Paint it any way you want to and nothing will change. Drum up all the positive aspects you can find and that will still be the case.
Ignore every negative aspect and it will still be so.
Direct criticism at the opposition, their tactics, their pitches, the weather, their cricketing behaviour and every other facet of the Ashes from the other side of the fence and, well you should’ve caught the drift by now.
And the documentary that will inevitably be made by the jingoistic broadcasters Sky Sports will, in the final analysis, say exactly the same.
England 3, Australia 0.
A simple scoreline that will, unless Australia develop an extreme propaganda ministry, stay the same as long as records are kept and will always be the answer to any barbed comments or opinion that is directed at the victors.
Of course, it would be the same had the boot been on the other foot – that is just the way sport is – so not too much should be read into it but, if you’re that way inclined, spare me any of the buts and maybes.
If you can’t close out games, you won’t win series. Blindingly obvious and non-negotiable.
This Australian side may well have an innovative and attacking captain, in stark contrast to his counterpart, but that counts for absolutely nothing if the tools available can’t do the job.
And while Michael Clarke should feel pleased that some of his charges have shown enough to suggest the future isn’t all doom and gloom, he would be wise not to get caught up in some of the drivel spouted during the final Test at The Oval.
England’s batting on the third day was turgid and it could well have done with an extra gear but the assessments of some were so missing the point that if irony took on a human form and punched them in the face it wouldn’t have registered.
It was like seeing a little child complaining that life isn’t fair because they can’t have a bar of chocolate straight after their morning cereal.
‘‘You’re not making a game of it and we don’t like it”. Well diddums.
The home side did what they did because they could and if that was a problem, then so what.
Would it really have been that much of a surprise if Australia, in the same situation, did the same? (that doesn’t need answering).
Sportsmen across the world are pragmatic beings and they do what they have to, you only have to compare Kevin Pietersen’s contrasting efforts which illustrated the point perfectly.
That it frustrated the hell out of the visitors would have only concerned those who don’t really understand the professional mentality or who have a far too idealistic view on what should occur at any given stage.
It would’ve warmed the soul to see England flay it to all corners and set up a naturally thrilling finale to the series, however, I would’ve liked to have seen Newcastle take Manchester City to the cleaners last week but that wasn’t going to happen either.
Wanting and needing rarely occupy the same void and naivety doesn’t alter that fact.
So instead, let’s concentrate on what we can accurately base in reality and state that England will go into the return series as favourites and so they should.
Collectively they have a stronger batting side and their bowling won’t be as disadvantaged by antipodean conditions as some seem to believe.
Yes, the pitches won’t turn as much, and a few groundsmen would be asking for the sack if they do, but surfaces with more life in them, while suiting the home seamers, still have to be batted on and the evidence presented recently doesn’t indicate a top order resurgence by Clarke’s men.
While that should contradict James Faulkner’s assertion that the Australians will dictate proceedings on home turf, it is difficult to see how familiarity will manifest itself in as many disastrous sessions the second time around.
If anything weighs on Clarke’s mind in the aftermath of what’s just gone it should be that his side have been competitive but when it really came to the crunch they were unable to meet the challenge.
It could well have been so different but if you lose by 15 runs it might as well be 150 runs and the margin of victory becomes more and more irrelevant the longer you look at it.
And that margin is just how it is.
3-0.
Buk
Guest
Yeah I found it amazing Tremlett was overlooked. He was there top wicket-taker out here as I recall, and yet did not play in the first test, same as Ryan Harris in this past series.
comtede
Guest
1997 totally agree what i remember about that was after England won the first test so convincingly at Edgbaston you had pilloks like Jonathan Agnew saying it was the worst Aussie side ever etc and England were going to win easily what twaddle ! Not only Aussies guilty of hubris
comtede
Guest
Trevor Baileys dead ......some people said that when he was alive though !
Northerner
Guest
We were saved by the rain in the third Test, no doubt about it.
Northerner
Guest
@Bayman 'My comment related to FTR’s smug assertion that it was Clarke who was scrambling for the draw' I take your point, but that's the thing about five day Tests - things changes. The pitch, the weather, what the opponent does, what you do, injuries and niggles etc. The best teams - and I say England at their best are no more than a 6/10 team, if the Waugh Aussies and Lloyd Windies were 10/10 - react to these changes. They attack when required and able, and defend when required. I don't blame Clarke for wanting the light, and I though it was right to go off, but it was amusing to see him beg. (I'd have done the same.)
Northerner
Guest
Helen - you sound like a real expert, toss-wise.
Northerner
Guest
@Josh 'There been at least two series now maybe three where Australia, at least on paper have dominated England. England not getting above 400 in any innings. Australia have 4 of the top 5 batsmen. All positives. ' Not being funny, Josh, but were you in a coma in 2010/11? I seem to remember England being 500/1 in one Test, for starters. Cook double hundreds, innings victories... I didn't dream that, did I?
Northerner
Guest
@ Scott Pryde 'Come the home series, I think Australia will have the edge because playing negative Down Under won’t work. Simple as that' That's how you beat us three times by an innings last time in your backyard, Scott. Er, hang on...
