There is a key reason why performances against Australia remain the barometer of the health of England’s teams.
It is not just history or tradition. And it’s not just that there isn’t a deadly match involving a team that seems to have a love for beating England in their DNA.
It is that, as unpleasant as it is for many, the base level of cricket in Australia is, almost always, a little higher than that of England. Almost as you judge it: the strength and athleticism of the youth; the club’s (or grade) cricket standards (although this may be changing); long-term records in world tournaments and on the leaderboards. Australia has almost always been formidable opponents. And when they have drops, they are rarely as deep and as long as those in England. It has been that way, more or less, since 1880.
If that sounds like hyperbole, consider the respective World Cup records. It’s not just that Australia have won five of the things (compared to England once), it’s that even in years when they’re not expected to challenge, like 2019, they manage to make it to the semi-finals. England had a couple of decades in which they were aiming for the semi-finals and tended to have to settle for a beating at the hands of Pitcairn Island.
So when England beat Australia, they know they are in good shape. And when they lose to them, well, they are given an idea of the required standards.
The point of all this?
England entered this game full of confidence. For the first time in their ODI history and against their oldest enemy, they were the world champions. Nine of the team that played in the final participated here and won the draw.
ALSO READ: Billings’s century in vain as Australia seals 19-race victory
However, Australia provided the toughest wake-up call. It’s not that England played badly. It is more than Australia was, in several respects, simply better than them. Her fielding; his new ball bowling alley, his stamina to fight from 123 for 5 in 24 of his innings. There were times in this game when they seemed unstoppable.
Josh Hazlewood, in particular, was magnificent. He hit the pitch hard, gained the same kind of stitching motion that makes him such a fine test pitcher, and claimed two major wickets, conceding just five runs, of his first six overs. It was brilliant.
But every state in Australia seems to have a dozen fast bowlers built like Hazlewood. Sure, they may not be as consistent or as skilled. But they are just as wide, tall, robust and fast. In England fast bowlers like this rarely appear. And when they do, they tend to break or get ruined when they are 25 years old.
But the biggest difference between the sides, and not for the first time, is on the field. While England currently appears to be in something of a downfall of sorts, they have been modest in all formats throughout the summer, in reality Australia seems to punish every mistake by England’s hitters.
Compare, for example, Maxwell’s Tom Banton’s fall on the middle fence when he was 10, here, and Steve Smith’s catch to fire Moeen Ali in the final match of the T20I series. They weren’t identical, by no means. And it’s probably hard for Banton to even characterize his appearance of opportunity with a fall.
But the fact is, Smith used every inch of the playing area to give himself the best chance to hold on to the desperately difficult catch, while Banton was a few yards from the limit, possibly intentionally, and therefore in no position to take a chance. . Much the same could have been written about the downfall of Mitchell Starc by Sam Billings here with the capture of Hazlewood to end the Bairstow resistance. Australia, it should be noted, did not miss a chance during the T20I series; England fell three.
Perhaps England’s starters, in top form, could have hit the bowlers. Perhaps, had Ben Stokes been available, England would have had the support they needed to capitalize on Australia’s reduction to 123-5 in the final 24th of their innings. Maybe he could even have performed another miracle with the bat as well. And maybe, if Liam Plunkett were still on the team, that 126 position in the sixth wicket between Glenn Maxwell and Mitchell Marsh could have been extinguished before it became this game. After all, Plunkett’s record as a wicket catcher in half innings is extraordinary. There is no obvious replacement for it.
That is not to say that Plunkett should have been here. He hasn’t played a game this season to begin with. And while it was brutal of England to walk away from him so quickly after having done so much to help them win the World Cup, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. Plunkett is 35 years old, after all. Will he really be a force at the next World Cup in India?
The point is that this result was not so much a reflection of what England did wrong, but rather a reflection of all that Australia did well. Oddly enough, the world’s number one team in ODI cricket could learn a few things from the number five team.
There is an encouraging aspect to all this for England. For starters, England showed impressive stamina by pushing Australia here. At one point, after 22 overs, they had scored 48 fewer runs than Australia on the same stage. Going to 20 represented a kind of comeback. The second half of Billings’s innings was exceptionally good and suggested that he could still carve out a future at this level.
But more than that, it is now quickly overlooked, but, early in the World Cup, Australia inflicted another tough defeat on England. On that occasion, Aaron Finch scored a century and Jason Behrendorff claimed five wickets and Australia won by 64 runs. However, three weeks later, England returned to Lord’s after beating Australia in the semi-final. And we all know how the final ended.
Then England can come back from this. Of course they can. But, boy, are they going to have to play well.
.
