Australia

So, little blogging here. Partly because, even more so than usual, I've been living on Australian time these past few days. I've a quick piece up at Critical Reaction on the Adelaide Massacre: Never mind ‘Were you up for Portillo?’ Were you up for Adelaide? An entire generation of England supporters have waited all their lives for this sort of payback moment. Not since 1985 have England dominated a series in this fashion; not since Mike Gatting led MCC to victory in 1986-87 have England enjoyed even a marginal supremacy Down Under.  Indeed, Gatting’s side was the last to win a ‘live’ test in Australia.

There are only three things wrong with this Australian side. They can't bat, they can't bowl and they can't field. A harsh verdict and one that may need to be revised before the end of the series, but one that's an accurate appraisal of Australia's most recent efforts. This is a good but hardly great England side. It ain't Jack Hobbs and Wally Hammond hammering these hapless Aussie bowlers but Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott... "There's only one side playing cricket out there - and it's not Australia" said a commentator on Test Match Sofa* which is the kind of deliciously piquant assessment England supporters have been waiting to dish out for  25 years. Not since 1985 has an Australian side looked so helpless.

The first thing to be said of a test in which a side batting third can score 517/1 is that the wicket was not fit for test match cricket. The second is that, for once, this did not matter. Hilarity trumped common sense. None of us, not being present for the Melbourne test in 1912, can recall the 323 run stand shared by Jack Hobbs and Wilfred Rhodes but, somewhat sadly, that's now been wiped from the record books by Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott. Actually, the wicket was worse than even 517/1 suggests. The teams combined for a score of 624/2 in the second innings. That's a Sri Lankan level of blandness and were it not for the novelty of the matter, right-thinking cricket supporters would be annoyed that a once-fascinating test match was ruined by the Gabba wicket.

Four years later than should have been the case, Andrew Strauss will skipper England in Australia. English cricket has righted itself since the Flintoff and Pietersen debacles. For a spell one sensed that marketing considerations were influencing cricketing decisions. The great strength of the present Strauss-Flower regime is that it is, in the end, almost dull. No drama, no fuss and precious little intrigue either. Australia, by contrast, are in some mild kind of flux. Where England picked their team before leaving home, Australia have been scrabbling to find players with sufficient form and fitness to justify inclusion. Xavier Doherty's inclusion seems sensible but is based more on hope and hunch than any expectation that he'll really make Kevin Pietersen his bunny.

Ahead of the Times revealing its post-war XIs, Norm has made his own selection. As you'd expect, they're pretty strong teams. It's a little depressing to realise that selecting a Greatest Post-1945 Australian side is much, much more difficult than doing the same for England. In fact I don't think I can disagree with any part of Norm's England XI: 1. Len Hutton, 2. Geoffrey Boycott, 3. Ken Barrington, 4. Denis Compton, 5. Peter May, 6. Ian Botham, 7. Alan Knott, 8. Jim Laker, 9. Fred Trueman, 10. Derek Underwood, 11. Brian Statham. You could, mind you, make a case for Frank Tyson. Alec Bedser is also unfortunate to miss-out. (Hammond is excluded because his post-war career was a sad and limited thing.) As for the Australians, well, it's more difficult.