I admit it. I’m easily confused. Although I was always good at English at school, I needed extra coaching for my Maths GCSE. Logic and lateral thinking are not my forte. Maybe that’s why I’m totally bemused about England’s recent capitulation down under.
I understand the reasons propagated for our humiliation – the mental fatigue, the technical flaws, the revitalised Australia team – but I’m not sure I can compute them sufficiently.
If you ask me why I think we’re getting hammered today, and ask me the same question tomorrow, you’ll probably get two different answers.
The truth is, I can’t tell you whether England will bounce back at Perth. Logic tells me that we can. But it also tells me that we can’t.
For starters – and let’s not beat around the bush about this – England are a better side than Australia. Our players have beaten their players (and the sides haven’t changed that much) in three successive Ashes series. What’s more, our batsmen have career averages the likes of Warner, Smith and Bailey can only dream of.
Why, after a slow start, is it so unreasonable to expect our more experienced and talented side to turn things around? We’ve done it before.
Unfortunately however, logic also tells me that we looked deflated and defeated at Adelaide. With Miller and Morris gone, and Flower likely to join them soon, there’s a real ‘end of an era’ feeling about this tour. In such circumstances, can our old soldiers revive themselves for one last hurrah? I doubt it.
The fact this next test is in Perth hardly helps. England’s batsmen don’t usually play well on fast bouncy tracks. The WACA couldn’t be a worse place for them to be.
Did you know that so far this series, thirty-three of the forty England wickets to fall have been caught (usually after limp shots). What’s more, eight of those – that’s one fifth or twenty per cent – have come off attempted pull or hook shots.
That’s right folks, on average we’re losing two batsmen per innings trying to be macho. Only an idiot would expect us to play the short ball better on the quicker WACA pitch.
So which logic do you buy into? Will the better side prevail over a five match series, or will the likes of Root and Pietersen be sitting ducks on a bouncy wicket?
I haven’t got a clue to be honest. If I was a gambling man like Shane Warne, I’d be better off taking my chances at 888poker than betting on the outcome of the third test.
Perhaps, therefore, we should just be philosophical about the result. Maybe it’s actually best if we lose? Australian cricket has been in turmoil in recent times, and a one-off Ashes victory, inspired by a bunch of thirty-somethings who will be past their best in 2015 – Clarke will be 34, Johnson nearly 34, Harris nearly 36, and Haddin nearly 38 – might persuade the ACB that everything in the garden is rosy. Nothing causes inertia at sporting bodies like short-term success.
With the exception of Kevin Pietersen, however, England’s top players are younger and should still be in their prime. Graeme Swann is getting on a bit, but spinners have a longer shelf life. Meanwhile, our younger cricketers look far more promising. It’s hard to imagine Smith, Khawaja and Hughes amounting to anything. Root and Stokes, on the other hand, are oozing with talent.
What I’m trying to say is this: you can’t have a legendary comeback, one that will long live in the memory, unless you go behind first. Perth could be the start of something very, very special.
But if it isn’t, and England get blown away by a left-arm bowler with an action so unreliable it’s bound to implode sooner or later, so what. We’ll be back.
But will Clarke with his dodgy back, Harris with his dodgy body, and Johnson with his dodgy moustache be playing in 2015? I doubt it.
James Morgan
Written in collaboration with 888 Poker
James Morgan, you are a bitter soul and I don’t think humility was your forte at school either. England has been outplayed by better captaincy, better preparation and better skills for the situation. Come the next Ashes series, England will be without Carberry, Trott, Prior, Anderson, Swann, Tremlett and possibly Pietersen and Panesar, that’s half our team and the reason is that they are not as good as they were, time has not only caught up with them, but other countries as well. It wasn’t long ago that this very team got rolled by the Kiwi’s (warning bells right there). Not many English supporters/journo’s got overly excited about 3-0 in the summer as we all know it was a whisker not a margin. Australia on the other hand have a better looking future ahead – please don’t say that Ben Stokes has exceptional talent, he hasn’t, he just has a little bit of Kiwi mongrel in him, but he will fall by the wayside, a bit like that spinner England threw in at The Oval in the summer (where has he gone?). You may laugh at Hughes and Kwaeja, but they have been doing what they should of done as part of their development and that is to go to Shield cricket and score a lot of runs – please check out their current form. Australia has bowling depths unseen before – Pattinson, Starc, Bird, Coulter-Nile, Cummins to name a few. They have excellent keepers lining up, Tim Payne, Hartley and a 16yr old they are very excited about. What have we got? A young Australian batsmen in the Lions squad, Stokes, Ballance (he’s actually quite good), Buttler (ditto), sadly all are overseas born players – there lies England’s problems, and where are the pure British born crickets? Save your money, don’t bet on England’s short to medium term future.
