England v Australia: Third Test
Stokes Re-Kindles the Ashes as Australia Throw it
Away
August 25th 2019
England should now be 2-0 down with two to play and the destination of
the Ashes, but not the series, decided. They are not, thanks to a series of
extraordinary events that highlights the fragility of both sides.
An Australian collapse at Lord’s threatened to give England an
unexpected chance to square the series after the heavy defeat at Edgbaston.
That England were blown away in the 1st Test, having dominated the
match for the first three days, was a salutary lesson. Australia were fifteen
behind with their top three dismissed, but England could not finish them off.
Might it have changed the result if Jimmy Anderson had not hobbled off after bowling
just four overs on the first morning? Just possibly, but a side should be able
to overcome such handicaps. Would England have won the 2nd Test had
they not lost an hour on the final morning after so much play – effectively,
two full days – had not been lost previously? Quite possibly! These though are
simple imponderables: we do not know what would have happened and, both times,
Australia rode their luck and battled through.
With Steve Smith, previously the difference between the two sides, out
of the 3rd Test, England had their Ashes 2005 moment. In that
series, the freak injury to Glenn McGrath, when he trod on a cricket ball in
the warm-up, changed the destination of the series. England revived. Steve Smith out. Jofra
Archer causing mayhem. The momentum swinging, surely England had to win now, or
lose the series?
Even more, Australia blinked first with selection. Apart from the
enforced change to replace Steve Smith, with Labuschagne proving every bit as
effective a stand-in as Jofra Archer was for Jimmy Anderson, Cameron Bancroft
was the fall-guy for top-order failings. The change made no difference, with
Australia 25-2 within forty minutes, but then it was England who lost the plot.
An hour of buffet bowling and Australia were in a strong position when they
could have been all out for under 100. Take away the 111 stand between a
revived Warner and Labuschagne and twenty wickets fell for 145 between the
first two innings of the match and the start of the third. For all the
complaints that Chris Woakes has been underbowled, his arthritic performance on
the first afternoon as two batsmen scored almost as many as the other twenty in
the first innings, suggests that his knee is troubling him more than is being
admitted. In conditions in which you would have expected him to make hay, his
match figures were 25-5-85-2.
The less said about England’s first innings, the better. Jason Roy’s
fourth consecutive single-figure score and the manner of his dismissals, show
that he is not making a success of opening the innings. Against Australia, he
has a sequence of 10, 28, 0, 2, 9 & 8. Joe Root is playing out of position
to protect lesser batsmen around him and struggling. Root plays all three
formats and has been flogged into the ground over the last couple of years, a
fact that some of the more ungrateful fans who are calling for his head, forget
conveniently. And Joe Denly is managing a positively James Vince-like sequence
of getting a start and then failing to pass thirty. Below them, Bairstow and
Buttler look a shadow of the counter-attacking players who can win a Test in
session. The Australians were given good bowling conditions to use against a
frail line-up and proved irresistible.
Australia, though, are not much better off. Their top order is no more
solid than England’s and the middle order is struggling. There is speculation
that Tim Paine may have to drop himself because he cannot buy a run and Matt
Wade desperately needs a score. The Australia of Allan Border or Steve Waugh
would have taken that first innings lead of 112 and sailed off into the
distance. At 215-6, with the England attack struggling, they had a chance to
push past 400 lead and kill the game but, just as England had failed to apply
the killer blow at Edgbaston, Australia were not good enough to apply it here.
A better side than Australia would have taken their chances. When both
openers fall to the new ball in under half an hour, with the opposition facing attaining
the tenth highest fourth innings chase if they were to keep the Ashes alive and
with the batsmen playing as if facing hand grenades, blindfold, with a moral
victory for the bowlers at least once an over, the killer blow should have
fallen. Yet it did not.
The lesson is that this is a series between two mediocre, inconsistent
sides, both capable of moments of brilliance… and a lot of dross.
The key aspect of the partnership between Root and Denly was not the
number of runs scored, but the fact that it gave their side belief that the
match could be won. It also started to sow the seeds of doubt in Australian
minds: a doubt that must have contributed to the frazzled state twenty-four
hours later. Even when Joe Root fell early on the fourth morning, just before
the new ball, rather than signalling the end, as the fielding side must have
expected, the arrival of the new ball brought a flood of runs, as the
previously stroke-less Stokes and the previously run-less, Bairstow, combined
to reduce the number of runs required ever-closer to the hundred mark that was within
reach of a single partnership.
No one can legislate for a batsman chancing his arm and it coming off. In
1981, Ian Botham did it, memorably, both at Headingly and at Old Trafford.
These things happen. But you can make it easier for the batsman. Stokes should
have been out early in his innings: the chance went begging.
Australian fans will, however, forever believe that they were cheated of
victory. Ben Stokes should have been given LBW with 2 runs needed to win, but
Joel Wilson gave him the benefit of someone’s doubt. Australia would have won
by one run – shades of the Border/Thompson stand in the 1982/83 Ashes – but it
should have never got to that. Australia totally lost the plot.
When David Warner dropped Stokes on 34 in the morning session, it did
not look so costly. With 17 needed to win, Marcus Harris, who has had a pretty forgettable
match, missed a more difficult chance. Then Jack Leach committed suicide,
charging down the wicket and should have been run out by yards, but Nathan Lyon
dropped the ball and Leach scrambled back. That was symptomatic of scrambled
minds that were making mistakes under pressure. A lot of that pressure was
being applied by a crowd that never stopped believing and cheered to the echo every
four, every six, every single and every forward defensive.
