The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[Arthur Crabtree]

My favourite bit of bowling throughout the series, though, was the Wood spell in the first innings at Headingley. Top notch! Even I was gasping at the speed that the ball flew past the helpless batsmen..... poor beggars didn't have a hope in that spell. It was extraordinary..... so extraordinary that even Wood himself never quite matched it again in the series

Best spell of cricket of the series. For the controlled, scary fury. Stokes' batting at Lord's was exciting because it was so wild and fuelled by emotion. But his luck was always likely to run out.

[Durhamfootman]

I was quite surprised to find out that Hazlewood took 16 wickets. I thought he was the most underwhelming of the series bowlers after Anderson and Boland

[Durhamfootman]

and Robinson, of course

[Durhamfootman]

The England batters seem to have generally outperformed their Aussie counterparts with the exception of Boycsball Khawaja. Crawley did very well on the whole, including that monster innings at OT, but by jiminy he had some outrageous luck on the way.... the sort of luck that sandpaper Dave would have bitten your arm off for

nobody scored more than one hundred in the series, although honest Joe came close to a second on a couple of occasions

[Durhamfootman]

After criticising YJB all the way through the series for his woeful keeping, the catch he took today to dismiss Mitch3 was top drawer. I mention that purely for balance. Carey wasn't much more secure for Australia

[Arthur Crabtree]

I wrote Mo's series off yesterday, but he played a big part today.

[Durhamfootman]

It's been quite a summer for old Mo. Persuaded to come out of retirement, he's had his finger ripped open, taken some key wickets, shuffled up and down the order, scored a half century, been instrumental in the final day fightback, passed 3000 test runs and 200 test wickets.

Not too shabby from someone who thought he'd retired into an easy life of 4 over matches and 10 ball cameos

[bigfluffylemon]

Gave up and went to sleep at midnight Aus time, with the rain coming down and not thinking it worth staying up until the wee hours on the off chance of play, thinking that the most likely outcomes at that point were: draw then Aus win, then England win. So thrilled to wake up and find we won! What a last day.

Will have more to say later, but whatever else, this has been a series that lived up to the hype, and vale Stuart Broad. Thanks for the memories.

[sussexpob]

Not going to matter anyway I think. More rain forecast for 1730 to 2000..... Unless England can take 7 wickets in half a session, it's going to be a draw

Well, my wife dragged me out to buy shorts for my holiday, and I missed all the fun. Have to get on the highlights... What an end to the series.

Who says test cricket is dull? In a series where debate raged about a load of nonsense, the actual sporting side on offer has been absolutely top notch.

Shame next time these teams meet, the sides may be very very different

[bigfluffylemon]

Thoughts on players:

Positive/exceeded expectations
Khawaja
Head (maybe being overly generous here on the numbers, but his impact went beyond his numbers)
Marsh
Starc (despite being expensive, still had the biggest impact for Australia)
Crawley
Woakes
Wood
Broad
Root

Neutral - had an ok series or some ups and downs
Smith (if only because by his own high standards they didn't have an amazing time - had a fair contribution)
Carey
Hazelwood
Murphy
Duckett
Brook
Stokes
Bairstow (grudgingly - good batting, bad keeping in the first two tests got better as the series progressed)
Tongue
Lyon (until he got injured)

Poor - maybe one or two contributions, but disappointed or underperformed overall
Warner
Labuschagne (one ton saved Australia from defeat at OT, but otherwise a poor series by his previous standards)
Green
Cummins (am I being unfair? again, comparing to pretty high standards)
Boland
Pope
Anderson
Moeen
Robinson

Reputation enhanced in absentia
Lyon
Foakes
Leach
Any Australian opener not named David Warner

[bigfluffylemon]

What was odd about this series was that there really was no standout performer, with bat or ball. No batter had more than 1 hundred or more than 4 scores in excess of 50, while multiple players had 3 or 4 50+ scores, and the top two run getters were 16 runs apart and from opposite sides. No bowler had more than 1 five wicket haul, only one bowler (Starc) had more than 2 4 wicket hauls, and 4 bowlers were within 5 wickets of each other, with the top 2 being 1 wicket apart. Highest batting average was 53, with 4 batters between 49-53, best bowling average was 18 with a glut of bowlers between 27-32. In other words, most players contributed at some point, but no one really stood out.

