)

Cricket is no more gentlemen's game and sportsman spirit always take a back seat. That is why Cris Broad occupied the crease when he and his partner clearly knew he was out. DRS has a made mess. India's position is clear, respect the umpire. The technology is equally vulnerable which is proved beyond doubt. By no technology Haddin was out. Mr.Alim Daar has expressed his displeasure (check the video).

Posted by AFKgamer on (July 15, 2013, 5:15 GMT)

Lean on Anderson?!? Hardly, they bowl as a unit, build pressure as a unit and take wickets as a team. Sorry cricinfo usually your articles are outstanding but this is rubbish. Anderson was bowling beautifully but it could have just as easily gone Swann and Broads way. Both were bowling tight and giving nothing away. The England team won that test.

Posted by Herbet on (July 15, 2013, 5:13 GMT)

I'm not too worried about Swann, everyone has an off game and he's too good not come back strongly. And, I am used to enduring weeks of Broad being average between his 5 and 6 wicket bursts. Its Finn I worry about, and I would drop him. We have Bresnan, Onions and Tremlett in reserve, why not use them?

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 15, 2013, 5:09 GMT)

I did a bit of research and at Trent bridge Swann has only ever taken 7 wickets, from 7 innings with 4 of those being in this game. His average here is 51, compare that to Lords where his average is 27.

It should also be added that Broad and Anderson also have slightly better Averages at lords than they do in thier career.

I personally wouldnt go with Bresnan at Lords as he has never prospered there, Tremlett or Onions mat be better, Onions especially with his wicket to wicket style.

Australian bowlers will need to get used to the slope, as I believe only 2 of the bowlers have played there before, and that may be crucial.

Weather wise its looking to be another hot day so Swann should come to the party on a day 4/5 wicket.

Posted by cric_J on (July 15, 2013, 5:07 GMT)

If we look at this match (and this one only), then we see that the main trouble is not that the other England bowlers didn't GET wickets , but that they didn't even LOOK like getting them pretty often.

This is probably the worst I have seen Swanny bowl (and it really hurt me see that and then say that). He was poor against SA last year and on a few other occasions as well but the conditions were not so ideal then. In this case they were. And I expected him to do well. He had a dry pitch which offered enough assistance for someone as talented as him, left arm bowler's footmarks , left handers to bowl to. But he still looked mostly unthreatening. And what with all those full tosses. I believe (and I'm almost sure) we won't see that from him again.

Finn was downright horrible. No control , wrong lines , way too much of the short stuff. He didn't even bowl fast for a consistent period , which is one of the main reasons for his place in the England team.

(cont.......)

Posted by madmasthathi1 on (July 15, 2013, 4:50 GMT)

Has anyone even bothered to review Anderson's record outside of England? Overrated bowler. He is nothing more than an Indian Ishant Sharma. Please check his average outside of England in tests. Pathetic!

Posted by HatsforBats on (July 15, 2013, 4:30 GMT)

@5wombats, the conditions have nothing to do with bowling full tosses or short & wide, which both Finn & Swann were guilty of. I thought Broad bowled pretty well in that late second innings period. But without Anderson England were obviously well out of that match; there's nothing wrong with that, all teams struggle without their best. But the contrast between Anderson and the rubbish Finn put up was too great I think to rely on him as your third seamer. Tremlett would be a fine replacement, but then I've always put he & Onions in front of Finn. Actually Bresnan might have been ideal on that pitch. I'm an Aussie so I know all too well the perils and pitfalls of picking on "potential", Finn has some way to go before he reaches his best, in the meanwhile England would be better off selecting a more complete player.

Posted by Jay.Raj on (July 15, 2013, 4:27 GMT)

when everyone is talking of non dismissal of broad, why dont u guys think of root and trott dismissal?? As far as i know they were more crucial bad decisions than broad's

Posted by AjaySridharan on (July 15, 2013, 4:19 GMT)

Reminds me of Zaheer Khan when he was peaking for India. One spell too many, and the camel's back was broken. Anderson is a class act, and I hope the English team do their bit to nurture him properly.

