Lessons to be learnt from our Ashes defeat
Roar Pro
By David Boots, 25 Aug 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
England's Andrew Strauss, 2nd left, drives a ball from Australia's Nathan Hauritz, obscured at right behind umpire, during the first day of the second Ashes Test cricket match at Lord's cricket ground, London, Thursday July 16, 2009. Hauritz dislocated the middle finger of his right hand, as he missed a difficult chance to take the wicket on England's Andrew Strauss. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
Muhammad Ali once said “I never thought about losing, but now that it’s happened, the only thing is to do it right.” Australia’s challenge is to learn from this series and I believe there are a number of aspects of the team’s performance that can provide the team with a launching pad for re-invigoration.
The first lesson is that disciplined bowling and batting will pay dividends. By match three, it was blatantly clear that the bowling had to tighten up.
The second lesson is that a team should not be afraid to change its lineup when, and if, necessary.
The third lesson is that the team must rise above factors like the toss, the umpiring, and the pitches in order to win. The simple fact is that if you play well enough, you will win.
As a visiting Test team, you probably need to play at least ten percent better than the home team to be on par.
A fourth lesson is to give credit where credit is due.
There were excellent performances by Michael Clarke, North, Watson and others. Pontings’ 78 at Leeds was one of the all time master classes in how to demolish an attack.
Hussey’s century was a great return to form.
The final lesson is one of perspective.
This is a 2-1 loss by a visiting team where the result could easily have been 2-2 or even 2-1 in favour of Australia. This is nothing like the 5-0 defeat the English suffered two years ago, a devastating loss which has been blanked from the collective consciousness of the English.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (16) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (99)
- Media should call stumps on Rodney Hogg (93)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (86)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (89)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Like father, like son: Alister McDermott on a fast track to the Test team (29)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (89)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (5)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, english cricket, Michael Clark, Ricky Ponting, The Ashes
Viscount Crouchback said | August 25th 2009 @ 12:58am | Report comment
#6 – Runs down the order matter.
Bigad said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Absolutely – this was a strength for Aus throughout the games against SA, but it eveporated in the Ashes.
Boris Johnson said | August 25th 2009 @ 3:37am | Report comment
“…the 5-0 defeat the English suffered two years ago, a devastating loss which has been blanked from the collective consciousness of the English.”
This statement is obviously wrong and is a major reason England ended up regaining the ashes. They will use 2007 as a lesson and come back stronger instead of folding in Australia next time.
Tommy said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
I agree Boris. Such sour grapes as usual, look at the players and blame them. Australia where either really good or really bad… England were more consistent even if that consistency was not of a great standard at all.
Australia bottled it all series when they were in positions to win the game or lose it.
Well played England.
Michael C said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Good to see Brad Haddin still playing dopey get out shots – - like he did in India. He and Hussey had the Poms getting nervous and then he played ‘THAT SHOT’. Disgraceful.
Haddin – across the series, his 4 tests – let through 76 byes. 3.05% of English runs. Compare to Manou, only 2 byes from 376 runs in the 3rd test – 0.53%.
How long is Australia going to persist with a 3rd rate wicket keeper?
brad said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
I wish these Hadden Knockers would get their facts straight. 42 of the byes were in the first 2 tests when Johnson was spraying the ball 3 feet either side of the stumps. And anyone who knows will tell you, it takes time to get use to the English conditions. Manou has been in county games before getting the callup. How many runs did Mamou score in the 3rd test? In this day and age, you need to be a competent batsman as well as a being a keeper. On average Haddens keeping has been good, and he will win many more games with his batting than he will lose with his alleged 3rd rate keeping.
Michael C said | August 25th 2009 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
and so to the flip side — why did Australia persist with Johnson for so long on the off chance that he might come good, ….. reminds of how they’ve persisted with Brett Lee previously.
It makes you wonder about the bowling plan A and plan B.
But, really – Haddin fumbles a heap, his glove work is patchy and this actually reminds me of the commentators opinions put in the coverage as Prior completed his stumping of North on the last day at the Oval. They were adamant that Prior was by far the better keeper over the series.
davido said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Good points about Haddin.
He did make some runs in that last innings. But in a situation where you are chasing a massive target you should perhaps keep your down WHILE still being positive.
brad said | August 25th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
I’ll grant you that Hadden isn’t the greatest keeper, but he is acceptable and honestly, the least of our problems. His batting is ideally suited to no7, where he can, if the top and middle order do their job, top off the innings. And he can also stay in if needed. Yes, not the best shot to get out the other night, but the game was long gone before then. The fact is when we were bowled out for 160, barring a miracle, the game was lost. I have long suspected that most of our top and middle order are “fair weather’ batsmen. Give them a flat track and they are great, but they come back to the field real quick when the pitch or conditions offer the bowlers a bit. Someone on another blog offered these stats -
2nd Test – 1st innings: Aust were 2 for 103 before losing 6 wickets for 49 runs.
