The last time a side won back the Ashes in Australia after being losing the first two Tests was in 1936/37, when Don Bradman was captain and rescued a seemingly lost series with a sequence of blazing innings.
There are no Bradmans in the England side. Right now, England’s best batsman Alastair Cook, who rivals Wally Hammond for Test centuries, is playing withe composure of an ice skater who has lost his boots.
The basis for Cook’s game is patience and a careful choice of a limited range of strokes.
But in this series so far Cook has played like a batsman who knows (or believes) he is not going to last long, so he has indulged himself in shots that are best played in his dreams.
Not shots that should be played in the opening overs of an innings with the new ball zipping around.
For reasons that are not entirely understandable, the England batsmen, with a couple of exceptions, have lost all their form and their nerve to tough it out. Admittedly, this has in part been due to some ferocious bowling from Michael Johnson.
Johnson reacts emotionally to what is happening with his bowling. The secret to taming him is to tough out his good deliveries and wait for his arm and his confidence to fall.
Instead of letting short pitched deliveries whistle through to the wicket-keeper, the England top order, not instinctive and confident hookers have tried to thrash the deliveries out of the ground.
The result has been a series of catches at long leg which have been splendidly caught. But the catches should never have been offered in the first place.
It is hard to avoid the accusation that England came into the series in an arrogant frame of mind, with the belief that they only had to turn up, as in the past two series, and Australia would hand the game to them.
Let’s imagine now, though, that at Perth the England batsmen start to play professionally like they have in previous series.
And then imagine that a decent score is posted after England win the toss for the first time in this series.
And then Jimmy Anderson reaches back to the form of the past couple of years and produces some magical spells of the swing and length bowling that has put him, over the years, into the Alec Bedser-class for great England medium-pacers.
Can this Australian side, which is riding so high right now, continue to play with the belief and aggression that has been lacking for some years?
The fact of the matter is that in this series England has not put Australia under any great pressure.
Has time run out, very quickly, for an England side that relies on the great players of past series? Are they past it? Or have these players, especially Anderson, got a couple of last hurrahs in them?
What all this means, as far as I can work out, is that a team (Australia) who many experts, including Australians, thought might lose the series 5-0 is now in the enviable situation of being able to reverse these predictions and create a 5-0 winning series of their own.
There is still the possibility (in theory essentially) that England could win the next three Tests, and do a Bradman.
A draw and two wins by England would mean that they retain the Ashes.
Both these possibilities, on the evidence of the first two Tests where the Australians performed magnificently, look most unlikely.
In my post before the first Test I argued that Michael Clarke had ‘to make Waugh, not love’.
He and his players have certainly done that, to such an extent that the pushing and jostling might just be getting a bit out of hand (or shoulder).
But there is no doubt in my mind that the aggressive nature of the Australians has unsettled the England stars who have been too used to having things their own way in past series.
I like the way, too, that the Australian batsmen have generally been looking to attack the English bowlers, with even Chris Rogers not afraid to strike fours if the opportunity presents itself.
Clarke has handled his bowlers splendidly. His use of Steve Smith when Ian Bell comes in has been brilliant and successful.
You have the feeling that Darren Lehman belongs to and espouses the Australian method which is to attack when in trouble.
There has been a modern tendency, epitomised with the coaching of John Buchanan, to complicate the uncomplicated equation that the side that takes 20 wickets and score the most runs will win the Test.
Ian Chappell, for one, always argued that the elevation of the coach was the crucial element in a winning Test side was a fallacy and folly.
Shane Warne, as a player, was adamant that Chappell was absolutely correct in his dismissal of the Buchanan nonsense about boot camps and statistics and complicated match plans.
This Australian side resembles the successful sides of former years in that the players are the leaders, not the coaching staff. Whether batting or bowling, the players and their captain are dictating the terms of the game.
This was always the Australian way right up to the time when Bob Simpson was appointed coach and the cult of the coach started to be highlighted.
Modern coaching methods, in most of the major sports, are going back to the past in a way in that the senior players form a leadership group and this group, rather than the coaches who are their for technical advice in the main, takes on the burden of driving the side to excellent results.
Clarke seems to have tapped into this leadership group notion with Brad Haddin, Shane Watson, Peter Siddle and Ryan Harris leading the way forward with him.
There have been calls for a fourth fast bowler to be included and Nathan Lyon to be dropped to take advantage of the bouncy, fast Perth pitch.
