Cricket is a numbers game, yet this Ashes series doesn’t add up. Over the first three Tests Australia have scored more runs (1,933) and lost fewer wickets (41) than England (1,799 and 45).
Australian batsmen have made six centuries to England’s one.
Five of the six leading runscorers are Australian and four of the five leading wicket-takers are Australian.
Where it counts, however, England are 1-0 in front.
What to make of it all?
Having won the previous series 5-0, Australia had their foot on England’s throat throughout the first Test in Cardiff.
But England drew confidence and momentum from their fighting draw and roared back to win at Lord’s.
Ricky Ponting is counting on Australia doing much the same after a resilient last day at Edgbaston.
There are plenty of positives he can take from the game.
Mitchell Johnson got his radar recalibrated somewhere on the road between London and Birmingham. He is beginning to relax and smile, more like his old self again. He may be a force at Headingley.
Mike Hussey made runs in the second innings, which will have retrieved some of his self-belief after a first innings golden duck when he lost his off stump without offering a shot.
Ponting clearly likes having Mr Cricket in his corner.
Graham Manou’s keeping was exemplary. His polished glovework will make the selectors reluctant to take the risk of rushing back Brad Haddin while his busted finger remains tender.
Shane Watson made a great fist of opening the batting, taking strike and scoring half-centuries in each innings. On the other hand his bowling was a worry; his three feeble overs handed England a momentum swing.
Ponting says he plans to give Watson much more bowling at Headingley.
Really? Perhaps it’s a double-bluff to get a wounded Andrew Flintoff off the physio’s bench and out into the middle, so much did he enjoy whacking Watson to the Edgbaston fence.
Australia need to find a way of bowling England out twice, something they have yet to do in the series.
Flintoff’s fitness is England’s main concern. For only the third Test in his career he failed to take a wicket, yet he remains such a dominant figure that England look half the team without him.
Andrew Strauss conceded that Flintoff would not play unless he could guarantee his fitness.
He’s hobbling, but you wouldn’t bet against him missing his final two Test matches, no matter how much cortisone they have to pump into him.
When Flintoff’s around, statistics don’t seem to matter.
THE ASHES SO FAR
MOST RUNS
Michael Clarke (A) 352
Andrew Strauss (E) 309
Simon Katich (A) 248
Marcus North (A) 239
Ricky Ponting (A) 233
Brad Haddin (A) 229CENTURIES
Clarke (2)
Strauss
Ponting
North
Katich
HaddinMOST WICKETS
Ben Hilfenhaus (A) 13
Jimmy Anderson (E) 12
Nathan Hauritz (A) 10
Peter Siddle (A) 10
Mitchell Johnson (A) 10
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
What these statistics show is that Australia has stronger batting than England, but this counts for little if one doesn't have the bowling. It's not news that bowlers win test matches. The truth is that both sides have relatively weak bowling, with Flintoff being the only champion bowler in the series, as reflected by his 5-wicket haul at Lord's being the difference so far in this series (in terms of generating a result). To be fair, I also rate Anderson's bowling when it's cloudy and damp. (But when it's not ... well let's just say that I wouldn't mind facing him.) Strong batting, weak bowling, rain, dodgy umpiring ... it all adds up to draws and variability, i.e., the statistics not reflecting the results. Usually cricket is a game where the better side wins, but these elements are making this series into a contest like one of these football or rugby matches where possession and territory do not dictate the winner. To be fair, even though I'm a passionate Australian, I am comfortable with England being ahead. Australia has played a lot of decent cricket this series, but at the same time they have played enough poor cricket that they cannot complain about being behind.
Alec Swann
Expert
I played golf with my Dad the other week, hit more fairways than him and more greens in regulation and lost. The statistics don't seem to add up when you look at them closely, but that is one of the beauties of sport as a whole. And that is certainly true of the Ashes. Andrew Flintoff doesn't appear in the top five wicket-takers yet he bowled a matchwinning spell in the only game to have produced a positive result. Paul Collingwood isn't in the top six run scorers yet without his contribution in Cardiff, England would've headed to Lord's 1-0 down. Everything's relative and statistics, as has been proven, aren't the decisive factor all the time.
Mushi
Guest
The thing with stats is they need context, especially when looking at such a small sample one or two data points have the capacity to really skew everything. This is one of those times. Australia’s statistical dominance is due to the single 6 wicket innings in the first test. Over one third of Australian’s runs come from a single innings of their five. And they got them giving up only 6 wickets. Contrast this to England’s innings and their highest of 6 contributes just less than a quarter, an indication of a much more consistent output. So really Australia’s statistical advantage is only derived from one innings whilst England have been far more consistent in their results. If you look at the last two tests, yes Australia has scored more runs, but part of that comes from having an extra innings which ahs resulted in 9 more wickets taken by the english.
Michael
Guest
Well said well researched. Amazing really. Australia just haven't taken their chances at the last hurdle and aren't making enough 1st innings runs.