The Ashes Diary Page 19
So the plan was 20 overs, 120 runs. I asked Watto and Davey Warner to open, as they would in a Twenty20 fixture. They didn’t have to go out and bash – just bat normally, but with the intent to score runs whenever the opportunity presented. They did just that, getting us off to a bright start after settling in for a couple of overs. They had to play for the team, put the collective objective first, and that meant taking some risks. Both played some good shots and then got out, and I put in James Faulkner and Brad Haddin to follow. Hadds didn’t last, but James played in enterprising style again, doing exactly as we wanted. I went out at number five, still wearing the long-sleeved shirt I had been wearing in the field. Swann was getting plenty of turn, hitting me just outside the line, which set off an LBW appeal and a DRS referral, which they lost. What I’d noticed was that spin of that degree might be very helpful to Nathan Lyon later in the day.
We kept pushing the runs along, and I was quite happy with the result: 111 off 23 overs by tea. I took the chance to declare during the break, so the game wouldn’t lose those two overs for the innings change. Our lead was 227, which was low enough to give England thoughts about going for the win off the overs that remained in the day. We wanted that to happen, because it might increase our chances of taking wickets. Wickets were all we had in mind.
Ryan Harris and Mitchell Starc opened our attack again, and I set attacking fields with as many as five catchers in the cordon. They bowled a few loose ones, and Alastair Cook and Joe Root showed their intent by taking the runs on offer. In the fifth over, Rhino had Root edging one. Hadds’ catch was his 29th in the Ashes – overtaking Rod Marsh’s world record, set 30 years ago, for dismissals in one Test series. It’s a great achievement by Hadds and richly deserved. Being the perfectionist he is, he’s not completely satisfied with his keeping throughout this series – he’s had a generally excellent time, interspersed with a few ragged periods here and there – but the big picture is, he’s come back into Test cricket after an 18-month absence, given a huge amount to our team on and off the field, and been a terrific team leader. The world record is the icing on the cake. I know he would trade it for winning the Ashes and grabbing every single chance that came his way and not letting through a single bye, but overall his wicketkeeping has been impeccable, and his experience invaluable.
England were pressing forward, and Trott and Cook batted with plenty of intent. They weren’t lashing out, but I could see they were trying to get to a point where they couldn’t lose the game, by keeping wickets intact, before deciding whether or not to have a real run at the target.
As at Old Trafford, I decided to give myself a bowl just to see if it created a change in the game. With luck, the batsmen might take a risk against me and lose a wicket. But they treated my two overs with plenty of respect – maybe too much respect! – and as a wicket didn’t fall, I took myself off again.
England were keeping up a run rate of about four an over, and the required rate was in the high fives. We got a breakthrough when James Faulkner had Cook LBW, but with 25 overs left to be bowled it was kind of a mixed blessing. We wanted wickets, of course, but Cook’s dismissal brought in Pietersen, potentially a much more destructive batsman. Still, we had to take those wickets.
Pietersen was immediately on the attack, such a contrast from the way he batted two days ago. Some of our bowling was a little too short, and when he’s in that mood he takes a full toll. I was still setting attacking fields, but when England got within 100 runs of the target, we were leaking runs a bit too easily. We still wanted to take those eight wickets, but the better tactic now seemed to be to try to frustrate the batsmen into taking more risks. So I dropped a couple of fielders back, put in a third man, and brought on Watto and James Faulkner to tie things up. They are probably our most experienced Twenty20 ‘death’ bowlers, and we thought it might be worth a mix of slower balls and limited-overs-style bowling to search for the vital breakthrough.
Watto and James did give them cause to think and slow down a little. Then I brought back Ryan Harris from the Pavilion end. By now he was struggling with some hamstring soreness after all the bowling he’s done, but as usual he was willing to bowl through the fatigue and pain. His first ball, Pietersen came down the wicket and tried to hoist him over the wide long-on boundary. He got under it, and Davey Warner ran around to his right to take a very well-judged catch.
This opened the door for us again, and in the next over James Faulkner had Trott out LBW. We had a definite chance. England needed 57 runs to win, but had two new batsmen, Ian Bell and Chris Woakes, at the wicket. There was a possibility they might go for the runs and take risks. We only had eight overs left, but I was still thinking about how we could win.
Rhino finally succumbed and had to go off. All of our bowlers were very tired. Bell and Woakes took advantage, and after a brief lull started to hit a few fours and get within striking distance. I still thought we had a good chance of winning.
At this point, I had no intention of giving England any gifts. Starcy bowled from the Vauxhall end, and Bell and Woakes were getting into full flow. The light, which I hadn’t thought about too much, was very bad now and we were throwing sharp shadows from the floodlights. There was pretty much no natural light and it was akin to playing in a day–night match. A ball was hit out onto the leg side, and Peter Siddle, fielding at deep square leg, ran around with his hands in the air, not knowing where it had gone.
I approached the umpires a couple of times asking if the light was worse than when we’d been sent off at other times in the series. The crowd wasn’t very pleased when I asked the umpires if they had their light meter. I can see they were a partisan group and wanted England to win – but again, it’s not incumbent upon us to give it to them. All the umpires have to do in that situation is apply the rules consistently. They have taken us off the field on several occasions throughout this series when they judged the light unsafe for play. I haven’t always agreed with them, but I’ve had to accept their rulings.
For some reason, it was taking some time to have the light meter brought out. It was a good deal darker than when we’d been taken off on Friday afternoon, and there was no comparison to Old Trafford, when they’d stopped us batting although we were in no fear for our safety.
On the last ball of the 40th over, Bell drove Starcy back down the wicket. Mitchell stuck his foot out and trapped the ball, picked it up, threw it at the striker’s end and ran Bell out. Our first run-out of the whole series, would you believe!
At that point, England needed 21 runs to win, and we needed five wickets. Four overs remained. It was the darkest we’ve played, by some distance. The light meter was brought out, and Aleem Dar held it up to read it. He pushed me away with his hand on my chest, saying, ‘Go away, go away,’ and I pointed out to him that I didn’t want him touching me. If I touched him, I’d face a suspension for several matches, so it was only fair that he kept his hands off me as well. The whole situation only lasted for a few seconds, but I felt I had a right to be part of the discussions. It’s the umpire’s decision, of course. But at Old Trafford, Tony Hill and Marais Erasmus had consulted with the fielding captain when they were considering the light, and I was only asking for the same courtesy here.
In any case, as was pretty obvious, the meter showed that the level of light was several degrees darker than at other stages in the match when the teams had been sent from the field, so the umpires did the only thing they could and told the teams we were going off. As it was now 7.36 pm, the rules also stopped play resuming.
So the match, and the series, was over.
Off for bad light, no result.
The crowd voiced their frustration. All I can say is that the players were frustrated too. When we walked off, I still believed that we could have taken five wickets in the remaining 24 balls.
Getting booed as we walked off was not a nice feeling, especially when we’ve done everything in our power to set up the Test match. That was hard for the boys to hear and experie
nce. But once we were inside and had five minutes to talk about it, everyone was convinced it was too dark to keep playing. It was a no-brainer. When we sat down, we couldn’t believe we’d been booed, but then that’s part of playing away from home.
We went into the England changing room to shake hands with each of their players, as a team, and congratulate them on their series win.
Out on the field, when England received the Ashes, the disappointment of the whole series hit us. Through my experience of winning and losing the Ashes, seeing the other team presented with the urn and celebrating with it is the moment when the devastation sinks in. That was a tough time for the team, but it’s part and parcel of not winning, to stand there and watch that. I don’t believe you can turn your face away from it. It’s not a nice feeling, but you have to take it and use it to fuel yourselves. I hope it motivates us for what’s around the corner.
We thanked the Australian fans at the ground for their support, and went back into the changing room for half an hour. I had to do media on the field and in the indoor nets where the press conferences were held. I felt I’d said everything I could say. I was out of words. We’d lost 3–0. I just wanted to give credit to England for their win, and to our boys for their work ethic.
After chatting in our changing room, we decided it would be a good time to go into the England room and have a beer with them and say well done. All of our boys went in, which I feel is important when you lose. I saw Cooky first, shook his hand and congratulated him, and then spent some time talking with Matt Prior and Graeme Swann. We stayed for about an hour. Before I left, I went to each England player, shook hands individually, and congratulated them on winning a tough series.
We stayed in our changing room for another 45 minutes, then went back to the team hotel in Kensington, where we showered and changed and all met at the bar. Shane Watson was wearing the cream blazer for man of the match at the Kia Oval, and Nathan Lyon was in bright pink for the one-percenters. I stayed at the bar for a while, then invited whoever was still there back to my room, where we had another drink. The mood was mixed – relief that the series was over, disappointed in the final result, but optimistic that we can turn things around in a few months.
Monday 26 August. London.
After a few hours sleep, I got up to say goodbye to the Twenty20 players, who caught a bus to Southampton to get ready for their first match on Thursday. I sat on the bus with them for about 15 minutes, having a chat. Then I rested up in the hotel and emerged again in the afternoon to spend some time farewelling the players who are flying home to Australia this evening. Phillip Hughes and I, being the two one-day players who are not in the Twenty20 team, are staying in London, before meeting up with the rest of the squad for the beginning of the one-day series next week.
Our Ashes tour is over! It’s hard to know what to say. Over the past 24 hours, I’ve talked with all the players, but paid special attention to the younger ones, whose first Ashes tour this has been. I thanked them for their effort and asked how they’d felt on their first Ashes tour. To a man, they have shown excitement at having done it, and motivation for turning this result around in Australia in the coming months.
We talked a lot about what’s happened and where we have to improve. There was disappointment, of course, but a lot of excitement about having the rare chance to turn it around so soon.
And I absolutely believe that we will. All of the players in this series have a little more experience under their belts. Importantly, we have exposed some weaknesses in the opposition, as we have proven at various stages of the series when we have been well on top. The secret – as always – is going to be converting those periods of dominance into victories.
