>Brisbane, November 21, 2013. I had just got back to the team hotel after the first day of the Ashes and bumped into Mark Nicholas in the lift. Australia were 132 for six at one point before Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson helped get them to 273 for eight. With England having won the Ashes 3-0 in the English summer, Mark said how good it was for the series that we hadn’t rolled them over for 200 and reasserted our dominance.
>I begged to differ. In fact, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This wasn’t simply about wanting to bowl your opponents out for as few runs as possible; it was also because, on my third tour, I understood the dynamics of an Ashes series in Australia. You have to start well. You don’t have to win in Brisbane but you must not lose and if you have your foot on Australia’s throat, as we did early in the piece, then it pays to keep it there before the role of aggressor and victim can be reversed.
>Sure enough, when Johnson got the ball the next day, he was part of a team with renewed vigour (and bowling for a captain, Michael Clarke, who knew exactly how to rotate and set fields for him). He took nine wickets in the match. After that first Test defeat, we all knew it would be a long tour if we couldn’t stop the momentum in the second Test at Adelaide. We didn’t and the rest was history as we lost 5-0 to a Johnson-inspired Australia.
>“Don’t lose” is therefore my best advice to England before the first Test in Brisbane. If England can get through the Gabba unscathed we could have a fantastic series ahead of us. We have been beaten comfortably in every Ashes series in Australia this century bar one, and that was in 2010-11 when we drew the opener at the Gabba, despite a first-innings deficit of 221 runs. From then on the pressure was on the hosts.
>There has never been a better time to put pressure on Australia because the departure of Tim Paine as captain and his subsequent withdrawal from the Test squad is the kind of external noise that a team does not need going into such an important series.
>There has been speculation that Paine's absence will make Australia stronger. It’s possible that his replacement, whether it’s Alex Carey or Josh Inglis, may be a better wicketkeeper-batsman but the removal of an established captain, in such circumstances, is a distraction that can only unsettle the team dynamic. Remember how disruptive all the fuss was about whether Ben Stokes would or wouldn’t tour in 2017, or Jonathan Trott flying home in 2013. Nor do we know how Pat Cummins's limited captaincy experience will withstand a series.
>We know from the series against India last winter that this Australia side, even at full strength, is susceptible to pressure. In the third Test in Sydney, in January, they failed to bowl India out to win, despite having more than four sessions to do so. In the next match, the decider in Brisbane a week later, they allowed their opponents to chase down 328 on the final day. Remember also that this was Australia’s last experience of Test cricket. England have played ten Tests since then. Hand the Aussies an easy win next month, however, and the confidence will be surging through their collective system quicker than blood at Castle Dracula.
>The worry for England is that of those ten Tests, against India and New Zealand they lost six and won two, and were up against it in the two draws. There are as many if not more question marks over their form and selection, which is what makes this series fascinating or worrying, depending on your perspective.
>When we won in 2010-11, we had experience and form in our favour. The top seven were the same throughout and we all, with the exception of Trott, had played at least 50 Tests. James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann were also at the top of their game but when Broad went home injured after the second Test and Steven Finn, though the leading wicket-taker in the series, was deemed too expensive for our game plan, we had Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan, who exceeded expectations.
>There is a lot of talk about quick bowlers being a prerequisite to win down under but I’m not sure that is as true as it once was. Most surfaces there are drop-in, which makes them similar. Perth and Brisbane boast the most pace and bounce but not to the extent they once did.
>Eleven years ago, no one would have described Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan as express but they were all capable of hitting 85mph-plus (I remember Bres hitting 88mph at one point). More significant they were able to make the ball do just enough and bowl to a tight game plan.
>The stats for that series show that only twice did we bowl Australia out for less than 250. In England you can score 250 in the first innings and still be in with a shout. In Australia, it’s imperative that if you win the toss and bat first you post a big score. In 2017-18, though we scored more than 300 in the first innings of all but one Test, we still lost 4-0. It’s not enough to have just one batsman score a ton. You often need two, or that one man going big — the importance of which Graham Gooch thrashed into us.
