A touch too old but much too good

Australia have won the Ashes, at speed, in style, and quite deservedly. They have played much the better cricket. They haven’t always been at their best, but they have had something England have lacked: an intensity, born of hunger. One team has been on a cricket tour; the other has been on a mission.

In 2005, much was made of the idea that Michael Vaughan’s young team were not scarred by Ashes defeat. But defeat doesn’t have to be a scar. For Ricky Ponting, it has been a spur. He has been the man of the series, the outstanding performer on either side. His batting has been world-beating: from day one, there has been no sign of the shackles England put him in last time. His captaincy remains naïve on the tactical front – some of his field setting today was strangely defensive, as if he had 50 runs to play with rather than 250 – but he had a burning desire for vengeance which he managed to communicate to his team.

On the final morning at Adelaide, when the game seemed to be drifting to the dullest of draws, Ponting gathered his team round and asked if any of them thought they couldn’t win the match. They responded, and England froze. That first session proved the defining moment of the series. There is all the difference in the world between 1-0 after two Tests and 2-0.

The Dad’s Army jibes have not been entirely misplaced. These Australians are a great team in their twilight years, and their big runs have been made by the younger batsmen. The under-35s – Ponting, Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke – have amassed 1312 at an average of 119. Even if you include Andrew Symonds, that average still stays over 100. The over-35s, even after Adam Gilchrist’s fabulous firework display, have made only half as many runs (645 at 37). And it was striking how much Symonds’ fielding lifted the team at Perth.

The leading wicket-taker in the series is also one of Australia’s younger players – Stuart Clark. But here the old stagers have had more influence. Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne don’t take as many wickets as they used to, but they don’t waste them. The one time McGrath has managed more than two wickets was in England’s first innings of the series, the one that set the tone. Since then he has been mortal, but able to make strategic interventions, such as snaring Alastair Cook last night. Only Kevin Pietersen has been able to treat him with disrespect. The Aussie edifice is a magnificent building in need of some refurbishment.

Warne has aged too. In 2005, his wickets were evenly split between first innings and second. This time he has been negligible in the first innings, taking two for 233, but still a force in the second, with three four-fors. The trademarks are all still there, some of the time – the lavish spin, the drift, the variations, the histrionics, the ability to seize the moment. But he is slowly turning into Stuart MacGill.

For England to beat Australia, all the planets had to be in alignment: settled side, strong captain, four fit fast bowlers, home advantage, openers making runs, Flintoff on fire. This time they didn’t have any of those. Their year of four captains has ended with the wrong one in charge, although he has done well at times, and for a happy hour today he found his feet, his smile and his old self. But then he hadn't had to bowl, or even think, for all of yesterday.

England’s batting has been brittle, and the top order green, but overall it has done quite well. The team average of 316 is virtually identical to last time (318). What they haven’t been able to do is score fast, except off Brett Lee. Not even Pietersen and Flintoff have strike rates above 60. That has been partly the gravity of the situation, and partly the old-school parsimony of Clark, a one-man reproach to the profligate third seamers of 2005.

Pietersen’s performance today was an odd one. He played himself back in, which was essential; he let Flintoff dominate, which was wise; but then he had nothing more to offer. He should have taken Warne and allowed Geraint Jones face the seamers. And helping himself to a single off the first ball when batting with the tail was tantamount to waving the white flag. In his Sunday newspaper column, Pietersen appeared to have given up; his handling of the tail confirmed it. The fans belting out Jerusalem deserved better.

But it isn’t the batting wot lost it: it’s the management. Weakened by injuries, England further handicapped themselves with their selection. Duncan Fletcher, who normally avoids unforced changes, made three for the first Test at Brisbane. Ashley Giles, Jimmy Anderson and Geraint Jones were all rushed back into the team as if they were superstars. Two of them were short of match fitness, and one was still out of form. As Flintoff himself was rusty, and Steve Harmison was out of sorts too, the attack was a rabble, crying out for Monty Panesar.

Australia’s team average, virtually level with England’s in 2005 (315), has rocketed to 578, which is what it was in the halcyon year of 1989. Fletcher’s misjudgments made it easier for them. Good players can have a bad series; so can good coaches.

The echo of 1989 is significant. England went into that series as holders of the Ashes. Australia kept faith with the captain who had steered them to defeat in the previous series, Allan Border. He was a great batsman and limited captain, implacably set on vengeance, whereas England were in disarray, with a coach and chairman of selectors not seeing eye to eye and the captaincy changing hands for the fourth time in a year. It’s astonishing that Fletcher, the most methodical of England coaches, should have fallen into some of the same traps.

Before the series began, it looked as if Ponting’s Australia were too old but still too good for England in this fragile state. They have proved it. They have been a touch too old, but much too good. That’s the thing about Dad’s Army: they finished on the winning side.