Prior to the Ashes getting underway, there wasn’t any good reason to doubt England’s tag as favourites.
Home form in the five-day game suggested it, the trend of the past handful of Ashes series in this country suggested it, the enduringly excellent output from James Anderson suggested it, the hosts’ greater batting depth suggested it, the prices being served up by all and sundry in the bookmaking community suggested it, an opener at their favourite hunting ground suggested it.
Come the afternoon of the fifth day at Edgbaston, however, and some cold water had been poured on the aforementioned factors.
From a position of supremacy with Australia reeling at 8-122 after choosing to bat on the Birmingham surface, and later on with a solid first innings lead of 90 that had yet to be wiped out by the time David Warner, Cameron Bancroft and Usman Khawaja’s collective involvement with the bat had concluded, England succumbed in a manner that was both painful to witness and largely unexpected.
Going into the contest, there were questions surrounding three of their top four – only one of which, in the shape of Rory Burns, has been answered heading into Game 2 – but it was the feeling that once Steve Smith had helped engineer a more-than-decent advantage on a pitch any spinner worth their salt would’ve liked to have a go on, the result was virtually inevitable.
(Photo by Julian Finney/Getty Images)
I’m not convinced by some of the theories alluding to England suffering a hangover from the World Cup success somehow being responsible for their demise. That strikes of putting two and two together and coming up with anything other than four.
If anything, it should’ve been the opposite with the surge generated by the World Cup manifesting itself in a positive fashion and not proving to be a hindrance.
But anyway, what was made obvious was the fact England are not near where they would want or need to be, and Australia are certainly on the right track.
Issues do tend to appear when a loss has been suffered, just as they disappear when a victory has been earned, so it is worth remembering things are generally never as bad or good as many would like to make out. Hence, the doom-laden and ultra-positive headlines referring to the respective sides should be taken with a generous pinch of salt.
But there has definitely been a shift in the balance.
That shift has only been magnified by the form of Smith (has he really been away from the top table for a year?) and the absence of Anderson.
The New South Welshman was one of the top couple of batsmen in the Test arena – I’d put Virat Kohli alongside him but that’s a debate for another day – before his Cape Town brain fade, and if you had any doubts as to how he would immerse himself back into the fold, then more fool you.
(Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
His twin centuries at Edgbaston provided a nigh-on perfect portrait of Smith the Test batsman. They were disciplined, they were controlled, they were relentless and they were perfectly pitched.
That Joe Root tried a number of theories in the hope of dislodging him – none of which really looked like working – tells you all you need to know, and until there is a clarity of purpose and direction when Australia’s number four is at the crease, England will have a significant obstacle in their way.
And speaking of obstacles, how the loss of Anderson is dealt with will be of major significance.
The question of what the hosts will do when their all-time leading Test wicket-taker calls it a day has been gently increasing in volume over the past year or so – the Lancastrian is 37, after all – and it has only gone up a notch with his calf playing up.
Jofra Archer has serious talent, but there are shoes to fill and there are shoes to fill. If he can hit the ground running, on his debut nonetheless, then many fears may prove to be unfounded – but you simply don’t replace the kind of control and skill that Anderson possesses at the drop of a hat.
But that is how it is and while the contest will not revolve around just a couple of players, I know which team’s shoes I’d rather be in.
England’s record at Lord’s with Australia in opposition isn’t particularly great and, on the flip side, the Aussies generally wear their Sunday best in North London.
Now would be a good time for a change.
Alec Swann
Expert
Jeansyjive, regarding Jack Leach, I’ve seen a bit of him and he’s a solid enough performer. He’s done well in the handful of Tests he’s played and is probably England’s best bet in the spin department although I can’t see spin having too much influence at Lord’s. The Australians have got Moeen Ali’s number so a change was always on the cards.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
Yes they both held the innings together for their teams. Key differences are the frequency with which Smith does it, and that he does it despite the focus from the opposition. The “without Smith” narrative can be overplayed. But it is hard to ignore and not get carried away. As you said in your first comment a slight adjustment to the field might be necessary for Burns. Or even an adjustment to his luck from a level Steven Bradbury would be envious of, and he’s out for a handful of runs. But I’d say the plan for him provided plenty of opportunities and is pretty safe for now.
