Encouraged by the fifth Test? No, it’s the deadest of dead rubbers

I don’t typically believe in the notion that ‘dead rubbers’ mean nothing.

The name is given to a sporting contest in which the series result has already been decided – particularly Test match cricket. Yet for the individuals involved, there is usually still a lot to play for, as representing your country is always an honour that demands you give your best.

Furthermore, in modern cricket, you’re always playing for your spot, and it would be brave, naïve or stupid – possibly all three – to not always play as well as you possibly can.

I understand that for the team that has already won it can be difficult to maintain intensity, focus and passion when the objective has already been achieved. However, professional pride – not to mention ability – still plays a large role, and athletes traditionally want to perform at their highest possible level.

For the losing team, much can be gained from winning a dead rubber, as the elusive qualities of confidence, momentum and ‘winning habits’ are all up for grabs in a game that may otherwise mean very little.

There have been two dead rubber matches in Ashes history that have ended up proving extremely beneficial for the Australian Test cricket team.

In 1987, under Allan Border’s leadership, Australia won the dead rubber match in Sydney, and it’s been identified by many in the team as the start of the turnaround for Australian cricket, after some very lean years. Australia went on to become a cricketing powerhouse again, and this single match is thought to have been the beginning of that ascendancy.

Likewise, with the series already lost in 2013, the last Test was a another dead rubber. In that game, Steve Smith announced his arrival by scoring 138 not out, and it was the start of a superb run of form which eventually saw him named the best Test batsman in the world. Considering he has also now been anointed Australia’s captain, it’s difficult to believe that dead rubber game didn’t mean anything.

And so we come to the fifth Test at The Oval; yet another game in which the Ashes series has already been decided.

Sadly, despite Australia’s dominance in the game, the match is the deadest of dead rubbers, with little that the baggy greens can legitimately take out of the win.

What positives have come from this game? What have we learnt from this Test?

That Chris Rogers has excellent patience, is a fantastic leaver of the ball, and is Australia’s rock at the top of the order? That’s great – we already knew all that. Worse still, he’s retiring anyway, so none of that even matters.

We also learnt that Dave Warner is a very damaging – but risk-taking – batsman, and when conditions are in his favour, is a real handful for bowlers. Again, not exactly a revelation to Australian cricket followers.

This Test highlighted that Steve Smith is one of the best Test batsmen going around at the moment, and has a hunger for big scores, but that the team may have an over-reliance on his production. Thanks for the scoop.

Michael Clarke is horribly out of form with the bat and looks like his back is hindering him greatly, but remains an astute and attacking captain. Sadly, this is not new news, and like Rogers he’s retiring anyway.

We discovered that Adam Voges knows English conditions well, plays off his pads with confidence, and may have been a solid performer in Test cricket if selected earlier in his career. He also turns 36 very soon, so these findings would seem a little redundant.

It would appear that wicketkeeper Peter Nevill will be a very good replacement for Brad Haddin – though I’m hoping this fact was unearthed and recognised at Lord’s.

From a bowling perspective, it’s clear that Mitch Johnson and Mitch Starc can be as explosive as they are expensive, while Nathan Lyon is extremely underrated. Tick and tick.

Which leaves us with just two personnel things we possibly did learn from this Test:

Firstly, that Peter Siddle’s line, length and economy may be worth more to the Australian team than he’s given credit for. Though to be fair, Josh Hazlewood was chosen for the exact same reasons, so it’s not like selectors just learnt this; they simply may have gotten the selection wrong.

Secondly, that Mitch Marsh can have a positive impact in Test cricket.

The younger Marsh still isn’t good enough to hold his spot as a frontline bowler or a frontline batsman, and that will annoy plenty of people who believe an all-rounder should be able to tick one of those two boxes. However, he’s shown that he has plenty of potential and it may be worth sticking with him.

So sadly, this dead rubber didn’t really reveal much that we didn’t already know. Nor is it likely that much confidence or momentum will be achieved from the victory.

As such, Australia will have to console themselves with sending Chris Rogers and Michael Clarke out as winners in their last Test. Which is fantastic from a sentimentality point-of-view, but completely worthless for the short- and long-term future of the Australian Test side.

It’s evident that there are more interesting times – and selections – ahead.