The celebrations had barely even begun at Old Trafford when a sobering note was struck.
Across the media, and especially on social media, wise English pundits made a compelling point: yes, Australia has retained the Ashes, but have you considered that if Steve Smith hadn’t been in the team, they wouldn’t have?
It’s impossible to argue with. There’s no way Australia would’ve secured this series without Smith, and so, in a moral sense, is it really accurate to say they won at all?
Cricket is, after all, a team game: it would hardly be fair to grant victory to a team which could not have won if one player was missing. Unfortunately, Australians everywhere will be forced, if they’re honest, to concede that without Smith, we would not have the Ashes, and so in real terms, we do not have the Ashes at all. Sad but irrefutably true.
It’s a principle that needs more stringent application in cricket. You’ll recall, for example, that without Ben Stokes, England would never have won the World Cup, so any fair-minded watcher will have to admit that New Zealand are the current World Cup holders.
Steve Smith celebrates his double century in Manchester. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
We can go further back, to right the wrongs of history. We all remember the epic 2005 Ashes series, won memorably by England. But there is no way that England could’ve won that series without Andy Flintoff, so anyone with the least interest in justice will retroactively award the 2005 Ashes to Australia.
Also the 1981 Ashes, as without Ian Botham England wouldn’t have a prayer. Add to these the 1932-33 Ashes (Harold Larwood), the 1954-55 Ashes (Frank Tyson), the 1956 Ashes (Jim Laker) and the 1978-79 Ashes (Kerry Packer).
It’s not only Ashes contests that have been unfairly adjudicated, incidentally: the Kolkata Test of 2001 could not have been won for India without VVS Laxman, so Australia definitely won that one, and therefore that series.
But then, even this doesn’t seem right, does it? As I said, cricket is a team game, and there are eleven players on a team. Clearly it’s absurd to allow a team of eleven to claim victory when victory would’ve been impossible without just one of them.
But isn’t it almost as absurd to allow it when victory is essentially due to two or three? Even three is a small minority in a team of eleven: when three men combine to win a series, it’s grossly unfair to allow eleven men to say they have “won”.
So let’s address the anomalies. In 1989 Australia won a famous Ashes victory, but records show that if you took Terry Alderman, Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor out of that team, they would’ve struggled. So let’s bite the bullet, face up to the facts and tell the truth: England won the Ashes in 1989.
Four years later, Australia won another series that would’ve been beyond their grasp without Shane Warne, Merv Hughes and David Boon, so we really do have to hand those over to the motherland too.
And in 1992-93, it’s impossible to imagine the West Indies claiming the series over Australia without Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, so it’s safe to text Allan Border and let him know his legacy is greater than he thought: turns out he DID beat the Windies in a series after all.
Allan Border. Undefeated. (Photo by Adrian Murrell/Getty Images)
So what’s the cut-off here? I would say that as long as a team can honestly claim that at least five players have made indispensable contributions to a series win, they can reasonably be said to have genuinely won the series.
Obviously it’s better if they have a literal majority, but I think five is acceptable. Four, though, is borderline: it might require an independent panel to rule on cases where if four players were removed from the team, the series would not have been won.
A lot depends, of course, on the hypothetical circumstances of the mooted removal of the star players. For example, the 2019 series would probably have gone England’s way if Steve Smith had been replaced by, say, Mitch Marsh; but defeat would’ve been even more certain if he’d simply vanished from the field with no replacement.
One could imagine that the 1992-93 Windies team might’ve found reasonable replacements for their two fast bowlers if necessary; but there’s no way you could ever have found a replacement for Flintoff in 2005, as Ben Stokes was only 14 at the time. The independent panel may have to issue a ruling on this also.
However we go about it, it’s clear that efforts must be made to correct records throughout the history of Test cricket, to properly reflect the fact that victory is not victory if it depends on the winning team having been made up of exactly the same players that it was made up of.
No more can we tolerate teams claiming “wins” when, if they’d been different, they might not have.
I thank all those online pundits for bringing to our attention this serious injustice, and I congratulate England on a magnificent victory in the 2019 Ashes series. And to Steve Smith – maybe try to not be so “in the playing eleven” all the time next time, yeah?
John
Guest
I think the soap dodgers are just upset because 11 of them couldn't beat a team of 1.
Sharpey
Guest
I think it is the uneducated view to think that cricket is a team game when at no time are there more than two people involved in any defining activity - except sending the ball back to the bowler mid-over or drinks... If Stokes hasn’t done what he had done, would the English have won the test...no. This persistent comment from the English and Joe Root smells of sour grapes. If Joe Root has made runs - even just performed to his average (of only 48 in each of the test innings) I would expect that the English would have won the series.
HR
Roar Rookie
It's about the only way I'll get one, so here's hoping!
