Among the numerous interviews and press conferences with Australian players and staff in the aftermath of their Ashes sealing win in Manchester, few gave better insight into Australia’s success than captain Tim Paine.
Asked how much he put the win down to learning the ‘craft’ of cricket in English conditions, Paine’s answer revealed just how far this Australia side had come since the last UK tour of 2015.
“I think we’ve known for a while that England play differently to the way we do over here,” Paine began.
“And I think this team’s made a real effort to put their ego aside and roll up their sleeves to do the job that’s required, rather than worry about how it looks, or the ‘style’ or the ‘brand’ of cricket we want to play. The brand of cricket this team wants to play is winning cricket. We need to adapt to the conditions and situations that allow us to do that and I think this group has done that superbly.”
The answer reflected perhaps the biggest shift in Australian cricket’s tactical philosophy in years. Paine referenced the need to imitate the way England played in their own conditions. A simple, seemingly straightforward tactic from the outside. But one that has been stubbornly ignored for several tours.
Tim Paine of Australia. (Photo by Francois Nel/Getty Images)
The most fundamental reason behind the shift, however, lays at the feet of coach Justin Langer. While previous coaches refused to relent on the ‘Australian way’, Langer has fastidiously employed a work-smarter-not-harder approach, particularly with the bowlers. Reflecting on the win at Old Trafford, he said playing abroad was about constant adjustments to a skillset.
“The best players adapt, it’s as simple as that. If you don’t, you lose,” he said.
“And you’ve also got to live what you talk about. There’s no point us talking about playing with humility and being professional and being honest with each other and not doing it.”
Since a shock loss in 2005, Australia’s need for a more nuanced, patient approach to Test cricket in England had become more apparent each losing series. In 2015, Australia tried and failed to replicate the tactics that delivered them a whitewash victory at home in 2013-14.
Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson and Josh Hazlewood went at an expensive 3.76 an over. Hazlewood would later conceded that he tried to bowl the ‘miracle ball’ too often. It was reflective of an impatient, stubborn approach. One that believed success in Australia would duly translate abroad.
This time, however, the penny has dropped. Hazlewood, Starc, Pat Cummins, James Pattinson and Peter Siddle have combined for an economy rate of 2.63.
The sharp improvement is profound, and reflects Langer’s insistence on ‘doing, not talking’ (click here for fellow Roar cricket writer Ronan O’Connell’s piece on Australia ditching the pace obsession). The relentless accuracy of the bowlers takes not only skill, but also mental application.
They’ve rolled up the sleeves in more ways than one.
For close followers of the Australian team, perhaps the most pleasing aspect of the result is to see an approach many have been crying out for so meticulously enacted and executed. It’s a credit to Langer’s newly instilled philosophy, and to Paine’s ability to convey and reiterate the message in the middle.
There’s little reason to think Australia won’t walk away from The Oval as 3-1 victors this series. The side’s confidence is visibly apparent and complacency – as they’ve reminded us exhaustively this week – hasn’t crept in. Beyond that, they simply possess a stronger line-up than the hosts who, by contrast, will struggle for motivation after a long summer.
Ever the perfectionist, Langer conceded in the lead up to the fifth Test that while he was pleased with the side’s game plan, it ‘hasn’t been perfect’.
“We still haven’t played our best game yet,” he said.
“Hopefully that happens here.”
anon
Roar Pro
No thanks to our pie chuckers. Siddle averaging 47 with the ball, just 5 wickets.
Marty
Roar Rookie
No anon, it’s actually a great example of exaggeration because, and correct me if I’m wrong, you need to take 20 wickets to win a test match and Smith is wicketless so far in this series.
Jero
Roar Rookie
If that amounts to a philosophy, then I'm all on board. Not that I gleaned any such thing from the article. I do appreciate the selectors' new willingness to do away with stringent adherence to the whole incumbency bedrock, notwithstanding Warner's selection. It's not as if they're spoilt with a range of strong alternatives. Also, even though the Marsh selection has caused the usual brew ha ha, they've shown a willingness to be flexible. The Siddle inclusion today being a further case in point. It's become an active process, rather than an inflexible if it ain't broke why fix it rigidity. I like the notion of it being a squad, not an XI.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
I think you've summed up the biggest change from the previous philosophy when you mentioned the selections in the last paragraph Jero. My interpretation of the article was that for too long we've tried to impress them with our pace and left the swing/seamers on the bench. Leaving Starc out for Siddle was a big call imo. To me that's where they put the ego aside. Not sure Boof would have ever done it. I'm not sure if it's all Langers doing but it doesn't really matter who made it happen either. The main thing is they opted for brains over brawn for a change and it's worked a treat so far.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"And I wonder.." Sugarman = ?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I've had consecutive periods wondering.