I think Woakes for POTS was a reasonable call on that basis - he did have a big impact on the three tests he played and finished as overall pick of the bowlers from either side. But while you could have made a case for Starc, Broad, Root, Khawaja, no one else was consistent enough to be an obvious alternative pick.

[bigfluffylemon]

That's reflected in the scores - no collapses at all, with the lowest completed innings score of 224, but only 2 scores in excess of 400, and one of those was 416. Not sure how you measure it, but that has to be one of the most generally consistent team average score of any 5 test series.

[alfie]

Good points above , BFL. Hope you have enjoyed the highlights without all the nail chewing I had to endure watching live after 1 am here

Agree also that Woakes was a worthy choice for the Compton-Miller award . Starc's was indeed a fine performance - not least because he battled various injuries over the last two matches but continued to give his all for his team ; and probably deserved the Australian PoTS - just - over Khawaja. Though I wouldn't have quibbled had Usman got the nod.

Woakes though returned very much the best figures with the ball : 19 wickets in just three games and a vastly better economy rate ; plus some valuable batting including one match winning effort : I think he was the best choice overall , in what was indeed a series in which a number of players had closely matching records. Wasn't like we saw a Steve Smith or Alastair Cook making 700 odd runs , or Mitch Johnson taking 37 wickets this time. Players , like the teams , more equal than is often the case.

You might be a little harsh on one or two of those player markers though ? Cummins probably got a lot wrong as skipper ; but he led his team to Ashes retention - and one might say it was his late order batting at Edgbaston that actually enabled them to do so : when Lyon joined him at the crease that day Australia were all but dead in the water. Until he hit a couple of sixes... Bowling was probably a bit better than figures suggest too.
Think I'd lift Moeen out of the "poor" category too , for his batting contributions at three in the last two games , and his vital bowling efforts on this final day. Woakes was brilliant ; but England aren't winning that without Mo getting Head and Marsh in that half hour that turned the game around. Wasn't a bad effort from a semi-retired old fellow held together with sticky tape

Only sad note for me is I will never see Broad doing his theatrical best again : entirely fitting he should deliver the coup de grace in his last match . Farewell to a true great of Ashes cricket

[sussexpob]

In a series that was as much about a clash of two very different cricket cultures and approaches, it seems fitting that the end result was a draw. For all that has been said during the series about how to play test cricket, the truth is that at various stages of this series, both approaches have come to the fore in different situations, and no team can walk away claiming they have bottled the secret sauce for test domination. I think both teams could look at the other, and learn a thing or two to improve their own game. I get the sense that somewhere between Australia's classic approach and England's slog fiesta lies an answer.

For Australia, I find no better example than Dave Warner. His SR this series was nearly 20 less than normal. He tried to grit out the series by playing defensively, but this approach rather ignores the fact that his struggles in England have never been a question of his mettle or desire to bat long, and neither were they here. His failures have been built on a foundation of insufficient technique to pace bowling with lateral movement... he'd have been far better to look at his opposite numbers batting for England, also technically unsound, and see that players with technical faults have a limited expiry date - so you may as well try to cause some chaos in the time you are around.

Especially in the first 2 tests though, England could also learn a thing or two from Australia about adding some grit and caution to their approach. Really, in this last test, on another day England's first innings could have been wrapped up in a flash. They got some luck in conditions that were tough, and should have been well out below 283 they scored - seeing a few overs here and there after wickets fall, not taking on the traps set in the field, and batsman giving themselves a little more time to play themselves in before giving it the heave-ho are all things that I would expect to give England more success in the future.

Both captains could also learn a thing or two from the other. Stokes search for creative inventivness led England to giving up the first test with an awful declaration, and bowling Harry Brook at cold batters after a session break stands out in some occasionally bizarre bowling choices, but Cummins would do well to spice up his own captaincy with some invention now and then. Stokes would do well to conform to standard a little more.