Doug. Thanks for your response – and humility ;-) I am not denying at all that Australia have played better. They deserve every ounce of their success. After all, England have been terrible. I’m not sure if you’re a regular reader, but we’ve long said this particular England team, under the current management, have not played to their potential.
I disagree entirely with you re: the strength in depth of Australian cricket. If they had lots of batsmen coming through, they wouldn’t be picking guys like Rogers who have been around for years and years. Similarly, I don’t think you’ll find many Australian experts arguing that Smith is a test No.5. Yet he still plays, largely because you don’t have anyone else. Runs in domestic cricket mean very little indeed. Look at Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash!
Re: Pietersen, he has recently committed himself to England until 2015. He wants to finish his career after he’s toured South Africa. That very much means he’ll still be around, health permitting. He’s England’s oldest batsman, yet the same age as Clarke.
With the exception of Warner, which younger players have actually contributed to Australia’s current success? The core of Australia’s side is Clarke, Haddin, Harris and Johnson, all of whom are older than England’s key players.
Other than KP, England’s core is Cook (28), Bell (31), Prior (31), Broad (27), Anderson (31). They should all still performing at a very high level in 2015. The same cannot be said of Clarke (possibly due to injury), Haddin, Harris and probably Johnson.
I’ll write about this in more detail another time, but it could be argued that Australia have hardly improved at all since 2010/11. Other than these two recent test matches – in which you have admittedly played to your very best, when England have played at their very worst – your boys have endured their poorest run of form since the 1980s. Why is this suddenly all forgotten?
The Aussie team in 2010/11 was Watson, Katich, Clarke, Ponting, Hussey, Smith, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Harris and Hilfenhaus.
It’s basically the same core XI now with a few exceptions. What’s more the players who have come into the side now are clearly worse than the ones who have retired.
Who are the better cricketers? Ponting (average 52), Hussey (51), Katich (45) & Hilfenhaus (28) OR Warner (41), Rogers (32), Lyon (33) and Bailey (1st class av 38). This upward curve you seem to see simply doesn’t exist I’m afraid.
All we are currently witnessing is an average / good test team (Australia) that’s highly motivated with a new vibrant coach, playing a good test team (England) that’s jaded, playing poorly with key players out of form, with a management team that’s stale and coming to the end.
Yes, England are losing, but to claim Australia are now on some mystical upward curve (when only a few weeks ago the state of Aussie cricket was universally derided), when the key players are ageing, when the new generation seems more comfortable in ODIs than first class cricket, is simply fantasy. Young Aussies with big reputations don’t even do well in county cricket anymore.
To sum it up,Ponting has just gone on record as saying that Hughes is ‘clearly the best young batsman in Australia’. Is your information better than his?!
England have problems at the moment, that’s for sure, and the Ashes seem lost, but Aussie fans are fooling themselves if they think everything in the garden is rosy now.
* It’s not like Australia are winning with a young team full of young guns who look set to conquer the world. However, we’re more than happy for them to pretend so. Suits us fine. I hope the ACB agree with you.
The truth is that neither England not Australia will be number 1 in the world any time soon – not for a prolonged period of time anyway. Both sides will have to rebuild. However, given that England’s core players are younger, I’d much rather be in England’s shoes. Australia will need to find replacements for Harris, Haddin and Clarke very very soon. England’s situation isn’t so urgent.
