Shane Warne continues to trouble England - but they myth of natural Aussie superiority is shattered

There was a great moment in the Adelaide test when Kevin Pietersen stepped away from a Doug Bollinger delivery at the last minute, having been alarmed by the sudden appearance of a gigantic Shane Warne advertising a chicken burger on the sight-screen.

It was amusing to see the fat, be-wigged leggie genius still troubling England, far more than the current Aussie attack has been able to do in this series thus far. How 'Straya' must long for a spot of Warnie magic. Or even a spot of assistance from McGrath or Lee. Or Kasprowicz, McGill or Gillespie, come to that.



Seeing the Aussies have their noses rubbed in the dirt hasn't really pleased me as much as I thought it would. Partly because it's too easy; partly because things can change very quickly.

But mainly because we're going through a cycle where England is in the ascendancy. In a few years time it will be the turn of the Aussies again. That's how it goes, and it's what made the 90s bearable for me as an England cricket fan; I knew it would come back to England.

This is something a lot of Aussies totally failed to grasp over the last 20 years. They convinced themselves that they kept beating England not because of having a superior team, but because Aussies were naturally superior to the English.

This was most evident in the Aussies' secret dossier around the time of the last Ashes, written by Jason Langer and making this 'Aussie dominance' belief most explicit. Here's an excerpt:

"Aggressive batting, running and body language will soon have them staring at their bootlaces rather (than) in the eyes of their opponent - it is just how they are built.

Langer clearly believed, at the time, that Australian cricketers were simply tougher and less mentally or psychologically fragile than their English counterparts.

That was essentially blown by an England series win, although the Ashes series of 2009 was tight and England had home advantage.

But the first two tests of the Ashes 2010 have totally scotched the idea. Ponting has been shown to be a limited skipper; the Aussie bowling attack have looked weak, old and bereft of ideas; the fielding team has looked totally demoralised.

Look again at Langer's phrase about having the opposition 'staring at their bootlaces' - it could easily apply to Australia at the moment.

But I'm not getting carried away. There's a long way to go, even though I expect England to win. Not because England are more manful, or tough, or because my team are natural winners and the opposition natural losers. But because England are currently the better team. Sometimes, it's just as simple as that.

Sky's shit advert for the 2010 Ashes

If I were relying on Botham's limp speech - as wooden as a ash stump - to inspire me before battle, I think I would be in trouble.

Similarly, Andrew Strauss is a fine cricketer, but he looks much more like the Atherton/Brearley style of captaincy - all ironed creases and traditional lemonades and Anna Karenina that someone who might cleave someone in two with a broadsword.

Of the others, Swann, Broad or even Colly, with his Northern dourness, are not men I'd choose to watch my back in a streetfight.

Cricket can certainly be played hard, verbally and physically, and it's no sport at the highest levels for weak characters.

However, to suggest that facing Doug Bollinger, Marcus North or Nathan Hauritz is akin to facing a hungry lion or crazed Roman gladiator in battle is a bit much.

It's typical of Sky's gaudy excess, about which I've already complained at lenght on this blog. Suffice it t say that it's shit.

Compare it to the BBC's effort, advertising its coverage of the Ashes on TMS and it seems particularly overblown, which is as apt a comparison between the two as I can imagine.

At the bottom is Sky's advert for its commentary team, showing a disbelieving Shane Warne seeing Australia taken over by the English, including a surfing, commentating David Lloyd shouting his idiotic catchphrase.

It's fairly daft stuff, but Nasser Hussain's sneering 'What do you think about that, Shane?' is quite amusing. Indeed, it's only Hussain, along with Michael Atherton, who offer any deviation from the standard whingeathon or chummy bromides that the Sky commentary team thrive on.

Anyway, here's to the Ashes of 2010. Book the week off, stock the fridge up, tune in, mute the volume and get TMS on the radio, my dear old things.

The best cricket team of the noughties

Sky's famously terrible commentary team has unveiled its picks for the team of the decade, echoing a rather heated discussion that took place at Sefton Park's club house a few weeks ago.

The Sefton members were pretty much universal on their choices of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Kallis, Murali, McGrath and Warne – leaving few other places up for grabs.

Both opener spots were heavily debated, with Hayden and Sehwag most frequently mentioned.

Trescothick, Dravid and Jayasuriya were also mentioned in despatches, but Hayden's brutality and Sehwag's sheer speed and weight of run-scoring won out. I think Tresco would have won one of the spots if he'd continued to play test cricket though.

The only other bone of contention were the all-rounder/second seamer spots. I think Kallis has to take the all-rounder spot, but I think there's room to slot in Flintoff as the second seamer to McGrath.

