After 14 of the scheduled 25 days that constitute this series, England have achieved their primary objective of retaining the Ashes that they won back here four years ago, and retained in Australia in 2010-11. The last time they secured the Ashes at an earlier date at home was July 29th, 1972, but if England felt at all that it warranted exuberant celebration in Manchester, then they might have needed a rethink: a quiet reflective beer maybe, rather than champagne and nightclub Jager Bombs.
Before the rain returned shortly after lunch to put paid to the match, Ryan Harris, the pick of the pacemen on display these past two matches, and the indefatigably competitive Peter Siddle had them on the rack, struggling for survival at 37 for 3 from almost 21 overs. From an English viewpoint it was not pretty. Play was officially abandoned at 4.39pm.
England and their supporters will take it, no doubt, just as they were happy to celebrate the rain that ended any Australian hopes on that last day at the Oval eight years ago. No other sport does rain quite like cricket. But if the Ashes are lost for Australia, the series most certainly is not. England are dormie with two matches still to play and will not be properly content until Australia have been beaten, or at least repelled, either at Chester-le-Street, in the fourth Test, which starts on Friday, or the final match at the Oval.
Australia have avoided the whitewash but Michael Clarke might well rue his decision to play scant regard to the weather forecast (which was a little more definitive than the prospect of a few showers) and instead bolster his second innings to a point where England would have been unlikely to win even in a full last day. Given how his bowlers responded when play began only half an hour late on the final day, England would surely have had difficulty chasing 250. Australia had achieved that lead by the time Usman Khawaja was dismissed midway through Sunday afternoon. As it transpired, it would have given them an extra 14 or so overs (assuming, not unreasonably, that their overrate was better than England’s desultory “over-rate management” as Matt Prior called it), still not sufficient to win the game, but a much better statement of intent from a captain who hitherto has been praised for his proactivity.
More to the point, they will regret that they were unable to finish off the England innings by taking the last three wickets on the fourth morning at a time when, because of the gloomy forecast, they needed to make them follow-on. Indeed, not only did England wipe out that particular 34-run deficit, they managed it with almost insouciant ease. Having been exemplary in applying pressure with the ball on the previous day, and finding sufficient reverse swing to make life awkward, Harris, a fine bowler as he has been demonstrating, was treated almost contemptuously, while Nathan Lyon, while looking threatening with occasional turn and bounce, was in reality nothing of the sort, a little bit of smoke and mirrors. Had England lost their final wickets in that first half an hour, Clarke would have had almost two full sessions to bowl at them which as we now know might have been sufficient when added to the time on the final day. So the boundary that Stuart Broad belted through the covers to wipe out the possibility of the follow-on, might be one of the most important he has struck.
The challenge for Australia now will be to see if they can raise their games sufficiently once more: whether the momentum gathered from this game can be carried forwards or whether the disappointment of being thwarted here in such a manner will simply take the wind out of the sails. Maybe, under the old-school guidance of Darren Lehmann they will be able to shrug shoulders at their Manchester malfortune, share a fraternal beer or two, and then redouble efforts. It may just be however that the chance has gone, the moment missed.
England, for their part, know they got off the hook here. Indeed, they were outplayed to an alarming degree given the manner, whatever the closeness of the result at Trent Bridge might suggest, in which they had dominated the first two matches. Where there had been talk of 5-0 against “the worst side ever to leave Australia”, there too also lay a hostage to fortune.
Australia came back strongly to suggest that while the dismal performances in Nottingham and Lord’s cannot be ignored, they are by no means as bad as they have been painted (in no small part a self-portrait it has to be said), nor England as smart as they might like to think. Overall the difference between the sides has come down to the quality of Graeme Swann and the consistent high-class batting of Ian Bell, and that does not represent the kind of dominance that was being suggested before the series began.
England now have breathing space but nonetheless a little soul-searching to do, for although the beauty of a five-Test series is that more often than not there is a fluctuation in fortune, the degree of the Australian comeback must have taken them by surprise. Lehmann clearly is doing some good work. The inability of Jimmy Anderson to reproduce the form of the first Test has been startling, for the ball has reversed, and he is a master at that. The relief at finally getting a wicket on his home ground, albeit a soft one, was palpable and he has been outbowled by Broad. Whether the selection of Tim Bresnan over Chris Tremlett was the right call is another point of discussion. Bresnan rarely lets the side down, his reliability a great virtue. A personal view though is that England have got the third seamer spot wrong in all three matches: Bresnan would surely have been a better bet than Steve Finn on the slow, dry abrasive surface at Trent Bridge; Finn a more aggressive choice for his home ground at Lord’s, his record there a better pointer than his form; and Tremlett a glowering threat on the bouncier,pacier Old Trafford surface. It is, hindsight once again shows, possible that Monty Panesar might have been more effective than Bresnan (or, sacrilege, Anderson as it transpired, although no one would have called that before the match), although to select him alongside Swann while maintaining the batting strength would have placed a strain on the seamers.
The batting though needs attention. Alastair Cook has hardly managed to get going and, lbw to Harris first thing, was so disorientated that he produced the silver medal (gold to David Warner) in a close race for the most futile DRS review of the series. Jonathan Trott’s obsession with the legside, to which Australia are now setting intriguing fields, is becoming a millstone, and before he was caught down the legside, he too would have been lbw had Tony Hill given what was more than a reasonable shout to the bowler: the ‘umpire’s call’ is continuing to make a mockery of the game.
The departure of Kevin Pietersen, to an attempted drive, an injudicious shot in the circumstances, left Joe Root, dropped by Clarke at second slip, clinging on for dear life, with Ian Bell, who received a nasty whack on his right thumb from what proved to be the final delivery of the match, just three balls after lunch.
None of these is under threat for the fourth Test, but Jonny Bairstow has failed to convince yet, let down so far in the matches by his technique, which is a work in progress, but also his shot selection: the manner of his dismissal in the first innings, driving wildly at a ball from a left-arm bowler slanting across him, when within half an hour of the close, will not have sat kindly within the hierarchy, who expect a little more maturity.
Guardian Service
