Ashes debrief: The future of test cricket and Australia?

[sussexpob]

In more than one way, its a bittersweet conclusion to this Ashes series for fans of cricket alike; while the England fan in me is proud and happy that England have dealt the most brutal of death blows to their old enemy, the nature of the defeat and its context in the grand scheme of test crickets future is worrying.

If this was a test series, then it was a poor excuse for one. At no stage did either team meet adversity with the kind of sensible and gritty play becoming of a test match. Good bowling was met my impatient petulance, poor batting starts were followed by suicidal attempts to hit out of trouble.

And yet, long series like the Ashes seem to test its participants in a new myriad of ways, if not on the field, but off it. This is the second Ashes series in a row where a team has taken a unquestionable beating, where the repercussions will ring out for a long time in the future. Ashes series are tough, maybe more tough then ever when put into the context of a consistent 12 month touring or playing scheme that leaves little for rest and recuperation. When things go badly from here, it seems they willl go very badly.

Its hardly surprising that the casualty list on both sides in the last couple of series is pilling up. Michael Clarke has played appallingly this series, and off the field he has painted the picture of a defeated man, incapable of having the energy stocks for such a high profile and long tour. Rather than the final note of his career being marked with suitable respect for such an honourable and quality operator of his craft, he will leave test cricket with a stained reputation, the leader of a tour squad that hardly got anything right. He will leave behind a team that has to learn from some fatal errors they made on this tour.

Whether or not these errors of judgement were motivated by a level of cockiness is beyond provability, but the truth is this team had wide open flaws for a while, and their choice of re-enforcements in recent times has been abysmal. They turned up to this tour with an old team, much of it unproven, much of it struggling for form. That weathered element to the team set the character for the series; its unquestionably harder to thrive in an environment where most of the squad has question marks over it, rather than picking players of new blood, with marks to prove.

Adam Voges was an obscene pick in many ways. While Voges could have done well, he is after all a good FC player, picking 35 year olds sends a message through the whole of your FC system, that being, "you are all not good enough, and we are desperate". I fail to believe that there is better players in FC, younger and hungrier players, ones that would step up to the challenge of a long test tour and bring positivism and excitement to a team in need of it. Burns scored 2 x 50 and was dropped after two tests, in place of players who had either inferior records in FC matches or who had been underwhelming in their test careers. Steve Smith has re-invented himself as a fine test player, Australia should of had faith in being able to coach a few other players into fine test match players, but 35 year olds are already past that stage.

This all came from Australia's leadership, a tone of uncertainty and lack of belief, setting the scene for the team on the field. Australia showed faith in old hands, in Watson and Haddin, but one cannot show faith on one hand, and then turn their back so soon. IF you are picking these guys to do the job, two innings for each was hardly backing them and showing competence. If anything, it was an admission of the mistake, going back to others players who were not started but deemed even more inferior to those you jettisoned after backing so quickly.

Again its hardly surprising that this selection quandary and lack of clarity would exist, after all, the captain of the team itself had spent time away from the team, and under a new captain (Smith) the team had reacted well to his leadership. Smith was always the rightful captain for this tour, giving it to Clarke was seemingly an uneducated and uninspired choice, creating a confusing division between approach. We all knew Smith would take over after this tour, but why wait? It seems Australia were desperate to preserve the past as much as possible, never taking the risk of embracing a newer generation, and sticking to damaged players who were never going to do the job.

Darren Lehmann also has a lot to answer for, as the approach of his team was too simplistic, and too many of his batters look like players who have technically remained static for a long time. While his bowlers have done well, they have been outbowled by a more wily unit from England. When Australia got behind in games, Johnson simply steamed in and bowled fast, often wasting conditions and precious runs, caught in the role of enforcer. To Lehmann, we can maybe attribute the lack of guile in bowling approach, and the lack of stickability in Australia's batting approach. Too many times, with Australia behind, was Dave Warner sent out to spray England around.

