The First Ball

Before the start of the 2009 Ashes series yesterday, there was quite a bit of talk about what the first ball would be like. The first balls of the previous two Ashes series set the tone for each: both bowled by Steve Harmison of England, both faced by Justin Langer of Australia. In 2005, Harmison bowled a well-directed bouncer that hit Langer on the helmet: the end result was a closely-fought Ashes where England eventually triumphed 2-1. In 06/07, Harmison bowled a ball so wide that captain Andrew Flintoff received it at second slip: Australia went on to whitewash England 5-0. So the first ball had acquired a certain amount of symbolism.

So what of 2009? Well, one thing was certain: it wasn't going to be Harmison to Langer this time. For one, neither was playing. For two, this time England were batting and Australia bowling. As a result, the first ball was from Australia's left-arm quickie Mitchell Johnson to England's captain Andrew Strauss.

And... it was a fairly innocuous delivery, to be honest. Wide of the stumps, but not too wide, with maybe a hint of away movement. No runs scored, but equally Strauss didn't have to play. Not a good ball, not a bad ball: an average ball. One hopes that this is not the harbinger of an average series.

Perhaps not, going the first day's play: England 336 for 7, with Pietersen top-scoring on 69 and Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad the overnight batsmen. It's a score you can say anything about: Australia will be happy to have taken 7 wickets after being asked to bowl, England will be pleased with the positive attitude and rapid scoring: and with two spinners in their team, the fact that the ball was turning on Day 1 will also be of cheer. It was a tight and entertaining day's play, with plenty of attacking and counterattacking, and honours ended up approximately even.

Ultimately it's hard to judge who is better placed: it depends on what happens tomorrow. How many will Jimmy, Broad and Swann (and Monty I guess) make to boost England's total? How will Australia's batsmen fare? I don't know. I will say one thing, though: there were mild echos of the first day of Edgebaston 2005 in the play. Then England scored fast enough to amass 400 in a day, but were also bowled out in that same day. Nobody made a century then, either, and there was a mix of praise and criticism in the comments: the positive approach was just what the batsmen needed after the collapses at Lords, but the throwing away of wickets was undesirable. At Cardiff yesterday, similar views prevailed. Will history repeat itself?