Targa
Guest
Kohli averages 53. His average was only slightly ahead of Williamson's before KDub got a duck yesterday.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
True, a couple of percentage points is unfair, should have said “a few”. Might give him a superior record but doesn’t put him in a different class/league. I’d want to look at a few other metrics to compare records. And as I say, Kallis and Sangakarra, for example, ended up a few percentages points ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, de Villiers, Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Border, etc. To me it is ridiculous to suggest they were a class above the latter group.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Yes?
U
Roar Rookie
Kohli averages 58 and Smith 63 right?
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Not in most recent series in England. In 2018 Kohli averaged 59, no other top order batsman on either side averaged over 40. In 2015, Smith averaged 56 and three other batsman averaged over 40, including Rogers and Root who did slightly better than Smith. Smith has a better average than Kohli vs England and West Indies and about the same vs NZ. Kohli has a better record vs South Africa (the best attack over the last decade), Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. To say that Smith is in a different league because he has a couple of career percentage points higher is barmy. Was Jacques Kallis in a different league above Ricky Ponting and Sachin Tendulkar?
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Badly expressed but my point was more that if Smith had made 0 for the match England would have won by 35 runs. Or, if Smith had scored only 36, not 286, Australia would still have won by 1 run. On the other hand, if you take out Burns's runs the margin becomes about 400. I just think that's something the people who say we only won because of Smith should take into account.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
Looking worse the closer we get. Gonna need to be something in the wicket early to make a result likely. And it doesn’t seem that’s going to be the case either.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
Was a great knock, but Burns offered a few early chances. Wouldn’t be too worried about him just yet.
Old mate
Roar Rookie
England have too many bits and pieces players in their test team. We have more specialists. The result? We are better at test (real) cricket than they are. We will win the Ashes. No worries.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I don’t see Burns against our bowlers as a key match up. Assuming he bats 10 times I’m guessing his series average is 30. He used a series worth of luck up in one innings. His FC average is 42 so he can play but we’ve stocked our squad with blokes playing County cricket and averaging much higher. He’s not going to suddenly turn into Steve Smith against our attack and on juicy wickets. Root can step up though and be a real challenge.
Steele
Roar Rookie
It’s pretty evenly balanced. One good bat in each side and some flaky support, if it’s flat I like the Aussies chances but if it’s doing something I slightly lean towards England or whoever wins the coin toss. Felt Pattinson was just hitting his straps, hope it doesn’t backfire. Siddle and Hazlewood don’t have his strike rate.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think your list of reasons why England would be overwhelming favourites is an interesting one. Really, only two of those reasons listed had anything to do with the relative strength of the teams. Anderson has been the main reason England have been able to get away with home series wins in recent years, and he does keep getting older, England can't rely on him forever. The "superior batting depth" is really a complete fallacy. Sure you had Woakes coming in at number 9 and he's a pretty decent batsman as bowlers go, but ahead of him there is only a single batsman who averages over 40 in test cricket compared to four such batsmen for Australia. England's supposed "depth" in batting is something they hope they can rely on to make up for the complete lack of quality in their top 6. So much talk before this series from this side was the England would likely try to dish up green tops, because it's hard for England to compete against Australia in good batting conditions. But the England batting lineup is basically packed with the proverbial "flat-track bullies" these days who are every bit as likely to tumble for small totals on green tops as the Australian lineup. I really think any England favouritism that went beyond just "the home team is just about always the favourite" was probably delusional.
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
Um, possibly posted in the wrong section?
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Pujara had a period where he looked to potentially be ahead of Kohli as a test batsman, but I think that's past and Virat has been significantly ahead of Pujara over the last couple of years in his test output.
ALG90
Roar Rookie
With regards to the next test, the selectors have to go with their strongest team to win the game. To potentially have 1 million plus tune into the game only to be disappointed again by another loss is a completely wasted opportunity. We have not won the Bledisloe for 17 years and we are not going to get a better chance than this weekend. We have form and they have injuries and suspensions. The confidence the team will get from a win will far outweigh the arguable benefits for any positional testing for squad players. They have had 4 years to test players. There is excitement building and RA I feel have a responsibility to bring their best game, and their best team.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
England’s favouritism may have come down to uncertainty about how good Smith would be on his return to test cricket. Well I think that’s been answered.
Targa
Guest
Also only Root, Anderson and perhaps Stokes would make a NZ test team, while 4 or 5 Australians would make our team.
Targa
Guest
I could never understand England's favouritism. Root is their only international quality batsman, while Australia has 4 in Smith, Warner, Head, and Khawaja. Re best test batsman in the world I'd go Smith, Williamson, Kohli.