His ability to raise his game, inspire sides to victory through sheer force of will and destructive ability with bat and ball makes him a better choice than Pollock for me. It's not an obviously snug fit in the team, but I don't see how you can leave Flintoff out.

Picking Murali and Warne as spin twins may be controversial, but they're the best bowlers of the last ten years for me, along with McGrath.

Finally, I suppose I'd have Ponting as skipper, though I've always doubted how effective he'd be with an inferior team, something which was borne out – to my mind at least – this summer.

Below are the Sky commentators' picks, along with some thoughts of my own on the respective teams.


Hussain

Hussain indicates that he struggled over including Pollock, which may be a touch of the tedious matey banter that Sky reeks of, or may indicate that that's one of the most contentious spots.

Hussain's choice of Dravid says rather more about Hussain, I think, than Dravid.

Hayden
Dravid
Ponting*
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne
Murali
McGrath


Pollock

"I've got for entertainers," says Pollock, which obviously explains why he's picked Kallis – perhaps the most stolid test batsmen since Sir Geoff hung up him broom handle – at number six.

Smith and Steyn also seem rather parochial choices.

Smith
Hayden
Ponting*
Lara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

Bumble

Trescothick's inclusion is an interesting one. It seems certain to me that if Tresco had kept playing test cricket he would have eclipsed Sehwag and Hayden.

Wasim seemed a spent force for most of this decade, and I don't see how you could leave out Murali.

Similarly doubtful about Steve Waugh as he wasn't one of the ten best batsmen of this decade.

Trescothick
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Waugh*
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne
Wasim Akram
McGrath


Sir Beef

Sir Ian proves what a hopeless administrator/manager/captain he always was, or would have been, by picking his big mate Warne as skipper.

Donald was a much better bowler in the 90s for my money.

Smith
Sehwag
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Pollock
Warne*
Donald
McGrath


Athers

Athers has gone for a more mercurial team, with the likes of Jayasuriya, Flintoff and Zaheer potential match-winners in their own right.

Atherton's explanations show what a more astute skipper he made than most of the others, to my mind.

Sehwag
Jayasuriya
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Flintoff
Gilchrist
Warne*
Zaheer Khan
Murali
McGrath

Gower

Rather more by-the-book, though the inclusion of Donald and Akram is suspect by virtue of them hardly playing in this decade, and certainly not to the height of their powers in the noughties.

Smith*
Sehwag
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Wasim Akram
Donald
McGrath

Shane Warne is starting to annoy me

As I've detailed before, I'm far from impressed with the quality of Sky's commentary, despite the odd chink of light.

I'd expected the introduction of Shane Warne to liven things up a bit, and take the focus off whining about cricket and cricketers all the time. After all, Warne has been fulsome in his praise of England players since 2005, especially those he's played with and he can be quite amusing.

I couldn't have been more wrong. Warned is like a parody of himself, all "Aw look"s as he prepares to offer more excuses or criticism. It's as if he's sledging from the commentary box.

Warne spends a lot of his time saying that England's players aren't good enough to be Test cricketers, but only offers vague criticism of Aussie players, presumably because most of them are his mates.

England's Ravi Bopara, batting at number three, has borne the brunt of Warnie's ire. Bopara certainly doesn't look like a number three in Tests, but Warne has written off his entire career.

The reintroduction of Ian Bell to the team has given Warne an excuse to trot out his tiresome 'Sherminator' gag ad infinitum, a joke than was quite funny four year ago.

Elsewhere Paul Collingwood and Matt Prior, both of whom comfortably average over 40 with the bat at the highest level, are found wanting by Warne.

Meanwhile, you'd think everything is rosy on the Aussie side, despite the fact that the Aussies have spent pretty much all of the last two Tests on the rack.

Any questions on the abilities or form of the Australian XI meets only with an "Aw, look. Phil Hughes/Mitchell Johnson/Nathan Hauritz/Marcus North is a great player..." followed by an explanation that the under-pressure player is ever-so-slightly out-of-form, though Warne is backing the player in question to hit back.

The most instructive moments have come from Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton, easily the best commentators on Sky, ribbing Warne over his fall-out with Ricky Ponting or his whingeing about England's sledging or luck with umpiring decisions.

Warne's ire was as obvious as his wig-like hair, porky belly or whitened teeth as Atherton probed him about his well-known bust-up with Punter in 2005, when Australia slipped to defeat.

Back on TMS Matthew Hayden and Jason Gillespie are proving to be able and amusing summarisers, who fit in very well with the Test Match Special ethos.

It's another example of Sky going for the big name and the Beeb exercising more consideration.

TMS 1 - Sky 0