It is just as well that there is a lot of credit in the bank.
So far in this Test match, no matter how determined they were to win 4-1, no matter how persuasive Alastair Cook was in those pre-match telephone calls, there has been a monumental lack of discipline or nous in England’s cricket. They have been comprehensively outplayed by Australia in a series where the front-runner in each match has never been overtaken – or even threatened.
Based on the evidence of this series, it obviously behoves England to take Ashes Tests away from London. This is a mischievous thought, since there is absolutely no chance of that happening, as this is where they make the most money. But London is where the Australians have prospered and England have plummeted humiliatingly. At Lord’s and the Kia Oval the ball has behaved more decorously than in the shires; Steve Smith has batted for 964 minutes in the capital and he has scored 416 runs.
But once the Australians find a way to pile on runs (clearly not a problem inside the M25) England’s pace attack becomes rapidly emasculated and their batsmen, faced by a mammoth total, are paralysed on what are relatively bland surfaces.
Having that guard of honour for Michael Clarke on the first day is now understood. Perhaps England are all too aware of their own frailties.
Nobody distinguished himself on Friday. The first refuge of scoundrels in the press box is to look at the bowling figures and then conclude who has done a good job. That was no longer a reliable method. Mark Wood’s figures (one for 59 from 26 overs) suggest a miserly perseverance yet he wasted the second new ball. Again and again Smith and Adam Voges, adopting this strange new Australian strategy of letting the new ball pass by, happily watched swinging deliveries plop into the gloves of Jos Buttler. Wood was constantly wide of the mark in the worst spell of a burgeoning England career. It was puzzling that Cook should keep him on for so long.
Not that Steven Finn, who replaced Wood, bowled much better when taking over at the Vauxhall End. He also failed to make the batsmen play and the ball swung harmlessly away towards the slip cordon once more. Perhaps he was still preoccupied by the prospect of taking his 100th Test wicket.
Then bingo! Just after the dismissal of Voges by Ben Stokes, Smith stretched as far as he could and just managed to edge another wide delivery from Finn. For a few seconds the bowler could celebrate the 100, albeit with one of his worst deliveries. Then it transpired that the umpire Aleem Dar had unaccountably failed to call Finn for overstepping by about three inches. It is understandable, though hugely frustrating, that today’s elite umpires are wary of calling the tight no-balls because any mistakes can easily be exposed by the TV replays. But it was incomprehensible that the umpire had not spotted this transgression.
To those who have not tried to bowl fast it is hard to fathom why so many bowlers have to be as close to the batsmen as possible. Why take the risk? It may be that fast bowlers are not entirely rational beings. What cricketer is? Yet this remains a source of exasperation. This year England have taken five “wickets” subsequently deemed to be no-balls (Finn x2, Wood x2 and Stokes being the culprits). Has some nefarious opponent snipped a few inches off the measuring tapes so meticulously unrolled at the start of play?
Eventually Finn improved once his landmark was reached.
Meanwhile Stokes seemed to be holding things together until his figures were inspected: 3 for 133 from 29 overs. There was some rubbish in between the good balls and by the time Stokes got the ball the Australians had abandoned the policy of leaving anything wide.
Then there was the familiar Mo conundrum. In the last over before lunch he took two wickets, the first from a poor ball and a fine piece of wicketkeeping, the second from a little jaffa, which beat Mitchell Johnson’s defensive prod. Moeen Ali will always be more expensive than old-time off-spinners because of the way batsmen now go about their business. Yet even with the buffer of three wickets he propelled some horrible deliveries, not the ones smashed back over his head by Mitchell Starc (these are an occupational hazard) but the long hops cut away with time to spare. Nathan Lyon offered a handy tutorial later in the day.
Moeen will be in the UAE in six weeks’ time; so too will Adil Rashid, but the third – and necessary – spinning option remains uncertain. Alec Stewart, in the bowels of the press area, explained that Zafar Ansari’s absence from the Surrey side at Bristol on Friday, was due to a minor hamstring problem. He will be returning to the fray soon. Stewart also suggested that Ansari has a lot of the credentials required for England duty: a steady head, an ability to learn fast plus sufficient natural ability to become a capable left-arm spinner. He could easily be fast-tracked on to the plane to Dubai.
Ansari also opens the batting for Surrey in red-ball cricket, though it really is premature to contemplate him doing that at a higher level in the immediate future. However, the chances of Adam Lyth setting out for Dubai as Cook’s putative opening partner took another major dent on Friday. His credit is running dry; the others, while having the ugliest of days, probably have sufficient reserves.
While Lyth was spooning a pull to mid-wicket to welcome Peter Siddle back to Test cricket, Alex Hales was cracking 189 from 216 balls at Trent Bridge after his side had been put into bat by Warwickshire. Timing is everything in this game and Hales’ innings could not have been more opportune. Nor was Gary Ballance’s unbeaten 98 for Yorkshire – at number five. This was a good day to be on the outside looking in.