Posted by thelapal on (July 15, 2013, 4:15 GMT)

Swann will be in context for a 5 wicket haul at old trafford or oval where he can find lot of patchy areas on the pitch that can create enough trouble to aussie batting order.If any team has to win a test match there should be a star bowler and anderson is the most experienced and inform bowler and knows conditions very well.Broad and finn will be groomed in the nets before the next test by getting some valuable tips from anderson to improve themselves for the rest of the series. Hope Aussies batting line up will take some inspiration and motivation from their no.11 batsmen and can take some tips from them about saving their wicket.

Posted by Insult_2_Injury on (July 15, 2013, 4:05 GMT)

Crazy stuff George! If this had been Australia in this situation, ten years ago, surely your tone would've been "Aussies go to proven match winners McGrath and Warne in tight finish'. Cook naturally went to his sides best options, Anderson & Swann. Swann was exposed with pitch conditions suiting him, but Anderson has shown in front of home crowds he belies his overall strike rate. What should be more worrying for Cook is his side falling in against 'the worst Australian side to tour England'. A side that has been resting for months while England has tuned up against 'easy beats NZ'.

Posted by CustomKid on (July 15, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

@5 wombats - I disagree. George is on the money with this one for me. A few things were highlighted in this test for me. Broad is hit and miss. He'll get flayed for a few tests then pops up and takes 6 like 2009. He has no consistency at all. Swan is over rated and he beats up on minnos. Half decent teams aren't worried by him although he'll get some wickets on spinning pitches at some stage in this series. He averages 40 against AUS, 38 v SAF and IND 32 which is a pass. Finn out of sorts end of story. Cook is an unimaginative captain at best. When things weren't going his way Agar/or the second dig where AUS were 0/84 he looks clueless. He has one get out of jail card and that is Anderson. If Anderson breaks down a lal McGrath in 2005 it will be huge. Alternatively if the hopeless AU top order can negate him (very unlikely) then they could cash in on the rest.

Great test and I can't wait for round 2 at Lords. Let's hope the fickle UK weather remains warm and doesn't rob us.

Posted by jango_moh on (July 15, 2013, 4:00 GMT)

i think in these conditions, eng are beatable.. but Aus need to bat better!!! but it was a great test match, as an indian fan i kept following it even though i couldnt watch it live always!!! hoping for similar great games the rest of the series... may the best team win!!!!!

Posted by Samdanh on (July 15, 2013, 3:43 GMT)

Thanks to Aleem Dar, who seemed to have slept while standing, at the most crucial moment for Australia. Else, Aus would have won well before lunch. Credit to Australia for having carried themselves graciously, though it is a fact they were done by this major blunder by Aleem Dar. Also, ICC should revise DRS to declare batsmen out when hawk eye indicates ball clipping bails or stumps even marginally. Else, luck or ill luck with marginal decisions, may continue to impact teams. Eng team, please do not forget to thank Aleem Dar, even as you commend great performances from Bell and Anderson

Posted by landl47 on (July 15, 2013, 3:41 GMT)

Yes, Anderson had a great test and took 10 wickets. However, in the last test before this one, just a few weeks ago, Graeme Swann had a great test and took 10 wickets. Were England too dependent on Anderson then? In the test before that (this is two tests ago), Broad took 7-44 and New Zealand were bowled out for 68. Were England too dependent on Anderson then? That's three tests in succession, three England wins, and three different bowlers getting the major returns.

I'm not sure I think there's a huge problem.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 3:39 GMT)

Well done England. Fabulous win! All the players tried hard and some were successful the others weren't, but you cannot expect everyone to excel every match and its only the first test. Let us see how they perform over the 5 match series. I'm sure Finn, Swanney, Trott, KP and the rest will do great and win 4-1 or 5-0. Go England!!!!! Pl bring Billy the trumpet back ASAP !!!

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 15, 2013, 3:37 GMT)

Well, @5wombats, I do have to agree with Dobell (for once). The current English attack is unbalanced and doesn't function as a whole. Rarely do you see once 10 wickets have been taken are the wickets taken like 2-2-3-3 or something of the sort... It's either Swann or Anderson with a haul, or the unlikely chance that either Broad or Finn click and have a good day. Unless Finn and Broad improve markedly, a change needs to happen. Bresnan in his style compliments Anderson perfectly, and is a type of bowler that Eng needs - especially on these pitches. Inconsistency in two of your quicks is something you want to limit to one (if one at all).