As for the players, what did we learn? Maybe not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

For England, some might have learned that Chris Woakes is an all-time excellent bowler in English conditions, although I leave my comments earlier in the thread about his re-selection as proof this was no news to me. We learned in the case of Jonny Bairstow that a bit of match sharpness made him a much better all round player, but again, not a suprise. We learned our openers have ropey techniques, but the bazball approach eeks out every run they are worth. We learned we still don't have a spinner or a number 3. We learned that given some luck and a hopeless situation, Stokes can bash the ball better than most. We maybe learned that Brooks is much more human that first appeared. We learned that Mark Wood looked tired after 50 overs and started to get injured again..... but when fully fit, his pace is all time fearsome. Sadly, we may have also learned players who are 41 tend to decline quickly.

For Australia, we start with a positive - we learned Khawaja hs developed into a top player in all conditions. Unsuprisingly, Warner struggles. Maybe unsurprisingly considering his career record, we learned Marnus looks pretty average playing anywhere outside Australia, and more suprisingly that Travis Head can bat outside Australia. We learned Australia should maybe look for a new keeper, and how much they rely on Lyon to keep the seamers out of the attack all day. And maybe we learned attacking Pat Cummins and co is the way to go.

As for Steve Smith, is this a blip on a stellar career, or signs of decline. Only a foodhardy man would say the latter with any gusto and certainty - one cannot deny Smith is by some distance the best bat of his era, but for the first time ever there was signs of a consistent problem with balls moving into him. He said on the eve of his 100th test he wouldn't be playing much longer, and will certainly never tour England again. Maybe he knows his body is not what it used to be?

[sussexpob]

BFL's player ratings are generally pretty similar to my own, but may as well throw my hat in the ring.

England

Ben Duckett - 6

Duckett is the pure emobodiment of Bazball. Technically poor around the wicket, and the only opener I have ever seen who refuses to leave the ball, I do wonder if this resurgence after re-selection will not peeter out to lower returns in the future. Australia bowled particularly poorly to Duckett after he fell into traps to the short ball early on. Never looked like getting much, but thats the wonder of ultra-positive cricket.... a few false strokes here and there gotten away with, and a handful of overs pass and he is near 50. On flat pitches he's is fearsome, but on pitches that seam, I'd back myself to get him all the time. In the end, he had a pretty good series.

Zak Crawley - 9

More than the runs Zak scored, it was the tone he set straight up that hurt Australia. Any hint that Cummins might have attacked a little more were snuffed out pretty much as soon as Crawley crunched a boundary. The weaknesses are still there outside off stump, and at times luck favoured him with edges landing short or dropped - Cricinfo claiming that his 100 had the most false shots ever recorded since the stat has been charted - but every batsman will occassionally play and miss. The question is, does the consistent starts not turned into big scores represent room for improvement, or represent he's at a high level of form to turn failure into starts? The answer to that question will define his career - if he can start turning all those 40s into 70s or even 100s, then the unrestricted support of his management will finally be justified in buckets.

Ollie Pope - 4

I wanted to put zero here just for that shot he got out to at Lords. Pope has improved in the bazball era, but not to the extent of the general improvement. FInding a test class 3 is never easy, so that might save Pope from the permanent axe when fit again, but his natural style is not suited to bazball, and despite the fact I have always liked him even I concede that his returns just havent been good enough.

Joe Root - 9

The questionable declaration in the first test turned an unfinished Root classic from potential match-winner to consolation points, and his partnership with Crawley at Old Trafford may have ended in a drawn test, but the blows landed felt like they were still stinging as the teams went to the Oval. Another very good innings turned a close match in England's favour.... three contributions that could/should have won test matches in 5 games? Inbetween, there was famine, but the feasts give Root a big score.

Harry Brook - 5

Maybe a harsh score for someone averaging 40, but he needed drops and a hell of a lot of luck to get anywhere this series. Fortune smiled on him a lot - it wont always, and if he plays like this when his luck turns, things could turn ugly. Another player who might do better outside England as his career goes on.

