To my dearest English cricket fan friends, I know you have been feeling pretty good about yourselves lately, but I thought I might put pen to paper to remind you of a few home truths. First and foremost – we are still Australia.
The country you have hated throughout years because of our abundance of sporting talent and never say die attitude has not changed that much. Sure, after the Adelaide Test it seemed like we had undergone a collective lobotomy. We chopped and changed selections; we did not take our chances and worst of all we did not even put up a fight. In Perth we showed we are still Australia.
The uber talent (Warne, Gilchrist, Taylor and Hayden) may now be employed by Channel Nine rather than Cricket Australia, but the spirit will not change.
While you are no doubt feeling chipper about the last decade – the 2003 rugby World Cup, the 2005 and 2009 Ashes – you will notice a common theme. Before I point out the commonality, it would be ungracious of me not to congratulate you on these famous victories. Seriously, well played chaps.
The common theme is that despite your apparent dominance you had to fight until the very end of extra time and until the last ball of the last Test of the series to win these classic contests.
Even these weaker Australian sides do not and never will surrender without a fight. It’s not the Australian way. Even when Australia has not been winning the Ashes, we have still been rising from them.
Border, Taylor and Waugh did not build a culture that will simply vanish overnight, or ever. The reason being that they did not create this culture it was passed on them from Bradman, Benaud, Lawry and Chappell. The culture is as old as the baggy green itself.
A couple of other brief facts.
The core of this team that has formed in the post Warne/McGrath era has been written off a few times. However, their results would suggest that they are actually a pretty decent team. It was only a matter of weeks ago that they had all but won the first Test against India (the team many consider to be the best team in the world) on their home soil.
Only the tactical incompetence of Ponting kept India alive. Perhaps even more telling was Australia’s dominant win against the current number one Test side in the world, South Africa, again on enemy soil in 2009.
As Peter Roebuck identified within the first couple of days in Brisbane, these two teams are incredibly evenly matched. The fourth and fifth best teams in the world have played pretty much to form.
Both sides’ batting line ups have displayed a certain fragility and the bowlers have had good days and bad. Both teams in Perth rediscovered some defining traits from the past two decades. Australia found its mongrel and England produced two vintage batting collapses.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the great “G’s” of Australian cricket in Melbourne and Sydney will be theatres for epic and close matches – not stages for your encore performance as you may have hoped. While you may be basking in our warm sun, you will not be basking in victory just yet.
Boxing day, game on. We are Australia!
Scott Adams
Guest
Anything to add to your original post, Joe? Or are you struggling under the sheer weight of hubris to get your fingers onto the keyboard?
Martin
Guest
Boxing day, game on. We are Australia! Er yes. I think your Captain proved that you are indeed Australia.
Nambucco Deliria
Guest
All looks a bit previous now doesn't it?
sunshinecoast
Guest
Yea no that is completely fair enough Joe I should have made it clear i wasnt really reffering to your article as being chest beating etc. I was more meaning alot of the general talk coming out in the media etc and some posts on the roar since the win.
Fisher Price
Guest
I'd see Punter going as being a positive.
Fisher Price
Guest
Sounds about right.
Fisher Price
Guest
I did see the television news coverage was ramped up considerably after Perth Day 2.
Fisher Price
Guest
Just like the Australian press with its Pom-bashing articles.
abby
Guest
Actually, I've been living in London throughout this Ashes tournament and think that the English press is incredibly one sided and filled with hatred.
JohnB
Guest
The trouble with the "he didn't need to bowl" posts is that, for the Perth game, they're completely correct. Sure Smith didn't bowl at all, but then Swann (I think the second ranked bowler in the world) got 9 overs in the second innings, out of 86, as part of a 4 man attack. That suggests it may not have been ideal for a spinner (or that Swann was having a very bad day). You could readily argue that in England's first innings it was about at the point where you'd bring in a spinner when wickets began to fall. The pace bowlers had had 12 overs at the Englishmen on the first evening, then started the next morning with another 12. It's hardly snubbing the spinner to start with the pace bowlers. If they'd continued without success, fine, bring the spinner in. However, from that point a spinner really wasn't needed. The pace bowlers took 10 wickets for just over 100 runs. If you have 4 pace bowlers to rotate, and they're producing like that, what does a spinner add? At what point would you automatically throw in a top class spinner while that was happening? The England second innings called for a spinner even less - again 10 wickets for 100 once the first one went down. Indeed, they hardly needed the 4th pace bowler (Siddle bowled only 4 overs) let alone a spinner. On wicketkeepers, the days of anyone picking a pure keeper are pretty long gone. Australia does have plenty of depth at keeper though. Paine has got to second in line now and looks good. Hartley and Wade are both very good and would not be out of place in a test side. Manou is probably gone now. Ronchi seems to be more a one day type player. The NSW second string, Neville has made some runs this year but I can't comment on his keeping. Still, at least 4 good class keepers will keep (no pun intended) you going a while.
