July 2009

We were all rather concerned at the start of play. How many times, in our long-suffering lives as England cricket fans, have we seen Australia turn an overnight score like 126-1 into a dominating, impregnable position? The answer is: too often. Dan, anticipating a total of 500 or more, suggested England might lose by an innings. Our nerves turned to incredulity as Graham Onions, with overnight figures of three wicketless overs for 21 runs, was handed the ball by Andrew Strauss and told to bowl the first over of the day. Onions? What? Not James Anderson or Andrew Flintoff? Well, what followed had us speechless in disbelief. It was like watching a highlights programme: the Durham seamer dismissed Shane Watson with his first ball and Michael Hussey with his second. The crowd at Birmingham had barely taken their seats and were already jumping out of them.

There was no comeback for Australia. Michael Clarke found himself charged with an onerous task: to marshall Marcus North, Graham Manou and the tail to save his team from collapse. The responsibility was not as weighty as the one he shouldered on the fifth morning at Lord's, but the outcome was the same. He failed to fill his boots. Reprieved by Flintoff at second slip off Onions, he missed a big inswinger from Anderson and was quickly (wrongly as it turned out) given out lbw by Rudi Koertzen. Australia were left in disarray. It's not reasonable to expect miracles from Clarke, but we've heard too much about his growth in stature and it is worrying for Australia that he is not finishing the job more often.

Why did it all go so well for England? Onions and Anderson bowled a much tighter, more attacking line than yesterday, without leaking runs. They did not so much make the ball talk as make it present a chat show. Flintoff looked tired and it was fortunate for Strauss that he didn't have to call on him too often. Stuart Broad again seemed out of his depth, as has become customary. He seems incapable of bowling aggressive, rapid deliveries to hurry the batsmen and unwilling to adopt a tighter, more containing line. Not simply playing a bowler for his runs at number eight was a lesson learned, I thought, in the Ashley Giles years. Broad has to shape up or ship out. Graeme Swann was underbowled but from the look of the turn Nathan Hauritz was getting at the end of the second day, he will yet have a role to play.

England, of course, need to knuckle down, but you know all that. With showers forecast on and off for the rest of the match, they need 400 to put real pressure on Australia. It's not enough to hope for draws and reach the final test at the Oval 1-0 up. England need to kick the Aussies when they're down.

Of course there is something about being at Headingley in 1981 during your formative cricketing years that makes you believe that England can beat the Aussies, no matter how dire the circumstances. But this time the circumstances aren't as dire as they were then.

This England team is as good as the 1981 side - although no-one, not even Freddie, is as spectacular as Beefy, and Brearley was a captain without peer (but a liability with the bat).

We should also admit, however, that England aren't as good as they were in 2005. Neither are Australia. Which becomes my first reason why we can win the Ashes back

1. Australia are nowhere near as good as they were in 2005 (and we won then!). Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden, Langer are all gone. So too though is Gillespie.

2. If Freddie and KP can turn their rivalry into a positive then England will benefit. ie if they try to outdo each other's heroics on the pitch then they could put in some truly stellar performances

3. Bopara could be the batsman who finally makes the number 3 slot his own. (A fascinating feature in the Wisden Cricketer recently showed just how poor England's performers have historically been at first wicket down). Just so long as we don't get Belly back in the XI

4. Strauss and Cook are not the most dynamic opening pair, but they are serious, committed, and capable of blunting the Australian bowling attack

5. Their bowling attack is severely diminished while ours is growing. Anderson, Broad, Swann are getting better all the time. If Freddie stays fit and Monty comes to the party, we could exploit their less experienced batting line up.

Looking at this list it all seems a bit hopeful and speculative.

But we can win. It doesn't mean we will. But lets enjoy the ride. And hope we can see Ponting lose it again.