Aussies winning back the Ashes? We can only hope
By Adam_Vaughan, 18 Jul 2012 Adam_Vaughan is a Roar Rookie
This week's 2013 Ashes dates announcement has brought back bad memories (AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
Related coverage
On the 10th of July 2012, the Australian cricket team was convincingly defeated by the English in the final game of a five match one day international series. England won four matches, Australia won none.
And apparently, according to the wave of criticism, it’s one of the worst events in our country’s proud cricketing history. Or so many would have you believe.
Personally, I wasn’t all that surprised by the result. I wasn’t terribly impressed by the apparent effort that our boys put up, but I wasn’t surprised by that either.
I put the series loss down to three things: we did not select our best squad for this series, it was a five game series on an island of scheduling, and the English are a better team than we are at the moment.
Call me what you will, but I have a very hard time calling the squad that travelled to England a “strong” squad. In fact, I can’t call any squad “strong” if Mitchell Johnson is in it.
Do you reckon the Englishmen licked their lips when they read his name in the team list? You bet they did. Johnson returned figures of 0/43 off seven overs in the one game that he played. Of the other fast bowlers in the squad, they were either just returning from injury (Pattinson and Cummins) or got injured on the tour (Lee, Watson and Cummins again).
In other words, they shouldn’t have been there. With such a rickety bowling line-up, the batsmen that we did have on the tour had no chance. Then again, with George Bailey, Peter Forrest and Steve Smith in the heart of the order we would have struggled if McGrath and Warne were in the team and at their peak.
This series was played on an island of scheduling courtesy of the ICC. Before this series, the last time Australia played was in the West Indies in late April. After this series, Australia take on Pakistan in the United Arab Emirates beginning on the 25th August. The English series was played between the 29th of June and the 10th of July.
That’s twelve days. The Australian cricket team waited 62 days between taking on the Windies to taking on the Poms. The English on the other hand had a three Test series and three ODI series against the Windies from May through June, which rolled straight into the Australian series.
A slightly different preparation wouldn’t you say?
England are currently preparing to take on South Africa in a two Test series starting on the 19th July that continues onto a ODI series taking them straight into the ICC T20 World Cup. Australia wait another 42 days to play Pakistan on the 28th August.
I understand that the players are professional and get paid very well, but they are also human. It’s difficult to get into the rhythm of touring and get used to the conditions when you are at home for two months, fly to England where their summer is worse than our winter, then fly out again a fortnight later knowing it will be another month and a half before you play again.
Australian cricket is still on the way up. The English team are a very strong and settled team that are pretty much at the peak of their powers. The Australians under the leadership of Michael Clarke have taken positive steps since the disastrous home Ashes tour in 2010-11. The revamp of the selection panel has resulted in some good decisions in bringing up talented young players such as Pattinson, Cummins and Warner, but the constant injuries to players have punctuated any true improvement to the team.
The Test series against India gave hope that we were starting to build another deadly bowling attack backed up by a solid but not overwhelming batting order, however our opponents rarely put up a fight and looked as though they couldn’t wait to go home. Injuries, retirement and depth remain very real threats to Australian cricket.
The English seem to go from strength to strength. As much as we can discuss how they have copied and pinched systems and coaches from our shores, that is not the English team’s only strength. The team has remained fairly static in regard to injuries, enabling them to become a real team in every sense of the word.
While we were blessed with talent, during Australia’s dominance, we also had a lucky run with injuries.
The English know what bowling partnerships work best. They know who they can depend on when things get tough. They know who to turn to when they need a wicket or a quick fifty on the scoreboard. They are a true team and will be very difficult to beat in any form of the game for some time.
Australia may not win the Ashes next year, but I can’t see our team being hammered like we have in this most recent series. Hopefully the medicos will figure out why our players seem to be so injury prone.
Hopefully Billy the Kid comes back to show our bowlers how to bowl again. Hopefully the Shield competition will unearth a couple of talents that demand selection for the Ashes next year. Hopefully the selectors replace the term “X-Factor” that follows Mitchell Johnson everywhere with the term “ex-player”.
We can only hope Australia, we can only hope.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- Australia needs to bench Nathan Lyon for Ashes success (84)
- Usman Khawaja’s case for selection (78)
- DIZZY: Australian bowlers look the goods for the Ashes (76)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (58)
- Who will Sam Robson represent: Australia or England? (47)
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (41)
- Rogers’ 214 gives Aussies Ashes boost (40)
- David Warner and Australian cricket’s ‘Siege Mentality’ (2)
- Could Bird be the difference in the Ashes? (2)
- Warner targets media in Twitter rant
- Strauss wants Pietersen fit for Ashes
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (42)
- HENRY: Oh no, cricket is in a spot of bother, again… (8)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (65)
Recommend this story.

July 18th 2012 @ 1:57am
The Werewolf said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:57am | Report comment
A well written article.
Problem is this series was a great chance to put down a psychological marker. It turned out that way but only for england.
Our supposed depth in fast bowling was made to look a bit of a lame duck and our supposed strike weapon at the top of the order looked like he’s going to get a few too many ducks in 12 months time.
