When England went to stumps on Day 3 with 200 runs to play with and six wickets in the bank, chasing a record total to keep their Ashes hopes alive, many were signing the gallows song for this year’s Ashes.
However, there were many who rightfully looked at the equation and saw that there were several real factors in England’s favour.
Notable was the presence of Ben Stokes and Joe Root at the crease, with Stokes once again set to fulfil his role as saviour of English cricketing pride, as he has done all summer. Also of relevance was the fact that England was going in on a Day 4 pitch – one that isn’t as conducive to the wizardry that Nathon Lyon has produced time and time again.
However, to really understand why England was never out of it, you have to cast your mind back to Durban in February this year, where Sri Lanka stunned a stacked Proteas line-up in Durban.
With nine wickets down in pursuit of 304 for victory and with 78 runs still to go, Kusal Perera threw the kitchen sink at the ball, turning on T20 mode and slapping six sixes on his way to an unbeaten 153, winning the match for Sri Lanka with a filthy late cut through the slips for four.
“I knew we couldn’t win this match by just scoring singles. When the time was right I just took my chances,” he said after the innings.
This is eerily similar to the Stokes’ situation. When Jack Leach joined him at the crease with England still needing 73, all hope appeared lost. Stokes had played a patient innings until then, facing 50 deliveries for just two runs the night before. But when Leach came in, with the Aussie seamers steaming in with the new cherry, the time for ticking over the strike was over.
Seven sixes – including a reverse sweep into the terrace – later, and England had pulled off the most remarkable comeback since the 1981 Ian Botham bonanza at the same venue. However, unlike this innings, the Stokes comeback – following Perera – showed that the modern era has changed Test cricket forever.
Never before have batsmen been forced to adapt and play shots under excruciating pressure the way they can now. Be it Carlos Brathwaite at the T20 World Cup final with Stokes bowling or even our own Steve Smith’s ability to change gears at a moments notice, the T20 revolution has given batsmen greater ability to put the pressure on the bowlers, at a moment’s notice, than ever before.
The T20 movement has provided plenty to enjoy from a bowler’s perspective, too. Spinners now apply more pressure than ever, given the way batsmen are so used to scoring at a rate of at least four an over, and there’s renewed relevance of the off-cutter, yorker and slower ball.
However, the Australian seamers weren’t able to respond to the switch of mentality from Stokes soon enough in that fateful final session, and as a result, we head into what is surely one of the most hyped Tests in history, with Jimmy Anderson and Smith returning to the fold and the series squared at one Test apiece.
The game has never had the ability to be influenced by one individual performance more, it has never had so many options of potential outcomes, and it is never, ever over.
The white kits are the only thing that remain as far as tradition goes for Test cricket – and that’s one hell of an exciting prospect.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Wouldn't mind seeing ropes being pushed back out for Tests. I know there are OHS considerations, but some of the gaps between rope and fence are ridiculous. I love the T20 influences being brought into the Test game; but we don't need to artificially create boundary opportunities in the Test format. Let the batsmen test their skill v risk if that's the approach they want to (can't help but) employ.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Peter, yes to all that. All the more reason to maintain the traditions and essence of Test cricket and let the influences from the contemporary approach flow through and feed it.
Spanner
Roar Rookie
Perfect summary of the greatest game of all, Paul - well done. How excited are we for the next battle to commence ?
Nick
Roar Guru
Great post.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Yeah but reviews are academic and you have to come up with something just to calm your own mind. Will that scenario come up again, what did we learn, blah blah just to move on. Something like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2AYPFAk-Uo
bazza200
Guest
Pretty sure the wide yorkers and then the ball on the stumps if batter continues to move out there. Remember there are no tram lines so you can actually bowl wider You can totally pack the offside field and only have a fine leg n mid on. 7 fielders wherever you want. They didn't even try these novel tactics the goal was to keep stokes off strike in out fields loaded to one side. The tram lines in One day cricket is much closer to the stumps.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Fair enough. I agree that the bowlers should have gone into T20 mode to match the batsman doing so. But as we have seen in T20, there's precious little the bowlers can do when a batsman has his eye in (as Stokes certainly had after batting for, what, 5 hours) and he's just smacking everything coming at him. Think Stokes was just so "in the zone" that there was nothing much the bowlers could do.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Not got hit over the fence would be a start. What i would do is not what they would do. You just have to adapt. The lessons of T20 are available to the Test bowler and batsmen alike. Are you telling me there was nothing they could do? We have to analyze the result to improve.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Alasdair, thanks for putting together your first piece. I thought of this as a "glass half full" explanation for the last Test - but what about the glass half empty aspect? The only reason Stokes batting heroics were needed in the last Test was because England were bowled out for 67, the 4th time in 18 months that's happened. British commentators, all ex Test players and captains, were unanimous that short form cricket had completely destroyed players ability to bat for long periods because of the different techniques required, eg soft hands for Test, hard hands and go at the ball for ODI's & T20s. I agree Stokes mindset & batting skills were hugely influenced by his experiences in short form cricket, but again this should not have been needed if the rest of the team ( and him) and not batted so poorly first time round. I'm also wondering where you were going with this statement "The white kits are the only thing that remain as far as tradition goes for Test cricket – and that’s one hell of an exciting prospect". I can think of plenty of "traditions" that are totally impossible in short form cricket; bowlers bowling in tandem, building pressure through over after over, batsmen having to survive dozen overs or more with 10 fielders around the bat just to eke out a draw, watching an Archer or Cummins completely bamboozle batsmen with a swinging ball on a pitch that allows movement, watching 2 batsmen bat all day simply because they're good enough to do so, watching guys in close take absolute screamers, watching a guy battle through impossibly hard conditions to score a hundred. These are all things I can see in a Test season and have done so already. I didn't see any of this in the World Cup, so perhaps Test cricket is keeping it's traditions and simply adding to them?
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
What should the bowlers have done differently, Goalsonly?
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
At the death it was T20 V Test and T20 prevailed. This was not just the Stokes factor. The bowlers continued to bowl Test bowling. Sticking to a plan is all well and good but sometimes you have to get creative.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Congrats on your first Roar article Alasdair! It was nicely written. I don't quite agree, however, with the emphasis in your last paragraph, though. The white kit is not the only part of the Test Cricket's tradition which prevails. Indeed, the ebb and flow of the Headingley Test is a testament to all that is compelling about a 5-day Test Match. Until the last wicket onslaught, this was good, hard Test Cricket. The same can be said of the First Test when England were in a winning position on 3 occasions, but still lost by a large margin. You rarely get that in limited overs formats because when one team stumbles, there is usually insufficient time / overs / wickets to mount a stirring comeback. What I think the T20 generation have brought to Test Cricket is some added skills which enhance the Test Match experience. T20 batsman have learned to play truly audacious shots, under pressure, seemingly without the fear of getting out. They calculate the risks and just go for it. That's what we saw with Stokes in that last wicket stand with Leach at Headingley and that's what we saw with Perera in Durban. And I think it's terrific! It adds a whole new dimension to the game I love.
Targa
Roar Rookie
The influence of T20 was also seen in Colin de Grandhomme’s 78-ball 83, which supported 100s from Latham and Watling and gave NZ just enough time before bad light came on day 5 to bowl Sri Lanka out a second time. With about 7 sessions lost in the match and failures for Williamson and Taylor this was one of NZ’s best test wins which was overshadowed by Stokes in the Ashes. I’m just gutted that there isn’t a 3rd test.