Australia also need guys like Warner to show the newer guys the right attitude. While he has scored 4 x 50, he never converted any, and never really looked settled at the crease in any. The shot he got out to in the second innings of the 4th test spoke of a player who literally couldnt give a fly toss about his team. Id rather see a batter get out 50 runs before to a good ball, then a player playing shots like that, and with an approach and attitude so poor. Warner is a senior member of this side, he needs to act like one. And that goes for Clarke too, who never looked confident enough to back his ability, despite a record that suggests he should be as close to an unmovable object that either side has.

In short, i think Australia were lazy in their approach to this series. They played and acted like they would get off the plane and flog another poor England side, and never reacted to the reality that this England team had recovered to a large extent, and had a better focus to win the series. For Australia, it was like no time had passed since Jan 2014, they underestimated England, and were made to pay. That has to fall on all the senior management of the team.

Lehmann's style of relaxation created a team of high quality in a brief period, but too much has been left, too many stones left unturned. Recycling success is harder than earning initial success, and I doubt that Lehmann is the right man for the future of Australia. They need to get back to proper cricket, to pick players who even in losing will fight to the end.

As an Englishman, that has always been the most annoying of Australian qualities, and the biggest respect I can pay to any team; even in defeat, they dont make it easy. The Australian teams of gone by may have been bowled out for 60, but would make you bowl for two days in the second dig to beat them. Every wicket, every run after would be fought for. This team in that context was "un-Australian". To easy to beat, too easy to keep down.

Australia need to rediscover some accountability quickly, and knowing the Aussies, they wont ponder like England did for 2 years in self-gloom. I expect a tough team to beat next up, and for the good of both cricketing nations, I very much hope so. Its time they reinvested in the time worn philosophies of their forefathers, and surround this team moving forward with people who are willing to fight for the baggy green.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I wonder if the choice at the toss in Birmingham proved to be a series turning decision.

It'll be interesting to hear if Clarke unburdens himself of his conflicts in retirement, because it seems he's had a few.

A more exciting series than 2013. I do think the last two pitches started too helpful to the bowlers.

Curious that England should lose to SL at home, draw with WI and NZ, yet win the Ashes. And that the Kiwis competed far better than their neighbours. Experienced England watchers will have noticed that plans looked different on the pitch. Not individual plans for batters, but there being less innate negativity. Bayliss has coached the Aussie players before, so that was an advantage. He and Bayliss (and the absence of Moores) probably deserve credit for coaxing a little optimism out of Cook.

ODIs should be interesting.

[dan08]

For the Bangladesh tour we could see something like Warner, Bancroft, Smith, Burns, Ferguson, M.Marsh, Nevill, O'Keefe, Starc, Hazlewood, Lyon.

[alfie]

Sussex : I would quibble with your second paragraph : England were four down for next to nothing on the first morning in Cardiff and batted their way to a total which eventually proved a winner...but in general I agree with your summary.

Gillespie was correct in calling Australia "Dad's Army" . Once Harris gave in to his injury before the start it was all downhill (with the exception of the Lord's glitch ). Yes selection was poor. Looks poorer now when they are looking at a dead rubber and really haven't even any promising young batsmen handy to try out...
I think they were overconfident. Perhaps not too unreasonable as I recall almost everyone on here was convinced they would murder England before the series started !

Not sure I totally agree with Arthur about this being more exciting than 2013 ; some more exhilarating cricket , yes ; but in terms of results Trent Bridge and Durham in the earlier series had much more in tension and turnarounds. In this series the first day has set up the result in each match and nothing really threatened to change things thereafter.

Aussie selectors have some thinking to do.

[SaintPowelly]

If I was in charge of Aus, I'd be getting Maxwell in the team, he is more than capable of doing the Moeen Ali role.

[dan08]

Australia already have a frontline spinner in Lyon so they don't need another. Could play in the sub-continent ahead of the seaming all-rounder (Marsh/Watson) but then they'd probably pick O'Keefe/Agar who are better bowlers and also useful batsmen.