Ben Stokes - 7

Loses a mark for the declaration in the first test. At Lords, his incredible hulk show nearly turned a forlorn situation into another classic, and there was enough decent contributions in England's wins to push scores from good to match winners. The fact he didnt bowl in the last 3 tests is a worry, but I think this is the new Stokes... injuries and workload are catching up, and we might be witnessing the end stage of his career.

Jonny Bairstow - 5

He came back from a bad injury, and clearly wasnt match fit. Fortune at Lords in the first innings gave him a decent score, but it was a calamity behind the stumps from ball 1, and with it failure with the bat. By Old Trafford, fitness and form returned, catches started to stick (including 1 or 2 really good ones) and the flow to his batting that had been fearsome last summer started to return. England really shouldnt have picked him until he was fit, and those errors behind the stumps might have been the difference between wins and losses in both cases. But we can only judge on what we had, and those mistakes cost England dear, and lose Jonny a few points.

Mo Ali - 3

Moeen claims if Stokes messages him to appear in an England shirt again, he will delete it - I think that would be generous to assume such a text will be sent. Aside from the cameo at Manchester elevated to 3, Moeen averaged 25 with bat and over 50 per wicket with the ball - and in two of the 5 tests, his fitness was questionable enough to even allow a compliment of full bowling. He answered the teams call, but England would have been better to have blooded a younger option - I dont think they could have done worse. Time to move on.... decent guy, but no longer a test worthy option. A bad call from the selectors and management.

Chris Woakes - 10

The best players make the game look simple. Get the line right, get the length right, get the wrist in the right position to allow the ball to move - easy, right? Woakes selection changed the series, and conditions seemed to change when he was trundling in. He moves 3rd onto the all time averages list of pace bowlers with 100 wickets in England... in English conditions, he should be one of the first names on the team sheet. Overseas, he should be the first name left off the team sheet. History doesn't lie...

Stuart Broad - 7

A decent, if unremarkable series for Broad. When he got it right, he moved the ball from dangerous areas, and maybe at times deserved more from his efforts - like yesterday in tandem with Woakes, who took all the wickets while Broad produced all the pressure, and deserved some himself. Still, a decent end to a good career - can wander off into the sunset with a last ball wicket for Ashes victory, and a last shot in test cricket that killed someone in the stand.

Mark Wood - 9

With no recent miles on the clock, and a tank full of gas, I was staggered by the pace Wood served up in the third test. Wood started the counter attack with a hostile spell of bowling at Leeds, and ripped into the Aussies in the 4th test as England forlornly persued the win. As is always the case though, a few tests here and there and questions of fitness, this time a heel injury, meant he was more subdued at the Oval... still cant take away his series changing effort in Leeds. Couple of decent slogs with the bat too.

Josh Tongue - 7

Bowled better than his stats suggest, and was an encouraging if somewhat raw start. Be looking forward to seeing him again soon. Looks a good prospect

Jimmy Anderson - 1

Not since Jimmy trundled through 3 tests with a broken back in 2006/07 Ashes series, has he ever looked so unthreatening. Jimmy had a real career low point, and it can be somewhat summed up in the last test where Broad had the ball ragging everywhere at the other end, while the master of swing couldnt get anything going. He turned 41 in the last test, and he suddenly looks very much like he is 41. Had this been a case of just some bad bowling here and there, you'd be more confident - the fact he was gun-barrel straight with the ball while others had it on a rope feels less encouraging. Did Broad beat him to the punch retiring at the end of this test? I am sure Anderson will want his retirement moment alone.... but 1 or 2 test matches repeating this series, and he might not even get the luxury of deciding. In fact, he might not after a series averaging 85.... sorry Jimmy, I love you.... but this was a horror show.

Ollie Robinson - 5

Stats feel like somewhat of a lie, as an average of 28 feels way too good for what he produced. At times it looked flat, and his pace was well down. Got himself into unnecessary scraps on the field, and made himself look like an idiot off it. A blip in a great career effort so far. With Anderson fading and Broad gone, Robinson will need to get back up to speed quickly.