England's basic failing magnified by bad luck (6 January 1999)

6 January 1999

England's basic failing magnified by bad luck

By Mark Nicholas

AT THE finish, while the end of series ceremonies took place on the outfield under a blazing sun, the mood in Sydney was good.

Australians were delighted but not smug, the England camp felt that their boys had given it their best shot and in doing so had contributed to the magnificence of the occasion.

Agreed, the last two Tests have been fascinating, but overall it has been a hard series to size up. Australia could have won it 5-0 if it had not been for a rain storm in Brisbane, which ended the match, and the loss of seven Australian wickets for just 32 runs in England's Melbourne win.

England lost all five tosses, which makes a difference no matter what anyone says, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the ones in Adelaide and Sydney were crucial.

During the first half of the series they made plenty of chances, but failed to take them, which is their own fault. At the same time they took too long to alter their approach and go on the offensive. It is inherent for English cricketers to be defensive and until they find themselves behind in a series they appear unable to break free from their inhibitions.

The teams have been tested by a wonderful variety of pitches, which have involved every type of cricketer, and tested by cloud, cool and rain as well as by the airless heat, which touched 62 degrees centigrade on the first day in Adelaide. These challenges have proved conclusively that Australia are the better team, but we knew that anyway and should not be too surprised.

English cricket is only beginning its healing process, and the open wounds are most exposed by an opposition who have attacking batsmen, fine fielders, wrist spin and a class act for a fast bowler. Two divisions in the domestic game is seen by some as messianic. It is not, but it is a start in the quest to develop players who concentrate more fiercely and who are stronger mentally.

This mental toughness thing is a bit cliched, but it is an important aspect of cricket at this level and it is where England lose out. Until a team of talented yet still bloody minded so-and-so's - the Botham, Boycott type, if you like - take on Australia it is unlikely that England will win back the Ashes.

It is 10 years since we were much cop, it may be 10 more before the structural changes all through the system in England take relevant effect. There is still much hard thinking needed for the improvement of English cricket.

It was at 2.02 pm yesterday afternoon that Peter Such was caught and bowled by Stuart MacGill off a freakish ricochet from the body of Mark Waugh at silly-point. MacGill grabbed a stump first and then hugged the lads.

They all shook hands with Darren Gough, the unbeaten batsmen, and Mark Taylor graciously took time to tell Gough what a corker of a chap, let alone a cricketer, he has been all summer.

Tally-ho to that and doff your hats to Darren.

It is Taylor, though, who after his 50th Test as the captain of his country should be placed on the pantheon of sporting excellence. He has brought dignity and decency to the game, and his principles are largely responsible for the good spirit between the teams and for Australia's invigorating cricket.

Taylor is a man for the main chance, cannot bear the thought of a draw and cares not a jot for his own ends, only for the team. At press conferences he has urged elite players everywhere to accept that they are responsible for the destiny of Test cricket.

When clinging on to the chance offered by Mark Ramprakash early in the morning he became the world record-holder for Test match catches; only a few months ago he equalled Sir Donald Bradman's record for Australia's highest individual innings.

Without question Taylor is a very good cricketer and a quite outstanding ambassador for his country and the game. Probably this is one of Australia's best teams. Perhaps it boasts the finest of all cricket captains.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)