Re Swann, he bowled superbly on day 2, and was still ripping it on day 4 and 5, but I think it's as simple of taking the attack to him. Agar did it, Haddin did it, they both prospered and resultantly faced less wicket taking bowls from Swann because he changed his lengths (what happened with Huss v Swann at Brisbane). Hughes will end up Swann's bunny

Posted by alipk52 on (July 15, 2013, 3:04 GMT)

In the end, broad controversial not out being the top reason for Aussies lost, Aussies played far more better than England, Cowan is the one who need to learn how to bat, apart from him, and rare failure from Clarke, everyone stood tall, even the number 11 made brilliant contribution with the bat in both innings, I am waiting for those games when England start winning matches without the broad-like-decisions, completely injustice to Australia, and i believe Broad should have leaved, Clarke got very very little kiss on his bat in 2nd innings, so one can say he didn't knew that he knicked it, And Ashton Agar, take a bow young man, he didn't played badly in the 2nd inning either staying with brad haddin and faced 70 odd cracking deliveries, 1st inning was just a brilliance from this guy.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 2:42 GMT)

Tremlett has always been the pick of the bunch for me. Many English supporters will have fond memories of him cleaning up some of the world's best batting line ups. On a firmer deck with more to offer the seamers both Broad and Finn will come to the party. And Swann probably pick up a few more wickets too, being forced to tighten his love and length and will get more sharp bounce. Aussies put up. A gallant fight however I'm not convinced they can match England man for man.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 15, 2013, 2:09 GMT)

Anderson can't possibly do that more than once therefore I predict the final 3 Ashes will be played on dustbowls because Monty and Swan are probably better than Lyon and Agar.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 1:48 GMT)

Anderson was obviously the main destroyer here but I don't think that you can write off any of the other England bowlers based on his game. Broad obviously didn't bowl much at all in the first innings due to injury and only came on when Agar and Hughes were rollicking along. He immediately drew an edge from Hughes that would have hit second slip in the chest and he dismissed Agar in the end. He bowled well in the second innings and took two crucial wickets including Australia's best batsman. Despite his luck, he also looked better with the bat and can hopefully contribute more as the series goes on. Swann hardly had a bad game because he didn't dominate. The wicket was dry but the turn was slow so 4 wickets at not too much plus a drop off his bowling is not too bad. Finn is the real worry. Bresnan probably would have been a better pick on this surface while Finn may do better on other pitches. His confidence will be low though, and picking him again would be a risk.

Posted by Jonathan_E on (July 15, 2013, 0:12 GMT)

Swann is better when there is a bit of zip or bounce in the pitch - a pitch that has turn because it's a bit green, rather than dead and dusty. In India he was outbowled by Panesar on the slow, low pitches - I think Panesar would have been the better bowler on a surface like this one.

Old Trafford and The Oval will suit him much more (and he would be the better spinning option than Panesar on either.) Lords will also be a better pitch for him than this one was - it's amazing that he has never taken a five-for even for his home county on his home pitch.

Posted by Paul_Somerset on (July 14, 2013, 23:49 GMT)

Poor old Finn. Has Australia on the ropes on day 1 with Watson and Cowan edging to slip off consecutive balls, then Clarke coming within an inch of doing likewise next ball. And Dobell dismisses it as "one decent spell".

Posted by tamperbay on (July 14, 2013, 23:30 GMT)

I very much agree. Anderson WAS the difference, taking all 4 wickets on the last day. He has so much skill. I can't believe how upright he gets the seem for both inswing and outswing. Admirable. I am certain however, that the "attack of cramp" was a total fabrication to allow him an extra long lunch break to recover his energy and bowl again straight after the break. I didn't see him writhing on the ground in pain from an uncontrollable and painful seizure. And then Broad again showed his unparalleled brazenness, pretending to have a stone in his shoe halfway through his over to try and make it the last before lunch. England showed again that despite claiming that they are morally and culturally superior, they don't care about ethics or fairness more than any other team. Overall, they have better players than Australia, so they should prove this by winning without having to resort to bending the rules and debasing their integrity.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 23:08 GMT)

I think we should give Tremlett a go and drop Finn for Lord's. But, England will select Bresnan. They value his batting highly conveniently ignoring his lack of wickets. Since 2011 against India and after his surgery, Bresnan has slipped big time. Sometimes, it looked like he has forgotten how to take a wicket. While he can bowl long spells without leaking runs like Finn, his inability to take wickets would mean more burden will fall on Jimmy. Broad is inconsistent - he will take 7 wickets in one innings but then go wicketless at over 4 an over in the next. However, he will stay in the XI. For the third seamer, I would pick one of Tremlett or Onions.

