The biggest difference for me between the 2009 Ashes and most recent editions of this long-running soap was that the Australian bowlers were never alarming. During the 90s and most of this decade, I usually had a reaction to a change of bowling. Either dread at what Warne or McGrath or Alderman or McDermott or Gillespie might do in the next few (or, in Warne's case, many) overs or relief that they were taking a rest and England's batsmen - or, more to the point, their supporters - could breathe somewhat more easily.
It's not that Ben Hilfenhaus or Peter Siddle are bad bowlers. Hilfenhaus is the nearest approach Australia have made to an Alderman-a-like in ages and Siddle can bustle in like a truck for hours of lung-bursting effort, but one never felt that they put batsmen in imminent danger of dismissal. Nathan Hauritz, Marcus North and Stuart Clark are usually competent at what they do, but rarely rise to incisiveness. And the bowler who had ripped through South African batting orders like so much tissue paper, Mitchell Johnson, only managed to bowl well in one innings of the fourth Test – if anything, his introduction to the attack was the signal for the batsmen to get their shovels out and start filling their boots.
But apart from remembering to give Hilfenhaus the new cherry and not put a spinner on until the shine was off the ball, Ricky Ponting's bowling changes were basically an exercise in working out whose turn it was next. Wickets would fall because whoever was on bowled enough good balls for the inevitable lapse in a batsman's concentration to prove fatal, but there was rarely a sense that any of the bowlers had the force with them.
England's bowlers, on the other hand, were wildly inconsistent. Though quite capable of sending down hours of dross, they also turned on the magic for the odd spell and a clutch of wickets disappeared in puffs of smoke (or, at The Oval, dust). At Lord's, Jimmy Anderson and Fred Flintoff got five-fors, and at The Oval Stuart Broad got one for real and Graeme Swann had a moral one - though the scorebook says that Michael Clarke was run-out, an entry of st Strauss b Swann would give a slightly more accurate picture of what happened. Australian bowlers only managed two five-wicket hauls, both at Headingley. Graham Onions managed a couple of very destructive spells, and even Steve Harmison came to the party on the last afternoon, rattling Mike Hussey's cage enough to get him to run Ponting out and then wiping up the tail in no time flat - a task at which Australia failed repeatedly. England's tail usually wagged as if a lifetime supply of dog food had been plonked down in front of them.
Strauss had a wider range of bowling styles available to him, but every change was a bit of a gamble because until they started sending them down, he had to guess which of them was going to bowl accurately, at the right pace or on the right length. Fortunately for England, he got it right when it mattered most.
Much has been made of Australian players dominating the series aggregates and averages, but the statistical table which really tells the story of these Ashes is the one showing the best innings strike-rates, which has Siddle's and Johnson's performances from Headingley at or near the top, followed by a swathe of Englishmen scything Australians down in every match bar Cardiff.
A constant complaint about England's players is that they are too inconsistent. On this evidence, English inconsistency which has deep troughs and soaring highs is preferable to Australian consistent competence.
Posted by: Andrew Edlin at August 24, 2009 9:40 PM
In 2005 you had two really good teams. In 2009 you have teams with big flaws. England got some breaks, but also lost Petersen to injury. The critical error was not picking Hauritz in the fifth Test.
Posted by: David at August 25, 2009 3:16 AM
Cant really agree with you. I dont think this series is a good specimen to be analysed statistically. I watched the whole series except for the last 2 days. Its been said before but England won the key moments in a couple of tests. Having five genuine bowlers is such a luxary, and Eng will miss that. Maybe you have more lee-way with consistancy with 5? Our biggest problem is a lack of consistency in our bowling. They may have been consistantly in their returns but that doesnt mean they bowled like it. Siddle is my favourite player but he needs to be more patient. His stock delivery on a length is good enough to get people out. He was trying to bowl the batsman out every ball. The dread with McGrath and Warne was not searing pace or turn but consistantly good bowling and not getting any letoffs. If Siddle could bowl 6 deliveries short of a length on off batsmen would begin to fear him very quickly.
Posted by: Matt at August 25, 2009 3:21 AM
I think losing 4 out of 5 tosses was a decisive factor in the whole series, especially at the Oval. And of course, once the weather allowed for swing we Aussies appear to be clueless. We need to avoid constantly picking NSW/WA batsmen and pick a couple who play at the Gabba regularly, except that QLD has currently got a poor team.
