Posted by No team likes being called inconsistent, but inconsistency cuts both ways. In a scenario where you’ve lost a Test match inside two days, ‘consistent’ is absolutely the last thing you want to be. More two-day defeats? No, thank you. After the first Ashes Test, England can console themselves that they have rarely been accused of consistency.
There’s a school of thought that England were so bad in Perth that another 5-0 is on the way. That scoreline has undeniably become more likely, but probably only in the sense that they’re now 20 per cent of the way there. Having watched this team for a while, we aren’t inclined to draw too many firm conclusions from the nature of the defeat.
Two (days) to tango
To us, the great hue and cry about the result seems a bit overblown. Yes, England lost inside two days, but it takes two teams to deliver a Test that short. England were bowled out for 172 and 164 – which is pretty dreadful – but there was actually another team involved that got bowled out for 132.
As rapid as defeat was, it was way less bad than spending that same span of time fielding, which is how they’ve usually gone about losing Down Under.
So there have definitely been more worrying defeats. Plus there’s the fact that, more than most, this is a team capable of oscillating between the sublime and the ridiculous. Expecting them to be consistently awful honestly doesn’t make a great deal more sense than expecting them to be consistently good.
Back in 2022, England played like a big bag of mashed-up arseholes against South Africa at Lord’s. They got bowled out for 165 and 149 and lost by an innings. Next Test, Bens Stokes and Foakes put on 173 and they won by an innings. The one after that, they got bowled out for 158 but still won the match by nine wickets. More recently – admittedly on two very different pitches – they delivered team totals of 823-7 and 112 all out in the same series in Pakistan.
We wouldn’t have them down as a predictable side, which actually makes horrific defeats a lot less meaningful. Strange things can and do happen. Remember when Zak Crawley made 189 in an Ashes Test? Zak Crawley! Try to superimpose your form guide on that one.
Going for Brook
England’s idiosyncratic approach to risk-reward calculations quite often sees them fall flat on their arses, but the rewards they shoot for can often be sizeable.
In a match full of daft shots, Brook running down the pitch and trying to hit Scott Boland over extra cover was the daftest and the fact he middled it and got six runs doesn’t make it any less daft.
Brook plays more daft shots than anyone. He is also England’s most consistently successful batter.
That isn’t to say England should go further that way. It’s just emblematic of a wax-winged side who enjoy being at high altitude.
In short
This England can do a lot, but sometimes it goes very, very wrong.
It seems to us the first Test might therefore have been a rather different brand of ‘things going very, very wrong’ than the kind of ‘things going very, very wrong’ that has more usually afflicted England touring teams.
We wouldn’t want to make any predictions though…
Follow the Ashes with King Cricket
- Sign up for our email and we’ll send you everything we write
- Please back us on Patreon because that’s our only funding these days
- Buy our Ashes book – if not for yourself, then for someone else for Christmas. It is a very, very good Christmas present – even from an unbiased point of view!
So Icarus dusts himself off and takes guard on middle and leg? I don’t think so. The management of this team claim (when it suits them) to be evidence-based decision makers. Crawley? And then there is the simple matter of going to Perth and driving on the up towards extra cover. Or bowling harmless short stuff instead of copying the length and line of second-dig Boland. Nobody seems to remember that Strauss won the Ashes in 2011 by a policy of “bowling dry”. There is a reason why this worked, namely they were playing in Australia. Nothing meaningful has changed about the conditions. Everything has changed about the England mentality and strategy. A far less talented team than this could win if it were not so stupidly led. But it is, so 2-nil at Brisbane is definitely on the cards – though 5-0 at the end may be going too far.
The fact that “The Gabbatoir” is hosting a day/nighter throws some additional uncertainty into the mix, including a subtly different form of sleep deprivation for those of us who are following from Blighty.
I like Growltiger’s “pulling hair out” avatar. Iconic determinism?
Indeed, the delirium of confused circadian rhythms adds a definite flavour to the whole circus, enhanced in this case by TMS being a full over behind the iffy Aussie video stream I was VPNing … and of course this next time around I’ll get a couple of mornings of pretending to work through the whole fever dream as well!
Well, all I remember of the two days was England being bowled out relatively cheaply after bazball failed, with the tail collapsing quicker than usual. The fact that they looked fidgety was probably a sign of how they felt at the crease. Much of this due to a bloke called Starc who seemed to be bowling for three bowlers all told, and meant it. Green was bought for one over specifically to get rid of Pope, which worked. Boland, whom I quite admire, failed to get started. One of the openers was bowled for a duck.
Australia were then bowled out even cheaperly with no batter getting anywhere near the prematurely ended totals posted by Pope and Brook. The fact that they looked fidgety was probably a sign of how they felt at the crease. Archer did his brief bit at the beginning, but then Stokes did what Stokes does on a good day returning an average of 4.6 for each of his 5 wickets. Carse ably assisted him. One of the openers was bowled for a duck.
England’s second innings started the way of the first innings. It ended when, not Starc, but Boland did what Boland does on a good day and got the ball rolling (or the rot started, whichever way you look at it). This seemed to wake up Starc who between them took out the middle order pretty quickly, Starc eventually getting his match 10-for, but only just. Unlike the first innings, England’s tail wagged a little with bazball returning a profit for once before inevitably collapsing under its own weight. While not reaching their first innings total (the pitch was clearly deteriorating), they managed to surpass Australia’s paltry first innings total to pile on the pressure. One of the openers was bowled for a duck.
Victory was a tall order for Australia in the second innings as they’d have to score the highest innings score of the match on a wicket that was one-and-a-half days old. A tall order indeed. Nevertheless, on the basis of the first day-and-a-half, it was England’s for the taking. One of the openers went on to score the fastest test century in Ashes history.
It was a good match, despite its brevity, and moments from both sides to enjoy. The difference between the teams was that one of the them decided to show more confidence in their batting in the second innings. The bowlers were good and bad, the bad bits coming from those who hadn’t woken up yet or were being demoralised by an normally-not-an-opener-in-test-cricket whacking the ball all over the place.
It’s the Ashes, and it would be boring if it was played any differently. Long may it continue.
Meanwhile, in India, South Africa look to be walloping India in India, by a potentially record amount.
B*gger. Correction: “…second fastest test century in Ashes history”.
B*gger. Actually I could have gotten away with “One of the openers went on to score the fastest test century in Ashes history by an opener”. Damn the lack of an ‘edit’ button!
An excellent summary, Buttface. And agree with KC’s general angle. The overreaction on the Beeb website is a bit silly. Hopefully the two of you will be taking over the official coverage shortly. In the meantime I’ll keep coming here.
Also – South Africa v India, yes, wow!
Thank you Tim. I hope KC didn’t mind me giving my observations. They are not intended to detract from KC’s epic prose in any shape or form, and merely an addition to the cornucopia that is the comments section.
…and now for an early get up out of bed to see how short a time SA bowl out India (this comment may not age well, even though it should).
Now THAT was a worrying defeat.
Just a bit KC. A record defeat for India.
Nice to see Mr Markram almost getting a 10-for (that will get those that didn’t watch the match curious).
England can take inspiration from the West Indies, who 2 years ago got flogged by 10 wickets thanks to a whirlwind Travis Head century despite all other Aussies batting badly, only to go on and win the day-night “Gabbatoir” test, with Head instead getting a king pair.
Very good point!