This would be a silly thing to do. The Fremantle Doctor and a bouncy pitch could make Nathan Lyon a tougher proposition than another fast bowler.
The adage, too, that you don’t change a winning side is part of the conventional wisdom of sport because this is the truth of the matter. It is sporting wisdom. Let’s put away the nonsensical rotation policy into the rubbish bin of stupid ideas.
The Australian IX that has won the first two Tests of the 2013 Ashes series so splendidly deserves their chance for the glory of finishing off the job by finishing off the seemingly shattered England side.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Spiro...you need to remove the splinters! It's a done and dusted! Get the best voice from the upcoming series of Biggest loser and get her on stage! Shut the gate the horse has bolted! Engrave the URN, RETURN THE URN!
Morgan Popham
Roar Pro
They don't make for pretty viewing do they Eddy lad?! You'd think the way the guy struts around he was the second coming of Sir Donald!
Eddy Bramley
Roar Pro
Not much Morgan, except developing a reputation as the worst converter of fifties into hundred in test cricket. Have you seen his stats?
JohnB
Guest
Chris, at the time he was picked for Test cricket he'd played 13 first class games. He'd had a very good 2009/10 season for NSW in 8 games making 700 plus runs at 77 with 4 tons, boosting his overall average at the time to 56. You can quibble that some not outs boosted the 2009/10 average and that a lot of those runs were on easy paced pitches, against weaker attacks and made when batting at 7 or 8 under limited pressure - but he still made them. Many other players have had one good season and not been catapulted into the test side - that's my point. Probably fair to say many others have had a good season and have had a much better technique than Smith had at that time without getting into the test side. His bowling to that point hadn't been anything to write home about incidentally. I hope the promising signs of development in his batting that there were in England continue. He's certainly good in the field and able to bowl a wicket taking ball as a part time bowler. But I don't think it's rubbish to say he got a pretty favourable run from the selectors.
Morgan Popham
Roar Pro
Haha! Well said Craig Joubert
Morgan Popham
Roar Pro
Agree Watson and Johnson would have to fight for the title of biggest tosser. Out of those three its only Pietersen and Johnson that can afford to walk around with egos. What has Shane Watson done in test cricket?
Bearfax
Guest
You may be right about Hughes Felix, but my gut says this kid will get there and prove to be one of the best. Despite the claim that some just cant make the leap to test cricket, it is in fact quite rare for a batsman with Hughes age and first class average not to make it in test cricket. Some will raise Bevan as an example, but in fact Bevan never had the opportunity to show that he could make it. He played tests for less than two years in his mid 20s, was decided he couldnt handle the bouncers and was never given another shot despite having the best first class average in 20 years in Oz of over 57. Hayden was considered not up to it because of a weakness against spin and giving easy catches on the on side mid wicket. Lets get it in perspective though. Hughes can play test cricket, has scored centuries and scored two fifties and a 45 in his last 8 test innings. His average of 33 would be a serious concern for someone in their 30s in age, but Hughes is only 25. Remember Geoff Marsh's test career average was under 33 and we considered him a good opener (I personally didnt). And Marsh had a much weaker first class average. Hughes reminds me a lot of Hayden in his development. Flawed but an awesome talent, hindered mainly by self belief. He's got his faults, but every player does, but he has been targeted more concerning his flaws because we have had such high expectations that he was the next big thing and because unlike in the recent two tests, his flaws are not being hidden by other batsmen's brilliance in winning us games. For a 25 year old Hughes test average is not that poor. Steve Smith is only 6 months younger than Hughes and he has a test average almost identical and a poorer first class average. Sure he's played fewer tests, but it only takes one break through match and the monkey is suddenly off your back. Hughes had that opportunity in England when he was well on the way to a century (81 not out) but ran out of partners and was lost in the glare of Agar's performance. If he had scored that century we might not be having his discussion. Hughes is like a 6 cylinder car spluttering on 3-4 cylinders. We occasionally see the sheer class of this kid and certainly in Shield cricket, where he knows he's one of the very best, his confidence is high and he produces the goods. Self belief and confidence being shown in him are what is required. He'll get there, I have no doubt. But the public wont believe it until he makes one or two of those break through performances. I think you'll see him then handle spin bowling and the swinging fast on side ball with much more aplomb and confidence. As for Maddinson. he is the same age as Silk, just turning 22, has played more first class matches than Silk and has a slightly better average. He's raw but again you cant expect a 22 year old to show the maturity of a 30 year old cricketer. And yet already he is better than most Shield batsmen and is improving as time moves on. He may be flashy, impetuous....they said the same things about Warner and Smith and might I add when they were older. He'll learn patience and look out when this kid really gets going. I think he could be the best of the lot presently playing other than Clarke. Silk is classy and as I suggested in the past has a Mark Taylor look about him. He's an accumulator of runs but I doubt that he will devastate an attack like Maddinson will. Both though I'm sure will play test cricket
