During Australia’s golden era, when they ran roughshod over world cricket, they terrified opponents not just with remarkable skill and power, but with rare resilience.
Like a villain in a 1980s action movie, they were never really dead. One moment opponents would have their foot on Australia’s throat, the next that foot would slip, causing them to trip, fall, and look up to see the Aussies looming over them wielding bats and balls like bazookas and bayonets.
This traumatised their foes more than anything in the 1990s and 2000s.
It was one thing to be bossed from start to finish by Australia, There is a strange comfort to be had from such linear progression of defeat. It was altogether more upsetting, more disorienting to be thrashing the Aussies – seemingly on a sure path to victory – only for this champion team to flip the script.
Players of that era talked about how their repeated successes in fighting back from hopeless situations led to a collective belief they could ‘win from anywhere’. It also made some of their rivals feel they could lose from anywhere.
In AFL terms, having a ten-goal lead over that team was equivalent to a two-goal margin.
Then, sometime after Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer retired, so too did Australia’s famous irrepressibility.
Shane Warne, the king of spin (Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
Fans had grown used to shrugging off apparently precarious scorelines. “What is it, 4-80? Ahh don’t worry, someone will score a ton.”
“England are 0-100? Haha wait until Bowler X runs amok.”
Then, as the first decade of this century neared its end, things changed. When teams knocked Australia to the turf, they stayed put.
That’s been the case, more often than not, for more than ten years now. Which is why the events at Edgbaston this week were so unusual, so rousing, so significant.
No less than three times in the first Test, Australia looked gone. No less than three times they made an incredible recovery. The same way the golden era Aussies left opponents pondering how the hell they’d lost, England must have finished that Test wondering: “What the f–k just happened?”
Just 44 overs into the Test, Australia had crumbled to 8-122 on a decent batting track. The Eric Hollies Stand was chanting: “It’s all gone quiet over there”, a jibe directed at the Aussie fan zone.
Social media was awash with pundits and fans lambasting Australia, predicting an imminent, crushing loss. Who could blame them? Australia, already, looked shot. The same old issues against the same old challenges in the same old place. The UK had got the better of the lads from Down Under yet again.
But the old resilience hadn’t disappeared, it was just lying dormant. A Steve Smith masterpiece brought it back to life. Tail enders Peter Siddle and Nathan Lyon grafted so that Smith could dazzle.
By the end of day one, the tourists had hauled themselves to 284, a competitive total. It was miraculous. But that was still at least 60 runs under par on this pitch, and by early on the third day England were on course for a match-winning lead.
The pitch was dead. Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon were labouring. Rory Burns was bolted to the crease on 127*. Ben Stokes was cruising on 50*. England trailed by just two runs with six wickets in hand.
Given this commanding situation, and the strength of their tail, England would have expected to get a lead of at least 150 from there. Privately they must have been eyeing off a headstart of 200 runs.
The one thing Australia hadn’t done, up to this point, was let England score freely. While their attack had lacked penetration, it had forced England to scrap for their runs.
Over the following ten overs, the Aussies conceded just 19 runs. Dot balls abounded. So, too, did wickets, with England sliding to 8-301.
Although Chris Woakes and Stuart Broad managed to hoist England to 374, this four-wicket burst by Australia had saved them from being batted out of the match.
Rescue act number two had been completed.
No sooner had Australia averted that crisis than England again shepherded them to a cliff’s edge: three wickets down and still trailing by 15 runs.
Two of their three best batsmen were gone in David Warner and Usman Khawaja. The pressure on Steve Smith and Travis Head was immense. First and foremost, they just needed to find a way to eke out a lead that would give their bowlers a skerrick of hope.
At this stage, had the cricketing gods offered them a lead of 160, they may well have shaken on it.
By the time Australia reached this target they had got up off their knees and were now cantering, with Smith and Matt Wade controlling the England attack.
Australia had gone from surviving to prospering to dominating, a cycle that once was innate.
At Edgbaston, Australia rediscovered a resilience that had long been buried beneath collapses and defeats and controversies. The challenge now is to ensure they don’t go back into hibernation.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Richardson's shoulder injury was probably more significant than many have thought. With him in the side the English would have struggled even more
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
It's easy to discover you mojo when the opponent's best bowler is injured for the whole game. Imagine if we lost Lyon on the first morning? Yes, the Poms were stupid for rushing Anderson back. But they're struggling a bit with bowlers at the moment though. Wood's out for the summer, Archer is also coming back from injury, and they don't have much depth after that. So, you can see why they took the risk. They would have been hoping to win the toss and give Anderson at least another day and a half to recover. They were too reliant on Anderson. All the talk before the series was about Anderson being the difference. I hope they don't rush him back, like South Africa rushed back Steyn in 2013 And regards Roy, they also should have learnt from the Aussie's folly with Finch as an opener. Picking batsmen on one-day form in their one-day position but in Tests, can only end in tears. The First Test did show the Aussies have better bowling and batting stocks than England, and should win the series. But they we were a big leg up when Anderson went down and couldn't bowl in the second innings.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
The higher you get in your self-estimation the further you fall. As the Welsh have it ,"Today the skyrocket,tomorrow the stick."
jameswm
Roar Guru
mucker - had to look that one up. Someone who mucks. Always fun Neil.
