By Greg Russell
August 29th 2009 @ 2:48am
It was just bad luck that we lost The Ashes
England's Graeme Swann, right, takes the final wicket of Australia's Brad Haddin, 4th right, to dismiss Australia to win the Ashes on the fourth day of the fifth Ashes cricket test match at the Oval cricket ground, London, Sunday Aug. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Tom Hevezi)
What happened? This is how I began my article the other day on last weekend’s Bledisloe Cup loss by Australia. Since the Ashes, another of the most iconic prizes in Australian sport, were lost at about the same time – a day before if one marks it by the pivotal session, a day after if by the final ball – it seems appropriate to start this article the same way.
Firstly let me say that some of us saw this train wreck coming some time ago, so we had time to prepare for the impact (OK, I will not pretend, it has still been profoundly painful).
For me the realisation came after Lord’s.
My reasoning was as follows.
Firstly, the Cardiff pitch turned out to be almost a clone of Adelaide Oval’s, while Lord’s is arguably Australia’s strongest cricketing fortress. If after such propitious circumstances Australia was still 1-0 down, then the omens were not good given that the venues for the last three tests were not so accommodating.
Secondly, the luck in the first two tests ran strongly England’s way, giving the feeling that it was just going to be one of those series.
I will admit that the rest of the series did not pan out as I had imagined in terms of details – who honestly could have foreseen the carnage at Headingley? – but in a series of wild fluctuations in form, we should not really be surprised by that.
Still, the end result was the one I had the anticipated after Lord’s – a series win to England, and the Ashes surrendered.
In order to avoid any confusion, let me make clear before I proceed that England are not undeserving winners of this series. At a couple of times that turned out to be crucial, they played well and Australia played poorly, and consequently England won two tests.
However this does not change that Australia were by far the statistically dominant team in this series – 8 centuries to 2, 6 of the top 7 run-scorers, the three top wicket-takers, and so on. Yes, these have been trotted out so many times this week that it has become tedious, but they are important.
One reaction to these facts is to dismiss such statistics as irrelevant.
In one sense this is correct, because indeed it is not statistics that determine the results of cricket matches and series.
However there is a good reason why statistics like the above ones – run and wicket aggregates, batting and bowling averages, number of centuries – are kept and have stood the test of time: because they correlate extremely well with results and performance.
Reliable as ever, George Binoy of Cricinfo has done research to illustrate just how statistically unusual this series was: “Before the 2009 Ashes, no team had ever won a Test series after scoring six centuries fewer than their opponents.”
So I contend that one has to take these series statistics as confirming superior Australian performance, and instead ask why this did not translate into retention of the Ashes.
Here one finds various theories.
Peter Roebuck and Gideon Haigh are both enamoured of a soundbite from Andrew Strauss: “When we were bad, we were very bad. When we were good we were [just] good enough.”
The “just” is in the Roebuck version only, and it is important. If England were only “just good enough” at Lord’s and The Oval, then how to explain that England won both matches comfortably, and that they had the result in the bag from day 2?
Even the milder Haigh version of Strauss’s admirably modest words does not survive close scrutiny, because it fails to explain that England could be “very bad” for large portions of this series and yet only lose one test match.
Closely related to Strauss’s take on the series is the “England won the key moments” explanation, which has been widely posited this week. In a sense it is axiomatic that this is true.
However my problem with it is as follows: a sporting contest like this consists of myriad “moments”, and rarely is it clear in advance that they are key. Yes, in rare situations, such as John Terry’s penalty in the 2008 Champions League final, it is all too evident that something decisive is about to happen. But generally this is not the case.
Take Stuart Broad’s spell on the afternoon of the second day at The Oval. This turned out to be key. But what if it had rained on days 4 and 5? Then it would not have been key, even though the act would have been exactly the same.
By now it should be obvious where this article is heading, but I won’t arrive there just yet.
Let me first deal with two other theories doing the rounds, both well stated by Tim de Lisle. He has written:
“Hardly anyone noticed the five-for count, which was 4-2 to England. And five-fors do more to win matches, for the simple reason that they take out half the opposition.”
This is poppycock. Australia “won” the five-for count by 5-4 in 2005, but we all know the result of that series. And what wins matches is good bowling from both ends, which sometimes results in Jim Laker taking 19 wickets and Tony Lock only 1, while at other times it results in both bowlers taking less than 5 wickets each.
The other theory enunciated by de Lisle is that “It was the allrounders wot won it”, by which he means the batting of Flintoff, Broad and Swann. It is undeniable that they scored runs, sometimes ones of some significance. But I think it’s hard to sustain an argument that these runs were the main act.
Further, it is even harder to sustain an argument that selection of bowlers who can bat is a recipe for success in test cricket. Australia has always advocated that a test team should consist of a country’s 6 best batsmen its 4 best bowlers.
