Thought of the Day: England shouldn't be getting too chirpy ( & neither should Australia)

The completion of the Ashes series in England this week has allowed everyone involved to take a bit of a break from the game, go to bed a bit earlier and, in the case of some English players, do a little gardening.

Looking back on the series, the final result of 3-0 would indicate that England were the dominant team, though not as dominant as many in the media predicted at the start of the series.  Then again, it may be more of a reflection on how poor both teams actually are.  The Australian side may well have been the worst to visit England in recent times, but the side they were playing weren't as good as they were made out to be.

Not that they were as bad as the Quokkas CC

While England have now won 3 Ashes series in-a-row, they are hardly the might that the Australian team was during its dominant era, as badly as they may want to be.  Are Cook and Root the equal of Langer and Hayden? Hardly.  So let's drop that there.

Further, there was only one match in the series that England really dominated, the thrashing at Lords.  Credit cannot be taken from England for this game, they completely outplayed Australia, but this was the only game that they did.

England won the toss on 3 occasions and the weather stayed fine for all of these.  For the 2 occasions that Australia won the toss, draws eventuated that were very nearly wins.  Further, one of Englands wins was by 14 runs. Hardly dominance at all, particularly given the inconsistent make-up of the Australian team.

Australia used 17 players throughout the series, whereas England only used 14, with new players largely brought in to replace injured players rather than poor form.  The major exception here was the replacement of Stephen Finn by Tim Bresnan, which was an anomoly in a series that showed how shallow Englands back-up pool of players is. 

Englands talent pool.  Not shown: South Africa's talent pool.

While Australia was blooding new players and finding its best line-up, it still remained competitive.  England, on the other hand, looked increasingly dependent on the old-guard of Anderson, Broad, Prior, Petersen, Swann and Cook.  When this sextet failed or fell to injury, the lack of depth was further exposed.

The performance of Cook as Captain was particularly uninspiring for Cricket fans, with England playing for draws when winning was still achievable, providing some rather dull play.  This was particularly galling given the supposed difference in the quality of the teams.  This isn't to say that Clarke had a thrilling series, but at least he captained to win.

The final match of the series exemplified this approach best, with Australia declaring twice in the game to force a result despite Englands stoic play in the first innings.  That England almost provided an upset (through the cavalier Kevin Pietersen, not someone you could define as a loved member of the England team - or even as English) did not upset the balance of power for the game where Australia had control and the momentum.

"Hey Jacques, where do I get one of those shirts?"

While the England chase may provide them some momentum for the impending One Day tournament against Australia, Michael Clarke seems to have asserted his control over the series as the Captain in charge.

This isn't to say that Australia have anything to really gloat about.  While the much criticised batters seemed to finally work out their spots and how to play by the last Test, they were hardly convincing.  As one swallow does not make a summer, one Century does not make a great batsman, or in the case of Shane Watson - 3 Centuries in 7 years.

In all, this was a match closer series than we had anticipated, which is something that should be celebrated. With the next Ashes series only a matter of months away, we can surely expect a closer series on Australian shores, which is great for Cricket and Cricket Bloggers everywhere (because it's all about us).