When a series scoreline reads as one-sided as Australia’s 4-0 Ashes triumph does, and when the player of the series discussion must’ve been one of the shortest in the history of the sporting universe, the hypotheticals don’t take much to surface.
Australian captain Steven Smith had a pretty fair time of it. “Got a few out of the middle”, he’d say in that nonchalant, non-committal manner that he’s becoming known for.
Got a few out of the middle, you know, in the same way that Ian Thorpe used to jump in for a casual paddle, and Cathy Freeman used to go for a bit of a run.
Smith’s final series stats were, obviously, extraordinary.
687 runs at a staggering average of 137.40, with 67 boundaries, but only one maximum, as the Australians took a much more measured approach to run-scoring this summer. Smith’s own strike rate of 48.51 underlines this change of tack as much as David Warner’s 52.37 does.
Smith registered three centuries, two of them while the series was still alive, and the biggest of all of them played a major part in Australia securing the series in Perth.
His only real failure, if we can call it that, was the second Test in Adelaide, where he ‘only’ made 40 and 6. It’s a wonder he retained his place for Perth at all.
The comparisons with Bradman were as free-flowing as they were apt. Bradman stood out from his contemporaries because he was that much better than the rest of them, and Smith has had that kind of series too.
Smith’s 687 for the series was nearly 250 runs in advance of Shaun Marsh and Warner, and more than 300 runs clear of England’s Dawid Malan, skipper Joe Root, and former captain Alastair Cook.
And so, in the ultimate case of pondering something that can never be confirmed one way or the other, how about this:
Would Australia have won the Ashes at home without Smith?
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
For one thing, Australia would have had a different captain, and that opens up a whole new can of worms. If Smith was to retire tomorrow, Warner would probably be skipper, but who’s next in line after him?
A new batsman would also have to have been picked. Peter Handscomb is probably the obvious choice, given he’s remained with the side for the last three Tests, but he was already in the side for Brisbane. So it might have been Glenn Maxwell, it might even have been Mitch Marsh a fortnight earlier than he was recalled. Joe Burns made his big Sheffield Shield runs after the Brisbane Test had started, but he may have been in the frame, too.
In fact, we’d probably have to conclude that Matt Renshaw was still in the frame, too, given that he was still Warner’s incumbent opening partner until the series began.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume Smith’s replacement managed to do 40 per cent as well as Smith did in the end. That still equates to around 275 runs for the series and probably still includes a couple of fifties.
Cameron Bancroft was nominally the ‘worst’ of the Australian bats, and he finished with 179 runs for the series with one fifty, so 275 with two fifties seems about right for this exercise.
So, would Australia have won? My gut feeling is only maybe.
Smith was man of the match in Brisbane for his unbeaten first innings 141, but came to the wicket with Australia in a bit of trouble at 2-30 in the 11th over. The arbitrary 40 per cent threshold means our mystery player makes 56 – which in turn brings Australia’s total back to around 243, and our man would probably have been dismissed at some point.
It also means England went in before tea on Day 3, but are also bowled out for 195 (as they were) sooner, leaving Australia to chase fewer than 100. The home side probably still win comfortably, but likely at the cost of Bancroft’s one and only Test fifty. Australia lead 1-0.
AAP Image/Dave Hunt
In Adelaide, and remembering Smith ‘failed’, our man makes only 10 in the first innings and is probably the third wicket. Usman Khawaja was actually the third wicket in Adelaide, meaning he follows pretty closely after Not-Smith, leaving two new batsmen at the crease.
We’re in genuine butterfly-effect territory now, but I’m not sure Handcomb-Shaun Marsh-Tim Paine do anywhere near as well as they did. Even if the tail wagged, Australia likely don’t declare at 440, but instead are bowled out closer to 360.
