Deeds not words

Cricket is home to many a good adage and one of the oldest in the book follows that bowlers win matches. Day 2 at the Gabba was a case in point. Although the record of England here is fairly abysmal, they set a new low with their latest batting display. Saying that, let us not take anything away from the Australian bowling performance. Their two main strike bowlers bowled with aggression and fire - two attributes which have been lacking for Australia in recent years. Provided they can emulate this performance, the England batsmen will have to find their feet sooner rather than later.

After just two days of this latest Ashes series, Australia look nailed on to go one up with four to play. Realistically, England aren't going to be able to bat for a draw because the Australians will have plently of time to bowl at them (five or six sessions at this rate). Thus, England will need to go for the win. To climb that particular mountain they will need significant contributions from all of the top six since the Australians look well placed to set a target in excess of 500. To scale that sort of total batting last in the first encounter of an Ashes series away from home is the stuff of fantasy.

I'm glad the series has finally got in to it's stride because the silly rhetoric leading up to the match was already tiresome last summer. Some responses to my piece in the summer relating to the decision by Broad not to walk when out were distinctly unsympathetic. One respondent asked me to show him which law of cricket states that abatsman must walk? As that respondent well knows, there is no such law. Neither is there a book which lays down the spirit in which cricket ought to be played. Until quite recently, there has never had to be because we always had greater pride in our manners and our reputations. Another respondent to that piece asserted that it was "crap then and crap now". It's difficult to know how to respond to such a statement. Putting aside the lack of depth and reasoned debate, I take it that he doesn't agree with my view on the way in which the game should be played?

Sadly, my experience as a cricket coach tells me that his is not a minority view. Unsurprisingly, the youngsters in the game have a tendency to follow the national team. As such, they seek to emulate the manners and behaviour thereof. Herein lies the problem. This is why I take such issue with the decision of Broad to not walk. He sanctions everybody to do likewise and thus puts cricket on a par with sports like football where anything goes just to secure an advantage. Cricket was always better than that. It always used to be about the manner of victory rather than victory at any price.

Getting back to the cricket though, the events of the second day have illustrated the value of an old saying churned out periodically in the sales industry. "You're only as good as your last week" can here be translated to "You're only as good as your last match". Reputations take years to build but as the 2005 Australians found out, they are lost all too quickly. I wonder about the decision to play a clearly injured Prior. I don't think it will have done much for the confidence of the reserve keeper Bairstow. Should Prior be unable to play in the next match, Bairstow will be chucked in to the lion's den knowing how valued he is by the selectors. While England's bowling was alright, bowling a side out for 295 is not exactly legendary. The greater worry of course was England's batting - if we can call it that. Carberry aside, nobody seemed prepared to roll up their sleeves for the fight. The underbelly was indeed soft as evidenced by the performance of the middle order. The Australians will sleep well tonight but I rather think the lion might not.