Whisper it: maybe England are better than Australia?

Sometimes all the theorising needs to take a hike

Andrew Hughes

Comments: 3 | Text size: A | A
The pitch at the MCG has a lot of grass five days ahead of the Boxing Day Test, Melbourne, December 21, 2010
The Cabbage Patch at the MCG © Getty Images
Related Links

I'm no doctor, but I've learned a thing or two from television. For instance, hospital dramas have taught me that any diagnosis made by a minor character in the first 20 minutes is always wrong, and that if a man carrying a chainsaw climbs a rickety ladder before the theme music has faded out, he'll be gushing arterial blood in an emergency room by the first ad break.

I've also learned, from many hours watching fictional forensic scientists slice up bodies in badly-lit morgues, that it's good form to wait until the patient is dead before starting the post-mortem. It's just as well then that most cricket journalists are in their current jobs and not wielding the autopsy scalpel. Australia's Ashes campaign is still warm(ish), yet already the amateur surgeons are clustering around, offering up causes of death, unencumbered by logic, and apparently unaware of the principle of Occam's razor.

"Maybe England's team was just better than Australia's?" says a wide-eyed, wet-behind-the-ears journalist to his senior colleague.

The other man shakes his head. He's a maverick. He's seen things. He once shared a lift with Ian Chappell. He's filed more expense forms than the likes of us have had hot lattes.

"No. This goes much, much deeper."

"Are you sure? I mean, on the face of it..."

"Trust me, what we're looking at here is a dramatic plot of unimaginable depths, which only a wise, ruggedly handsome maverick journalist like myself can possibly fathom."

"So who did it then?"

"I don't know. But I've got a few ideas."

All of this wild journalistic speculation reminds me of the years when English cricket lay barely twitching on the slab, whilst onlookers shouted out random theories. The train of Australian cricket thought is clattering along a familiar, circular track. Denial. Anger. Blame the grass.

Yes really. It was with some nostalgia that I read over the weekend that the cause of Australia's recent defeats is the state of underfoot conditions back home. I can remember the Cabbage Patch years of the late 1980s, when English failures were attributed to the greenness of our pitches. You remember how the argument went. Bowlers can get wickets with any old rubbish, and batsmen are nervous wrecks who fear every ball will be their last.

So you turn all your pitches into roads, but then you find your batsmen can score centuries with their eyes closed, and your bowlers are punch-drunk pie-flingers who can't remember what a wicket looks like. And still your Test results don't improve. Fiddling with pitches didn't help England back then, and there's no evidence it will help Australia now.

Fortunately, journalists have another suspicious-looking elderly cat lover tied up, ready for the stake. It's everyone's favourite scapegoat: T20 cricket. Playing all that exciting, well-attended, lucrative cricket has turned Australia's finest into slap-happy sloggers with attention spans of five-year-olds. Stands to reason, doesn't it. Case closed.

Still, for the sake of balance, we ought to point out that the first domestic T20 tournament was played in England in 2003, since which time England teams have topped the rankings in all three formats and won three (soon to be four) Ashes series. The evil IPL began in 2008, and yet in the last five years, India have been the top-ranked Test team, won a World Cup and a Champions Trophy, and introduced a new generation of exciting international cricketers, most of whom became famous playing T20.

As any scientist will tell you, correlation does not imply causation, but in this case, there isn't even correlation.

I am not a journalist, but if you'll indulge me, I have my own theory. It's not particularly exciting, but there it is. Sometimes one team is better than another team. More often than not, the better team wins. If the losing team wants to alter this state of affairs, they are advised to pursue one of three strategies:

1. Play better.
2. Pick better players.
3. Devise a tactic, designed to physically incapacitate the principal players on the opposing side that, whilst unethical, is not, strictly speaking, illegal. (see Jardine, D)

Andrew Hughes is a writer currently based in England. He tweets here

Tell us what you think. Send us your feedback

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Comments: 3 
. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

Posted by Ross on (July 25, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

@Aditya: At Shield-level, the attendance is horrible, so gate receipts don't enter the equation. Instead they go for green bowling tracks to try secure points for a win, because the points system doesn't reward good cricket, only result cricket. 3-day cricket where bowlers have it easy and it's a lottery for the batsmen (supposedly).

That being said, it was not Australia losing by a large margin that upsets people. It was the lack of spine showed by the team that is usually the most combative. You can't tell me there is no opportunity to show a tight technique, copious patience and a bit of fight on a seaming green track. Green tracks can make mediocre bowlers look better, but come an easier track, the batsmen should do better, not worse.

Posted by Dummy4 on (July 24, 2013, 20:10 GMT)

Andrew, there's a middle ground between a cabbage patch and a road. That's called a decent cricket pitch. Australia used to be known for producing great cricket pitches. At Test level they still do. Don't know what's happening at Shield Level, though. Traditional Australian pitches are good for batting with a bit of bounce that offers help to fast and slow bowlers alike. That's all you need.

Posted by Balaji on (July 24, 2013, 6:49 GMT)

I had a similar thought to yours, when india lost 4-0 to england in england, 4-0 to australia in australia and 2-1 to england in india ( this I would say when the Indian test team hit the nadir) it was so easy to blame the t20 cricket. Then what happened because of the debacle the selection team went back to ranji performers, and dropped all the well established players like shewag, gambhir, zaheer, yuvi, harbajan, ohja what happens is that india wins against australia 4-0 in india. So it is clearly evident australia is loosing because of bad selections of non performing reputed players such as watson, hughes, pattison, lyon, clarke who have been given enough chances, the selection committee should go bold with their selection process, and see what happens, it is going to be a while since australia is going to become a better test team, but as a cricket lover I would love see a competing Australian test team than this current one with no back bone.

Email this page to a friend Email Feedback Feedback Print Print
RSS FeedAll
Andrew Hughes
Andrew Hughes is a writer and avid cricket watcher who has always retained a healthy suspicion of professional sportsmen, and like any right-thinking person rates Neville Cardus more highly than Don Bradman. His latest book is available here and here @hughandrews73

All Articles »

Andrew HughesClose
Andrew Hughes Andrew Hughes is a writer and avid cricket watcher who has always retained a healthy suspicion of professional sportsmen, and like any right-thinking person rates Neville Cardus more highly than Don Bradman. His latest book is available here and here @hughandrews73
  • ESPN
  • ESPNF1
  • Scrum
  • Soccernet