Let’s jump back to the era of Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden in Australia’s armoury.
Under their watch back then Australia suffered defeats that were hard to digest. However, the odds in the subsequent games seldom seemed to drop; they always had a team that could rock back despite soul-crushing losses.
But how do Tim Paine’s men explain the debacle at Headingley? How did that all happen? Will Australia be the same side when they land at Old Trafford despite Steve Smith’s likely comeback? Such was the day at Leeds, where the game kept fluctuating back and forth in ridiculous fashion from one side to another. It had moments one couldn’t have envisioned that could go down in the penultimate day of the Test.
Australia failed to seize a catalogue of opportunities that could have put them 2-0 ahead in the series heading to Manchester. However, it’s hard to tell which failed chance was the bitterest pill to swallow. Was it the botched run-out chance off Nathan Lyon? Maybe allowing Ben Stokes to rotate the strike in a rather more comfortable way and to let him scamper for twos whenever required? How about a sheer misuse of the decision review system on a delivery that clearly pitched outside leg instead of the one that sharply turned to hit middle and leg?
It keeps on piling in a loop and ceases to end on something other than a disappointing note.
Nevertheless, as much as Australia let England off the hook, the root of their downfall was their batting. The prediction made by coach Justin Langer that the best-batting side makes the difference is key now because if a team fails to cash in big on a lead of more than 100 after bowling the hosts for double figures, there must be grave concerns.
The good news from Australia’s perspective is that they have been doing most things right. They have unexpectedly appeared closer than ever in their past three attempts in England and seem on track to retain the urn. They cannot afford to lose their way. Marnus Labuschagne’s ever-developing skills in daunting conditions combined with Smith’s potential return in Manchester further keeps them in good stead.
The game was engulfed by moments that made you fall in love with red-ball cricket all over again, but it also reminded everyone that sport is unquestionably cruel. Despite Australia’s foozle, let’s not forget that this Ashes is very much alive for both sides.
But Tim Paine’s men must conquer their demons and prepare psychologically to better handle a slowly resurgent England centres on one man.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Because that's not what a massacre is. A massacre is a battle that's barely a battle because one side comes in and basically just wipes the opposition out and it's never a contest. It's the wrong word to apply to a match where one team was on top pretty much throughout the whole match, but for a miracle and some brain explosions in the end that somehow allowed the otherwise down and out team to win. Don't know about England holding the psychological advantage at this point. We'll see how this game progresses. But just things like Archer coming out and struggling to even pass 85mph when there's been all the talk of him going after Smith again, and Smith yet again coming out and dominating with England still having no answers. If Smith can get some support on day 2 and pile up another monster innings, I think any psychological advantage England think they have will wipe out very quickly. From everything coming out of the Australian camp it seems that, while clearly disappointed about that loss, they realise that they largely dominated England, even despite England having by far the best of the conditions, and they really should have won that match and thus they don't actually need to do a lot differently from here. They still only need to win one of the last two tests to retain the Ashes. As far as "forgotten", that Ashes test will long live in the memory "if" England go on to win the Ashes. Then it will be something talked about for decades, like Botham's exploits in 1981. However, if Australia win this test match and retain the Ashes, it will be quickly forgotten.
Aayushman
Roar Guru
It was my own headline. I’m not sure why you can’t call it a massacre? Sure, it wasn’t a one-sided game, but Australia let England script a comeback out of nowhere. Despite a strong start by Australia in the fourth Test, England somewhere hold the psychological advantage. They may leave it behind for the time being, but it would be far from forgotten.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
While Australia could point to a number of ways they could have been better, the truth that they can hold onto going into the next two tests is that, despite England having by far the best of the conditions in the test match (Australia's first innings 179 was in dramatically harder batting conditions than England's first innings 67, and by England's fourth innings the pitch really did turn into a featherbed with nothing for the bowlers at all, the sort of pitch where you'd be disappointed not to make 500 if you had that in your first innings), it still took an absolute miracle for England to win. If it takes that for them to win when everything is favouring them, then Australia should really be backing themselves to win these last two tests.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
What's with the headline? I'm guessing that wasn't you, often they are put on by editors here, but massacre? Seriously? A massacre is a completely one-sided smashing, not a get out of jail one wicket win. Someone has their metaphors mixed up! That being said, the memory of Headingley is completely dependent on these next two matches. A miracle test win that leads to a series win is remembered for decades, but a miracle test win in an overall series loss is quickly forgotten. So if Australia can come out and win these next two matches, or even at least win one of them and retain the Ashes, the memory will fade pretty quickly.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Spot on, Smudge. You don’t deserve to win Tests on a good batting wicket with scores of 179 and 246. We were 2/136 in the first innings. No demons in the pitch and bowlers tiring. And in the second, when the wicket was much better for batting, we never got going, with our best position, 4/163. The latter might make 246 sound like a pass, but we were 274 ahead with the opposition being ground into the dirt, demoralised by their own abject batting failure. And then we took the foot off their neck. And we batted like we felt our lead was enough. We had all the time to nail down a victory. That second innings we should have ground out anther 50 to 100 runs, which would have also made it more likely England would have to bat on day 5 if they wanted to win, when Lyon would have been even more dangerous.