[bigfluffylemon]

Much like the 2013-4 Australian series was the end of the era for a generation of England cricketers, with several careers ended, this 2015 series will be seen as the end of the era for 'Clarke's Australia'. Considering that this is a team that has just won the world cup, it's incredible, but the casualty list is:

Harris - retired before the series began (and how he has been missed)
Rogers - confirmed that this would be his last series
Clarke - just retired
Watson and Haddin - not formally retired, but after being dropped, given their form and age, it's hard to see them coming back
Siddle - can't get a game on seaming pitches implies that his career must be over, although I wouldn't be too surprised if he got a last hurrah at the Oval
Voges is also almost certain never to play again after this series.

Astonishingly, only four members of the team that hammered England, won in South Africa and looked so invincible 18 months ago are likely to be in the Australia side after the end of this series: Warner, Smith, Johnson and Lyon.

Meanwhile, England, who have been in disarray following the last Ashes, look relatively settled and happy, with a young squad and a lot of potential for the future.

How times change.

[Arthur Crabtree]

England's batting remains an issue. Only Root had a good series. Wasn't he the only one to score a ton? Or so far.

[Dr Cricket]

I wonder if the choice at the toss in Birmingham proved to be a series turning decision.

It'll be interesting to hear if Clarke unburdens himself of his conflicts in retirement, because it seems he's had a few.

A more exciting series than 2013. I do think the last two pitches started too helpful to the bowlers.

Curious that England should lose to SL at home, draw with WI and NZ, yet win the Ashes. And that the Kiwis competed far better than their neighbours. Experienced England watchers will have noticed that plans looked different on the pitch. Not individual plans for batters, but there being less innate negativity. Bayliss has coached the Aussie players before, so that was an advantage. He and Bayliss (and the absence of Moores) probably deserve credit for coaxing a little optimism out of Cook.

ODIs should be interesting.

TBH had one english fan on Twitter say none of the Sri lanka, WI, NZ result matter only the major test series in the summer matters and their won (india last year and Ashes now)
England ranked number 2 now on test, lots of people got the team with the biggest decline wrong lol.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Number two! Quite a jump.

[Dr Cricket]

Number two! Quite a jump.

yeah all the home wins have made the ranking pointless so the system doesn't work anymore, ICC really needs to change it now.

Because everyone is losing abroad to supposedly crap teams makes teams gain and lose so many point and number 2 to number 7 is separated by 5-7 points I think basically one series win can make you jump from 7 to 2 and a lost can make you go 2nd or 3rd to 7th.

If Reliance didn't sponsors it I reckon ICC would have scraped it or changed it, Richardson said their may introduce a league for test cricket but still keep the ranking, which kind of suggested their keeping it for the sponsors.

[Dr Cricket]

Number two! Quite a jump.

yeah all the home wins have made the ranking pointless so the system doesn't work anymore, ICC really needs to change it now.

Because everyone is losing abroad to supposedly crap teams makes teams gain and lose so many point and number 2 to number 7 is separated by 5-7 points I think basically one series win can make you jump from 7 to 2 and a lost can make you go 2nd or 3rd to 7th.

If Reliance didn't sponsors it I reckon ICC would have scraped it or changed it, Richardson said their may introduce a league for test cricket but still keep the ranking, which kind of suggested their keeping it for the sponsors.

[Durhamfootman]

Astonishingly, only four members of the team that hammered England, won in South Africa and looked so invincible 18 months ago are likely to be in the Australia side after the end of this series: Warner, Smith, Johnson and Lyon.

I think Starc and Hazlewood will still be around. Starc has not had a good series, but is a fine bowler.

Given that Australia seem to have plenty of other bowlers to whom they could turn, it's problematic for them that it has been the batting that has been astonishingly lacking.

[Aidan11]

It will be interesting to see who Australia's new faces will be for the next test series.


I reckon about half a dozen of this squad have played or will have played their last test after the Oval.


I personally like Siddle and thought he would have played some part in The Ashes.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Hard to think Siddle has done anything to merit the wilderness.

People are saying Bancroft and Silk. Maybe being a senior partner will be good for Warner. Then Lynn in the middle order. Perhaps Maddinson too. I think Voges might get another go.