Australia have choked the life out of England’s aggressive batting line-up.
Rather than blasting holes in their top six like they did in the last Ashes, Australia have made a point of bowling dry and it has paid off handsomely.
Over the four years prior to this Ashes, England scored at a sprightly rate of 3.45 runs per over in home Tests. So frugal have Australia’s attack been in this series that England have managed to go at just 2.85 runs per over.
To underscore the significance of those run rates, they represent the difference between England scoring 310 in a full day’s play and being restricted to just 256.
England’s line-up in this Ashes has brimmed with batsmen who love scoring quickly. The likes of Jason Roy, Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow, in particular, do not respond well to being tied down. Each of those batsmen also launched into this series off the back of a successful World Cup during which they flayed bowlers from ball one.
Australia have cleverly decided to prey upon this aggression, to try to blanket these stroke-makers until they cough up their wicket with a moment of impatience.
That might sound like mere cricketing common sense, but it marks a distinct change of approach from Australia. If England have been the most attacking Test batting unit in the world in recent years then Australia have been their equivalent with the ball.
Under the stewardship of Darren Lehmann, Australia’s coach until 17 months ago, their bowling mantra seemed to be blast them out.
When Lehmann took over just before the 2013 Ashes, he repeatedly emphasised the need for Australia’s Test pacemen to be able to rattle opponents with their speed. As part of this approach, he made it clear he would favour quicks who could hit 140 kilometres-an-hour plus.
(Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
“That’s a really big area for us in our bowling attack – you need to have speed against players these days,” Lehmann said back in 2013.
“Gone are the days when you can bowl 125 kilometres an hour. You need to be 140 if you possibly can. Speed’s a really big issue… we’re looking for blokes who bowl with some pace.”
It wasn’t an entirely flawed philosophy. Lehmann’s desire to intimidate opposition batting line-ups resulted in Australia recalling Mitchell Johnson for the 2013-14 Ashes and we all know how that turned out.
During Lehmann’s reign, Australia did have an advantage on flat home pitches over all of their opponents, bar South Africa, thanks to the pace and height of their quicks. Overseas, though, speed and bounce wasn’t always the tonic. Never was that clearer than in the 2015 Ashes.
Stuart Broad and James Anderson sliced Australia to ribbons in that series while operating in the low-to-mid 130s range.
Australia, meanwhile, had Johnson and Mitchell Starc flinging down rockets at up to 150 kilometres an hour. The problem was those missiles had unreliable guidance systems. As the English quicks were hitting good areas monotonously, Starc and Johnson were getting creative with their pitch maps.
It took until the final Test in that 2015 Ashes for Australia finally to concede this hyper-attacking strategy had tanked. Johnson and Starc together went at a whopping 3.8 runs per over for the series.
Mitchell Johnson: one of the highlights of the last three years. (AFP, Ian Kington)
For the final Test, Australia picked precise seamer Peter Siddle. Bowling at a gentle pace but with unerring accuracy, Siddle collected match figures of 6-67 while conceding just 1.77 runs per over.
In the following three years Siddle played just five more Tests as Lehmann continued to favour faster bowlers. Yet when Australia began this current Ashes, under a new coach in Justin Langer, Siddle was in the starting XI.
The Victorian veteran was excellent in the first two Tests, consistently building pressure upon which his bowling colleagues could capitalise. A slew of dropped catches left Siddle with figures that did not accurately represent how well he performed.
Langer offered generous praise for Siddle’s efforts. He had executed just the role asked of him. Yet it hasn’t been only Siddle bowling dry – of the six most economical bowlers in this series, five have been Ausssies.
Hazlewood (2.50 runs per over) has been the most frugal bowler to date, followed by Cummins (2.54), Pattinson (2.56), Siddle (2.71), Jofra Archer (2.73) and Nathan Lyon (2.74).
Compare that to the economy rates of Craig Overton (3.16), Jack Leach (3.29), Chris Woakes (3.34), Stuart Broad (3.41), Ben Stokes (3.80) and Moeen Ali (4.09).
For the first time in a long time, Australia have been the more precise and disciplined bowling line-up in an Ashes in the UK. The Aussie bowlers deserve major credit.
So, too, do Langer and his fellow selectors. They’ve nailed their bowling tactics and their selections.
As a result, Australia have retained the Ashes away from home for the first time since 2001.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
anon, We RETAINED/WON the ashes. Who said he is not getting the players he wants. To me the selections have been first class. You also said that he has lost control of player selection. He never had full control, as he is one of three on the selection panel. He would have the most input, and as coach have the best idea who is playing well. The rotation of our bowlers has been superb. Oh and I see my mate Rowdy liked your post.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Rowdy, Thanks for the compliments.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I am. Video analysis would have The Don worked out in no time. It's a shame all the athletic quicks in Braddles day all had their prime years white anted by bombs and bullets in the war.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
"Sledging and getting under your opponents skin was also part of Lehman’s ” playing the Australian way” ethos. = Yes he was guilty of that. (No need for a qualifier other than to say no need for a qualifier. It is a blog afterall) ----- "The ball tampering fiasco was the crescendo of Lehman losing the plot and creating a win at all cost zero respect for anyone mentality". = I have followed Lehmann's career since '87, as I have many, many other's, and he is no cheat.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
So it is a given that people offer up their thoughts on a matter in a blog and this is news to you? I might add plausible thoughts. You appear to have jumped to delusions and then castigate me for said thoughts, in an accusatory tone, where I have never declared them to be the objective truth. My crime? I express my opinions strongly. And for that I get lockjaw responses. Mensch.