How else do you account for the way that, over after over, Stokes was
allowed a comfortable single from the fifth or sixth ball? Australia never
pinned him down at one end so that they could attack at the other. How else do
you account for the fact that even when they had Leach in their sights, the
bowlers could not produce the match-winning delivery? Leach never even looked
uncomfortable. How else can you explain the way that none of the bowlers
managed to deliver a single Yorker in the block-hole to either Stokes, who was
swinging away and thus vulnerable to one, or to Leach? Supposedly, limited-overs
cricket as taught bowlers the knack of bowling that lethal, block-hole delivery
at the death, but that skill went missing during the frenetic, frantic, last wicket partnership. Or that when Leach was facing early in what proved to be the
final over, he was allowed to nudge the single that got him off the mark and
levelled the scores?
And, Australia would have won had they not wasted already their review
on a quite desperate attempt to remove Jack Leach. When they actually needed a
review, six balls later, they had none left.
The English, being the English, will feel guilt that victory was tainted
by an umpiring error. Many Australian fans will feed that sense of guilt and
make out that they were cheated. Had the roles been reversed, the Australians
would have just said “tough mate! You should have taken your chances.” You make
your own luck and Australia deserved no better.
The truth of the matter is that, when put under pressure, the
Australians cracked. The match should never have been allowed to depend at the
very last moment on an umpire who was under extreme pressure too, a good part
of it due to the fielding side appealing for everything; it should have been
settled long before then.
Ben Stokes’ innings was extraordinary, as was his calmness and
awareness, but no less extraordinary was Jack Leach’s calm under extreme
pressure, with half the Australian side close enough to touch him and chatting
away. Most #11s would have thrown it away: Leach did not.
The 1st Test was won by an extraordinary batting performance
by Steve Smith and the 2nd Test saved thanks in great measure to
another. The 3rd was won by an extraordinary batting performance by
Ben Stokes. With the bowlers holding sway, the series will be decided by which
of the two sides manages to produce such innings more often.
Both sides have chronic problems. The top three of both teams has the
solidity of wet tissue paper. With a week and a half between Tests, there is
time to reflect and take decisions after mature reflection. While Rory Burns
has earned himself the full series, the time has come to end the experiment
with Jason Roy: he may ride his luck and make a score in the series, but he
does not suggest permanence. Similarly, time is running out for Joe Denly. He
has reached double figures in every Test this summer, yet passed 30 just once.
And Joe Root must drop back down to #4.
England already have a perfect excuse to make changes. Assuming that
Jimmy Anderson has shown no reaction to his 2nd XI outing and is
considered fit, he will enter the side at his home ground. It could be that he
replaces a bowler – presumably, Chris Woakes – but there is also the
possibility that he could replace a batsman and that Sam Curran could replace Chris Woakes. People will look to the heavens at
that suggestion but, with the form of some of the batsmen, the depth of the
batting will hardly be weakened, but there will be an extra bowling option to
keep control. Or England could take the opportunity to refresh both batting and
bowling without it looking like panic.
One batting solution would be to bring in Dom Sibley. A look at Sibley’s
numbers this season shows that he has not only scored huge numbers of runs, but
his strike rate in the low 40s shows that he has had a lot of patience and is
willing to grind out an innings. This is just what England need at the top of
the order. Sibley, though, had a double failure against Somerset in his only
First Class outing since mid-July and will not get another innings before the 4th
Test. Sibley may regret that he timed his one, poor match of the season badly.
The ECB should regret the ludicrous scheduling of the feeder competition for
the Test side.
An indicator of selectorial thinking is that Ollie Pope was called-up as
cover for Jason Roy, after Roy’s blow to the head in the nets, making it far
more likely that, at least at Old Trafford, Pope will play instead of Sibley. Doing
this allows too a re-jig of the top order. There is a case for Joe Denly to be
asked to open with Burns at Old Trafford, with Ollie Pope at #3 and Joe Root at
#4. This is a risky solution as, despite his unbeaten double century, Pope has,
apart from that single innings, played only T20 since his early season injury
and Denly’s experience as an opener is mainly limited to ODIs and T20s for
England, ten years ago. However, Denly seems far more likely and prepared to see
off the new ball than is Jason Roy: one thing that he has been doing is to
stick around, even if the runs have not accompanied. If the coach says to him, “Joe,
we are happy to see you bat out a full session for 20”, he is the one player in
the top 4 who you can see capable of doing it and of relishing the challenge.
At the same time, Australia will make further changes. The bowlers have
been rotated and will continue to rotate. Space will be made for Steve Smith,
unless his outing against Derbyshire is a disaster. Marnus Labuschagne will
keep his place. David Warner’s innings has probably saved his place, but Matt
Wade and Tim Paine’s places are certainly under threat. It is far from
impossible that Australia could make as many as three or even four changes.
Both sides will go to Old Trafford thinking of what might have been.
England know that they let slip a big first innings lead at Edgbaston and, with
a little more luck in the 2nd Test, could now be 3-0 up. Australia
will know that they dodged the bullet in the 2nd Test and were the
better side for most of the game at Headingly and should be 2-0 up and retaining
the Ashes. With their talisman back, Australia will expect to put things to
rights at Old Trafford. However, if yesterday was a flashback to Headingly ’81,
Australia would be wise to recall that Ian Botham produced another
extraordinary match-winning innings in a crisis at Old Trafford later that same summer.
Bottom line: expect the unexpected. Both sides are capable of great
things… and of producing dross.