Chris M
Roar Rookie
Thanks David, nice article. In terms of ego however, the selection of Warner for the 5th test shows Australia still have quite dropped all of it. Cheers
U
Roar Rookie
Especially the way the Aussies celebrated on the field for so long. They’ve still got one game to win. Calm down
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I've often wondered about what I was doing myself during that period. Only surpassed by wondering about what the he ll I was doing between 2001 and 2018.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"Simply picking Siddle over Starc in the first test sent a powerful message that we had learned the lessons from the past." Agreed. For all the talk from outside of the Australian camp that Starc was a match winner, could blow teams away etc and simply must play, the Australian camp, it seems from the outside, methodically assessed local pitches and conditions, with an eye to the length of the series and picked bowlers accordingly. Overall the management of the bowling attack within a compressed Test series - and following on from a WC campaign for some of them - has been first class. As discussed previously, let's not forget Australia is on an extended multi-month tour, playing away from home, with players who have limited experience to UK conditions. A narrow series loss would have been a par performance IMO. A series draw, or most likely a series win, is exceptional. Especially considering where the Test team has come from over the last 12-18 months.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yeah, ok. I think you've said that very well :thumbup:
Jero
Roar Rookie
Maybe Jeff, though I'm more skeptical about reading anything into anything said at a press conference than I am about what was actually said. Which wasn't exactly compelling let alone profound, based upon the extracts above. I don't generally listen to sports press conferences, and haven't heard any from this series at all. It doesn't seem I'm missing out on much. Very bland stuff, but someone's got to do it. I don't see any guiding philosophical pathway, and it's not the first time I've seen Australian teams try to adapt to the conditions. The India series in 2004 is a case in point. They've just bowled bloody well in the conditions and relied upon some good advice about them from those who knew like Siddle. It's also the case that this is the best seam attack we've taken there for quite a while. A squad of five really good options. I agree with everything Ronan wrote a few days ago, comparing things to how they were when Starc and Johnson basically shuffled in and went wang, leaking runs in all directions. But to quote David, Blind Freddy could have worked that one out, most of us did. Good teams adapt. Look at India in Australia, they've adapted brilliantly, but it takes having the bowlers to do it. And they've selected well, putting Siddle in ahead of Starc at an early stage and not letting things slip away early in the series with Starc underdone after the World Cup. Credit to Langer and the other selectors for that. I'll give anyone credit for working it out, including Langer and Paine, but let's not get carried away on some overblown philosophical trajectory. It's a simple game, when you strip it back. Australia have executed very well with the ball, and selected well. Full credit to all concerned.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Reckon you are being a bit hash on Paine, Jero. Not sure what more he can say in pressers, but I've thought he's been quite open and direct. Including puttinh his hand up to in-game mistakes (Headingly) and responding to criticisms of him being a "stand-in" captain. Agreed Smith has been brilliant, but isn't it so often the case that series are won on the back of brilliant/stand-out performances from one or two players? In terms of the bowling attack bowling good length, that's something that recent attacks have failed to do on tour as they haven't adjusted from Australian conditions. So I think the adaptability is important to recognise. It may seem like the logical thing to do, but it hasn't come to pass in recent away series.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Sorry, but most Australian media commentary has treated it exactly as though retaining the Ashes is far more significant than a series win. I thought Leach looked more dangerous than Lyon at Old Trafford.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Nice piece David, there's no doubt Langer deserves significant credit for the way he's made Australia a more malleable side, one with far less rigid tactics. And Cricket Australia deserve praise for the way they've tried to make Australian cricketers more rounded by exposing them to the Dukes ball in the Shield, organising plenty of "A" tours and, where possible given tight fixtures schedules, offered the Test team decent training camps to prepare for foreign conditions.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
This is the best preparation for an Ashes tour of England I can recall since 1989, when a lengthy tour-game schedule was par for the course. That's a credit to the administrators. We've then picked players based on performances in those preparation games or on County form for those players who have played County, then picked bowlers assessed as being best suited to individual pitches, with an eye to managing workload across the series. That's a credit to the selectors. All the while, the batsman have been given some leeway to perform, but when it's been evident that a change is required based on immediate returns within the series (Bancroft) but also considering longer terms achievements even where those returns have not been there (Warner), the selections/changes have/haven't been made as required. IMO, the Australian set-up has got the approach to this series spot on. It's easy to argue in retrospect that such and such should not have/should have, been playing, but a lot of that is pure speculation that someone else would have come in and done better. Almost all of the Australian line-up has no County experience, so the few that do have past UK experience are drawing on their knowledge of 4 years ago in the last Ashes. Australia has come on a multi-month long tour to England and retained the Ashes and may very well win the series. That's a credit to the entire Australian set-up, administration, coaches and of course the players. Putting it another way, what have England's past tours of Australia looked like? -17/18 AUS 4-0 -13/14 AUS 5-0 -10/11 ENG 3-1 -06/07 AUS 5-0 -02/03 AUS 3-1 One good tour amongst 3 abysmal results. It's not easy being the touring side.
anon
Roar Pro
Please. Langer got in the way of us winning with his selections. Steve Smith retained the Ashes. Without him we're down 4-0 right now and that's no exaggeration.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Pitches have been dulled down here since 13\14 when Johnson terrified England. CA terrified tests not lasting for 5 days.
Yawn of the Dead
Guest
i don't buy into it completely Smith has gone at 67 this series. he went at 48 last time when we were on top nearly all series. Head's counter attack in the first test and Wade's aggression - crucial bits of the jigsaw. so picking your moments to attack might be a mantra i would accept. Patto and Cummins have certainly gone for the jugular when appropriate. you really have to factor in that this england team is pathetic.
Jero
Roar Rookie
If Smith's continued brilliance as a batsman and our quality seam attack bowling good lengths at pace and wobbling the seam stem from some new philosophy then all's hunky dory in the universe. Paine certainly talks a good game, if there's something profound in any of what he said. I just took it as another sound byte myself. “And you’ve also got to live what you talk about. There’s no point us talking about playing with humility and being professional and being honest with each other and not doing it.” Sounds like verbal soup to me. Pass.