Disaster it was.
July 18th 2012 @ 4:29pm
James said | July 18th 2012 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
yeah i dont know about the tests against india showing australia ‘starting to build another deadly bowling attack’. except for cummins most of the australian bowlers bowled against england i thought and were all made to look pretty ordinary. also whilst england are riding high i still think they have room for improvement in tests. bell has been getting better with his batting only recently and both finn and broad have in the last year gotten much better at bowling more consistently as well. i just dont see any great australian players in the current squad outside of, those who are way past their prime. cummins and pattison maybe but i still think they are both more likely to become nearer to johnsons than mcgraths
July 18th 2012 @ 5:28am
AndyMack said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Yeah well said. I am not losing too much sleep over it because as you said, we didnt pick a great team. One can only hope that certain dead weights in this team are sent packing prior to the Ashes, and Mitch isn’t the only one in that category.
July 18th 2012 @ 7:35am
Chaos said | July 18th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
We can dream we do a 1989… underdogs creaming the poms. Our side was rubbish until that tour and we won 4-0! Though it helped the English couldn’t play Terry Alderman.
July 18th 2012 @ 10:36pm
Rellum said | July 18th 2012 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
The 80′s teams was far from as bad as everybody makes out. I am pretty sure most people would have Healy, S.Waugh, Boon, Border Jones, Hughes (Kim or Merv), Alderman, McDermott, Taylor and May over most of the current team.
July 19th 2012 @ 8:48am
formeropenside said | July 19th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
there was a difference between the team in 89 and the team in 85, which is what people generally mean when they talk of the barren 80′s. But Chaos did lead off on 1989, so it all makes a certain kind of sense.
July 19th 2012 @ 9:09am
Rellum said | July 19th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Yes the 85 team might have been the lowest point, but it still had a lot of quality players in that team. After that lost they then went back and rebuilt. The 86-87 team isn’t much different to the 89 team.
July 20th 2012 @ 8:53am
Disco said | July 20th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
And Taylor and Marsh and Lawson and Healy, and Hohns even.
The bowling was a tad thin, but Australia in the mid to late-80s had a far better group of Test match batsmen than is currently the case.
July 18th 2012 @ 9:21am
Jack said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
So “Hopefully Billy the Kid comes back to show our bowlers how to bowl again.”, surely you jest! If they haven’t learned already, then they shouldn’t be there. For tests, give me Copeland type bowler, accurate, tight, line and length, bowl all day, not get injured, already knows his game well and would be great support for faster bowlers eg: Harris, Siiddle, Cutting, from the other end. Worked just fine in Sri Lanka, but obviously not Mickey’s cup of tea, hence the issues our young bowlers now face, bowling above their bodies ability. You don’t need a bowling coach to work that simple fact out. Wait until they are men not boys!
July 20th 2012 @ 8:58am
Disco said | July 20th 2012 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Indeed. Unless you’re express you have no place in the all-conquering Australian team.
July 18th 2012 @ 9:31am
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
The reaction to the series, and how our shes hopes are apparently runied, has been a bit over the top in all honesty. It was a horrible performance but performances in ODI cricket isn’t always a true indication of how your test team will go, especially when they consist of many different players.
You only need to look back to the previous two Ashes tours where England have won both test series yet we won both following ODI series’ very easily (I think they were 6-1 and 6-1?)
We’ll get a better indication of our Ashes chances after the home test series against SA this summer, and England’s home series against SA in a few weeks.
July 18th 2012 @ 12:00pm
Charles said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
This ODI series was an indication of how our test team may go, as they were looking for Bailey, Forrest to step up and demand a place in the test team, and that Cummins and Pattinson would blow the English apart, instill “fear of god” and take a psychological advantage ahead of the Ashes. Hmmm, well, that didn’t quite come off. I think the reaction is due to the selectors, including “MICHAEL Clarke says Australia’s one-day series against unstoppable England was a bonafide audition for Test spots – leaving selectors with few candidates deserving an Ashes call-back.” pretty much sums up the concerns I would have thought. They, the powers that be, were the ones using it for this purpose and it backfired badly. That’s what they get for using the short format to find long format players…how stupid are these people! “I know it’s a different format but I got my opportunity in Test cricket through one-day form. Any chance you get to play for Australia in one-day cricket you’re pushing for Test selection,” said Clarke, who debuted against England at Adelaide in 2003. They’ve been doing it for years and while you might get a M Clarke every now and again, they are rare. Use Sheffield Shield form, simple as that for long format, and use Ryobi Cup form for ODI’s, how hard is that!
July 18th 2012 @ 2:49pm
Matt F said | July 18th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Which is another reason why we shouldn’t react too seriously about the loss from a test perspective. We picked players for the one day team based on first class form and potential. The number of players who have been brilliant in one format while failing in another should have been enough evidence that you should pick your best one day players for the one day side and not your best potential test players. If the same player is good enough for both then great. if not, so be it. It is a failiure of our selectors though as they picked the inadequate squad.