England batted OK in their first dig to make 227, but then bowled superbly to roll Australia for 138 in their second innings. Smith only made 6, but our guy doesn’t get the full 40 per cent allowance here; it’s a duck instead. It means Australia probably don’t get to 139, which in turn means England aren’t chasing anywhere near the 354 they did, before being bowled out for 233. I’m calling it series-squared again.
To Perth, where Smith made his highest Test score (239) after losing the toss, as Australia amassed their imposing 9(dec)-662, and Smith and Mitch Marsh put on 301 for the fifth wicket. Using our 40 per cent once again, our man Not-Smith instead is out in the 90s, and again, Australia are almost certainly bowled out for much less, maybe even as far back at ‘only’ 500.
Which probably just means they don’t win by an innings, and instead have to chase around 110 or so. Australia 2-1.
Then to Melbourne Test – would a draw still have been the outcome if Smith wasn’t there to make his first innings 76 and his crucial, match-saving 102*?
If our man instead only manages 30 and 40, Australia may not get into a position to save the match after England made 491 in their first innings. Even more so when we recall how evenly things were poised when Warner and Shaun Marsh went within six overs of each other on the last day. If Australia are bowled out in that second innings, there’s time to chase a target.
Which means in this entirely hypothetical exercise full of assumptions, guesswork, and arbitrary allowances, it’s all square going to Sydney.
The only certainty now is that the garish, Australian flag-painted four-fingers sign most certainly wouldn’t have been needed!
Does Australia still win after a loss in Melbourne? Could Australia have still hung on in Melbourne? And then what happens in Sydney?
I’m not sure, but it’d make for a good pub discussion.
Brian
Guest
More importantly, would Australia have won the Ashes even MORE CONVINCINGLY without smith and selectors corrupt/inept/stupid choices?????
MANISH K RAO
Guest
When Australia will stop producing flat tracks. Only time there was some life in the wicket was in Adelaide and Smith flopped big time there. Let's see what Smith will produce in South Africa if the pitches are same as of now.
DaveJ
Guest
I think we can say with fair probability what might have happened if Glenn McGrath (average in England 19.4) had played instead of Brett Lee (average in England 45). Or if England didn’t contaminate the Ashes by picking South Africans.
Scuba
Guest
Yes, because the principal difference between the teams was the bowling attacks. England were unable to go close to taking 20 wickets for most of the series, which wasn't the case for our attack. Credit should be given where due to the quicks and Lyon who won the series but of course journos want to credit a batsman as per usual.
DaveJ
Guest
Only if you can think of any one in the team or a possible replacement more likely to take those difficult chances. You mean the one when Handscomb was standing up off Marsh - crikey, I don’t think you’ve seen much cricket. Only a Taylor, Waugh or G Chappell would be a strong chance to take that one.
Rob
Guest
Or 2015 when Carbury couldn't catch a sitter Haddin hit straight to him early on at the Gabba? Or when Haddin got another bat after his stump were rattled, called back for a No ball. Or dropped again and again. Haddin had a charmed series in the 5-0 whitewash that could have been very different in hindsight.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
No doubt it would have been closer, but I just can't see the England taking 20 wickets in enough matches. The Australian bowlers were much better with the ball and the bat compared to their English counterparts. The Poms batting collapses once they were 5 wickets down was a major point of differentiation. The story could have been so much different in Adelaide and Perth if the Poms hadn't fallen away as badly as they did.
Rob
Guest
Probably the result could have been 3-1 to Australia? The Australian bowling attack was far superiour and created the nessecary oppertunities to dissmiss England twice. Confidence and belief makes a huge difference and Smith first innings in Brisbane really effected England pschologically and physicaly. The simple fact England couldn't get his wicket even though they had come with set plans. Smith's batting kept England in the field for long periods which also blunted their bowlers effectiveness. Smith also allowed the Australian lower order of Shaun, Mitchell Marsh, Paine and Cummins to shine with the bat. Other than Bancroft in his debut series all of the the Australian top 6 bat along with Pat Cummins recorded averages substantial higher than their first class and Test career averages. This would indicate that the English bowling preformance in this series was well below that of the average Australian domestic team? It's conceivable any Australian batsmen with a FC average above 40 could have averaged 70-100 against them.
