17. May 2010 02:47
We all watch a lot of cricket, right? None of us are crazy. We try to be balanced, and assimilate the information so we can make an informed judgement. But who, apart from the lobotomised and/or Tom and Nigel would have called an England win, batting first, at Barbados, against a trio of Autralian quicks who had laid waste their every foe? Well, me.
Search deeply through every post and you have the answer right there.
England's batsmen relished the over hyped Nannes, Tait and Johnson just as they did Morkel and Steyn earlier this year. Pace on the ball was always playing in England's favour. But the delight was watching Aussies fail to adapt. Where was the slower bouncer? The Yorker? The crafty off cutter? Whilst England's generally slower trio of pacemen tormented the Australian middle order with their variety, Clarke slung the ball to his quicks and demanded "faster". Biltong and Castle lager to Kieswetter and KP.
Allied to which it was England who had the spinner no one could hit. Swann's spell scuppered any hope of a mammoth total. Clarke and David Hussey played his overs out but had no one to go at at the other end. And when Yardy was put under pressure even Luke Wright was sufficient insurance.
England pissed it, like they did every game not influenced by rain. I'm not sure how they did it yet. But I do know three things. Andy Flower is the right man when you have 5 Africans in your squad, Matt Prior will be shitting himself, and I'm not scared of Australia right now (that may change in six months time).
Oh, and by the way, we only bloody won.