India and South Africa are now adhering to this prescription, with strong success to show for it.
In South Africa’s case it is after years of frustration from going down the path of choosing bowlers who can bat – remember when with Pat Symcox at 11 they could boast of a batting lineup in which everyone had scored a test century? Now they are playing 4 bowlers without a test century between them, and they are the top dog in test cricket.
And so to the denouement. One of the reasons we are entranced by sport is because sometimes, unpredictably, it defies logic and delivers a result that can only be put down to chance.
England emerged from Cardiff with a draw not just because Monty defied the bowling for 40 minutes, but far more so because over half a day of play – 53 overs to be precise – had been lost due to rain.
In a series with a disappointingly large number of umpiring errors there were, obviously, some where Australia was lucky, but the majority went England’s way, and in particular there was never a run of poor decisions in Australia’s favour like the one that England received in Australia’s second innings at Lord’s.
Strauss won the toss on 4 occasions out of 5, including on all three where it was a real advantage to bat first, viz. Cardiff, Lord’s and – in particular – The Oval.
Just take out the rain at Cardiff and the series is 2-2 with the Ashes retained, even allowing England all its other luck.
The line that luck evens out over a series does not stack up, as I have tried to make clear: when was Australia saved by rain this series? When did Ponting win 4 tosses out of 5?
The truth is that luck can take years to even out, as the fortunes of Mike Hussey show.
If anyone is offended by my conclusion here, just let me say that we Australians rejoiced when Steven Bradbury won a gold medal at the 2002 Olympics, after the three speed skaters ahead of him fell over in the home straight. However we never for a moment pretended that he was anything other than dead lucky.
So it has been for the English cricketers this time – good luck to supporters of the English team, and enjoy it. You were unlucky in the West Indies earlier this year, where England were by far the better team but lost the series.
This time the karma was the other way around.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(19)
Adam B said | August 29th 2009 @ 4:14am | Report comment
First of all let me confess I am English and as far as I able to be proud of it, so if my reaction seems a little biased that’s only to be expected. The argument that England were lucky in the Ashes can’t be dismissed wholly; yes Strauss did win 4 out of 5 tosses, but he also managed to make a catastrophically poor decision at Headingley where it should have been obvious that to bowl was the correct decision; yes it rained at Cardiff, it also rained at Edgbaston where England had a significant first innings lead (by the way for the record I believe if it hadn’t rained Australia would have saved the test anyway).
Those justifications aside, it is right to say that statistically the Australians were better in the series. The centuries count is misleading though half of Australia’s happened in one innings at Cardiff, the argument could be put forward that it is not how many but when that is the most important. Engalnd made two centuries, they won both games Australia made eight only one in a winning test the rest were either in draws or losing causes, the argument remains that the England team won the important sessions and did just enough to win the series
I think the significant point that should be taken is that the quality of the two teams is close enough that luck can make a difference, the same amount of luck would not have won the Ashes for England throughout the late 80’s the 90’s or the early 2000’s, Australia would have still won those series because they were a far superior team. Now however the quality of the current Australian team is not as high as it was particularly in the bowling, this is being obvious, there is no way that Warne and McGrath could be replaced, they were in their individual ways unique and I feel priviledged to have watched them bowl.
The fact is the Australian team is not as good as it was, neither is the English team, 2005 was the clash of two outstanding cricket teams at close to their best, and was greeted in England as a matter of far more significance (even so we probably only won that series due to the injuries to McGrath), the 2009 series has to be recognised as a clash between two teams which are nowhere near the quality of their predecessors and if most of the luck went England’s way in this series it was only of importance because they were close enough in quality for it to make a difference.
Here’s looking forward to the next Ashes in Australia and I hope we can make that one more of a contest than the 5-0 embarrassment we almost completely failed to turn up for.
Spiro Zavos said | August 29th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Greg sides make their luck. It used to be said, for instance, that Bradman was a lucky batsman. But he capitalised on the breaks that came his way. Winning sides do this, losing sides don’t. In the final innings of the last Test, Australia were sailing on serenely with Ponting and Hussey giving every indication of making a massive partnership, and then Hussey took a quick single, Ponting did some ball watching and Flintoff threw down the wicket for a run-out. Luck? Of course, but there was skill involved as well. Then Clarke was run-out in extraordinary circumstances. Again there was luck involved. But also skill.
Where this is going is that is that in the moments that mattered, England did the job and Australia did not do the job.
Those 69 balls available to get rid of Panesar should have been more than enough, except that Ponting bowled is so-called spinners instead of giving the tailender some chin music from Johnson and Siddle.
No luck here, just plain poor captaincy, a feature unfortunately of Ponting’s reign as captain.