JohnB
Guest
Tommy - the Perth pitch played the way it always used to. That isn't doctoring. On the other hand you're right that it's premature to get too excited over one win. You're hilariously wrong though about England having stuck by their players when they went through their extended bad patch of Ashes series from 1989 to 2002/3 - 1989 (6 tests) 29 players (admittedly there were some rebel tour issues affecting some); 1990/1 (5) 16 (you don't have as many choices when on tour!); 1993 (6) 24; 1994/5 (5) 16; 1997 (6) 18; 1998/9 (5) 17; 2001 (5) 19; 2002/3 (5) 17. They may have stuck by a core of players in each series, but they chopped and changed the others very readily indeed.
Martin
Guest
What is rubbish is the fact that he states that ANZAC day commenmorates all those who died in military operations for their respective countries. Thats rubbish and so is your condescending attitude. But really you're here for the link. I see.
Cattledog
Guest
Brave call Tommy. You may well be beating your chest, or look a complete tosser in a month or two!
Cattledog
Guest
You poor misguided fellow, Martin. Seiran's right. It's not rubbish at all. I served and I find no disrespect with regard to sport and war, but more correctly, sport and many different conflicts short of war. Why do you think the Wallabies visit war cemetaries before matches? Wake up mate and smell the roses! There are actually many similies between sport and war, or at least the tactics employed.
Martin
Guest
but now more broadly commemorates all those who died and served in military operations for their respective countries. Rubbish. Either way any references to sport and war is misguided and not to mention highly disrespectful to those who served.
Seiran
Guest
'Our Anzac Day is actually in memory of a defeat' No it's not. It was originally a national day of rememberance to honour those who fought in Gallipoli, but now more broadly commemorates all those who died and served in military operations for their respective countries. Either way, it's not about victory or defeat.
jameswm
Guest
I did check the stats - always helps when you're planning on relying on them! tommy - India weren't trying to milk Krejza - they were trying to humiliate him. They smashed him, slogged him in fact, early, but he came back and showed his mettle. I gthink that's something to do that in your first test. Blame the selectors? And the "coach", and the "captain". You were saying the cricketers aren't there - well, I disagree. I can't see any reason why Ferguson and Khawaja, given the same opportunities, can't be a better test batsman than say a Trott or a Cook. And when you're talking about what WILL happen - I always take predictions with a grain of salt. They tend to be thrown back in your face when they're wrong.
Joe Karsay
Expert
Sunshinecoast - It was a great win let's enjoy it! As for the "chest beating emotional babble talk", you will see from my previous articles - http://www.theroar.com.au/author/joe-karsay/ - I don't always see the Aussie team through rose coloured glasses!
tommy
Guest
nice post, you took your time to look over the stats and nice job :) ok, so being a stat man like myself, i would happily prefer panesar stats over hauritz. This is for the fact that hes played alot more tests against alot more countrys and a much bigger variety of situations. Look at husseys average at halfway through his career and look at them now in the test arena. Now look at panesars early introduction into test cricket - in india - and looked how well he did out there. Although krezja got 8 in one innings, he went at a ridiculously high econ rate and maybe you are being a bit naive here. He might have got 8 wkts but india got krezja kept on bowling to them with his econ rate, a bit like what england did to hauritz in england. Outrageous thinking ? No i dont think so. Blame the selectors why dont you ! It sounds so weak.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Paine played two tests in India recently. His keeping was near flawless and he scored runs almost every innings, getting us out of holes. I don't see keeping as something England has over Australia. How have Prior and Haddin gone head-to-head this series? Hodge retired from 4-dayers because he never got picked. North is gone now thank god, so we'll see if Smith lives up to the "promise", that most dangerous of words. He can't be any less of a contributor than North, though. The last time Panesar was here he was beaten into oblivion. I don't know that he's ever recovered. He's taken 126 wickets in 39 tests - that's all of 3.2 wickets per test - at an average approaching 35. Hauritz has 63 wickets in 17 tests - 3.7 wickets per test - at an average a whole 0.6 higher than Panesar, and is deemed to be ordinary. How does that work? Hauritz averages 25 with the bat in tests, plus two recent first class tons, and Monty averages 5. Who is the better fielder? I'm afraid that based on that, there's no doubt Hauritz is a better value test cricketer than Monty. Krejza's economy rate is high because Inidia went at him all match all guns blazing. He responded by coming back and taking 12 wickets in the match - that's right, in India, on debut. Talk about a tough initiation. The selectors then jettison him after one more match because Punter doesn't like him. The real problem was Punter can't captain to spinners. We don't have Warne there setting his own fields and plans any more. Our team is falling into the pack with pup, Punter and Huss in fact. Pup is young and will only disappear if form (or lack of it) warrants it. Huss hasn't been much use the last two years until this series, and Punter hasn't been much use for 2 years. Our batsmen who have been doing the job have been Watson and Katich, more than the others. They need a new captain, some common sense selection, and sensible future planning. And Johnson to bowl like that more regularly than once every 10 innings. They can come right back to the top very soon, if they get a few things right. Problem is, I think the current selectors, coach and captain will stop them from reaching this potential. The problem isn't the cattle - the cattle's there. It's the hierarchy.