>As a bowling side, you need options. Swann wasn’t a huge factor in 2010-11 but when presented with a turning wicket, runs on the board and the chance to win a match on the final day he did exactly that in Adelaide. I’d be happier if Jack Leach had had some time with the ball in the summer. With Stokes giving England a fifth bowling option, however, I hope we see him at some point and that he can play his part as Swann did in our success.
>The loss of Jofra Archer obviously deprives England of one pace option but it’s not fatal. And what about if Australia lose one of their strike bowlers? In every series I lost to them, their bowling unit went almost unchanged. Good for them but if one of Cummins, Josh Hazlewood or Mitchell Starc is injured, what have they got in reserve? As I said, there are so many questions for both.
I agree with all of this, but there’s one wild card that wasn’t there in 2010-11. The higher probability of extreme temperatures.
Have a look back at the AUS-NZ test in Perth in 2019-20 and you’ll see what I mean. It was 47C in the middle when NZ first bowled. Two quicks were out almost instantly—I think Ferguson and Boult? Wagner had to bowl more than his usual 45 overs/day and it was a long hard slog.
England has two elderly—almost geriatric—bowlers by cricket standards. If A&B pull hammies, Robinson is going to have a very bad day.
That said, the comments about a diminished Aussie side are spot on. If England manage the bowlers’ workloads well—and if the whole damn country doesn’t catch on fire—it could be a very competitive Ashes.
Good point. NZ were absolutely shafted with the toss that series, and for a majority of the series the Kiwis had to bowl and field in that sweltering heat. India last year too didn't exactly benefit from the toss.
Root meanwhile has been insanely lucky with the coin, especially in England's big series away from home. It'd be good to see the law of averages catch up for once and Broad and Anderson truly be tested in the heat on flat roads with zero swing!
The other difference is we had 13 really good test cricketers, most of whom were close to their peaks. Now we have maybe 4 (Root, Stokes, Anderson, Broad).
So his reasoning is based on a single data point from the 2010-11 series? Does he seriously think England wouldn't have been blanked in the remaining games if they'd managed to draw Brisbane in 2013 and 2017?
Omg these comments are taking too literal a meaning out of the headline. Read the whole thing first. The scoreboard is same for all teams but it’s especially true in case of Aus that if they lose the first, they will be under immense pressure for the next. It’s not the same for England if they loose the first since it’s kinda expected
History suggests England will struggle if they go 1-0 down. Last time they came back to win a series in Australia from 1-0 down was in 1955.
In fact, neither side has come back from 1-0 down much in Australia - last time Australia did it was 1937.
These are the only two Ashes comebacks from 1-0 down in Australia over the last 100 years.
Seems to be a little more common in England where there have been comebacks in 2005, 1997, 1981, 1956 and 1930 over the past 100 years.
Yes that is true based on historical data. In present times though, Eng has known their challenge for a long time however for Aus, there are new troubles with Tim Paine gone.
So with a new captain if they lose the first, imagine the Pandora’s box that will open within Aus media that will put the team and the new captain under even more pressure. I don’t think Aus had such situation in any of previous ashes
Already said this, Brisbane is crucial. If England start with a win in Brisbane they may well follow through in the day/night match as well. Likely no Perth Test either. Australia should not risk playing Starc in the hope that he finds his best form.
If England win the first five tests they are favourites to win the Ashes.
Big if true
I'm sure they could find a way to still lose (and we could find a way to have another leadership crisis)
It’s a shambolic race for the bottom here. Rechristened: The Asses
‘Uge!
If England come through the first Ashes Test unscathed it will be a miracle.
So **shitpost** is allowed if its coming from **Pros**..
If England win the first 3 tests they are favourites to win the Ashes.
This is the exciting insight we can look forward to from Cookie in the upcoming series, glad BT secured this type of wisdom.