James Morgan
I think Australia turned the corner after the Lord’s test (barring 2nd innings capitulation in Manchester), from an ordinary side to a reasonable one. I am certain that Australians don’t believe that for one minute that this is now a great side and they will move in leaps and bounds to number one (a bit too much emphasis is placed on becoming numero uno by Clarke for me). The majority I speak to are just wanting this series to be won, get back the Ashes then build. Sensible expectations considering South Africa looms for them. Phil Hughes is a very talented player, Ricky knows best (!), but anybody who saw him in South Africa will attest. Needs confidence and be told he is an opener and that his time will come when he is ready and scoring runs – he currently scoring a lot of runs in the Sheffield Shield, and I think we will all see him before this series is out, probably at the expense of Rodgers, unless he does something special in Perth (he is capable). So you have the openers Hughes and Warner, Watson is not a number 3, but until the likes of Burns, Maddison, Marsh, Kwaeja get going, he is there to stay (he bowls well and probably be a number 5, dropping Smith to 6). Clarke 4. Now Smith, I agree that Australians don’t see him as comparative to Hussey (who is?), but he played very well in India and had a pretty good series in England considering he wasn’t even in the touring squad. Personally I rate him as a player, he will keep improving and dare I say it, a potential test captain for the future. Weirdly I do have some Aussie mates who agree (one a former Shield batsmen), but your right in that he is not a number 5, but he is young and improving. This England squad and management are on their last tour, that is for sure, and Australia definitely will not be seeing Anderson, Swann, Prior, Carberry, Monty, Tremlett, Trott, Pietersen playing test cricket in Australia again. But that’s probably looking too far ahead, so I’ll stick my neck out for 2015 in England – Eng – Cook, Crompton, Root, Bell, Ballance, Buttler, Bairstow, Briggs, Stokes, Broad, Finn. Aust – Warner, Hughes, Watson, Clarke, Maddison, Smith, Payne, Agar, Pattinson, Siddle, Cummins. See you then!
Very well said Doug. Poor James is believing his own BS and that is a bad sign
Ok then smart arses. How does your argument stack up when you consider a. England’s key players ARE younger (yes, it’s true look it up, so if half England’s team is gone so will Australia’s) and b. The last 3 ashes series which involved more or less exactly the same players! You can ignore caree stats too, if that’s what your argument needs to work. England’s oldest batsman, KP, is the same age as Clarke, yet you reckon the former will retire, whilst the one with the chronic back problem will be prolific in 2015. Laughable. Oh, and those bowlers you mention are always crocked!!!
Sorry, but forget 2015. It’s now that matters.
We have been humiliated and we need to fight.
Graham, I was responding to the author – I’m not talking about career stats, I was referring to here and now. However, in 2015, I don’t believe Australia will have Haddin, Harris, Johnston, Rodgers, but they have batsmen in Shield cricket piling the runs. I said probably Pietersen might be out, but his contract is due soon and he wants to go to the 20/20 riches (remember his little issue recently, read “I don’t want to play test cricket attitude”!). Clarke doesn’t play 20/20, and besides, he has much more responsibilities as captain then Pietersen does. Your right in saying that England’s key players are younger, but they are past their best – Anderson faded after Lords, and he still can’t crack 30 runs a wicket – Swann, great bowler and reliable lower order, but where is he now? Prior, not only failing with the bat (excused last innings when no pressure to win, plus he did throw his wicket), but sloppy behind the stumps. Didn’t he win Cricketer of the Year recently? Cook, out of nick, but classy and will still be there as captain. Seriously, take a look at your beloved stats then – England are on the slide. With approx. 60% of the 22 players out there not around for 2015, tell me, who has the better depth?
I don’t think twenty20 is relevant for Clarke. His back probably won’t hold up until then. I don’t think England are entering a golden age, but I think you’re being very biased here. I don’t know a whole lot about the young cricketers coming through England, but you’ve got the likes of Bell-Drummond, Vince, Mills, Hales and Foakes who you didn’t mention who could have good futures. I’d also take exception to Stokes not being an exceptional talent, in my opinion, having seen him a bit for Durham too, he is a great talent. Rob Key described him as one of the best he’d seen at 18. Whilst he might be foreign born, Stokes is a product of the English academy system.
You’ve also over-egged a lot of the Australian team. Steve Smith has a long, long way to go and is one of the weakest Australian members. Hughes and Khawaja may go on to be good players, but they haven’t looked like doing it so far in their international career. I don’t know a great deal about the others you’ve mentioned, but if they’re as good as you say they are, they should be knocking on Clarke and Lehmann’s door because that batting line-up is still reliant on 2 or 3 players.