History repeating costs England...and their legacy

December 5, 2006 by Sid The Hat

Think back to Edgbaston in August 2005. England scraped their way to victory by three wickets after a middle order collapse almost led them to lose a Test they had long dominated.

Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen and Geraint Jones in particular were guilty of throwing their wickets away. Fast forward 16 months and the situation is eerily similar, only this time England's tail could not save the match.

In the aftermath of the shocking defeat many blamed Andrew Strauss and Ian Bell for their early trepidation setting the tone for England's batting display - and in the case of the latter for his run-out dismissal.

This may be the case, but they certainly did not cost their side the game. After they lost the wickets, in the Wing Commander's case unjustly, England were at 70-3. Five runs better off than Australia were when the third wicket fell in their first innings.

What made England's defeat inevitable was the surrendering of wickets from Freddie, KP and Jones. It only needed a reasonable contribution from any of these three batsmen to put the game out of Australia’s reach.

While Australia's attitude on the final day perfectly illustrated why these players had dominated cricket like no other in the history of the game, England's swung from one extreme to the other.

It seems after England's slow start the two big men batting at five and six sought to seize the initiative in the most testosterone-fuelled manner.

There seemed no middle ground, despite the fact that Pietersen had shown exactly that and, it seemed a new-found maturity, in the first inning. After mastering Warne so completely, his decision to sweep the first ball he faced is baffling, not least to him now I suspect.

Flintoff's excuse that Brett Lee bowled particularly well, sounded hollow as soon as it came out of his mouth as both he and Jones could barely reach the shots that brought about their downfall.

This is Jones of course who was brought in due to his ability to build partnerships. His failure with the bat and that of Giles when it mattered, along with the Warwickshire spinner's dropped catch and poor second innings bowling display, meant the game could not have reflected worse on Duncan Fletcher.

It now seems hard to believe that he will ever recover his reputation with the English public.

When listening to England selectors or captains over the last few years, character is often stated as the key ingredient they look for in a player.

For them 'character' means a player being unfazed about appearing at the highest level and having the ability to play his own game. Surely this is only one aspect of a player's character. What about adapting your style to suit the conditions and the match situation?

When Mike Atherton asked Andrew Flintoff about the batting indiscipline he said: "You can't tell players how to play."

Listening to this rejection of even the idea of thoughtful batting, made me wish Atherton still had the bat handy that he made his unbeaten 185 in Johannesburg with, so he could bash some sense into his former Lancashire team-mate's head.

England it seems have based their whole game plan on replicating their performances from the summer of 2005, a series they should have won comfortably and nearly threw away. Except the players do not seem to view it in this manner.

Just as Roy Keane said in his autobiography that he could see the seeds of under-achievement in the dressing room celebrations after Manchester United's Champions League win, it seems the grasp on the Ashes became looser immediately after the series win due to their self-satisfaction at having grabbed the urn.

Was no one in the dressing room reminding these three batsman of the events of Edgbaston as they went out to bat? And did KP not view the crucial 158 at The Oval as a lucky innings reliant on early dropped catches?

Apparently this team is not capable of learning lessons from victory, only wistfully seeking to emulate it.

So England are two-down after the two most humiliating defeats imaginable - defeats that were the reverse of each other, with abject displays on the opening day and final sessions respectively, nullifying the sometimes inspired cricket they played in between.

Perhaps most disappointingly, these players have now tainted their 2005 glory. All that was required for this triumph to retain its affection in the English public forever was a competitive performance down under.

Instead this England side are destined to be the Leon Spinks equivalent in cricketing history. Like Spinks they defeated an ageing legend, the Muhammad Ali of this sport, only to fall tamely in the re-match, thus sullying their greatest moment forever.

[email protected]
Do you agree with this article? Is there any way back for England? Who was to blame for such a defeat? Let us know your thoughts...

More Blog Entries