Contrast this was Strauss’ captaincy where he unobtrusively brought on the right bowlers at the right time. This clever, unobtrusive captaincy has been overlooked in all of this because, I fancy, Strauss doesn’t wave his arms about like a traffic-cop captain. But in the crucial moments his decisions turned out to be the correct ones.
Perhaps this was the difference between the two teams.
sheek said | August 29th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
At the beginning of this series, I dismissed England as a threat. But not because of cockiness. While I knew Australia wasn’t as strong as previously, I also believed England were certainly not as strong as 2005. In the wash-up, I believed Australia would win the series 2-1, perhaps even 3-1.
Maybe the Australian team thought the same way. Despite the feather-bed first test pitch, the Aussies played like millionaires – without too much care, & so what if they leaked bowling runs – the y had England’s measure. That attitude caried on into the second test & whammo!
By the time the Aussies were alerted to the danger, the momentum was with England, despite their loss by an innings in the fourth test. Trying to halt & change momentum is one of the most difficult things in sport. Almost from the beginning of the series, the Aussies looked ‘off-balance’, & they struggled to get their collective act together.
We’re in agreement that England “produced” when the big moments were required. Australia “produced” when the big moments weren’t significant. Timing is another critical thing in sport. Sometimes, it’s not what you do, but when you do it that’s important.
Anyway, I think I’m rambling…………
Congrats to England. They were the better team when it mattered.
Colin N said | August 29th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
“At the beginning of this series, I dismissed England as a threat. But not because of cockiness.”
As an Englishman, I don’t blame you. I thought this England side was a poor one, and would be suitably hammered.
sheek said | August 29th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I should add, England were the better team when it mattered – luck or no luck!
whiteline said | August 29th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Most of the comments acknowledge that the best team usually wins test matches. Those who have played or been involved in some reasonable cricket realise this is true. The uneducated or those blinded by their bias fail to acknowledge that teams who have won consistently (like Australia 99-07 and Windies through the 80’s) also had many ‘bad decisions’ which potentially can affect the course of a match.
Both of the sides on display were very ordinary. The English team would have been towelled up by the English sides of 2001and 2003 and yet they still won the series. You may recall that Australia won these series reasonably convincingly. I think this highlights were Australia’s performance rates.
Brett McKay said | August 29th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Greg, there’s some definite merit in what you’re saying here, but I can’t get away from the “England won the key moments” explanation, because for one, I think it somes up the ups and downs of the series perfectly. Australians scored more runs and took more wickets, yet somehow the Urn is staying at Lord’s (figuratively speaking). The only way I can see how statistical dominance leaves a trophy behind, is the loss of “big moments” (as Nasser Hussein would have us believe happened every ten minutes at The Oval).
That said, having played the game a fair bit, I’m all too familiar with the explanation after a loss “I don’t know how we lost, we batted/bowled/fielded brilliantly…”, and it’s in these cases often that luck goes against the dominant team.
So perhaps England did win the key moments. But it’s also true that Australia didn’t have a lot of luck…
Viscount Crouchback said | August 29th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
I like this article. We are too quick to downplay the importance of luck in sport. Cliches such as “you make your own luck” – already offered above, I note – are deeply facile. Of all the top sports managers in the world, the only chap who consistently mentions luck is Sir Alex Ferguson. I think he’s absolutely right.
That said, I think Greg overlooks the importance of phlegm in this Ashes series. The Australians showed a lack of nerve when they needed it most. That uniquely Anglo-Saxon poise under pressure seemed strangely absent from their make-up. England, in contrast, were full of poise. Andrew Strauss, in particular, showed precisely why an English public school education is so highly prized.
There is no more graceful beast than a well-bred Englishman under fire.
sheek said | August 29th 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
One of my favourites sayings, penned by one of those American sports coaches, goes – “I will get ready, & then perhaps my chance will come”.
It fits in well with “winners make their own luck”. There’s nothing worse than failing to take advantage of an opportunity because you weren’t ready, or underprepared, or whatever.
Do the little things well often enough, then when the opportunity presents itself, you can grab it with both hands. Might seem like luck at the time, but fact is, you already put in the hard yards beforehand to put yourself in the prime position.
Nird99 said | August 29th 2009 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
VC,
I think you are right in saying that Australia lost their poise. I have said in an earlier article that i didnt think the Aussie batsman valued their wickets enough. It is probably more true that they just didnt have the nerve when it counted. I will go back to our previous captain, Steve waugh who always had grit and determination and seemed to instil this same value in his team and players. The never say die attitutde seemed to be missing with the current team.
davido said | August 29th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Great observations. I lean towards the toss being the most important ‘luck’ you can have.
James Mortimer said | August 29th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Luck had little to do with it, it was a shit house tour for the selection panel.
hammer said | August 29th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
James is right the balance of the squad from the get go was wrong – plus the 5 fors agrument is valid a5-4 split is minimal a 4-2 one however is sizable
and don’t forget England did it minus their premium batsman for 4 tests
Dave said | August 29th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
There’s no luck in not bowling England out in Cardiff. There’s no luck in getting bowled out for 215 first innings at Lords. There was no luck in getting bowled out for 160 at Lords.