Jim the Geo
Roar Rookie
It's been said elsewhere in the comments, but belief and resilience were, and remain, cornerstones of the Justin Langer cricket manual. While this team has weaknesses, I'd suggest that at this level any weaknesses in any cricketer are entirely in the mind - any player who represents England or Australia has the skill set. If JL maintains his coaching mantra, this team can only improve.
matth
Roar Guru
Really? I seem to remember S Waugh effectively being the first slower ball death bowler in that tournament. Shows how thirty years can play tricks on the memory. But if you don’t think those efforts were ‘never give in’ that’s your privilege
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
James me old mucker, I obviously did read the article, and it has a very simple construct. Part one reminds us of the exploits and qualities of Australia's golden age, part two recounts the Edgbaston test. Part one concludes with the statement: "That’s been the case, more often than not, for more than ten years now. Which is why the events at Edgbaston this week were so unusual, so rousing, so significant." Part two concludes: "At Edgbaston, Australia rediscovered a resilience that had long been buried beneath collapses and defeats and controversies. The challenge now is to ensure they don’t go back into hibernation." In other words, or rather Ronan's words, this Australian's team's performance against that English side, with all it's issues, on an untypical Edgbaston wicket, is (his word again) 'significant', and akin to the qualities of the golden generation of players Australia once enjoyed, and hasn't been seen of late as it's simply been in hibernation. Now. I clearly think that's hyperbole. Because it clearly is. There's really no need for everyone to get their knickers in a twist.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Yours? Yep, sure is. Added nothing positive to the discussion.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Spot on!
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Fair enough mate. Apologies. That was perhaps more inference on my part. And it was a good win...
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Hardly "Never Give In" efforts. And if you play 168 Tests and half a million ODIs' you'd want to have a couple of standout moments. Btw... McDermott bowled the last over in the 87 WC.
Old mate
Roar Rookie
Steve Smith’s Bradmanesque performance won the game for us. That’s all that has changed for mine. A sample of 1 ain’t enough to make a useful prediction.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Indeed he does.
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
At least a dancing coach. Apparently he has the moves
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
Keep on puffing Neil. Those sour grapes must sure taste sour
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
Uhh Ronan Did Riccardo seriously suggest that you did? Did he make point 1) or point 2) ?? There's no need to get so defensive and so miserable. Everyone is here because they enjoy the sport and want to add their two cents. We don't all have to agree all the time - that's the nature of opinion. If someone disagrees with your opinion, it's not the end of the world. It's not necessary to try and prove their prediction wrong with statistics. We've seen the accuracy of sport predictions in the world cup Take a hint from Nic Bishop over on the rugby pages. He's a professional analyst (no offense) and he still has to put up with the rank and file. Does he get his nose out of joint with every disagreement? No he doesn't. It's not necessary to react in a way that's not constructive to the debate. They're your articles and you obviously go to a lot of trouble to write them so no need to poison the comments. Have a think
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
Anderson's selection was folly. Its hardly bad luck when a 37 year old is chosen, after a period out injured, and breaks down - shows how desperate they are. Unlike the 2005 Ashes which truly were affected by genuine bad luck and unavailability of a champion (when McGrath rolled his ankle in the first test). Anderson is cooked. England paid the price for stupidity, and failing to recognise when a player should have retired.
The watcher
Guest
Like the article and a very pleasing analogy. A minor not pick is that there was two different parts our Golden age. The first the mark Taylor era was more typical of what you described - at least twice we beat SA in test series where we could easily have lost and probably should have. Also we notoriously kept dropping test matches when we had the series won. The second part was the Waugh Ponting era pretty much from WC 1999 to WC 2007, where the team were just totally dominant and only lost the freak 2001 series in India and the hardest test series ever, 2005, which we lost because England out bowled us. Even in both series we lost by only one test. I would be careful about getting too carried away with the victory. We saw some very quick changes in momentum in the 2009, 2013 and 2015 series. And our batting in English conditions hasn't been good since 2005.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Your job, you lazy get.
Mitcher
Guest
Good ol Neil riding in to keep the Aussies in check. I’ve missed this. I do wonder if he similarly patrols English forums keeping the overexciteds who naturally sit on that side of the fence under control.