Australia might have taken a narrow first innings lead over England after two days’ play of the fifth Ashes Test – but you wouldn’t know it from the UK press’ reaction.
The condemnation was widespread as the visitors racked up their 295 at just 2.85 runs an over – a far cry from England’s Bazball-fuelled 5.17 per over in scoring 283 on Day 1.
Particular derision was reserved for Usman Khawaja and Marnus Labuschagne’s go-slow to start the day, with Australia managing just 54 runs in Day 2’s first session for the loss of only Labuschagne for a painstaking 82-ball 9.
Writing in The Telegraph, veteran cricket journalist Scyld Berry was scathing, describing the Aussies’ ‘snail-like batting pace’ as simply ‘bad cricket’ and putting the blowtorch on Khawaja and Labuschagne.
“This was not the opposite extreme of Bazball; it was not traditional Test cricket; it was simply bad batting,” Berry wrote.
“Australia’s top order surrendered the initiative to England by ignoring two of the basics: looking for singles and rotating the strike.
“In scoring 283, England were too frenetic; in scoring 295, Australia were too inert. England batted in fifth or sixth gear, while Australia crawled all morning in first, whereas third would have been a happy medium on a pitch that continued to offer seam movement.
“Blocking had worked for him [Khawaja] at Edgbaston but in the course of a five-Test series, especially in this era of analysts, a pony has to acquire more tricks. The near-half-volley from Stuart Broad that exposed the minimalist footwork was never in danger of being driven.
“Marnus Labuschagne had come good during his match-saving century at Old Trafford but he wasted his form on leaving nearly half the balls he faced and denying his gifts.”
Berry also accused the Australian pair of focusing ‘more on survival than singles’, condemning the pair for what he described as a ‘voluntary surrendering of the initiative’.
“It might have appeared that Australia were trying to parody Bazball by going to this opposite extreme, but there was a more obvious explanation for this go-slow,” he continued.
“Throughout this series Khawaja, cocooned in his concentration, has focused more on survival than singles. Earlier in the over that he was out, Labuschagne pushed a ball to wide mid-on, or midwicket really, but his partner was not backing him up in any sense.
“Australia’s top order dug in and dug deep: it will be fascinating to see whether they also dug their own graves.”
Manage, strategise & dominate. Download Wicket Cricket Manager today!
For former England captain Michael Vaughan, there was a simple explanation for the slow start – they were scared of getting out.
“They are taking home the urn, but I’ve never seen Australia play with so much fear,” Vaughan told the BBC’s Test Match Special.
“They are usually so aggressive and try to take the game forward.
“They have just sat in to bat a long period of time without remembering you have to put a bit of pressure on the bowlers.
Marnus Labuschagne is closely watched by Mark Wood. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
“This morning I thought it was the worst I’ve ever seen Australia bat in my time watching them. They never play like that.”
Debate has also raged over Steve Smith’s controversial run out escape, which proved the catalyst for Australia’s final-session recovery.
Third umpire Nitin Menon ruled that Jonny Bairstow had disturbed one bail with his gloves before gathering the ball, and hadn’t removed the other before Smith had made his ground.
But England supporters and past greats have been quick to dispute the decision; a Sky Cricket poll currently sits at more than 61.6 per cent of responses saying they disagreed with the decision, while commentator and former player Ian Ward referred to an intricate ‘quad-screen’ to try and definitively prove Smith was in fact out.
“There is a stump with no bail anywhere near it – now is that off stump, where we’ve proved that the bail is out of the groove, or middle stump?” Ward asked on Sky.
“Keep your eye on the little green heart that is in the middle stump – the logo for LV. There is no bail anywhere near it. So I think it was out of the groove on the left to start with, then the middle stump left. No bail anywhere near it, so I think it was probably out – just.”
Co-commentator and former Australian captain Mark Taylor jokingly responded that he was ‘happy to give it to [Ward] because 48 minutes later, I’ll look at the papers tomorrow morning and it’ll say he’s not run out’, but Ward’s view was shared across the UK Media, with popular former presenter David ‘Bumble’ Lloyd writing in the Daily Mail that Smith should have been given – though for slightly different reasons.
“The ‘dislodging of the bails’ is a slightly ambiguous term but if you look at this particular incident, the bail was not sufficiently dislodged,” Lloyd wrote.
“There was disruption of the bail by Jonny Bairstow but it was not dislodged. It may have been dislodged from a groove, but not from both grooves.
“I would never have liked to make that decision and had the utmost sympathy for Nitin Menon but I do like to keep the game moving!
“Law 29.1 states: ‘The wicket is broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or one or more stumps is removed from the ground.’
“Tom Smith’s Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, MCC’s Official Interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, adds: ‘For the purposes of dismissal — a bail has been removed at the moment that both ends of it leave their grooves.’”
Speaking after play, Stuart Broad claimed umpire Kumar Dharmasena had told the England players that Smith would have been given out had ‘Zing’ bails primarily used in limited-overs cricket had been involved – but admitted the correct call was made.
“Kumar said to me that if it was Zing bails, it would be out,” Broad said.
“I don’t really understand the reasoning why? I think there was enough of a grey area to give that not out.
“What are the rules? Was it the right decision? It looked like the benefit of the doubt sort of stuff.”
