Monday, 7 November 2005

Australia vs West Indies

I spent some of my weekend watching the West Indies collapse in a heap against Australia. Some quarters of the Australian press seem to see this result as some sort of redemption after the Ashes - but truth be told the Windies were far more miserable than the Australians were glorious.

The West Indian batting and bowling was abysmal in the second innings and the feilding was so lackadaisical you had to wonder if they realised this was a test match and not a warm-up game against a bunch of long-haired yokels.

The fact that half the Australian team were long-haired yokels probably contributed.

Of those long-haired yokels I didn't think many were up to test class. Hussey was out twice to the pull shot and that doesn't herald well for an opener; Watson was leaden footed with the bat and really needs to do more with the ball if he is going to be a threat as a bowler; Katich and Clarke both continued poor trots; and - despite his second innings figures - I really don't rate Nathan Bracken. Hussey can blame nerves and Katich and Clarke are both players with talent going through a dim spell, but Bracken at least really doesn't look like a long-term prospect. I am probably going to be proved wrong, but four wickets of dubious merit on a Gabba pitch on a moist and humid morning just after rain don't count for much in my book. I can see him being effective in New Zealand and England where pitches seam and the ball swings, but unless he shows hidden reserves of talent then his 125kph dobbers won't do much more than block up one end on most grounds.

125 kph dobbers? A bit of swing and seam in loaded conditions? What's wrong with that you might ask. And fair enough too, given that this describes almost every New Zealand bowler since the dawn of time. But while those attributes do suit New Zealand conditions they don't often crop up in Australia - the 'Gabba apart. I can't see Nathan Bracken performing any better at, say, the WACA than Simon Doull (1 for 78), Shayne O'Connor (3 wickets for 109) or Willie Watson (1 wicket for 170).

No comments: