da 888： Ultimately, they were deprived of the opportunity to complete the 5-0 whitewash that the trend of so much of this series promised
da betcris： John Polack28-Aug-2001Back to the original frontier. Back to first principles.Ultimately, they were deprived of the opportunity to complete the 5-0 whitewash that the trend of so much of this series promised. But Australia’s cricketers can return home secure in the knowledge that there has been precious little disruption to the trend of their country’s recent domination of the old enemy.It is salient to note that, with its crushing victory at The Oval yesterday, Australia has now won 25 of its last 40 Tests against England. Over the same period, England has triumphed in just six matches. Even more tellingly, only a single one of these has been won while the fate of the Ashes’ destination (metaphorical destination, anyway) was yet to have been decided.When the history books are written, they will show that there was nothing from the 2001 series to disturb a general pattern of Australian success that now extends all the way back to 1989. The only parts that were disturbing, in fact, were the portents for England in its continuing inability to challenge its most enduring foe.As this tussle began, it had been more than just an extension of its hold on an Ashes urn that Australia wished to secure from its tour. Confidence about its credentials as the world’s best Test team – partially undermined as it had been by events in its last series in India in March – required restoration too. The passions – and the fervour for victory – of a number of its leading figures were also always likely to be stirred by the prospect that this was to be their final visit as players to England.The team’s fielding was possibly not at its sharpest at various moments and Michael Slater and Brett Lee did not enjoy the individual success for which they would have hoped. But it remains difficult to pinpoint any other chinks that were vaguely discernible in the Australians’ armour over the course of the last two months.Its bowling, in particular, was magnificent. Few English batsmen inspired confidence in their capacity to resist the indomitable pairing of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne for prolonged periods. Respective averages of 16.93 and 18.70 from the five Tests they played give a pretty good idea of the duo’s potency. In the early matches of the series, paceman Jason Gillespie was also outstanding. Albeit that they were aligned against a number of batsmen with question marks over their recent form, England’s bowlers never displayed the same skill, commitment or inspiration.This is not to underplay the exceptional all-round contribution of Adam Gilchrist, nor the prodigious accumulation of runs in the middle order from the likes of Damien Martyn and Mark Waugh. That trio’s capacity to overwhelm England’s bowlers was also clearly central to Australia’s triumph.Before this series began, England’s recent successes at Test level had pointed to a potential reinvigoration and revival in the state of the sport within the country’s boundaries. Even to some sort of realignment in the balance of world cricketing power. Yet this had always shaped as the team’s biggest test, its sternest examination in recent memory.A tortured outfit for much of the 1990s, England has clearly made important advances over the course of the last year. Nasser Hussain’s captaincy, in particular, gives it a more positive and engaging outlook than it has enjoyed in some time. Its coaching staff and its administrators also bring to their roles greater professionalism than has been seen at possibly any stage in the past. But the exact magnitude of the turnaround, insofar as it exists, remains difficult to discern.The Englishmen have genuine cause to bemoan the loss of Graham Thorpe and Michael Vaughan to injury, yet also need to remember that their two best batsmen of the series – Mark Butcher and Mark Ramprakash – would probably not even have played but for those two absences. New ball pairing Darren Gough and Andrew Caddick struggled consistently; although able to pressurise Slater, Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting through the early stages of the series, they were manifestly unable to upset the progress of Australia’s middle order. Opening batting stalwart Michael Atherton appears to have said farewell to Test cricket and, at 38, Alec Stewart can surely not be too far behind.The speed with which the home press in particular jumped off the bandwagon was a measure of the extent of the gulf that continues to separate these two sides. Pre-series pronouncements that Australia would no longer remain the nemesis that it has been for the last decade were disowned with a haste resembling a Maurice Greene dash down the straight. Better measures of England’s current place in world cricket will emerge from forthcoming series against India and New Zealand.For Australia, meanwhile, a consolidation of its position at the head of the International Cricket Council’s Test Championship table is just reward for its performance. It remains the very model of a great Test team, one prepared to sense weaknesses in its opponent, to seize upon small openings and opportunities, to force a rival on to the back foot, and then to ruthlessly maintain control. Some of the heroes of past Australian tours of England are long gone – Allan Border and Mark Taylor chief among them – but the central epithet endures.The entire squad of 17 players that came to the Old Dart for this series can look back proudly on all of the sacrifices which they have made in the name of realising one burning ambition. They have performed their job expertly. Again.
