Reading some of the reaction to England’s defeat in the Ashes, you could be forgiven for thinking they had committed a serious crime.
As ever, at the top of the scale there’s been the usual knee-jerk nonsense: ‘they’ve got no pride’, ‘gutless’, ‘no passion’, ‘incompetent’, ‘they should all be dropped’ – in fact any team losing in any sport anywhere in the world seems to produce the same reactions.
After this, on the tier below and with a slightly less hysterical slant, there’s the inevitable finger-pointing at the system: ‘too much four-day cricket’, ‘not enough four-day cricket’, ‘green pitches’, ‘Twenty20’, ‘average selections’, ‘ineffective academies’ and so on.
Then you get those who lament the competitiveness of teams playing away from home, a trend that shows no sign of abating as the schedules get ever more squeezed and priorities face differing demands on their time.
And once you’ve waded through the noise and clutter and if you’re lucky to find someone with a touch of perspective, you might find those who simply state that Australia were on a different level.
There is room for debate, as there should and always will be, but no manner of annoyance, vitriol spouting and excuse delivering will hide this all too apparent fact.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
England were in the game at certain stages of all three Tests, but when it came to the pivotal situations – Australia seven wickets down in their first innings and a good few behind in Brisbane, England four down and 170 shy of their target in Adelaide, Dawid Malan and Jonny Bairstow going strong at 4/368 at the WACA – they were found wanting, and that is how contests are decided.
A few individuals – in the aforementioned duo and Malan especially and at times Mark Stoneman, James Vince, Craig Overton and Jimmy Anderson – have stood up, but spasmodic contributions do not consistent victories accrue and therein lies the rub.
And when you have players like Alastair Cook, Stuart Broad and Moeen Ali contributing next to nothing your position becomes even weaker.
When there is a need to force the issue and make an advantage work in your favour you need more from the majority, and that wasn’t forthcoming. The result, as was shown, is games sliding away from you with little chance of what has been squandered being clawed back.
Hence an unforeseen and ultimately decisive lead being constructed by Steve Smith at the Gabba and the England middle and lower orders being snuffed out in Adelaide and again in Perth – Australia managing exactly what England could not, to put it bluntly.
With a batsman at the peak of his powers – Smith and Virat Kohli are putting daylight between themselves and the rest – solid contributions from the supporting cast and a highly effective and ruthlessly efficient seam attack, not to mention a spinner allowed to operate as he wished, the hosts applied pressure where it would be most keenly felt.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Play on the fact the tourists did not have the pace to make significant inroads on good surfaces, a spinner able to hold an end up and a tail susceptible to a high-speed, short-pitched mode of operation – show me a tail which isn’t? – and go from there.
Once England were six down the groundstaff might as well have started the roller given the speed with which the end of the innings arrived, and on only one occasion, in the second innings of the second Test, did the England seamers have their own way, and that was after a poor showing first up.
The contrast has been very clear, and it is one that was deliberately orchestrated, with the Australian hierarchy making no secret that they wanted their seamers to work at the high end of the speed spectrum.
It was a good plan well thought out and delivered as per the specification, the outcome being a final two Tests with little resting on them apart from the reputations of a few of the England stalwarts.
If you’re going to make predictions, then it only seems right that they are revisited once the game is over, and my 3-2 to England hasn’t aged particularly favourably.
No excuses coming from where I sit, though; Australia have been just too good.
Jarryd
Guest
The Australian tour that involved 2 non rain affected draws on the flattest pitches in recent history? Yeah that reinforces my point that he's a great bat when conditions suit. What's his average in England? What was his average against Aus in India when the game was on the line? If Kohli leads India through the next 18 months when he faces the 3 other best nations in their backyard he can lay a claim to being Smith's equal. Until then he is a very distant second.
Duckistani
Guest
'up to 135k and that just does not work in Aus' Nonsense. McGrath? Hazlewood? Harris? Bird? Sayers? Broad himself has had a shocking tour this time but has easily been England's best and one of the best of all visiting bowlers to Australia in the last 10 years.
James Jackson
Guest
Are you serious? Kohli is renowned for digging in when it's tough and standing up to set an example to his team. The Australian tour of India was an anomaly, the stats show he and Smith (and Williamson if he got to play more test cricket in more highly-touted series) are indeed the two in that tip top bracket.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Nope, right now from this point forward, I'd prefer Pat over Anderson at all times.
Ben Brown
Guest
Wholly agree with you. Kohli is easily the most overrated Test batsman at the moment, scoring double hundreds against a weak Sri Lankan side on Indian roads means nothing tbh. Fails when it matters most, e.g Australia vs India 2017, England 2014
Bakkies
Guest
'Also, the players wear their test number on their clothes. England are about 200 in front of Australia – about 650 compared to 450.' Here is a list of England Cricketers from the start of test Cricket they went through 67 players between 1877 and 1889. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_Test_cricketers The documentary England Cricket in the 90s is a good example of England going through too many players. Using the Football mentality of chopping and changing players. 58 players were capped in the 90s. Before that they also had amateurs and professionals playing for the team. Obviously a lot of amateurs couldn't make the lengthy tours that involved travel by ship. Diseases like polio and tb claimed a lot of young Cricketers than you also have the players they lost in battle (no doubt they would have had more Cricketers fight in the wars than the Australians).
