IF THIS topsy-turvy Ashes series was marginally less gripping than the one in 2005, it wasn't because it was played between two teams ranked by many as mediocre, rather because only the first Test at Cardiff provided a truly nail-biting finish.
England's victories at Lord's and The Oval, Australia's at Headingley, were all by comfortable margins. In 2005 three of the Tests went to the wire, while England might still have lost the final drawn match at The Oval as late as the tea interval on
the last day.
Then there were fewer indisputably great players involved, and even those with unquestionable claims to greatness, notably Ponting and Flintoff, were no longer quite what they had been. Both England and Australia are really forging new teams. This may make the return series in Australia next year one of higher quality.
Much has been made of England's good fortune in winning the toss four out of five times. Actually they would have done better to lose it at Headingley. Australia would have batted first if Ponting had called correctly, and the first day was the only time the wicket was difficult. England lost that game in the first three hours, but if they had bowled first, the result might have been different – and not only because Jimmy Anderson would have been fully fit to bowl as he wasn't after straining a muscle going for a quick single.
It was a good series for the English selectors too. They judged right when defying romantics like me who would have recalled Ramprakash for The Oval, and instead selecting Jonathan Trott for his first Test and retaining Ian Bell.
England won first because Paul Collingwood, Graeme Swann, Anderson and Monty Panesar held out at Cardiff when defeat seemed certain, then, because at Lord's, Edgbaston and The Oval they found bowlers to take wickets. At Lord's it was Anderson and Graham Onions in the first innings, Andrew Flintoff and Swann in the second. Anderson's five for 80 at Edgbaston put them on top before rain cost them hours and then Michael Clarke and Marcus North batted them out of the game. At The Oval it was Stuart Broad and Swann in the first innings, Swann and Steve Harmison in the second, not forgetting Flintoff's running-out of Ponting.
If England's top order batting was fragile – for which the Australian bowlers should be given some credit – Strauss batted with wonderful resolution throughout the series, his authority growing with every match. There were also valuable runs from Matt Prior, Flintoff, Broad, and Swann. In contrast though Australia were the stronger batting side, scoring four times as many hundreds as England, they failed at crucial moments, and their lower order contributed much less than England's. If it had been England collapsing as Australia did last Friday, there would have been a lot of talk about "lack of character".
Actually this England side has quite evidently lots of character, demonstrated in nothing more than their ability to put the disaster of Headingley behind them and come back to win so convincingly at The Oval. It took character also to shrug off the loss of Kevin Pietersen, their best batsman, after only two Tests.
Looking to the future, it's good-bye to Flintoff, who has been England's hero so often, and perhaps to Steve Harmison, a very fine fast bowler at his best. Otherwise this team should be about for at least two or three years, form and fitness permitting. That is good news. Better still is the thought that many of them, notably Anderson, Swann and Broad, are still improving; and that these three are all notably whole-hearted cricketers who never allow their heads to drop. There remain concerns about the top-order batting, Strauss and Petersen excepted. But Alastair Cook, Bell and Ravi Bopara all have talent enough to enjoy better series than this one. We can also look forward with eager anticipation to the development of Yorkshire's wrist-spinning all-rounder Adil Rashid. So the future is rosy.
Despite defeat, Australia's isn't that dark either. An inexperienced attack has done well. Michael Clarke is now one of the best batsmen in the world, and, if young Phillip Hughes failed in two Tests and was ruthlessly discarded, I've no doubt he will be back with a bang and will make England and other countries suffer.
Two final thoughts. The Oval wicket was a good one for a Test match, giving bowlers a chance and making batsmen work for their runs. On the first day Shane Warne opined that it was a 350-an-innings wicket, and he was, as usual, about right.
Such wickets make for much better cricket than the flat pitches on which sides score 600 and bowlers toil in vain.
Lastly, this gripping series confirmed that Test cricket remains the real thing, capable of gripping the imagination, as the 50 overs game or 20/20 can never do. For this, the players on both sides deserve our thanks.