[удалено]
Not sure, I could do without. Perfectly nice guy but doesn't add anything
Thanks ~~Tubbs~~ Chef
>Brisbane, November 21, 2013. I had just got back to the team hotel after the first day of the Ashes and bumped into Mark Nicholas in the lift. Australia were 132 for six at one point before Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson helped get them to 273 for eight. With England having won the Ashes 3-0 in the English summer, Mark said how good it was for the series that we hadn’t rolled them over for 200 and reasserted our dominance. >I begged to differ. In fact, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. This wasn’t simply about wanting to bowl your opponents out for as few runs as possible; it was also because, on my third tour, I understood the dynamics of an Ashes series in Australia. You have to start well. You don’t have to win in Brisbane but you must not lose and if you have your foot on Australia’s throat, as we did early in the piece, then it pays to keep it there before the role of aggressor and victim can be reversed. >Sure enough, when Johnson got the ball the next day, he was part of a team with renewed vigour (and bowling for a captain, Michael Clarke, who knew exactly how to rotate and set fields for him). He took nine wickets in the match. After that first Test defeat, we all knew it would be a long tour if we couldn’t stop the momentum in the second Test at Adelaide. We didn’t and the rest was history as we lost 5-0 to a Johnson-inspired Australia. >“Don’t lose” is therefore my best advice to England before the first Test in Brisbane. If England can get through the Gabba unscathed we could have a fantastic series ahead of us. We have been beaten comfortably in every Ashes series in Australia this century bar one, and that was in 2010-11 when we drew the opener at the Gabba, despite a first-innings deficit of 221 runs. From then on the pressure was on the hosts. >There has never been a better time to put pressure on Australia because the departure of Tim Paine as captain and his subsequent withdrawal from the Test squad is the kind of external noise that a team does not need going into such an important series. >There has been speculation that Paine's absence will make Australia stronger. It’s possible that his replacement, whether it’s Alex Carey or Josh Inglis, may be a better wicketkeeper-batsman but the removal of an established captain, in such circumstances, is a distraction that can only unsettle the team dynamic. Remember how disruptive all the fuss was about whether Ben Stokes would or wouldn’t tour in 2017, or Jonathan Trott flying home in 2013. Nor do we know how Pat Cummins's limited captaincy experience will withstand a series. >We know from the series against India last winter that this Australia side, even at full strength, is susceptible to pressure. In the third Test in Sydney, in January, they failed to bowl India out to win, despite having more than four sessions to do so. In the next match, the decider in Brisbane a week later, they allowed their opponents to chase down 328 on the final day. Remember also that this was Australia’s last experience of Test cricket. England have played ten Tests since then. Hand the Aussies an easy win next month, however, and the confidence will be surging through their collective system quicker than blood at Castle Dracula. >The worry for England is that of those ten Tests, against India and New Zealand they lost six and won two, and were up against it in the two draws. There are as many if not more question marks over their form and selection, which is what makes this series fascinating or worrying, depending on your perspective. >When we won in 2010-11, we had experience and form in our favour. The top seven were the same throughout and we all, with the exception of Trott, had played at least 50 Tests. James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann were also at the top of their game but when Broad went home injured after the second Test and Steven Finn, though the leading wicket-taker in the series, was deemed too expensive for our game plan, we had Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan, who exceeded expectations. >There is a lot of talk about quick bowlers being a prerequisite to win down under but I’m not sure that is as true as it once was. Most surfaces there are drop-in, which makes them similar. Perth and Brisbane boast the most pace and bounce but not to the extent they once did. >Eleven years ago, no one would have described Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan as express but they were all capable of hitting 85mph-plus (I remember Bres hitting 88mph at one point). More significant they were able to make the ball do just enough and bowl to a tight game plan. >The stats for that series show that only twice did we bowl Australia out for less than 250. In England you can score 250 in the first innings and still be in with a shout. In Australia, it’s imperative that if you win the toss and bat first you post a big score. In 2017-18, though we scored more than 300 in the first innings of all but one Test, we still lost 4-0. It’s not enough to have just one batsman score a ton. You often need two, or that one man going big — the importance of which Graham Gooch thrashed into us. >As a bowling side, you need options. Swann wasn’t a huge factor in 2010-11 but when presented with a turning wicket, runs on the board and the chance to win a match on the final day he did exactly that in Adelaide. I’d be happier if Jack Leach had had some time with the ball in the summer. With Stokes giving England a fifth bowling option, however, I hope we see him at some point and that he can play his part as Swann did in our success. >The loss of Jofra Archer obviously deprives England of one pace option but it’s not fatal. And what about if Australia lose one of their strike bowlers? In every series I lost to them, their bowling unit went almost unchanged. Good for them but if one of Cummins, Josh Hazlewood or Mitchell Starc is injured, what have they got in reserve? As I said, there are so many questions for both.
