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

[sussexpob]

And Australia

Usman Khawaja - 9

Out of any modern player still playing, I have to salute Khawaja for the work and commitment to his craft he has made over the years. A player who used to have an acute weakness outside the off stump, he's worked hard, and its paid off. He used to be rubbish against spin too, but has reinvented that aspect of his game. His grit at the start of the series won Australia 2 tests, and should have won them the series. And his score in the last innings should have underlined that series win... great series for Usman

David Warner - 3

For an aggressive player, I guess in someways you have to salute his efforts in trying to find a way around his technical conundrum. He never managed it though, and its now 19 tests/37 innings in England without a 100. If the 14 before didn't prove these conditions were his kryptonite, then I dont know what the selectors needed. Have to assume that Australia have no openers of any quality to come in, because he really shouldn't have played in this series, let alone 5 games. The grit took him to the odd 20 or 30... the technique made sure it ended there.

Marnus Labuschagne - 6

His only really good test was on the flattest wicket, although his 100 saved the match (and series in the end) at the toughtest of times considering what was on the line and the match situation. Reputations of being a flat track bully will be underlined - found ways to get out to the swinging ball more than a few times, and generally looked nowhere near as compact and confident as he does on pitches at home. A very disappointing series for Marnus, considering the high standards you'd expect.

Steve Smith - 7

2 decent tests, 3 misses. Steve Smith is human after all. Two things stand out about this series ... 1. He struggled with the ball moving into him, and missed a lot of balls past the inside edge. This never happens to Smith, and speaks of possible decline in his mid 30s for a player so reliant on his eyes and hands doing all the work. 2. Smith's career shows if you don't get him out straight away, his average after 10 odd runs goes into the stratosphere - scores of 41, 17, 22, 34 and 36 are really statistical outliers in his career. Rarely does Smith get so many starts and not turn them into 3 figures or high double figures. Again, is this a measure of fading quality, or simply a blip on the radar of an all time legend? Time will tell.... if this was anyone else, wed probably say he had a good series, but for Smith's uncomparable single man wrecking ball standards, this was undoubtably poor.

Travis Head - 7

Like BFL, I thought that Head had a much better series than his stats suggested. Its easy to forget with Smith, Marnus and Warner havinng off series, that he was put in many tough situations too. Struggled with the short ball, especially to Wood, but outside of off stump he was generally sound. Won a certain amount of respect from me, as I thought he was going to be a real weak point for Australia.

Cameron Green - 2

The big lad had the right bowling style for English conditions, but slammed it aimlessly too short, and never really looked a threat at any stage. With the bat, he looked like a walking disaster, and was incredibly lucky to have gotten a couple of half-starts he managed, when had England taken catches or edges landed a yard or so elsewhere, wouldn't even have that to write home about. Considering he only has 30 wickets in 25 tests, its hard to see why Australia persist with him at 6 for so long.... they'd have been better with another full time batter.

Mitch Marsh - 7

His batting gave Australia the first innings lead in Leeds, and his partnership with Marnus saved the OT test when it could have gone pear shaped, so he was an instant improvement with the bat. With the ball however, it was a different story, although batting at 6 he shouldn't have been expected to bowl that much.

Alex Carey - 4

Had the opposite series to Bairstow. Started with contributions with the bat and great keeping, ended it dropping catches and batting failure. Seems noticeable that after the run out and added pressure and scorn from crowds, his game started to fall apart at the seams. Australia will need to look for a new keeper, because a keeper that makes mistakes with the gloves and barely scrapes an average of 30 doesn't really solve anything.

Pat Cummins - 5

The problem with a out and out quick bowler being captain is, in the modern day with back to back tests, you need to rest bowlers - but cant really rest the captain. And so it came to pass that Cummins, playing 6 tests in 6 odd weeks and leading the team to boot, fell of a cliff in test 5 and 6 of a long middle summer. By the end, he was a shadow of the player who has lead the world in quality of his output in recent years. Deserves credit for his excellent batting in the first test, that won the game

Josh Hazelwood - 6

Felt like an annoymous series for Hazlewood. He took wickets, but I cant really remember him standing out at any point. Looked a little troubled with England's attacking, and despite a decent output, the stats felt like they flattered him somewhat

Mitchell Starc - 7

Starc had the best answer to Engladnd's raging style... quick, full, and straight. At times he bowled really well, at other times he took a pasting too. But he can leave the series knowing he did a good job. Especially dangerous when he got the ball to swing late.

Nathan Lyon - 7

Probably the moment that turned the series. Lyon is not the best spinner ever, but his control and ability to take wickets is the glue that holds this Aussie team together, and they really missed him in the tests he was gone.