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
That session you talked of is the last approach needed in the next two days. There are always plenty of gaps in the field under Stokes and singles rotating the strike is the key to taking the momentum away. Ponting again was right at the time, perfect opportunity to knock singles in the gap and rotate left/right between Khawaja/Labuschagne. The running between wickets is the pressure Khawaja puts on his partners as he controls the tempo. Cummins has been found wanting in this series, not enough no nonsense authority as a captain, his bowling strikerate has suffered as a consequence, which was one of our attacks dual weapons with Starc - both career striking under 50. The last two Tests have shown that in the Poms scoring. It's obvious both bat and ball has flaws in both sides, hence the likely end result being 2-2, despite the drivel emanating from Britian about their obvious superiority and building legacies!
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
No what ifs for Marnus. When you get one of the world's top batsmen out, you are happy
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
They'll be marooned on the moral reef
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
No wonder he drove into the river
Jeff
Roar Rookie
One of my key comment focuses this series has been how Australia has been good (if not great) at building partnerships; maybe other than a couple of occasions, Australia has done very well to not lose clumps of wickets quickly. So quite "attritional" re wearing down the England attack. But I still think the morning session day 2 (Labs) was on the wrong side of what would be the better outcome re wearing down England - the lack of runs kept their tails up. That said, England was bowling really well in the morning and it was difficult to score freely. But I would have still hoped to see a little more scoreboard pressure from us session 1 that may have ameliorated the confidence of some of England's bowling attack and consequently made life a bit easier for the middle order. Anyway, game evenly poised right now...let's hope we execute well today with bowling changes and field placements. I thought our opening spell (1st hour, 1st session, day 1) of Starc/Hazelwood was allowed to linger too long when it was clear they weren't on-song. Eventually Cummins/Marsh came on and it looked like a different game. Think Cummins needs to be more "bold" in recognising that if the bowlers aren't "on" after 3 or 4 overs each. switch it up, rather than persisting with the business-as-usual approach of bowling them out for a 6/7 over spell each in "the hope" something will happen.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
England are preparing to celebrate a 5-0 sweep of the moral Ashes
mrl
Roar Rookie
The original law-makers thought of everything.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
They'd probably still be batting, but that's a whatif? Stokes body language after breaking the middle order, but still being behind after a healthy tail partnership indicated otherwise.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
I get you, but the point of a long batting line up or at least bowlers who can hold a bat is to take advantage of tired bowlers and produce the sum total. The Aussies were criticised early in the series for a long tail. The Aussies seem to have produced the more telling partnerships throughout the series, whether time, blunting the attack, as well as then putting the bowling to the sword with assaults like Marsh, or cameos like Starc, Cummins, Lyon and Murphy. We've heard plenty about Wood & Woakes, even Broad holding up an end while Stokes did all the work, so I think our tail deserves a bit of credit in the totals produced.
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
Of course the Poms would be happy at the end of the day. Just imagine if Marnus had been Smith's partner. Carnage
Loosey
Roar Rookie
What will the streakers jump over?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think we got a lot more out of our lower order partnerships than we may have expected which got us the lead. But also think the slow-ish batting in session 1 provided the England attack with additional focus (doubling down re digging deep) that allowed them to go harder at our middle order whereby we were subjected to sustained bowling pressure and consequently loss of our middle order wickets, that may not have occurred if our middle order had come in to bat in a better scoreboard situation.
Loosey
Roar Rookie
You can affect the same thing by scoring 100s. Who knew?
Loosey
Roar Rookie
The computer says no. Piers' special kind of vacuous opinion unable to be replicated by AI. A unique twat.
SDRedsFan
Roar Rookie
:laughing:
Morsie
Roar Rookie
Devout Aussie here. Bumble is right, it was bloody terrible. Rabbits in the headlights stuff...........
Kamikaae
Roar Rookie
The 3rd Umpire ruled Smith NOT OUT on one fact: Bairstow’s hand stayed and knocked the stumps and rattled one of the bails BEFORE the ball reached his HAND and even before Steve Smith’s bat reached the line. You are not allowed to do that. That is why even Stuart Broad said there is a benefit of the doubt to declare it as an OUT. The 3rd umpire was correct because that was what the slow-motion video showed. The Poms love to play the victim when the rules went against them, just like the LEGAL stumping of Bairstow by Carey, which will go down in cricket folklore in years to come and how England went into national mourning including in 10 Downing St.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
If the series is drawn, maybe the holder of the urn should be decided- by a Super Over ? then if still level, by most boundaries scored ? :stoked:
Kamikaae
Roar Rookie
Mountie I wouldn’t go that far to say “bad”. But more so the Australian batsmen , especially the top order went to sleep, or were for most part, were a groggy bunch from lack of sleep with the bat ( except for Steve Smith). The bowlers at the tail end had to do for them to get the runs.The 3-days break from the horrible 4th Test’s almost disastrous outcome( if not for the rain) wasn’t enough time to rest their minds, although their bodies rested. Let’s hope the Australian bowlers do the same in the 2nd Innings to restrict the runs by England, because Aussie batsmen have not got an effective answer to the bowlings of Wood, Woakes and Broad, occasionally from Anderson. With this pitch in the Oval, if England piles up to 350- 400 runs , I think its game over for Australia, unless Khawaja, Smith, Marsh, Read and Labuschagne can get a minimum over 50 runs each. Forget about Warner, unless lightning strikes on his bat so he can get runs over 30.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
It's not "how." It's "how many."