HENRY: Forget the gloom, the Aussies made progress

The Australian cricket team, coaching staff and selectors just have a couple of months now to get better. But the big question is “how much better?”

Before the northern series, England were spruiking a 5-zip bottom line. On the back of each team’s recent sub-continental form, that may have been an underestimation.

Australia’s strengths were seen as principally with the ball and the obvious problem was simply the depth and breadth of the batting: getting enough runs to defend against Jimmy Anderson, Steve Finn, Stuart Broad and Graham Swann on pitches doctored for maximum advantage.

(The ECB Head Grounds Supervisor had admitted in a video interview that pitches were prepared to maximise the skills within the England team and he very happy to do so. Times have certainly changed from when a local groundsmen would be petrified if told by authorities to make a strip to a menu )

This was the burning issue.

In the wash up, the bowlers could, in the main, be satisfied.

The Agar experiment should have stayed on the plate. Maybe the mad professor thinking behind that significant selectorial brain snap was that he would stiffen the batting.

When you bat 11, it is nice that you should maybe take a few wickets, especially on pitches made to order – to spin.

It could also be argued that the selection of an inexperienced teenage bowler cost the Urn even as it rewrote batting records.

England’s batting contained the Aussie seamers, but rarely dominated. Cook and Root were ruffled more often than settled, especially when Ryan Harris was charging in.

England’s middle order production was sporadic while their tail was almost indismissable, and that is where Australia will have to improve the most with the ball.

Oh, for a wily legspinner to whirr away the pesky tail! Or let’s bounce the crap out of them, at least; make them score off the back foot.

How demoralising is it to repeatedly see your prime fast bowlers being flayed through the covers by tailenders. Can we please set a 20/20 field to Swann and play some chin music, preferably the Ring Cycle.

There was not enough ruthlessness in the approach to the bottom half of the order. Perhaps the Australian bowling coach needs to bone up on his tactics because what the seamers contributed in control and depth they certainly lost in intricate methods for specific batsmen.

The planning must have depth all the way down 11. When you lose a Test match by 14 runs and have let the opposing tail drag a lead from less than 200 to over to 350, it is time to have a good long look at how you let that happen.

And it happened all series.

The discussion of this point brings to front of mind the Stuart Broad incident.

If Broad had been given out, as he was so clearly, Australia would have won the Test match. From that start, they would have won the series.

I cannot understate the importance of that disgraceful decision and the processes that engulfed it. Much gnashing has followed.

From that time in the third innings, Broad prospered and the lead became too much.

Despite Michael Clarke’s splendid on field reaction to the non-dismissal there were clear signals of deflated body language from the troops for the next hour as the game slipped beyond reach.

On such incidents, matches and series are decided IF the teams are closely matched. These two teams are closer than the scoreline.

The loss of the First Test lead to the diabolical performance in the Second. Teams that lack mental resilience, suffer from inexperience, if you like, can produce such negative blow backs.

This Australian team entered the series dishevelled and dismayed. Lord’s proved those traits valid.

The fact that Australia finished the series with moral victories, strengthened batting and an opponent with gloves up defending body blows and launching occasional attacking salvos is very encouraging.

Chris Rogers looked the unruffled opening part. He played Anderson with a surety that gave the following batsmen a growing opportunity to survive and prosper.

David Warner was paradoxical, as he always will be with a pugilistic mindset to run scoring.

He looks much safer and likely to play long innings with Rogers at the other end setting an example of long form orthdoxy and discipline.

Shane Watson was enigmatic. Once again a single big innings has kept his flag flying.

Had he been given out when palpably LBW for 10, he would not be taking part in the Gabba Test, such is his selling price.

His bowling was valuable as he kept the lid welded on as the strike bowlers rested.

Did I mention he was enigmatic? His position will be reviewed, regularly, forever.

The captain was not at his dominant best and one wonders just how what the impact is of the failing spine on his technique and concentration.

Steve Smith made advances; Usman Khawaja needs some confidence from the selectors, as does Phil Hughes. They are players with talent and the coach must do his job to bring it to the surface.

The seam bowling has obvious depth and Nathan Lyon proved, when selected, that he is learning what Test cricket is about.

Brad Haddin was belligerent with the bat and proved he was the best Australian gloveman. If Ed Cowan can make some scores in the early Shield games, he will be reconsidered.

As a whole, the Australians went forward but the key to being a better performed team will come primarily between the ears.

Experience is the storms you go through and survive, battered and shaken maybe but able to describe the tempest and be able to better ride it out next time around.

With proper introspection, something Australian players, coaches and administrators have not been very good at in the past four or five years, they can use the storm power.

I can’t see Darren Lehmann sugar coating any defects. One of the advantages of ‘back to back’ series’ is that Australia have the memories of this loss fresh on their minds.

Using the agonising near things as well as the Lords thrashing to play those scenarios better next time is key to this current group reaching their potential.

Their potential is good enough to beat this England team on pitches that won’t see Graeme Swann grinning quite so wide mouthed.

Shane Warne’s microphone assessment of Michael Clarke completely out pointing his opposite Captain Cook (of Chelmsford rather than Whitby) may have been a tad patriotic given the bottom line, but he had a point of sorts.

Cook needs only to direct everyone to the result as a defense and that is fair enough – for the moment.

England had the best of the luck, the umpiring and ultimately the weather. 3-0 was more a refraction than a reflection of the gap in ability.

2-1 may have been about right.

England were the better team, with more experience and mental resilience, but Australia will have gained in both those areas during the last five Tests and will be a tougher unit come Brisbane in November.

The half glass full guy in me definitely sees a stronger Australia at home and a continued self-interest from the individuals in the England team.