Rob
Guest
I'm think I Bradman had the current bats at his disposal he would have averaged 130. Smith is playing in an era where modern equipment is light years above that of the 1930's. Also Bradman was a long way ahead of those in his own era. What I think is Bradman and Smith both have a freakish combination of hand eye coordination and a thirst for runs very few others can match. Smith is a full time professional with modern training methods at his disposal. Chappell and Ponting maybe up with Smith, but he might have them on consistence over a sustained period. I don't think anyone will be comparing them to Bradman.
Rob
Guest
The thing about Lehman and his speed requirement policy was often the length he wanted his bowler to consistently bowl. Because of his unwavering belief in intimidation by repeated short pitched bowling, our attack required favourable conditions and the inability of opponents of play balls directed at their ears to win. I won't deny the skill required to bowl a good short ball being a good weapon for fast bowlers but it does have it's limitations when playing on slow or low bouncing wickets and against quality batsmen that can bat patiently and resist the temptation of playing hook shots. Lehman referred to this as "playing the Australian way". Sledging and getting under your opponents skin was also part of Lehman's " playing the Australian way" ethos. The ball tampering fiasco was the crescendo of Lehman losing the plot and creating a win at all cost zero respect for anyone mentality. How Lehman has anything to do with Australian cricket is insulting to the Australian game IMO.
anon
Roar Pro
The coach is given the players he wants. If he's not getting the players he wants, then that's even more disturbing that the coach has lost control of player selection.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#DaveJ What many people miss re the players through the 70s into the 80s is that Lillee (67 wkts at 26.87) and Roberts (50 wkts at 24.14) and others were playing in SuperTests instead of for 'the establishment' - Lillee not official tests between March 1977 and Dec 1979. In his last 'official test' (the 1977 Centenary test in Melb) Lillee took 11/165 and the test before that 11/123 v NZ in Auckland. His Summer of 76/77 home series v Pak produced 21 wkts from 3 tests before 15 in 2 in NZ. For Roberts he played just 2 tests between Apr 1977 and Dec 1979. These were fairly big gaps in their careers when they were pretty well at their peak. Note too - the SuperTests were the best against the best - including vs the Rest of the World with some of the great South African players (Barry Richards in particular, Proctor, Rice and Le Roux). And ironically for Australia Bruce Laird scored 3 100s......in official tests his top score was a 92 I think. Some of the venues were interesting - some big scores.....in particular at Gloucester Park in Perth!!! (World XI made 625 off 114 overs v Aust in Jan 78).
Micko
Roar Rookie
No Lyon?!
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Canniness is never a numbers thing.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Numbers and results suggest otherwise.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Rowdy, I might die wondering what "Boof" thought. No one will ever know what he thought. Do you honestly think that he would have admitted to the incident knowing it would ruin his career. Someday he will write a book and we may learn what really happened. But it was more your comment that Warner started all this for "revenge" that i found beyond belief. He was seething over SA actions, so decided he would get revenge by sandpapering the ball. From your posts you did not say that was your opinion, but seemed to state it as fact. In my OPINION three players took the fall that others were knowingly involved in.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Interesting viewpoint. I'll sleep on this.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I also think we just have the talent right now and depth. Remember they have bowled alderman and mcgrath with huge success there in past and they arent fast pace bowlers . We need to cultivate the english mentality in england a bit more in addition to playing the fast pace bowlers where the pitches suit them . Siddle in 2015 back at the oval was such a good example of going for line and length and strangling them on economy rate
Pierro
Roar Rookie
they started getting watson plum a lot though in his last series or so , he was shoving the pad forward and kept getting outside despite one big score I think at the oval, id need to look it up. ridiculously the only place where marsh has played well and been critical was at the oval and lords in 2015 on the flatter decks as a change of pace. Terrible everywhere else though
Pierro
Roar Rookie
How can I forget rowdy i was a student there then and watched him live. What a character he was , intimidated them no end. Got inside their heads like mcgrath (although he was way more talented)
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Don't forget Merv did well in 93
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
It doesn't matter how many runs you get, the bowlers have to dismiss the opposition twice for there to be a win. It's how cricket works.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Still your belittling of me, for holding an opinion different to you, could be considered puerile. For example, l don’t consider you ridiculous for holding an opinion different to me. Even though it holds to ridicule a man respected for his honesty and integrity. No-one’s ever died wondering what Boof thought. —- I did not state l KNEW what happened. I offered it up as an opinion. Nowhere did l state it as a proven fact; explicitly. —– I believe a person when he says what happened was what, in actual fact, had happened. Would you have the gumption to accuse Boof to his face? Or, less, ask him about what he knew of the affair and be settled with the answer?