In the wake of the first Ashes Test, nearly all commentators were in raptures about the batting of Steve Smith – and rightly so.
He clearly held the innings together when Australia batted first and his two centuries will be long remembered for all the reasons provided by the media.
The ensuing commentary has been all about how to get Smith out, or at least contain him.
In the Roar alone, there have been articles focused on the battle between Smith and Jofra Archer, the introduction of Jack Leach to the England side and his ability to curb Smith’s scoring – or even get him out – and finally suggestions about making seaming pitches, again because Smith is not at his best on these surfaces.
What has been almost completely ignored are the efforts of the other ten Australian team members who also played at Edgbaston.
Travis Head played a crucial role in the first innings with his 35, then Peter Siddle and Nathan Lyon provided excellent support at the end of the innings which allowed Australia to make a decent score.
The top four bowlers each sent down at least 27 overs on a benign pitch and restricted England to a 90 run lead. Importantly, they made England really struggle for their runs, with the innings taking 135.3 overs and a scoring rate of 2.77 runs per over.
(Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
This was helped in large part by some outstanding Australian fielding, coupled with some astute bowling changes and field placements by Tim Paine.
The second Australian innings was less Smith dominated, with an excellent 40 from Khawaja who really took it to the bowlers and helped set the tone of the innings. Head once again helped steady the innings, so the lower order could go to town on a tired England attack.
There were four innings that hardly rated a mention but were crucial in both the physical and psychological demise of England in that Test. These came from Matthew Wade, Tim Paine, James Pattinson and Pat Cummins.
All scored quickly by Test standards and their batting was coupled by some excellent captaincy from Paine, who delayed the declaration when commentators thought he should have given his bowlers more time at England on day four.
As an aside, the effects of this late order hammering cannot be underestimated in the context of the series. The Australian batsmen sent a very clear message both about their intent and ability to play against the England attack, so much so Moeen Ali is not only out of the Test side but is taking a break from the game altogether.
The final innings belonged to Nathan Lyon and Pat Cummins but again, all bowlers did their part. The fielding was top drawer and the catch taken by Cameron Bancroft to dismiss Joe Root was an absolute beauty.
Steve Smith has been compared to Bradman in a number of articles in the Roar and there’s one other aspect about Bradman which some may not realize. When Bradman was dominating world cricket, his teammates were almost an afterthought.
It’s important not to ignore how well the side played and that an Australian XI won the First Test by 251 runs. Hopefully we’ll hear more about the other players in the team as the series progresses.
Max power
Guest
Correct, Peter Siddle is an all time great
Paul
Roar Guru
why is it that you have to resort to insults when someone writes a comment you don't like? I guess you feel you can post what you like, which is pretty sad, IMO.
mushi
Roar Guru
And it's a complete straw man to suggest that makes the other 10 guys irrelevant
mushi
Roar Guru
Um no the article shows him as an outlier. So rather than belittle others knowledge perhaps read the article you are rebutting rather than respond from a position of abject ignorance.
Nudge
Roar Rookie
Yeah agree Paul, their was certainly some guys who did a great job first test that didn’t get the recognition they deserved. I suppose the Smith comeback was just so big, that that’s what everyone wanted to read
Paul
Roar Guru
It's totally fair to focus on Smith because his is a story that can resonate with people who don't know a lot about the game. The article you refer to highlights exactly the same issue Bradman had when he batted. Anyone that good, with that sort of average, is more often than not going to be the team's main runs contributor. You could say the same sort of thing about Warne & McGrath when they played in the same Test teams. Guys that good are going to be major contributors most of the time, but it doesn't mean we should forget the other 10 mere mortals, who helped get the win.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm certainly not begrudging any of the acclaim Smith received for his innings Nudge, by any standards they were simply outstanding. I'm just gently suggesting a few other guys made some very good contributions to what was a great team win.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Hey dB, it's also the time his partnerships took out of the game so Cummins and The Lyon King could bowl on the wearing pitch. I highly rate Siddle's work in the second innings keeping it tight. :thumbup:
mushi
Roar Guru
Not JUST because of Smith but when one guy is routinely involved in 40% of your runs in an 11 man team it's hard to suggest he isn't the lynchpin.
mushi
Roar Guru
Or the flip side... if they do we lose! I think their capacity to win with a good Smith performance is better than ours with a poor Smith performance. Thankfully he's more consistent than my bad tpying
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
We won by 250 and Smith scored 286 for the match. That's only 36 in arrears if Smith had double ducks. Obviously it's not quite that simple because it was the partnerships he formed that dragged us towards the line but to say we only won because of Smith (and plenty in England are saying just that) is very erroneous in my view. He had a great game and was a big part of the victory but he didn't do it on his own. As Paul said, everyone bowled and fielded beautifully and enough of the other batsmen made enough runs to ensure Smiths efforts didn't go in vain. It was a team effort. No doubt about it in my mind.
Nudge
Roar Rookie
Can’t disagree with the article Paul, but I think all the talk since the first test about Smith is warranted. If they don’t get him out they can’t win
mushi
Roar Guru
The attention is warranted though. There's a cricinfo article showing he's a bigger contributor to Australia directly (his runs) and indirectly (his partnerships) than Kane, Kholi or Root. If you're going to focus on anyone batsman it seems Smith is the most logical.
Omnitrader
Roar Rookie
I wonder what impact Curran will have coming into the team, a left arm bowler will only help Lyon though.
Mike B
Guest
Well said Paul. Of course none of the attention is Smith's fault - he's not asking for it. If England are focusing on Smith and adjusting their team accordingly then that's a bad sign for them. Smith contributed greatly but overall we had 9 players who contributed with their selected skill (only Bancroft and Warner missed out), whereas England only had 5 players (Broad, Root, Burns, Woakes and Stokes) contributing. Any team having 6 non-contributors (Anderson, Butler, Ali, Denley, Roy and Bairstow - his keeping was woeful) is going to struggle. That's where the game was really lost. It's simplistic to look at Smith being the difference.
TJ
Guest
I hope they keep focusing on him if it means they will spend less time worrying about the other 10 blokes. Think it will be great for our top 3 especially. They didn't have a good first test but have avoided scrutiny because of Smith. Expecting Warner to go large this test. If they can actually get on of course.