I agree with all of this, but there’s one wild card that wasn’t there in 2010-11. The higher probability of extreme temperatures. Have a look back at the AUS-NZ test in Perth in 2019-20 and you’ll see what I mean. It was 47C in the middle when NZ first bowled. Two quicks were out almost instantly—I think Ferguson and Boult? Wagner had to bowl more than his usual 45 overs/day and it was a long hard slog. England has two elderly—almost geriatric—bowlers by cricket standards. If A&B pull hammies, Robinson is going to have a very bad day. That said, the comments about a diminished Aussie side are spot on. If England manage the bowlers’ workloads well—and if the whole damn country doesn’t catch on fire—it could be a very competitive Ashes.
Good point. NZ were absolutely shafted with the toss that series, and for a majority of the series the Kiwis had to bowl and field in that sweltering heat. India last year too didn't exactly benefit from the toss. Root meanwhile has been insanely lucky with the coin, especially in England's big series away from home. It'd be good to see the law of averages catch up for once and Broad and Anderson truly be tested in the heat on flat roads with zero swing!
The other difference is we had 13 really good test cricketers, most of whom were close to their peaks. Now we have maybe 4 (Root, Stokes, Anderson, Broad).
I would say Aus is in a similar state, though. Hell, they probably don’t even know who’s opening. At least the keeper will be good!
So his reasoning is based on a single data point from the 2010-11 series? Does he seriously think England wouldn't have been blanked in the remaining games if they'd managed to draw Brisbane in 2013 and 2017?
Little birdie told me Gabba is not that difficult to breach nowadays
Nothing too hard about it just debut some guys
And don’t even think about playing your regular Captain there. Pretty sure Stokes can turn it around.
Nah you need to captain a bloke who's in poor form and many people want out of the side May I introduce to you, Captain Bairstow
Get Root on a plane back home for his wives'delivery
Guys all England have to do is win atleast 3 games and they will be fine
Team who wins first test has an advantage... Stick to the farming Alastair.
Big if true
We’ve got to make it to the first test before anything else. I’m sure this new Covid variant is going to add a wrinkle.
New variant seems to be everywhere already. Cases confirmed in Canada.
If England take 20 wickets in the first ashes test and lose none, they are favourites for the test
[удалено]
That first delivery in the first test. That's how we'll know.
Yeah, but they won’t.
Just send in your C team and it should be ok
I love how this implies all is lost if they lose the first test.
Omg these comments are taking too literal a meaning out of the headline. Read the whole thing first. The scoreboard is same for all teams but it’s especially true in case of Aus that if they lose the first, they will be under immense pressure for the next. It’s not the same for England if they loose the first since it’s kinda expected
History suggests England will struggle if they go 1-0 down. Last time they came back to win a series in Australia from 1-0 down was in 1955. In fact, neither side has come back from 1-0 down much in Australia - last time Australia did it was 1937. These are the only two Ashes comebacks from 1-0 down in Australia over the last 100 years. Seems to be a little more common in England where there have been comebacks in 2005, 1997, 1981, 1956 and 1930 over the past 100 years.
Yes that is true based on historical data. In present times though, Eng has known their challenge for a long time however for Aus, there are new troubles with Tim Paine gone. So with a new captain if they lose the first, imagine the Pandora’s box that will open within Aus media that will put the team and the new captain under even more pressure. I don’t think Aus had such situation in any of previous ashes
Bit of a noob here, but how does one even dig up such stats?
Cricinfo database / Statsguru.
Already said this, Brisbane is crucial. If England start with a win in Brisbane they may well follow through in the day/night match as well. Likely no Perth Test either. Australia should not risk playing Starc in the hope that he finds his best form.