DaveJ
Guest
English hypocrisy on this point is certainly no excuse. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Ian Chappell said it during the Nine commentary - why weren’t the umpires enforcing the law on intimidatory bowling, including the bit about the level of skill of the batsman. To remind this is what Law 42 says: The bowling of fast short pitched balls is unfair if, in the opinion of the Umpire at the Bowler's end, it constitutes an attempt to intimidate the Striker. Umpires shall consider intimidation to be the deliberate bowling of fast short pitched balls which by their length, height and direction are intended or likely to inflict physical injury on the Striker. The relative skill of the Striker shall also be taken into consideration” While this has dodgy logic in it - if it’s intended, it’s intended, regardless of the skill of the batter - the intent of the law is pretty clear. Surely it’s preferable that the laws are enforced consistently and not selectively. I’d prefer our bowlers to rely less on the short ball at the head to get the tail out. I reckon would do nearly as well the way he is bowling.
DaveJ
Guest
Can’t agree re Bairstow. He got a leg cutter that kept low. Perhaps should at least have got an edge though
Jarryd
Guest
The trend of lumping smith and kohli in the same bracket needs to stop. Smith has shown he can stand up in all conditions regardless of how well or poorly his side is performing. Kohli on the other hand is ruthless in good batting conditions when India are on top, yet disappears when things get tough. What's more valuable to a side? A century when the rest of the batsmen fail or a double ton on a flat deck so you can post 7/700.
I Worlds Biggest
Guest
Ah apologies mate, I did read your piece pre Ashes series and prediction. Don’t know where I got the 3-2 from. Carry on sir !!
Alec Swann
Expert
Ouch Both Alastair Cook and Stuart Broad have picked a poor time to be completely out of form but it's tricky to say it's the end. Cook's come back from a rut before but I'd worry more for Broad who looks down on pace and his returns have been on a downward trend for a couple of years. As for Jimmy Anderson - and I can't fathom the bashing he gets from some on here - I don't think he'll be there in 2019 although he doesn't look quite ready to call it a day.
Alec Swann
Expert
Dan Depends on whether it's going to swing!
Alec Swann
Expert
Worlds Biggest As requested, here's the reasoning behind my prediction (which was actually for 2-2 and not 3-2 but your point still stands). Call it misguided optimism! http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/11/23/can-talking-stop-now-time-real-contest/
I Worlds Biggest
Guest
Alec, that was a bold prediction going with England 3-2, can I ask what was that based on ? In the last 30 years, England have won two series here. Whilst I thought the series would be close, they have been competitive in stages however collectively they haven’t put it together. With Starc likely out for Melbourne, that opens the door for them.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I wouldn't discount the "more tests" played business. At one point England would send two Test sides abroad (a "real one" to Australia or South Africa and a "lesser" one to say New Zealand or the West Indies). This went on for years and no doubt caused a lot more caps to be handed out. England have also traditionally been a poorer side over the history of cricket than Australia. Poor sides tend to change players more frequently.
Dan in Devon
Guest
James Anderson or Patrick Cummins? Your answer to that question will put things into perspective!
marcel
Guest
A generous and open article Alec... I expect the press to be mirror reversed when we lose convincingly in blighty next series... The point you make about the form of touring teams generally in the modern era of compressed tours is an important point for the sport to consider. For someone of my age..the thought that an ashes series can be over in 6 weeks is hard to comprehend..they used to take an entire summer.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I've always thought the same. England and Australia have been playing test cricket for the same amount of time, yet England have gone through so many more players than Australia. Bancroft is 451 and Overton 681. So in the same number of years England have 230 more test cricketers, that's just over 50% more than Australia. I believe England have played more tests in that time, but that shouldn't account for too many extra players, for the most part you'd generally have the same people playing most matches even if we played a couple more tests each year.
spruce moose
Guest
Paul, Perhaps doing some research before beginning the Anderson bashing... McGrath did play until he was 36, but his last overseas tour was in 2005: the same age as Anderson. McGrath then got to play the summer of 05/06 at home and then didn't play again (he was rested) until the Ashes in 06/07. Against South Africa in 05/06 McGrath took his wickets at 40 which was the catalyst for his 10 month rest. You'll also remember he took a full year off with injury issues and missed the summer of 03/04. He was not doing it regularly. Let's keep the fact separate from fiction. Anderson hasn't had such luxury given to him. Show some respect.
Jacko
Guest
Age wearied him...he retired.... Look at the results when in England and you see Broard and Anderson are statistacally far better in England than Aus...the same as the Aus bowlers are in England otherwise England would not have had ashes wins like they have......In the last 10 series only twice...1 to England in Aus and 1 to Aus in England....has the OS team won. Also the history shows that of the 70 series played between the two sides its 33 to Aus and 32 to England with 5 draws.......Pretty even really