During my month long tour of London, seven countries in Europe and Mumbai, one thing I missed was writing for The Roar.
In fact, I was in London for the final day of The Oval Test when bad light helped Australia to draw the match, losing the Ashes 0-3 instead of 0-4. But that was probably the only good luck that came the way of the touring Aussies.
I am not making excuses but look at the facts:
• Australia lost the first Test at Trent Bridge, Nottingham by 14 runs. It could have gone either way.
• Geoff ‘Henry’ Lawson has written this many times (yes, I occasionally did read The Roar overseas!), but Stuart Broad being given not out when he was definitely out in the second innings of the first Test, made a significant difference in a match which was won and lost by only14 runs.
• England were lucky to save the third Test at Manchester due to bad weather conditions. To recall, Australia had declared at 7 for 527 (Michael Clarke 187) and led by 159 runs in the first innings.
They declared again at 7 for 172, setting England 332 to win. The home team had lost three of their best batsmen for 37 when weather conditions came to their rescue. Funny things happen in cricket, but the chance of Australia winning was much higher than the home team. So with luck, Australia could have tied the series 2-2.
• Australia took first innings lead in four of the five Tests; leading by 65 runs in the first Test at Nottingham, by a huge 159 in the third Test at Manchester, by 32 runs in the fourth Test at Chester-le-Street and by 115 runs in the final Test at The Oval.
• The visitors suffered more from umpiring and DRS decisions than the home team. No ifs and buts about it.
There were many negatives for the Australian team but there were positives as well:
• Ryan Harris captured 24 wickets at 19.58 in four Tests, his best being 7 for 117 in the fourth Test at Chester-le-Street. His bowling average and spell of 7 for 117 were the best from both sides in this series. He was the worthy Man of the Series along with England’s consistent batsman Ian Bell.
• Shane Watson, Michael Clarke, Chris Rogers and Steven Smith scored centuries; Clarke’s 187 was the highest in the series from both teams.
• Surprise package Smith hit five sixes in the series. No one else from either team could manage three sixes.
Despite all the statistics, England deserved to win because they combined well and performed at their peak at the right time. Broad and Bell were outstanding.
However, there were definite plusses for Michael Clarke’s men on the tour. On home conditions, Australia can surprise Alastair Cook’s men in the Ashes down under this summer.
soapit
Guest
just wait till you get a 5-0.
Troy
Guest
Leave out the DRS reviews - it doesn't matter to the argument. If Australia get 15 more runs in the 1st Test, and it doesn't rain in the 3rd Test, it's very likely a 2-2 scoreline. Doesn't mean at all that England didn't deserve to win, just that the margin between 3-0 and 2-2 was relatively fine.
Matt H
Roar Guru
I really want to get into this arguement again, so here goes. Australia zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Spooky
Guest
+2
Silver_Sovereign
Guest
Australia could definitely have won that Ashes series had the weather held in the third test, Haddin survived in the first, a few decisions going there way etc. Lack of experience and confidence didn't help either. Certainly much better effort than their Indian excursion
JimmyB
Guest
Well done Brendon, you've outdone yourself mate. If were being honest 3-0 flattered Australia. ;)
Disco
Roar Guru
That's won the argument has it? You're the epitome of a sore loser Brendon.
Brendon
Guest
"You should never underestimate the importance of seizing a moment. What England were good at was winning when they got the chance, and not losing when they didn’t. A case in point was the final Test where England very nearly snatched it. In the big moments, England did it. Series after series England had Australia in trouble, only for someone in the Aussie side to do something and take it away. That’s the difference. It was then, it is now. Saying its not deserved is pointless, it’s what happened. We were told it time and again over the years by Australians. Sauce for the goose." Seizing the moment and winning and avoiding a loss is hardly dominating like the West Indies did. Rarely did England have Australia in trouble from 1989-2007. Never enough that even if England did manage to get a few more test wins that it would have changed the outcome of a series. Even the 1997 scoreline of 3-2 to Australia was flattering to England. Next closest England got was 3-1. Even going 7 matches without a test win against England is a lot less than England's 17 matches in a row without a win from 1986-1993.
Dave
Guest
What bowling stocks, they're all injured
Dave
Guest
Here here
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Welcome back Kersi. As you will have noticed, there is a fair amount of negativity round these 'ere parts.
Varun
Guest
I am with you too Kersi, good article mate
JimmyB
Guest
You know that you're clutching at straws when one of the positives of the series for Australia is that Smith hit 5 sixes. Whoopee do dah!
sheek
Roar Guru
Kersi - Welcome Back!
JimmyB
Guest
Is that a whinge BargeArse?
JimmyB
Guest
I didn't no, was it good?
JimmyB
Guest
+1
craig Sonnberg
Guest
No I think the English still would of found a way to win as we are a good side and rebuilding as the Players are playing for Lehman look at the Nottingham and Manchester tests so the future will be good as our bowling keeping and fielding all good there But our battng was not the best at times but we will win in oz this summr
ChrisUK
Guest
You should never underestimate the importance of seizing a moment. What England were good at was winning when they got the chance, and not losing when they didn't. A case in point was the final Test where England very nearly snatched it. In the big moments, England did it. Series after series England had Australia in trouble, only for someone in the Aussie side to do something and take it away. That's the difference. It was then, it is now. Saying its not deserved is pointless, it's what happened. We were told it time and again over the years by Australians. Sauce for the goose. If I'd said before this series that Cook, Trott and Prior would have a poor Ashes, that Pietersen would average below 40, that Anderson would be patchy, that the number six spot would fail - you'd have fancied the chances of a win. And yet it was within a couple of overs of 4-0. Australia deserved nothing because they didn't win a Test. They got close once, and delayed a declaration too long once. There's the difference. It's tiny, but it's huge. Hard luck stories are just that, and if it sounds like I have no sympathy, it's because it's true. Been on the other side often enough to know that what ifs count for nothing.
smithha
Roar Pro
Funnily I had this very argument with an English lad last night. After a fair few beers, we finally agreed that while 3-0 flattered England slightly, they deserved to win. But if you were to make a team of the series, I'd say that 5 Aussies would make the XI - Rogers, Clarke, Haddin, Harris and Siddle. 3-0 paints a bad picture for the Aussies, but it doesn't do them justice. As for this Summer........ 2-2 and England retain the urn.