Cricket VII

[IheartTesla]

You are from the future Braids, what's happening tomorrow?

[Jeor]

Well, you have to give credit where it's due, and England's attack bowled magnificently. Or rather, not their attack, it was just two people who got the wickets - Malfoy and Swann. And right up until this very match, Broad and Swann were the guys who had not done the job in the series. Swann only had six wickets in the first four matches, and Broad was terrible apart from his cheap six-for at Headingley.

The three wickets Australia got still maintains a glimmer of hope for a miracle, but I don't think it'll be coming. Not with England's extremely long lineup. And all Flintoff has to do is come in and bash a quick 30 or 40 and the target will become something unattainable. On this pitch, you get the feeling any fourth-innings target of 200 will be difficult to get and 250 would be a strong total. England are well on course to get more than that, even if they collapse in a big heap. Australia aren't going to chase down anything over 300.

In addition to carrying Hussey, I think another difference is the selection of the bowling attack. I can't remember who it was, but one of the Sky commentators was mentioning that Hauritz and Brett Lee (although he would have been a risk) would have been perfect for this wicket. A turning wicket for Hauritz, and a rough one for reverse swing at extreme pace for Lee. However he said that the selectors weren't used to the 'horses for courses' policy because with McGrath, Warne, Gillespie et al, they had an attack that was suited for all conditions and it didn't matter what the pitch was like because they'd always be able to get wickets. Now that the attack has taken a step down, Australia need to get in line with picking a bowling attack based on the conditions. Stuart Clark hasn't bowled in the second innings and Nasser Hussain mentioned the Oval was death to medium pacers. In hindsight, Hauritz over Clark should have been done.