DAY 1
So Cricket Australia instructed the MCG groundsman ( I refuse to call him a 'curator' as he is neither in charge of an art gallery nor a museum) to prepare a green top wicket. This he did to perfection. Let the record show that I am firmly of the opinion that the home side should prepare wickets to suit their side as this is one of the main purposes of having home advantage. The only flaw in this Baldrickesque plan was that Ponting lost the toss and was thus consigned to bat first.
A combination of excellent bowling together with a rash of poor shots resulted in Australia being shot out for 98, their lowest score against England at the MCG.
Tremlett bowled with hostility and consistently hit that difficult in-between length which prevents batsmen from getting either back or forward. Just such a delivery accounted for Watson. The ball reared from just back of a length, found the shoulder of the bat and looped to Pietersen.
Now if Phil Hughes is a genuine test match opener, then I am favourite to become the next Pope. This would be the first occasion that a lapse Jew has filled this role. Having attempted to get out on several occasions, Hughes finally succeeded in doing so by playing a flat-footed slash at a ball way outside his off stump.
The most impressive feature of England's bowling was the consistency of both line and length. I can only recall of handful of balls bowled on or outside the line of leg stump. This meant that even when the ball failed to swing, few if any cheap runs were being offered. Bresnan's economy rate was under 2 per over. This pressure soon told on the fragile Australian batting order. Undoubtedly the key wicket was that of Hussey who can console himself that at least he was dismissed by a corker of a delivery from Anderson. the ball pitched on the line of off stump thus requiring Hussey to play at it and then moved fractionally away providing Prior with on of 6 regulation catches. The remainder to the batting was a quite pathetic procession of ineptitude and poor technique against the moving ball. The worrying feature for Australia being that this is happening far too often. Lest we forget, they were hustled out for 88 this summer in their second test v Pakistan.
In contrast Strauss and Cook were largely untroubled by the Australian seamers all of whom bowled too short and too waywardly. This allowed both to either leave deliveries pitched too far outside the off stump and then milk the ball through the leg side when the bowlers looked to overcorrect their line. The one exception to this criticism was Siddle who bowled tidily but without a great deal of menace.
DAY 2
Can Australia's woes become any greater? Well, I for one can only hope so but I'm uncertain if they can sink further. During the morning session they at least looked interested in taking wickets and feigned some aggression and bowled far better than the previous evening. Matters were helped by dismissing both Strauss and Cook which forced both Pietersen and Trott to consolidate. The result was that the scoring rate fell and this at least provided Ponting with a modicum of control.
Post lunch matters plunged to new depths as Ponting divested himself of his last remaining vestiges of self-respect and most of his match fee when he verbally abused both umpires following a referral for a caught behind decision against Pietersen. All technology available was unable to concussively show that the ball had been edged to Haddin and therefore umpire Daar's original decision of not out remained in force. Ponting's show of petulance was more in keeping of that of a vastly over privileged and spoilt child than a captain of a country's cricket team. Am I alone in recalling the mantra that the umpire's decision is final? Ponting's view of events is entirely irrelevant. The ICC has once again shown its lack of spunk in fining Ponting 40% of his match fee for this outburst. The penalty should fit the crime and he should be banned for 2 or 3 test matches. Now it could be argued that such a penalty may be irrelevant as he may be surplus to Australia's requirements in future. However, they principle still applies.
It is difficult for a side to retain its focus once its captain has demeaned himself in such a manner and it was little surprise that England found batting easiest in the final session and achieved a run rate in excess of 4 runs per over. During this period Ponting employed Clarke to rattle through a number of overs to improve the over rate and thereby avoid a further fine. This prompted me to question that together with his earlier fines would it be possible for a player to end a game owing money? A delicious thought. Following this exercise, Smith was introduced to the attack and bowled more utter filth in his 5 over spell than Ian Salisbury managed throughout his entire career. No mean feat, that.