SYDNEY: There was relief rather than celebration at the news that Australia had retained the Ashes when cricket fans Down Under woke up on Monday morning after the Manchester rain had rescued their team in the drawn fourth Test.
Australia retained the urn after no play was possible on day five at Old Trafford due to the wet weather, leaving England trailing 2-1 in the series ahead of the final Test at The Oval, which starts on Thursday.
“Rarely could the Ashes have been secured in more hollow circumstances, with almost two days of rain saving Australia from what appeared certain defeat,” wrote Malcolm Conn in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Despite the circumstances of the draw, Conn, like other Australian cricket scribes, was not about to let England off the hook for being down in the series heading to Manchester after losing the first two Tests at Edgbaston and Lords.
“Despite being robbed of victory by the weather, England have only themselves to blame for being on the wrong side of history,” Conn added.
“England were in charge of the first Test at Edgbaston before the cult of Bazball resulted in an over-optimistic declaration and reckless batting.”
Gideon Haigh, writing in the Australian, was kinder to the English but equally wary of any sort of celebrations over the retention of the Ashes.
“The fantasy of two-all going to The Oval had been enchanting to both sets of fans; only the dimmest partisans so crave trophies as to be gratified by non-results,” he wrote.
“Alas for England, a little Australian edge in experience had already stood them in good stead through two nipping finishes …” Haigh went on to join others in suggesting that the holders’ advantage in an Ashes series, where they retain the urn if the series is drawn, be revisited.
“How to explain to the uninitiated the Oval Test’s weird hybrid character, of being ‘live’ where the outcome of the series is concerned, but ‘dead’ in the context of the Ashes?” he questioned.
“I know cricket’s not meant to make sense. But it might, on occasion, at least try to do so.”
Comments
Comments are closed.