July 18th 2012 @ 11:06am
Don Corleone said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I get the feeling that the people who complained that it was a meaningless series without context and that it didn’t matter… are the same people putting so much significance in it and dire predictions for the future with Australia having losing it.
July 18th 2012 @ 12:59pm
Pope Paul VII said | July 18th 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
England are currenlty going through a golden age of fast bowling, a couple of decent spinners and solid, savvy batsman. Their primary strength is in the fast blokes.
Australia have just gone through a golden age, growing ever weaker. Their primary weakness, is fast blokes, despite the presence of the holy trinity. On the bright side there is a fair smattering of fast bloke potential and a handy spinner or two.
On form, in fair bowling conditions, the batting will struggle to mount competive, energy sapping innings for the promising bowling attack. The batting issue for Australia is at an impasse. A beleaguered top 3 vs an apparently carved in stone next 3. This combo will get chomped. So where to from here?
July 18th 2012 @ 1:27pm
Dave said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
I find it laughable that so many excuses come out on the back of a 4-0 series defeat. Its the sort of things the Poms used to say after we smacked them. Or the other classic was they would win the dead rubber of a series and say “it ok we are on the right track and of course we will have all our injured players back soon”. The result of all these excuses was that they kept losing and losing. To hear excuses like “the series didn’t mean anything” ” too many injuries” or the worng selection” is be coming part of our national trait..bad losers. Lets take it on the chin and try to get better. You should be ashamed of yourself Andymack and Don Coleone.
We were beaten badly in the last Ashes series by this team and we just got smacked again. We are in a bad cycle and that will change but at the moment please don’t come up with whinging excuses. We always have a go at the Poms for Whinging but I am starting to think that we only made it up to take away from the fact that is all we do!!, Neither of the up coming series against South Africa will tell us anything… If the English lose and we win we still have to go to England to play on thier pitches.
Man up people we have an average side and thats life. Everything moves in cycles ….except our excuses and whinging that stays the same.
July 18th 2012 @ 5:18pm
Brian said | July 18th 2012 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
The problem is the batting I don’t remember an Aussie team with a less impressive top 7. Clarke looks great, Hussey, Watson & Warner good but who are the other 3 – Cowan, Forrest, Ponting (39yo), Bailey, Haddin, Wade, D Hussey, Marsh, Hughes??? Whoever they are they need to show something soon
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:44am
Richard said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Bailey was the third highest run scorer in the series averaging 46, unfortunately he had 2 englishman above him and 3 below. Bailey is stepping up, what about the rest?!
July 18th 2012 @ 11:20pm
Rowdy said | July 18th 2012 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
Whilst this is all quite delightful, I’m mystified by Australia’s weakness. I remember 1983 when the top players retired and Kim Hughes went, and AB and Simpson built a new team; the players came from a well-organised Shield competition which was tuned from club upwards to present strong test players – doesn’t this happen now? NSW 1st Grade teams have regularly been reckoned to be the equal of our best county XIs, so what happened?
Anyway, I’m sure you’ll be back, but hopefully not for a few years yet!
July 19th 2012 @ 8:49am
formeropenside said | July 19th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Yes, but it did take around 3-4 years to rebuild the team – and playing the WI every year in some format may have either helped or hindered that process.
July 20th 2012 @ 11:27am
James said | July 20th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
it doesnt happen now because young players are taught to emulate players like watson and warner who can slog the ball hard but either have no concentration or shocking form whereas 20 years ago young players were taught to emulate players who could bat all day and who had no real holes in their form. australia only have hussey who you can see batting thru an entire day. test matches are no longer seen so unequivocally the ‘best’ form of cricket, one dayers and 20/20 are no longer mere gimmicks which means players in the shield competitions are seeing it as their aim to score 30-50 off 20-40 balls rather than to stay in all day and score 100 off 150 balls.
July 20th 2012 @ 12:23pm
Charles said | July 20th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
So true James, I for one think 20/20 has been the worst thing for test cricket for all the reasons you outline. Such a shame for us traditionalists
July 20th 2012 @ 5:14pm
Lolly said | July 20th 2012 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
Watson’s inability to sustain an innings is the worst for me. He’s been in the test team for a long time now and is as predictable as hell. His elevation to being one of our most important players speaks volumes of how low the expectations are of our test batsmen.
On top of this, his continual self-absorbed angst in the press about his ‘role’ is ludicrous. What does he think any of that is in aid of?
July 20th 2012 @ 8:16pm
Disco said | July 20th 2012 @ 8:16pm | Report comment
Yes, his endless commentary on how he feels he’s going is tedious. The mental side of game his sorely lacking.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:30pm
Rowdy said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
That’s what the England players of the 80s and 90s were good at – a quick 40 and then gone – so frustrating. To an extent it’s still true, with KP and Bell the worst offenders. Bopara can’t even get to 40 so it seems!
I guess we should be telling young players to look at the SA bats after their heroics.
Watson I think is actually pretty good when opening – if one of your openers is regularly getting 50s then I think he’s doing his job.