3rd Test – 1st Innings: Aust were 1 for 126 before losing 7 wickets for 77 runs.
4th test – 1st Innings: Aust were 1 for 133 before losing 3 wickets for 18 runs.
5th test – 1st Innings: Aust were 0 for 72 before losing 7 wickets for 38 runs.
Therein lies the problem…
Michael C said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Marcus North – does he get a tour tick?? He scored 367 at an average of just over 52. Surely that’s a big tick.
However, Too often he failed miserably as well. His good scores were 125*, 96 and 110. His bad scores were 0,6,12, 8 and 10.
Very hot or cold. At Lords he had a 33 minute duck in the first innings, and in the 2nd came in at 4-120 and was next out at 5-128.
At the Oval, he came in at 4-93 and was next out at 5-108 for 8, and in the 2nd, came in at 4-220 and was next out at 5-236.
Was he perhaps a ‘flat track bully’?? How do we mark his series?
reality is, that Australia really should’ve won Cardiff – as it stands, his 125* was in a drawn match. Australia DID win the 4th test and his 110 was crucial coming in at 4-151. The 96 at Birmingham in the 3rd on the last day helped ensure the game ended in a draw, but, really – there wasn’t a huge amount of pressure. The games Australia lost, North was no where to be seen.
Mattay said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Was Watson really a success? If the question is – was he an improvement over who he replaced? – then, yes.
If it is – did he do the job of an opener to the fullest extent? – then, no.
If he was to be a success, he really needed to carry on with a few of his innings. When was the last test series Australia played where not one of the openers managed a century?
THIS was the main reason for our defeat. There’s all sorts of carry on about the bowling attack, the lack of spinner, the wicketkeeper. But for me, the failure of the openers sets the tone for the innings. And the fact the selectors failed in their duty to pick an alternate opener in the squad is one of the worst selection decisions in recent memory.
Rabbitz said | August 25th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
I am confused with all the focus on the bowlers and bowling. Yes the Australian team has issues in the bowling BUT (a big one at that) the so-called specialist batsmen failed on a number of occasions, poignantly in the first innings of the last test. All out for 160 – pathetic. All kudos to the English bowlers but for the last two or three years the Australian batting has been lucky and has relied on one or two batsmen to dig them out of trouble. To win you need to take 20 wickets, but you also have to score more runs than the other team, and frankly without a bit of luck the Australian team can not claim the second part.
Justin said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
We took something like 13 more wickets so bowling while inconsistent was not the major problem. Losing clusters of wickets as pointed out above was. Lords was one of the worst batting performances I have ever seen.
Hughes needs to come back. Hussey could have been out 4 times that last dig so I find it amusing some say he Is back. Time to move him on and bring in Ferguson or Watson (if he can bowl especially) down the order. Clarke has to move up, 2 for quickly became 3 for with Hussey at 4.
I want Krazy back also, he spins it and will
improve his control (think he did well in an A series recently). Play him for at least 7 tests in a row. He is handy in the field and with the bat too.
Hansie said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
In 2005, a lot of credit was given to Troy Cooley for his coaching of the England pace attach. In 2009, Cooley has completely slipped below the radar. With hindsight, the England bowlers deserve even more praise for their bowling in 2005.
Whiteline said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Hansie – spot on.
2005
- Fred bowled well to left handers (ala Lords 09)
- Simon Jones was a master of swing – and a huge player in this series
- Harmison smashed a few heads early and then was relatively ineffective
- Hoggard swung the ball like he did throughout his whole career
This added up to Cooley being labelled a genius. Lovely bloke and all but it was quite comical then and as we’ve all seen, continues to be.
quickjohnny said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
One of the problems with Oz cricket is that there are too many hangers-on in the ‘group’ ( NB: When on earth did they start calling a squad and team a group?????…..they’re not a rock band). Anyhow, why do we need all these coaches and pyschs and trainers and bla bla bla? Cricket is still fundamentally a very simple game: you see, there is a bloke with a ball, a bloke with a bat, the bloke with the ball bowls the ball, and the bloke with the bat ……..do I need to go on? The old keep it simple stupid approach still can’t be beaten. Throughout the series it amazed me how frequently bowlers from both teams couldn’t bowl at the stumps. Imagine if Tiger Woods or Roger Federer were as wayward!!!!