Posted by: Cam at August 25, 2009 3:36 AM
I think the best illustration of your point is that the Oval's matchwinner, Stuart Broad, did not really deserve to be in the side based on his performances earlier in the series, and was only there because England's bowling attack had no real stars. He looked dreadful in some of the earlier Tests, then for one blistering spell he changed everything. Much like Flintoff - so much is made of his excellent run-out of Ponting (which also went a long way to securing the Test) - but who showed basically nothing with bat or ball other than that.
Posted by: Raul at August 25, 2009 5:14 AM
Its unbelievable that Ponting has the balls to make a announcement of returning in 2013. What is he thinking?? What if, he loses out in 2013 as well? He'll never be able to recover from that. Besides, before 2013, he'll have to tour India as well. Now, that'll be another pain in the ass for him. Even a Hauritz or Krejza would make any difference. Why is so adamant and arrogant at times? The best Ponting could do, is to bow after the 2011 WC and make room for someone else. We have seen enough of him to be really honest. The Aussie selectors have gotta be the worst this team has to ever put up with. They just can't make the right decisions before it becomes inevitable. Symmo should have been sacked a couple of years ago. But when it became intolerable, they had to. The same is gonna happen with Punter. At some point of time, they'll have to sack him too. People should be asking the questions rather than expecting answers. Hoping that day doesn't come where we end up like the West Indies.
Posted by: Ashok Sridharan at August 25, 2009 6:15 AM
Its strange that a win is due to outstanding performances, but the toss becomes significant when a team loses. all this talk of losing 4 tosses sounds codswallop when you consider that Australia's only win in the series came after they lost the toss and it needed a superb rearguard from Clarke and North to emerge with honours even in the one game when Ponting called correctly.
Posted by: yogesh at August 25, 2009 6:43 AM
"followed by a swathe of Englishmen scything Australians down in every match bar Cardiff." Not really. If you look at the table there are many australians interspersed in the "swathe of Englishmen"
Posted by: Dnyanesh Nadkarni at August 25, 2009 7:50 AM
I feel that whenever Australia has lost it has been because of one braveheart effort from the opposition. Agarkar in 2003, Laxman and Dravid in 2001, Duminy and De Velliers last year, Tendulkar in Sharjah. In the earlier team they had consistent players like Waugh, Martyn, Langer and match-winners in Slater, Ponting, Hayden, Mcgrath, Warne and Gilchrist. Cricket may be a team game but then the best team in the world will always have matchwinners (or someone who puts his hands up once in a while like Broad or Agarkar).
I feel to get out of the rut the Aust team is going back to basics when they should be "playing their natural game".
Posted by: Chris at August 25, 2009 8:39 AM
Matt makes an interesting point. The tosses did play their part as is often the case. Though, in the past, it used to be Ricky winning all the tosses.
I think they should toss before the first Test of a series then alternate thereafter.
But regards this series, it was won at the England selection table, at lost at the Australian one. England's selectors performed a much better than Australia's. England's biggest selection mistakes were continuing to play Bopara at 3, and leaving out Trott in Leeds.
Australia's though were many. Wrong squad (no genuine backup batsman, and a defensive spinner), allowing Johnson and Hussey too much time to find form, playing Watson as a batsman (4 out of 5 lbws say he doesn't have the technique to hold down that role only), no Hauritz at the Oval, leaving Clark out of the first few Tests.
Posted by: Paul Clarke at August 25, 2009 8:40 AM
The 11 that played for England at the Oval minus Flintoff plus Pietersen, Bopara, Sidebottom, Onions, Panesar and a keeper will be the 16 man touring side for tests in SA. 9 chances out of 10 the keeper will be Foster. That's it..That's how tight England are. YOu could write those names down now, and baring injury they will be the 16.
I've never known an England side so settled. Only one star (Pietersen) but a good unit. They will probably lose in SA, but I expect them to put up a decent fight and nick at least one test.
The Aussies. Well who knows. Hughes ? Watson opening ? Johnson - if his bowling arm gets any lower he'll be another Malinga, and if his front leg gets any more bent he'll be letting go of the ball below sea level. He's got serious problems. Ponting ? Has he got the heart ? A spinner the Aussies trust ? Let's see. I hope Ponting goes out with a few good wins though. He deserves it
Posted by: robin at August 25, 2009 9:17 AM
@cam: but what fun would it be to highlight the lowlights of freddies last test, that would just result to an awkward story.
