So, the second test is in Brisbane somewhere I had visited a couple of times previously but did not really know very well. Both previous trips were quite short, firstly in 2001 for the first Lions test match (a great evening with the ground flooded in Lions red, and Jason Robinson scoring a try in the corner near us early in the match) and then RWC quarter final in 2003. I had come out for the quarter final onwards and losing at half time to Wales (sat with a load of Welsh supporters) did question my choice. Thanks to Mike Catt, that match and the following couple of weeks went the right way.
Brisbane is the third largest city in Australia but seems less interesting than other places. I guess most people that come to Queensland end up on the Gold Coast and so Brisbane itself is less touristy. Think about Manchester/Blackpool and you get the gist.
With this test match being a day night match (starts at 2pm and finished at 9.30pm) the feel is very different to other test match stays. You do have some time in the morning to explore, but not really afterwards. And you never know when to eat - "Lunch" is taken at 4pm, "Tea" at 6.40pm or you eat after the match.
I spent the mornings doing a bit of sightseeing - Brisbane is situated on a river and so there are plenty of places to explore along that (Botanical Gardens, South Bank including art galleries and some museums) - but there does not feel to be too much to do unless you want to go further afield. The city hall (and its free tour) was interesting and provided some context on its Scottish connections which I have noticed on previous trips. There are a few river cruises, and I enjoyed a 90mins morning cruise.
There were less free days here as the cricket went on longer than 2 days! It was another strange match, partly due to the pink ball and lights (which start to come on at around 5.15pm and are in full use at around 7pm) and does appear to have a massive impact in particular when new ball is being used. England did not play well, but in reality, even against an Australian team lacking Cummins/Lyon it was always going to be difficult. Australia have played so much more in these conditions that you are never going to match that experience (even if they had played a day/night match in Canberra as suggested by some commentators). Ok they did not bowl well, dropped catches and played some poor shots, but even if they played as well as they could I am not sure if they would have won here.
The first two venues are clearly the most difficult for away teams and therefore an obvious tactic for Australians to choose. So, despite the Australian team having its challenges, it was always likely that it could go 2-0. Perhaps naively I still have some hope that in the last three tests we might be competitive. Who knows.
I am getting a bit bored with media coverage. I knew the Australian press would be partisan (and that’s fine) but there are a number of English commentators (Vaughan and Agnew in particular) who just seem to want to criticise. There is a constant "well there is a lot of unrest in travelling supporters" which feels like something they are trying to create rather than the truth. I don’t think the team are badly prepared, unprofessional or don’t care, they have just not performed. That happens on occasions - a lot in strange environment like Australia - and to constantly whine that England should have done something different is hindsight and naive. For example to constantly question why England did not practice at the WACA before Perth test, ignores the fact that Australia set the whole schedule including warm up venues - and England are not going to criticise their hosts at this stage.
So now off to Tasmania for a week before going to Adelaide.
