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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

and don’t forget England did it minus their premium batsman for 4 tests

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.

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…

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.

As an Englishman, I don’t blame you. I thought this England side was a poor one, and would be suitably hammered.

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.

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.