Todd Murphy - 7

Took a few wickets, and made a few decent batting contributions. In general, he doesn't turn the ball much, and bases his game on getting the ball in tight areas - maybe conditions werent favourable for him in this series, so he might have more in his locker on drier, sunnier conditions. In general, depsite the stats, looked a step down from Lyon.

Scott Boland - 0

I had high hopes for Boland entering this series, but he had a trainwreck, and Australia rightfully put him out his misery after 2 tests. He has always looked a great bowler on bouncy tracks in Australia, but he just didn't extract anything out of the pitches in England, and served up a lot of aimless pies. Undoubtally the dunce of the series..... at 34, he might not get another opportunity. Average of 115 was a total disastere

[Durhamfootman]

Pat Cummins - 5

The problem with a out and out quick bowler being captain is, in the modern day with back to back tests, you need to rest bowlers - but cant really rest the captain. And so it came to pass that Cummins, playing 6 tests in 6 odd weeks and leading the team to boot, fell of a cliff in test 5 and 6 of a long middle summer. By the end he was a shadow of the player who has lead the world in quality of his output in recent years. Deserves credit for his excellent batting in the first test, that won the game

this

(in response to fluffy's assessment of Cummins)

[bigfluffylemon]

Thanks fellas, good comments and I agree with most of alfie's comments and SP's evaluations. Consensus seems to be that I was a bit harsh on Cummins - thought I might have been, hence the comment. That said, I was inclined to be a little harsh as a result of his overly passive captaincy - as SP said, there is probably a happy medium between England's overly gung-ho approach and Australia's being too defensive. It's telling that Cummins' best moment of the series was when he grabbed the Edgbaston test by the scruff of the neck with the bat. At other times he was too passive in the field and let England have things their own way.

The compressed nature of a long series clearly had an impact, especially on the bowlers - injuries abounded, and Cummins looked worn out at the end by the combined pressure of tough captaincy and his bowling going round the park. While people say that the stumping of YJB changed the tone of the series, to me it was Lyon hobbling off around the same time that was the real turning point. The Australian attack never had the same composure after that point. After 100 consecutive tests for Australia, their lack of bowling control in Lyon's absence really spoke volumes about his value to the side.

There's no question England came into the series undercooked, and as players like YJB, Woakes and Wood found fitness and form they got better. Glen McGrath said that the stumping might finally have been the kick up the backside England needed to realise they were in a serious contest with an opponent who was going to play hard, rather than a backyard hit-around with your mates, and having that attitude for the first test and a half was pretty unacceptable in Ashes cricket. I tend to agree. I can only hope, with little actual expectation, that England will prepare for future series a little better than the odd game of golf.

I can't help but feel that it was a good series in spite of, rather than because of, the compressed nature, although you could argue that did add a degree of intensity. But imagine if everyone was fully match fit from game 1, and there was actually time to recover between games.

[Durhamfootman]

If memory serves, when I was growing up, test cricket started on a Thursday every fortnight, so an ashes series would have taken 9 weeks to play. I also have a faint recollection of times where they had a rest day on a Sunday in the middle of a test match and resumed day 4 on a Monday (I have a feeling that had something to do with the Sunday League).

although, had this series been that sort of length, tests 4 and 5 in August would have probably been wash outs this year

[Durhamfootman]

Both England and Austrlia get docked WTC points for their shocking over rates. 19 of England's 28 points have been taken away and the players fined 5% of their match fees for every point docked. Australia had 10 points docked for the OT test on its own

I wonder who gets the money they were fined?

presumably it goes to the punters who were robbed of those overs, or failing that, given to charity or ploughed into grass roots cricket investment......

yeah right!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Giles Clarke?

[Durhamfootman]

maybe it'll be given to Yorkshire so they know there's no hard feelings

[bigfluffylemon]

Both England and Austrlia get docked WTC points for their shocking over rates. 19 of England's 28 points have been taken away and the players fined 5% of their match fees for every point docked. Australia had 10 points docked for the OT test on its own

I wonder who gets the money they were fined?

presumably it goes to the punters who were robbed of those overs, or failing that, given to charity or ploughed into grass roots cricket investment......

yeah right!

I'm astonished Australia were only found to be in breach in one test. They bowled 80 overs day 1 of the Oval. How was that ok?