Id like to also support that tosses did help england although they won one toss that they rather had lost in the fourth. Also its nice to note that the draws were split in match dominance. After all is said and done the aussie bowlers were just to reliant for england batsmen to give their wickets away and to incapable to get one themselves (except maybe for mitchell johnsons slower ball).
Posted by: paul at August 25, 2009 9:22 AM
it is sad to see our team faltering at key moments.we have to accept the harsh reality that we are no more the best team.unlike india & sa we dont have a supertalented pool of youngsters or mighty experienced players.And it is also true that this english team is nothing outside england.i am damn sure that they are going to have a bitter series in sa & of course against mighty indians in india.
Posted by: Merri at August 25, 2009 11:19 AM
What you call inconsistency I prefer to call ham-and-egging.
England lack the absolute bowler, deadly in all matches he plays. They lack the absolute batsman - although Strauss is approaching that quality.
But surely they have a variety of players, able to do a variety of things. Who would have put his money on Trott, Swann and Broad as the decisive trio ?
England should play according to their strengths. Play with several sesqui-rounders (near-all-rounders) as possible and be confident that one will produce some great performance. With Broad and Swann, they've got the bowling sesqui-rounders, as they've had in the past. Just try to find one or two batting sesqui-rounders and they'll be ready for any challenge.
Posted by: Mohan at August 25, 2009 11:55 AM
Australia did not play much better cricket than England- they were only little better. I think that was the main reason they lost. Look at the series stat! The umpiring errors and a lack of positive mindset were other reasons.While Australia generally play well while touring, England are not good outside their country.Ranking no.4 for Australia is temperory and I believe soon they will capture no.1 or no.2 ranking.
Posted by: Shankar at August 25, 2009 4:25 PM
Everyone talks about not picking Hauritz, but Australia lost the series due to two bad first innings performances in London - Lords and the Oval. England deserved the series, as they bowled the better spells throughout.
Samir Chopra lives in Brooklyn and teaches Computer Science and Philosophy at the City University of New York; his academic interests include the philosophical foundations of artificial intelligence and the politics of technology. In his third undergraduate year, he captained Mathematics in the departmental cricket competition (and lost to Chemistry in the first round). Samir played C-grade cricket in Sydney and makes guest appearances for his old club when possible (and desirable). Samir runs the blog Eye on Cricket and the cricket page at The Faster Times.
Paul Ford is a co-founder of the New Zealand cricket supporters' cult, the Beige Brigade. He was once described by a current New Zealand cricketer as "looking spastic" even mucking about with an Excalibur and a tennis ball in the backyard. Paul bowls right-armed Nathan Astlesque "nudes", his batting would make Ewen Chatfield look elegant, and he is a committed fielder. He sometimes grows a beard to hide his double chin and inhabits a periphery of cricket that Cricinfo is proud to be glimpsing through this blog.
Stephen Gelb grew up in Cape Town, a short walk from the beautiful Newlands ground. Always a better student of the game than player, his passion for cricket survived eight years as a student in Canada, where he learned to love baseball too. He lives in Johannesburg doing economic research at The EDGE Institute and teaching at Wits University.
Mike Holmans, a database consultant by profession, has spent thirty summers (and a few winters) going to the cricket. Brought up in one and working in the other, his dearest wish is for a season to end with Yorkshire winning the county championship by beating runners-up Middlesex by one wicket with five minutes to go. If it’s also a summer when England win the Ashes, so much the better.
Born in Colombo, educated at Oxford and now living in Brisbane - Michael Jeh (Fox) is a cricket lover with a global perspective on the game. An Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, he is a Playing Member of the MCC and still plays grade cricket. His views on cricket might best be described as those of a "modern traditionalist". Michael now works closely with elite athletes in his job as a manager at Griffith University in Queensland.
Saad Shafqat takes special pride that his cricket-watching life began during the three-month interval between Javed Miandad's debut Test in Lahore and Imran Khan's 12-wicket haul at Sydney. Although a practicing neurologist based in Karachi, cricket has never been far from his activities. He has co-authored Javed Miandad’s autobiography Cutting Edge and has been a contributor to Cricinfo since 2005. His regular column Reverse Swing appears fortnightly in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English daily.
RSS Feed