Posted by GeoffreysMother on (July 14, 2013, 23:05 GMT)

Very true with regards to this match, George, but Broad bowled well despite an injured shoulder. The real issue is the selectors call to play Finn , out of form and rhythm , on a slow pitch. Despite the habitual Bresnan bashing (Browners) he would have been the clear third seamer pick on this wicket (control, accuracy, reverse swing and an ability to keep running in). Worryingly Finn looked as if he didn't want to bowl today rather than looking angry at being left so long. If the clamour is for Tremlett let him respond by showing he is ready and getting a five for for Surrey - otherwise we pick on a reputation that is two years old.

Posted by SagirParkar on (July 14, 2013, 22:53 GMT)

Anderson has really come of age now.. a criticism against him was that he was very good only if the ball was swinging of its own accord.. but after the series in India and his performance in this test, he should have silenced his critics once and for all.. and that includes me too...

he is talented no doubt, but now he has fused that talent with relentless pursuit and consistent application.. well done mate.. well done..

Posted by Cmar on (July 14, 2013, 22:47 GMT)

In English conditions the man in form is Onions. The guy didn't let England down he was Injured. Why pick Bres in front of him.? Pick the guy in form not hype all these guys on past performance.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 22:42 GMT)

Should the other bowlers not lift their game, England could do worse than selecting his three Lancashire colleagues Chapple, Hogg and Kerrigan to partner him. Whether this is indicative of the quality of the Old Trafford coaching staff or of a dearth of test-class English bowlers I leave to others to decide.

Posted by skilebow on (July 14, 2013, 21:41 GMT)

browners76 - I agree Tremlett is the best long term option but you can't throw him in so early after his injury. I think he will be eased in so he is at his peak for the return series on pitches that should suit him

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (July 14, 2013, 21:08 GMT)

I think GD is making these assertions too early in the piece. If one turns the clock back to Headingley this year, swann was taking the 10 wkts and Anderson virtually none. This is not in any way to denigrate either player but to point out that we have already seen how venue affects performance. The fact that Headingley span at all was a minor miracle; the recent history of Trent Bridge has been about seamers doing well and spinners taking a back seat. The fact that Swann played 2 tests here before taking a wicket would be in keeping with only taking 4 wickets in this test though the pitch was very dry. Yes he will bowl better, but before writing off the golden goose see if there is still a pulse rate...look again after Old Trafford.On the subject of wickets is dry and bounceless really the way forward? Given the sun is out and the temperature hot and fair set, why not drench them, roll hard and bake? Lets see fire at Old Trafford and the Oval as well as turn.

Posted by browners76 on (July 14, 2013, 20:55 GMT)

I think Broad will get better as the series progresses and will produce at least one or two match winning performances. Swann was just negated by the lack of pace in the deck, he will no doubt come to the fore at Old Trafford and perhaps the Oval. England just need a steady reliable seamer who can bowl long accurate spells. Finn isn't that guy right now. Tremlett would be my pick, with Onions getting a game at Durham. But alas the selectors look like playing safe with Bresnan.

Posted by 5wombats on (July 14, 2013, 20:44 GMT)

Not sure I agree with you George. Few, if any bowlers in the world today could have gotten that much out of such a docile surface in hot dry India-like conditions. From that premise you cannot draw the conclusion that the rest of England's bowlers are useless - only that the conditions here did not suit them. The one I worried about was Finn - what possessed Cook to throw the ball to him in those moments before Lunch?!?! Finn was obviously out of sorts throughout the match. He was then duly dreadful in the 2 overs he bowled - nearly costing England the match. I don't share the pessimism inherent in "England rely on Anderson". Remember 2011 - ? Stuart Broad was regularly cleaning up some of the best batsmen in the world and took a worthy Man of the Series against India. Remember the Oval 2009? Who is to say that Broad won't come to the party? Then there is still Tremlett - who readers will know I rate extremely highly, he may come back. Why the doom and gloom??!?

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
George DobellClose
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days