I know we have the talent, the determination and the will.
As a team, we have plenty of fire in the belly.
9
CONCLUSION
As a way of rounding this diary off, I thought it might be helpful to discuss some of the issues and controversies that went on during the tour. Most of my views emerged through the helter-skelter of events as they happened, but now that the tour is over, I can organise my thoughts and reflect on the incidents.
David Warner
Davey knew he let the team down when he had that altercation with Joe Root in Birmingham. It disrupted our preparations for the Ashes and the Champions Trophy, and cost him his place in the Test team at Trent Bridge and Lord’s. The most important thing was for him to recognise the effect his actions had had on the whole team, as well as on himself.
He took his punishment and went away to Africa, where he made a fantastic 193 for Australia A. When he came back into the team, he was welcomed with open arms. His work ethic was outstanding and he made a few runs, highlighted by his second innings at Chester-le-Street. I was pleased with the way he came back in and with the way the others accepted him. He knew he’d let them down and had to earn their respect, and I think he did that.
The coach
It was difficult for all of us to accept that 18 days before an Ashes series, our coach was sacked. That was my biggest fear: that the decision, whatever its merits, would adversely affect our preparation.
What made it easier to take was that the replacement was Darren Lehmann. That’s as good as you can ask for, by way of a new coach. Darren’s a great guy and he’s been fantastic as head coach. He deserves a lot of credit for the good things that have happened on this tour. We haven’t had the results we’d like, but we’ve stuck together on and off the field, which will stand us in good stead going forward. It’s team first now.
An unusual thing about this team is that we started badly and got better. Often, teams that lose Test series on long tours gradually disintegrate, as the disappointment catches up and causes fragmentation. In our case, we are definitely a stronger unit now than when we came to England.
A lot of players had a change of attitude when Darren took over the coaching role from Mickey Arthur. As hard as it was at the time, the change of coach ultimately had a positive effect on the team’s performance.
The DRS
I believe in technology. When I look at how technology has improved the adjudication of run-outs and stumpings, I think we’re lucky to live in this era. I’m all for improving the game, and technology has the potential to do that.
My concern is that the technology in this series hasn’t been as consistent as it needs to be. If you’re using technology, it has to be bulletproof.
Umpires, just like players, make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Test cricket is a tough game to play and I’m sure it’s a tough game to umpire. My view on technology is fairly simple: it’s there to take out the ‘howlers’, to assist the onfield umpires when they haven’t been able to make a decision, or when they’ve got something badly wrong.
What’s the best way to do this? I think we’ve seen a couple of problems arise in this series. One is human error by the third umpire. The one that comes to my mind is the decision to give Usman Khawaja out in the first innings at Old Trafford. When the third umpire has plenty of time to make his decision, he needs the training and help to act correctly.
The next troublesome area has been when the technology has caused mistakes. Sometimes this has been where Hot Spot hasn’t shown an edge; sometimes it’s a combination of factors. My opinion is that if the technology isn’t perfect, it shouldn’t be used at all. The inventor and owner of Hot Spot came out and admitted it doesn’t pick up all nicks. Okay, that’s fine: Hot Spot should not be used until it is more reliable. I can see why India don’t like to use it – because they don’t believe it’s 100 per cent correct. Once the technology has been tested and is shown to be correct, then the ICC should rule that every team has to use it. We should have the same rule for everyone.
Finally, the referral system – where captains have two unsuccessful referrals at their disposal – can distort the process. I don’t like the tactics involved, where umpires and the teams know how many referrals are left, and change t
heir decisions accordingly. It should be consistent for all players. The ultimate problem with the Broad ‘dismissal’ in Nottingham wasn’t that he didn’t walk, or that the umpire had made an error – it was that the complicated DRS rules meant the third umpire didn’t have the opportunity to overrule the onfield decision.
I believe that if it’s clearly shown that the batsman hit the ball and he was caught, then the technology should be used to ensure he is out. If he’s hit in front of the wickets and the technology shows he is LBW, he should be out, regardless of how many referrals remain.
As a captain, I’d just like the technology to be used to make more correct decisions, without all the complications of how many referrals remain or don’t remain. There shouldn’t be a numerical limit. If this means passing referrals back into the hands of the three umpires, on and off the field, then so be it.
My final word on the matter – if technology, and the use of that technology by umpires, continues to be as inconsistent as it has been in this series, I would rather it is not used at all.
(Interestingly, as I write this conclusion, the ICC has recently made a change to DRS, giving each team two additional reviews after the 80th over.)
Our batting order
It’s been widely remarked that our batting order changed a lot during this series. I would love our batting order to be as consistent as possible – but when players are not performing, the selectors will make changes and that affects the batting order. Then there’s the influence of conditions in each match, and the opposition’s tactics. We changed our order to use the left-handers up the top and the right-handers in the middle, which we’ve seen work, in patches, in the second half of the series. Like everybody else I’d like to know our top seven automatically, but we batsmen have to earn that with performances. You earn the right to a stable position by scoring runs.