The Ashes: Don't Panic

In the aftermath of England’s defeat at Headingley, a sort of mania has overtaken English cricketing circles, as everyone clambers to heap scorn on the current England side, and talk up selection candidates from outside the team. Meanwhile the Australians are already being crowned as series winners. Yet only days ago, it was the Australians supposedly in disarray, whilst England were maybe not a team of world beaters, but a good outfit, growing into their own identity under new leadership.

The simple fact is that the public and the press like to deal in absolutes, and this series has offered few of those. Shades of grey aren’t satisfying, so instead everyone has settled for hyperbole. England are a good international side, competitive, but not world-beaters. Australia are still just about the best team in the world, though probably not for much longer, and not the dominant force of old. They are simply marginally better than the rest. This has led to a tight series, comprised of close games (Headingley excepted), settled by a wicket here and a decision there. Good team play has been the order of the day, rather than spectacular individual performances (although there have been a few of those). How else to explain the series being 1-1 despite England having only one century to Australia’s seven, and the tourists having the three highest wicket takers? These statistics suggest that England were punching above their individual weight, and were carried to their 1-0 lead after three tests on a mixture of team performances, well timed individual interventions, and massive crowd support. Australia are the better side and have more momentum going into the final test. However, to write England off completely ignores half of the series so far. England played well in two games, won one of them and drew the other. Australia played well in two games, won one and drew the other, so despite the debacle at Headingley, the series has been even.

Australia have the upper hand, especially as holders, and England are reliant on a couple of players, true, but it is not inconceivable that those performances from Lords and Edgbaston can be repeated. There are some selection issues to be resolved (more on them before Sunday’s announcement) but the management have preached consistency so far, and regardless of what anyone else wants, they are unlikely to deviate from that now. Before Headingley the only player under immediate pressure was Stuart Broad, one of the few to return from Leeds with an enhanced reputation. To have numbers 2-5 all on the chopping block one match later is ridiculous, and something from the Ray Illingworth era of the 90s. England were atrocious in the fourth test, and Australia were good, but the scale of the reaction would lead you to believe that this was 1999 all over again, when England were officially the worst team in the world. Rather than sweeping changes, it will be those small margins that settled the first three games, that will again settle the fifth test, and small adjustments are therefore what are required, rather than panic.