If there is one sport that doesn’t involve luck ,its Test Cricket. The best team invariably wins.
if we start talking about luck as the reason for a result, we are going to lose more test than we win.
Nug said | August 29th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
You can quote all the statistics you like and talk about luck, but to me it boils down to selection. Firstly, the sending home of Andrew Symonds started the rot. He is absolutely feared by the Poms and I fail to see why CA adopted a holier than thou attitude to his drinking. Plenty more Australian players have had worse drinking behaviour than him and there will be plenty more in the future. I also get the feeling that he upset some of his team mates and they pressured CA to do what they did. Then they stuck with Mike Hussey who should have been dropped after the first two. Then when Brett Lee was fit they wouldn’t play him. As for leaving Nathan Hauritz out of the final test, well that was very poor judgement. So it’s not all down to statistics and luck, it’s very poor selection criteria. When you go to England to play for the Ashes, you must take your best team and use the best players in the tests. Don’t start making excuses either. Put in people as selectors who know the game and the players and who aren’t afraid to make a call instead of bowing to higher authority. A few names who come to mind are: Shane Warne, Glen McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, Mark Waugh Ian Healy, Justin Langer and Matthew Hayden.
Dave said | August 29th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Who would you have replaced Hussey with?
Tom said | August 29th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
The mental toughness displayed by previous Australian teams was sorely lacking. During our reign at the top, we were characterised by our ability to recover from, and win from seemingly impossible positions. However, this did not occur this series. It didn’t happen in the 2nd and 5th tests, and didn’t look like happening in the 3rd had the rain not intervened.
Much has been made of the English supporters (and Graham Swann) being nervous even with a 500 + run lead in the final innings. I don’t really see this as a character flaw on their part; more as evidence that previous Australian sides were never beaten until all 10 wickets were taken, or all the runs were scored. This certainly isn’t evident in the current team.
Greg Russell said | August 31st 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
I have just been away for an internet-free weekend with my family, so I am only just seeing these comments, for which many thanks. I have not been pilloried nearly as much as a I feared!
Firstly let me say that Brett McKay once wrote of me “Greg, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but do you ever tire of being the voice of reason?” (lest anyone get the wrong idea, I enjoyed this comment, and Brett and I are mates). It is only with great reluctance that a “voice of reason” concludes that there was no reason!
Some people have raised things like the run out of Ponting at The Oval or Strauss’s (disastrous) decision to bat first at Headingley or poor Australian selections (e.g. failure to select Hauritz at The Oval). I would like to say that I deliberately didn’t mention any of these things in my article, because I definitely don’t consider any of them as luck. In particular, the fact that Strauss batted first at Headingley does not at all even out Ponting’s bad luck at losing the toss in other matches of the series.
The sayings “You make your own luck” and “The harder I practice, the luckier I get” (which originated with Gary Player) have received a lot of airing. If you think about it, you will realize that if there is a truth in these sayings, it is that the better (prepared) you are, the less you will need luck. Anyone who has ever been to a casino will know that in a strict sense there can be no truth to the saying “You make your own luck”.
In this respect I saw an interesting article from Mike Atherton on the weekend. He made reference to Andy Flower’s whiteboard in England’s dressing room at The Oval. It listed “Controllables” on one side and “Uncontrollables” on the other. In the latter category were weather, coin toss and (poor) umpiring decisions. That is exactly the sort of luck of which I was writing. I just cannot see that the rain in Cardiff or the umpiring decisions at Lord’s or the way the coin landed are cases of England being a better team that made its own luck.
A bouquet to Adam B for his comment “I think the significant point that should be taken is that the quality of the two teams is close enough that luck can make a difference … if most of the luck went England’s way in this series it was only of importance because they were close enough in quality for it to make a difference.” However one should not conclude that this means that the better side won.
Mike said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Crikey! Blaming the umpires? Have you never watched a Test series in Australia? How often do visiting teams not get the ‘rub of the green’? Ditto Australia in England. And bad luck for Hussey? Leaving good balls that disturb the off peg – looks like bad judgement to me.
What’s fascinating is the need to look for reason. It is the beautiful unpredictability of the game that keeps us coming back. Broad bowled fruit for most of the series. Who predicted that he would take Australia apart in the fifth Test? The ball that got Ponting was a beauty. The one that bowled Haddin was the pick of the bunch. Though Swann’s through-the-gate dismissal of Ponting was not bad, either.
I think that perhaps Australia were too willing to believe their own press. Why else would they select four quicks and leave out Hauritz on a wicket that was drier than John Howard’s politics.