JamesH
Roar Guru
Mate it's satire. Ben is taking the Mickey out of the people who are making this silly argument. Read it again and then have a look at the comments.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I'll be sitting by the letterbox, waiting for my Baggy Green.
Will
Roar Pro
Ben does great satire.
JamesH
Roar Guru
...But it's Stokes' and Broad's god-given right to play in the Ashes, of course.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Everything I thought I knew is wROnG
Callum Ritchie
Guest
This is absolute bull crap mate. Commith the hour, commith the man. I see what you are saying about not wining without Smith, but he stood up in the times that we needed him too. Just like a n the 3rd test, where we bowled the poms out for 67, Hazelwood stood up. So what you are saying is 100% disaccurate
Partyhat
Roar Rookie
Do you feel better now that’s out ?
The Late News
Roar Rookie
yep. it's a bit like saying the Korean war wasn't decided by China sitting out the first bit. hmmm.
U
Roar Rookie
I always praise the Poms for having the good sense of sending my ancestors here on trumped up charges. I know which country id rather grow up in
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I’d suggest that if Australia had played Labuschagne instead of Smith in the first 3 innings of the series (and he’d performed as well as he has so far). AND every one of the LBW decisions Lyon didn’t get (6 and counting) the one that siddle didn’t get and the two Cummins and Warner did get that weren’t out....that just from what I can remember off the top of my head right now. Australia would be at least 3-0 and probably 4-0 right now. Umpires have kept England in this whole series.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Gold.
TheTruth
Guest
"Sorry, as a comedic piece it lacks something." An audience with a sense of humour?
Mike B
Guest
Well if we take out Smith and Stokes we know Australia would've won the 3rd Test. We've actually only had Smith for 2.5 Tests not 3 Tests. All great teams have some great players. There are many games that Australia would've lost without Warnie or McGrath. Would we have won 5-0 without a rampant Johnson? - I doubt it. Would England have won in 1981 without Botham or 2005 without Flintoff? No. It all just sounds like English sour grapes to me. They're happy to take their WC on the back of Stokes. The reality is that England have been at home and their batting was woeful on their own turf! The much praised Root is so far from the other big 3 (Smith, Richardson and Kohli) and he has caved under the pressure that Smith has thrived upon. England have lowered themselves to cheating, time-wasting tactics whilst continuing to boo Smith! It has been very hypocritical. Of course it's been a team effort by Australia. The bowlers have been magnificent - rolling England for 67! The catching has been generally good...and Smith can't score runs if there's nobody at the other end. England need to look at their own selections and team. For example, you can't win Test matches with a specialist batsman who bats at no.7 and averages 33 after 35 Tests and only 1 century (Buttler) ! Or have a below Test standard wicketkeeper (Bairstow) and expect it not to matter too much because he can bat a bit!. For all the criticism of Paine he matches Bairstow for batting (3 runs less in career and series average) but far outperforms him with the gloves and is a better captain than Root. England's batting order was a mess. Roy is expected to open having never batted longer than two sessions in a first class match. Denly then opens yet he doesn't for his county. It's no wonder England's two best batsman were fellas batting where they prefer and are suited (Burns and Stokes). England were out-coached, out-prepared, out-selected, out-bowled, out-fielded (just), out-captained and, of course, completely out-batted. The last one thanks to Smith and mini-Smith(LB). Are people suggesting that if Smith hadn't played England would suddenly have out-performed Australia in all of the other areas? What nonsense! To me, it all sounds like excuse making and living in a fantasy world. One huge "what if" that can be flicked away with a "well he did play for Austraila"! The inability to face up to their own shortcomings with a home ground advantage and be honest about their many weaknesses at Test level will just prolong England's woes if they're not careful. They need some serious rethinking if they want any chance of being competitive in the next Ashes series as they'll be playing away against an Australian team that seems to be rebuilding after the disaster of last summer where India really gave us a hiding. I reckon the team and management have done brilliantly because it was looking pretty sad for us after Kohli and his lads left Australia earlier in the year. We could have sat around saying "what if Pujara hadn't played? What if Bumurah hadn't played?" They are questions that losers ask themselves because they did play. Better to ask "how can we play to that level? What are they doing that we're not doing? How do we improve?"
elvis
Roar Rookie
A celebrated EAGLE was rebuked for taking such satisfaction in his magnificence. "All that distinguishes you from the pigeon is your swiftness, your power, and your terrible talons and beak," jibed his interlocutor. "How right you are," replied the eagle.
pakistanstar
Roar Rookie
"They wouldn't have won if they didn't have Smith", yeah but we do have him so move on. Pom media is proper garbage.
Richie
Roar Rookie
Yes, but don’t tell them that!
Jordan Klingsporn
Roar Guru
AH, its comedy. I have a few English friends who keep saying "MURGH, but how did you go in the World Cup" "MURGH, but without Smith, you would have lost".