Northerner
Guest
If Cook had won the toss, we'd (probably) have won the final Test. (The toss was very important in this series.) But to suggest we should have come out all guns blazing when Aus have just declared for nearly 500 is mad; we need to avoid the follow-on and then see. Plus, it ignores the fact that Australia bowled pretty well. You never, NEVER give a sucker an even break - not to entertain crowds, not to avoid media chirp, not to be fair, not because of the 'spirit' of cricket. You play to win, end of story. If you don't want to win, there's friendlies in my village every Sunday (on a lovely wicket, with great teas and two great pubs to celebrate/drown sorrows in afterwards). All that said, I thought England were frustratingly defensive throughout the series. I'd like to see us attack more, because I think that changes the whole dynamic of the game. Part of why Aussie bowled well was we allowed them to. But all THAT said, Cook didn't need to be an innovative, experimental captain; Clarke had to try stuff because he was desperate,
Northerner
Guest
Those Phil Hughes stats are astonishing - though is there a clue in the poor county cricket average? I can only think a) he can't play in England b) he can't play English bowlers (?) c) he has been abducted by aliens and replaced with a lookalike In 30 years+ of watching cricket avidly, I have never seen a top order batsman look so uncomfortable at the crease. Never, ever. It reached the point where I actualy felt sorry for him.
Northerner
Guest
@ Ryan O'Connell 'It’s the reason why we make aggressive declarations, and always go for the win.' Which declarations? The Old Trafford one - where Clarke batted his own side out of the game, with terrible Manchester weather just the other side of the Pennines? Or the Oval one, where he and his team got down on their knees and begged for the light, rather than 'going for the win' and trying to bowl England out in conditions in which they obviously thought it was fine to bat, but somehow dangerous to field? This Aussie aggression/optimism/always going for a win is part of your national myth, which is fine - but from crying over Bodyline to Trevor Chappell underarms to being roundly slagged off as defensive in India the time before last, it doesn't really stack up. You were a great team in the 1990s/early 2000s because of a Black Swan event 25-ish years earlier - Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath all being born at roughly the same time. With those guys in your team you can always 'go for the win',. because what's the risk? Let's see how that works for you over the next few years.
Northerner
Guest
English broadcasters are allowed to be gleeful when England are beating Australia. And vice versa. Listen to the 12th Man tapes - yes, they're an exaggeration, but not by a great deal. 'Run for cover you little b*stards!'
Northerner
Guest
You're right, Matt. Luck played a part, as it always does, and England were luckier in my view than Australia. If the Aussies had selected better, and worked the DRS better, who knows. On the obverse side of the coin, the first Test was really a thrashing rendered respectable by Agar; had he been given out stumped early on (as I think he should have been), and the Aussies had consequently been well-beaten in the first two, I think the wheels might have come off good and proper. We'll never know, of course. One thing that concerned me slightly - pretty much whichever team won the toss either won the game or was most likely to.
Northerner
Guest
This stuff about England ordering slow pitches to be prepared... maybe, I haven't seen any proof, just lots of conjecture. But my question would be: why? It's not like you were fielding Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts. I'd take an attack of Broad, Tremlett, Anderson, Finn and Swann bowling at your batters against anything I've seen from Oz on any quicker, bouncier track bowling at ours. I seriously think the only reason it could have been requested is to keep Australia in the games longer.
Northerner
Guest
@ Shervey 'Warney is without doubt Australia’s best cricketing mind.' Christ, is that right? Explains a lot.
Northerner
Guest
@ Liz '20/20 cricket has a lot to answer for.' I used to think that, until someone pointed out that every other test playing country in the world plays 20/20. Your problems are deeper than that.
Bearfax
Guest
Gee GI. You're a bit tough on Clarke I suspect. Saying he was a huge flop on this tour is like saying Bradman was a huge flop during the Bodyline series when he averaged over 50. Clarke did average over 40 on this tour. Not at his best? Certainly. A huge flop? I would seriously doubt.
Glenn Innes
Guest
I don't care if it is not politically correct, the truth is Clarke was a huge flop on this tour.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Chris - I disagree Test Cricket is a team sport but a team sport were a single individual can make a huge difference,.Trent Bridge and Durham were there to win if Clarke could have produced, on both occasions he failed and there goes the Ashes,
ChrisUK
Guest
I'm amused by your "they're a funny team, England" line, because I've used exactly that phrase on so many occasions. Sometimes they can look absolutely outstanding, sometimes they don't look like they have a clue what they're trying to do. In New Zealand they often didn't look like any kind of decent side, right up to the point they were in trouble, and then they were outstanding. Very odd. I do find the "conservative captaincy" meme an interesting one though. This bowling dry concept is one that works very well for them. I've watched them do this on so many occasions where a team is going very well, and England then post boundary riders to regain control, slow the run rate and then start to suffocate them. That's when they strike and often do get on the kind of roll we saw at Durham. Watching that live I could see exactly what they were doing for the simple reason I've seen them do it so often before. The difference against South Africa was that the tactic didn't work at all. But generally it is successful, an ever increasing degree of pressure and then the opponent buckles. It is why I wasn't overly panicking when Australia were 150-2 at Durham, because they were already starting to squeeze - which didn't mean they were definitely going to win of course, but it did mean that the reaction to the collapse amongst Australians didn't see how it had happened. Vaughan was spot on about England's vulnerability. It's definitely the batting. It's full of fine players but as a unit it's brittle. There is Australia's opportunity for the return, if they can exploit it.