Oingo Boingo
Guest
No , I was thinking more along the lines of an Irish convict , flogging an English aristocrat.
sheek
Guest
Yeah, I've often wondered if Australia would have beaten the Poms in 1974/75 & Windies in 1975/76 without Lillee & Thomson. Or whether Australia would have been dominant throughout the 30s & 40s (bar Bodyline) without Bradman. As Rodriguez sang, " I wonder, I wonder I do".....
Joey
Guest
The Marsh brothers had more tons than the entire English squad! And one of them only played three tests!! Add to that the fact not a single pommie bowler would even make the Australian team, and your answer is resoundingly clear. Stupid question.
Harbijan Can't Singh
Guest
What if? What if we wore hats on our feet and hamburgers ate people?
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Steve Smith is a great batsman, really is, but his stats vs SA are not unbelievable or majorly crash hot. He makes runs, sure, but has only scored 1 x 100 (early 2014) and 2x 50's of which 100 runs is his highest score. Average is 53 (which is good by any standards), but that includes 2 not outs, otherwise 481 runs/11 innings would be 43.7 runs. And didn't do much vs the SA bowlers last year. So if the SA bowlers can get him out early, then the SA team would be favoured imo. He matters that much to this Australian side. SA have to beat India first. Then we'll see what happens in March :-) Australia tends to do well in SA, while SA have won the last 3 Test Series in a row in Australia going back to 2008 (equal record with the 80's WI Test team). Hoping the Steyn Remover is fit again for the series!!
Perth Wicket
Roar Pro
Great argument - Smith was pivotal. But would Warner and co. have stepped up in his absence?
jameswm
Guest
Got to love it. we won 2 games by an innings and a 3rd by 10 wickets. Can't see Stokes making a difference to any of those results, unless he can somehow remove Smith. Our bowlers would have worked him over, and Lyon would have loved having an extra leftie to bowl to.
warrrne
Roar Rookie
Yes, glaring issue. And Poms probably win in that circumstance
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Bretty you hypothetical beast. I would have gone for Mortal Smith rather than Non Smith but good on you for putting it out there. Back in 1977, to coincide with the centenary test, the Australian newspaper did a computer test pitting the Australian and English greatest XIs against each other. There was indignation when Don "the best before Smith" Bradman only got 8 and 68. Nonetheless by the great man himself,who said he would have smashed them. The boffins said mildly that they just punched in the stats and that's how it came out. So back to "The best since Bradman" Smith. Before he was famous, in the 2013 Ashes, in the 3 losing matches he clocked 92@15.33. This is usually the sort of thing that gets youngsters sent to Coventry but wisely the selectors liked him, retained him for the final test, he got 100 and its been runs ever since. Coincidentally he backed up in the 2015 with the same stats in lost matches - 92@15.33. Peeps got a bit antsy when he didn't go so well in the losses to SA in 2016. 0,34,48*,31 Not at him mind you. So he's a little bit important. I still think our blokes would have won if he'd gone bung in this series. More second innings digs. More time to find form, including the great Smithy having a second crack.
Brett McKay
Expert
Cliff, I wouldn't want you to click on a link for 200 words, I want to make it worth your while!! :lol:
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
Hey Brett, a long article to answer a simple question!! --- Answer = Most likely not, probably not, maybe yes, probably yes but I think - No!! Ha! Ha! Cheers
The Bush
Roar Guru
It would have been too risky with too many changes to the side, they'd have left Renshaw I suspect. I see your point about it being unclear who would have replaced Smith, but I find it hard to believe they'd have gone with anyone other than Maxwell. They'd already picked S Marsh and Maxi was the incumbent.