Ex BD live
JUST six short months ago, Australia suffered as little self-confidence as they did series victories. Recently they completed a 5-0 whitewash over England, to regain the Ashes. With that, the Australian national ego has been reinflated overnight — hyperinflated, one might even say, given the type of comments emerging in the wake of their triumph. (Exactly wso one has only to consider the chest beating Warner!)
They are due to tour South Africa in February and so it is worth looking a little closer at the Ashes series and to ask: how good a victory was it, really?
The natural point of comparison is Australia’s recent loss to England in the same competition. In August last year, they lost the Ashes 3-0, a rather emphatic defeat. That series also comprised five Test matches. By comparing Australia’s performance in each, home and away, it becomes possible to see where they improved and England regressed.
Let us start with their batting.
Australia in England, August 2013: In their 10 innings away from home, Australia scored 2,735 runs and lost 89 wickets for an average score of 273/9. In the first innings they managed 1,697 runs for the loss of 46 wickets and an average score of 339/9.
England, by comparison, scored a total of 2,856 runs and lost 85 wickets for an average score of 286/8 across their 10 innings. The England first-innings numbers were 1,559 runs for the loss of 50 wickets and an average score of 311/10.
So, remarkably, despite losing the Ashes 0-3, Australia actually averaged more than England in the first innings — 339/9 versus 311/10 — when away from home.
England in Australia, January 2014: In Australia’s 10 innings at home, they scored a total of 3,189 runs and lost 77 out of 100 possible wickets. So the average Australian innings was 319/8. Australia’s five first innings totalled 1,780 runs and they lost 49 out of 50 wickets for an average score of 356/10 (largely helped by one innings of 570/9 — remove that, and their first-innings average is only 302/10).
England, by comparison, scored just 2,158 runs and lost all 100 wickets (by my reckoning this is the only time this has happened in a five Test-match series). England’s average score was, thus, 216/10. They managed a paltry 969 runs in their first innings for the loss of all 50 wickets, to average a messily 199/10.
It becomes clear that Australia’s 5-0 home walloping was thus not built on a hugely improved batting performance. Their average score remains roughly the same (273/9 away versus 319/8 at home). In fact, Australia’s first average first-innings totals, which go a long way towards determining the result of any given match, are even more similar (339/9 versus 356/10).
Rather, the difference was the massive decline in the English batting performance. England’s overall average declined from 286/6 at home to 216/10 away and, in the first innings, their average declined even more dramatically, from 311/10 all the way down to 199/10 — an average difference that would have put them on the back foot in almost every game. And that was a position from which the team never recovered.
So, the first key point to take away from Australia’s victory is that their performance did not represent a fundamental shift in batting dominance. The same team who lost 3-0 and averaged 273/9 were able to win 5-0 with an average of 319/8.
The logical follow-on question (no pun intended) therefore, is whether England’s dire batting was the consequence of poor form on their part or brilliant bowling on Australia’s. The Australian cricket fraternity is certainly of one mind on the subject. They believe it was their bowling attack, spearheaded by a ferocious Mitchell Johnson and clinical Ryan Harris (they took 59 of the 100 English wickets to fall between them).
Australian captain Michael Clarke has certainly said as much of his attack. In his post-match interview, he said: "I told them before the Test that they were the best attack in the world and I think they’ve earned that mantle." His view was reiterated by fast-bowler Peter Siddle, who said: "When we’re bowling at our consistent best like we did throughout this series I think it shows (we are the best)." ( How a littlebit of success has gone to some Ozzies heads - talk about being BLOWHARDS!!!)
But as a unit, did they really perform better? Ryan Harris’s average remained roughly the same (19.58 away from home and 19.31 in Australia). Nathan Lyon and Siddle improved marginally (33.66 to 29.36 for Lyon and 31.58 to 24.12 for Siddle). Those are all excellent showings — Harris’s average in particular was outstanding — but between those three the improvement does not appear enough to explain the dramatic about-turn from 0-3 to 5-0.
No, the real difference was Mitchell Johnson, who did not play the away series but took 37 wickets at a staggering 13.97 at home. Surely he alone was the fundamental difference between these two series? His man-of-the-series award would certainly seem testament to that fact.
Thirty-seven wickets in a five Test-match series is a brilliant showing. It means Johnson alone was responsible for one of every three English wickets that fell.
But how do those wickets break down on closer inspection? Only 13 of the 37 were top five batsmen. Fifteen were batsmen 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Any bowler must, of course, aim to take the wicket of whoever they are bowling to, and the ability to wrap up a tail is a vital skill, essential to any attack. So one cannot hold any of that as a negative against Johnson. However, it is fair to say the bulk of his wickets came against the middle and lower order.
The English batting might well have been suffering a spectacular mental meltdown but, even if they had performed to the same standard it did in England, they are no South Africa.
South Africa recently lost Jacques Kallis but in Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, AB de Villiers and Faf du Plessis they have four batsman who average 50 and above (no English batman averages more than 50). And, it will be Australia’s ability to dislodge them on which their success will hinge.
Johnson’s performance was outstanding, but he will have to do a little better against the South Africa top five if he is to make the same difference.
In much the same fashion, and whatever Australia think of their current attack, the difference between the South African attack of Vernon Philander (average 18), Dale Steyn (22) and Morne Morkel (29) compared with the English attach of Jimmy Anderson (30) and Stuart Broad (30) is night and day. And the Australian batting line-up seems generally no less vulnerable to the English than it did six months ago. (PLEASE NOTE OZZIE BLOWHARDS!)
It is a little harsh to say Australia’s turn-around was built around the performance of one man. Nevertheless, take away Johnson’s showing and the Australian averages in terms of runs scored and wickets taken do not differ that dramatically from what they were when Australia lost 3-0.
There were marginal improvements on all fronts but not enough to suggest, apart from Johnson, that this is a fundamentally different team from the one that got a hammering just six months ago.
Of course, with these kinds of victories comes confidence, that essential ingredient to all sporting success, and so the effect of Johnson on the team could be telling.
But all the hyperbole coming out of Australia at the moment suggests many have conflated the performance of one man with the performance of an entire team. The rest of the Australian players, however, have not significantly lifted their game.
EXCELL ENT SOBER ARTICLE WHICH SHOULD BE COMPULSORY READING FOR ALL BLOWHARD OZZIE CRICKET FANS
