Ashes Poetry

Oval ain’t Headingley, all square, a fresh game, isn’t it?

England haven’t panicked and called up all their previous has-beens and failures,which is probably a good thing. Personally I was wondering if the selectors would plump for the no-nonsense solidity of Sir Arthur Wellesley or the more mecurial talents of Brunel I K, but still being level, they could hardly panic, and because they couldn’t panic, they couldn’t make many changes either. Instead they spent four hours at Trent Bridge to up Bell to three, bring back Monty and switch Bopara for Trott. What else did they discuss for the other 3hrs and 55minutes?

The Australians are spoilt for choice – Lee’s fit, reverse swinging if the ball roughs up, Horitz is bowling okay, no injuries… Each side will pick on looking at the pitch, determining none or one spinner (Australia) one, two (England) and choosing which pacy horses for which courses. I’ve a feeling it might be Lee for Clark, especially if the wicket looks quick, but it’s a nice predicament to be in. Mitchell Johnson http://www.ashespoetry.net/2009/08/19/mitchell-johnson/ was world-class at Headingley; not for too long, no pom stood around that long, but in the second innings especially, you saw why he’s such a valued bowler. On a softish pitch without much pace or bounce he hurried batsmen up, got them on the back foot and then too slow to come onto the front. A genuine pace man who should get wickets on any surface with a left-arm slingy action that’s hard to pick in time. If the Oval’s at all quick he could be lethal.  By contrast for England Harmison looked leggy. The short stuff which used to hurry the best batsmen now gets pulled or cut for four, the Harmie of old seems history: the Oval ought to be quicker, (see Johnson M op. cit.) but who would you drop to bank on the Harmoniser? Not a nice predicament to be in.

All rests on Freddie’s shoulders, who delivered the five-for at Oval 2005 to set up KP final innings Ashes clincher. He might do it again, he’ll certainly try, but the big difference is Oval 2009 is the mirror of 2005. It’s England who need to win, not Australia, and Australia only need to bat it out to keep Urn happy. On the Neilometer, which measures the average Aussie average disposition is a wise look of quiet confidence, which could turn into a flinty stare towards victory were things to go their way, or a sudden squall of surprise were the poms to surpass themselves.

And maybe they will. It’s vital they don’t repeat Headingley, either with the bat or ball, but particularly the bat. They probably don’t quite have the firepower to force a win without Australia playing well below par. (At Lord’s they bowled pies the first morning and slack-batted the next day but bar that they’ve more or less been there or there-abouts – should have walked Cardiff, saved Edgbaston unfussily and hit their straps to the n at Headingley.) England should aim to make Australia fight, not let them dominate. All their supporters will forgive a draw or a loss so long as they contest. Everyone needs to be quitely confident, not brash nor cocky to play at the top of their game and to make the best of any luck. That’s the most any team can do, even Australia.

I prefer the Oval, the Brit Oval, to Lord’s, the lordly Lords. Easier to get to, lovely wandering down from Vauxhall Station to the Oval, bumped into a familiar face just past the gas works. ‘Hello, Mr Curbishley.’ ‘Hi.’ Perhaps he lives round here, Charlton just down the road. Meant to be interviewed by Radio 5 Live Kevin Bacon at ten but they’ve probs with the outside mikes (is that what we pay 120 sobs licence fee for) while everyone can hear Athers interview skippers at wicket. Ten minutes to the bell, overcast, could lead to swing – of fortunes? We shall see.