Aussie in London
Guest
hahaha Leslie Nielsen... so true
Felix
Guest
Bearfax, I'll reply to your last post here - I'm not convinced with the Bailey selection either and I think you are fairly spot on with some of your suggested players. I watched Silk at AB Field up here in Brisbane recently, he's extremely impressive, appears to have a very good temperament and consistent routine. I can't agree with you, however, on Maddinson or Hughes. For one it's too soon and for the other, test are a bridge too far. I know he's doing well in the Shield, as he was before he was picked last time and failed. He just doesn't have it at test level unfortunately, which given his age and promising first class form, is a shame.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
Yes, but they we much more used to bowling on those sorts of pitches (and likewise batting on them, I think they won the toss or were sent in and made a heap?). They felt more at home there and could bring more of their knowledge to get the most out of it.
RWB
Guest
I reckon they had both better pack their sunscreen.
RWB
Guest
Good sledge POM IN OZ. LOL Nicely written mate.
twodogs
Guest
Problem for the poms bearfax- If they win the toss would they bowl first? If we win the toss would we send 'em in whereas wwe'd most likely bat anyday of the week. Would you bat first against a bowler who destroyed your chances previous two games? I think in that sense they'll struggle either way. You know the saying about always batting first. I have a hunch if the poms get the toss they will bowl in the hope for some carnage against us and Broad is a very capable dude now so it's possible.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
There was a few years where the WACA was slow and turning rather than fast and bouncing. They'd got soil from a different source or something. Then they dug it all up and replaced it with the original soil to restore the character. But I still think that India largely won that on the back of guys like Ishant and Zaheer didn't they?
Bearfax
Guest
Trouble is The Bush, that there are now five old heads in the batting line up Rogers, Clarke, Watson, Haddin and Bailey and quite frankly only one of them has any serious future in tests if his back can stand up to it (maybe Haddin if he continues this late blooming). Australia has the chance to blood one or two of the younger batsmen who quite frankly have better averages than some playing in the test and have greater potential. Would Australia have lost these first two tests if Maddison or Silk were opening and Hughes in for Bailey. I think not because it was Clarke, Warner and Haddin doing the damage with the bat. And just perhaps those two younger batsmen just may have given Australia an even easier set of victories. Rogers, Watson and Bailey are riding on the coat tails of other batsmen's performances and because we are winning, no one is now question the worth of those players like they did when we were losing. It gets lost in the glare of victory. I even saw one TV sports item with Bailey being interviewed and being congratulated on his performance....eh?
Richard
Guest
I can quite easily make a judgement about Shane Watson, When was the last time he really contributed to Australia winning a test match!? He is only there for the sake of stability, his experience and because our batting stocks are low, not his actual performance. Plus his body language is terrible.
Richard
Guest
There are three certainties in this life- death, taxes and Hughes failing at test criicket Since Hughes was dropped the side has looked a lot more settled and has developed into a winning combination. Don't expect Hughes to be sighted around the test for year or two if ever.
Jo M
Guest
I can guarantee you there is no overconfidence from the baggy greens, maybe from some supporters who are glad their team is finally doing what we all know they are capable of. The captain and coach wouldn't allow that at all. Now we are upstarts? Really? Your captain has actually looked quite clueless compared to ours. Your "best spin bowler in the world" has an average of something like 99 and your best pace bowler is well over 40. Neither even look like they want to be here, same with your superstar batsman. I hope you are right and your team actually decides to play cricket, but the way it is going I can't see it.
Squirrel
Guest
Its all over red rover. The Poms are shot.
Richard
Guest
I've never been convinced by Smith, he's only there because he's from NSW. However the team is winning so I wouldn't be dropping him just now. However I think his technique is flawed like Hughes and once other teams work him out he won't last.