[Durhamfootman]

How was that ok?

because as long as it doesn't hit the administrators in the pocket, nobody cares

[Durhamfootman]

and it should bother the captains and the teams. It's worth noting that while everybody in England was moaning about the rain at OT, England bowled 83 overs on day 1 (7 short) and on day 3, they started bowling at the Aussies with 52 overs available in the day and they bowled 41 (11 short). Who knows what might have happened had those 18 overs been bowled with Australia 61 behind and 5 down? At the Oval they took 4 -11 in 4 overs. Maybe they could still have won had they utilised those lost overs

and they bowled 30 overs on day 4 between the rain, but maybe there was time to bowl 34 or 35, I don't know how long they were in the field that day... but maybe.

I'm minded to think that had England bowled as many overs as they could have done, then the game might have been advanced enough for Australia to be 5 down and 61 runs behind, with the rain still and hour and a half away..... we'll never know, but England didn't do themselves any favours in that match and it might have been there to be won

[alfie]

Both England and Austrlia get docked WTC points for their shocking over rates. 19 of England's 28 points have been taken away and the players fined 5% of their match fees for every point docked. Australia had 10 points docked for the OT test on its own

I wonder who gets the money they were fined?

presumably it goes to the punters who were robbed of those overs, or failing that, given to charity or ploughed into grass roots cricket investment......

yeah right!

I'm astonished Australia were only found to be in breach in one test. They bowled 80 overs day 1 of the Oval. How was that ok?

Apparently the reason is that they recently changed the rules so that "slow over rates" penalties only kick in after a team has batted more than 80 overs : and England practically never batted for that long ! So Australia's points were saved by Bazball

Really think a system that sees teams penalised like this after a totally thrilling series (so much so that , in terms of WTC qualification , England might have done better to lose the series 3-1 - maybe by using part time rubbish bowlers and boost their over rate ? - than achieving the result they did) is a ridiculous distortion of the balance between offence and sanction. Makes the already rather farcical qualification arrangements for the WTC final even less credible.

Slow over rates are a problem. Though I doubt many spectators at any of these Tests felt short changed. Both sides were guilty of excessive deliberations over bowling plans and field placings at times (and Australia were particularly at fault in this last game with that deliberate slow down at end of day three to ensure their openers didn't face that night - not that it caused a large over loss : there may have been other similarly cynical actions I have missed) but I'm not sure that detracted too much from the overall show.

I do think the umpires might be given a bit more responsibility for keeping things moving. Perhaps they could advise captains to get a move on at times - even have an option to award penalty runs for repeated transgressions ? Not allow these mini- drink moments where someone runs on with fresh gloves and a flask ? And yes , maybe even shorten adjournments (gasp !) : which would not be popular with broadcasters .

Not sure there is any perfect way to manage this. But I really don't think the current system is either fair or remotely effective.

[bigfluffylemon]

I have often wondered if part of the issue is broadcasting, and needing to fit as many ads in as possible. More than once at a BBL game I've attended live it's been clear that everyone is ready to begin an over, but they all stand around waiting while the TV broadcast picks back up again. But of all the reasons mentioned for slow over rates, that one never comes up.

Both sides were guilty of cynical slow play at times. Australia wasted a lot of time at OT, but England lost any moral high ground by failing to get through their overs quickly enough, as DFM points out.

I'd be all in favour of a run penalty. 5 runs per over short at the end of each day. And far more limits on changing equipment/taking drinks/gardening etc. when play is ongoing to stop batters trying to deliberately slow things down and get the penalty runs.

[alfie]

I do wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to time the drs decision pauses across a game ? Honestly have no idea what they actually add up to ; but at times it seems particular decisions take quite a long time. That Smith run out appeal in the last match , for example : granted it was very tough one so probably unavoidable. But is that the fault of the fielding team ? And therefore , should they have had a "discount" for the delay ?

Surely the number of these delays has contributed to modern slow over rates so would be interesting to get a figure on average time lost.

[Arthur Crabtree]

DRS has introduced a sanctioned delay, and with the numbers of referrals increasing, they players quite frequently stand around discussing referrals. I think they have to get back to only referring the howlers. So they shouldn't get to keep a referral on umpire's call, and only get 1-2 lives. During this series, bowling 90 overs a day didn't even seem to be a motivation.

[alfie]

DRS has introduced a sanctioned delay, and with the numbers of referrals increasing, they players quite frequently stand around discussing referrals. I think they have to get back to only referring the howlers. So they shouldn't get to keep a referral on umpire's call, and only get 1-2 lives. During this series, bowling 90 overs a day didn't even seem to be a motivation.

Yes I think I would be in favour of limiting the referrals - though I doubt it will happen.

But you get "umpire reviews" too - like the run out I mentioned above ; or for close to ground catches. Often seems they take longer to resolve than the drs ones.