Ashes 2005 roundtable
SPIN: Everyone is agreed the 2005 Ashes was a brilliant series – but was it really the best in the history of Test cricket?
Michael Slater: From an Ashes point of view it’s got to be the best of all time. There have been other great series like 1981, but this one had everything. After the first Test it threatened to unravel in the same way as many other recent Ashes series where Australia dominated – in fact that was what Ricky Ponting said to me at the time. But the way England fought back makes it one of the best series of all time, if not the best.
Mark Nicholas: England cleverly negated some of Australia’s strongest areas, such as Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden with the bat, because they’re such enforcers. Damien Martyn has been one of the great rearguard batsmen in the last two years and they managed to negate him. England thought things out well to get on parity with Australia. They also took Australia on in the mental side of the game too and were very much in their face.
Richie Benaud has it ahead of 1981 and in my time of watching cricket, this series provided the most thrilling cricket. I started watching Test cricket in the late ’60s and the most exciting cricket I watched was in 1974-75 when Tony’s side was on the wrong end of the Australians – that really was hide-behind- the-sofa stuff because of the violence of it. This series has been a thrill to watch because of the sheer suspense.
Tony Greig: The series has been the most exciting and dramatic I have ever seen. I remember when we bounced back against the Australians in 1975: John Snow was back in the side and he got stuck in and we had four out in no time and even the older members in the Lord’s pavilion were banging their walking sticks. But that was just one morning: this series has been sustained. We came to expect something dramatic would happen.
I think about the images of the English crowds: quiet, tense, biting their nails and trying to cope with these exciting finishes. That sums it all up really. If you start thinking ‘Where does this sit in the context of history?’ then I find myself depending on the Benauds of this world and if it’s good enough for him, that clinches it…
The future’s looking good for England –‑but is there anything we should be worried about? Where does the team need to improve?
MS: They’ve got a bunch of guys who are young enough to all be in Australia in 18 months if their form and fitness allows, so there’ll be good continuity. It’s about their confidence and ability to be versatile, but if Michael Vaughan’s field placings, research and leadership in this series is anything to go by, I’m sure they’ll be fine. They are so well-drilled and disciplined but they should never take that for granted and they need to continue to grow and improve. Australia have set a standard that all the other countries have tried to meet and now England have matched them so it’s up to them to raise that bar even further. English cricket is in safe hands, while Australia will need to have a bit of a rebuild.
TG: When you look back at the season there’s no-one, with the exception of Flintoff, that stands out above anyone else. It really is a team success. That is just so healthy and might just give some longevity to their achievements. I do have some worries, though, and that is to do with the back-up players. I’m not sure England has the depth to maintain their current form over the next three years.
We have seen two serious selection debates in this series: Pietersen or Thorpe before Lord’s and then Anderson or Collingwood before The Oval. I believe that if you have quality back-up there shouldn’t be any debate. If you look at Australia in their heyday, there were lots of good cricketers on the sidelines. Slats is one guy who could’ve played a lot more Test cricket. The future of English cricket depends on how good that backup is.
MN: England desperately need greater depth and it’s a much bigger issue than what anybody has clicked on to. The search was on when they had to find a replacement for Simon Jones and they had to go back to a player who wasn’t in great form for his county in James Anderson; simply because he had more experience than any others. And if there was enormous pressure being put on by county batsmen, Ian Bell’s place would have been under greater threat. These are facts. England have a very good side but we need to have much greater quality in depth and the only way to ensure that is to make sure the standard of county cricket is as strong as it can possibly be.
How good a result is this for world cricket?
TG: The world of cricket has been yearning for a team to close this gap on Australia, and every other team around is going to take something out of this series so at last that
gap should close.
MN: It’s super for the game of cricket. I liken it to Tiger Woods back in 2000: first, we saw the wonderful heights he reached and then we had that period when people questioned whether it was good for the game; but soon after, golfers started to challenge him. Now when Tiger Woods wins, it usually goes to the wire and it’s more exciting to see if the best can prevail and I think it will be the same with the Australians. Every team will want to have a go at them now, whether it’s in the sub-continent, or it’s the South Africans or the Kiwis.
MS: It’s rather like the crumbling of the West Indies after their reign. When we beat them over there, it sent a message to everyone in world cricket that these guys were not flawless. World cricket has been too lop- sided for too long. You always want to see your country win but when they’re breezing through matches and it’s no longer a case of, ‘Are they going to win?’ and more ‘How many days will they need to win?’ that’s a problem, and it has been for a while. We need to keep international cricket strong and this series has sent the best possible message to the rest of the world.
How significant has Andrew Flintoff been in England’s success?
TG: He’s been incredible. What impresses me, aside from his ability to bat and take games away from bowling sides, his improvement as a pace bowler and his catching ability at second slip, is his team ethic. He’s such an unselfish bloke.
MS: With the ball he hasn’t got a Shane Warne-like average but his significance is that he takes his wickets at important times and that was a massive factor in the series, especially the stranglehold he managed over Australia’s left-handers, particularly Gilchrist. He’s the sort of guy who gives his team-mates added confidence; his persona is infectious to the rest of the team. He’s a star player, hugely competitive, but a great bloke with it.
MN: I want to add something about his character. Most great players are exceptional from the off; Flintoff wasn’t. When he made his debut in 1998 he was an embarrassment. He walked to the crease like a shy, insecure person; he carried a lot of weight; he got abused and humiliated by the crowd in that first year or two; and after winning a man-of-the-match award in a one-day game he made a rather terse comment towards the press by saying, ‘Not bad for a fat lad.’ He was an angry young man, underachieving. He then turned all that around and became the epitome of what we want in a sporting hero. If you ally that to the quality of performance he gives, then you have a very special bloke.
England couldn’t have won the Ashes without Flintoff. Absolutely not. And for a number of reasons: the first is that his sheer power of personality takes wickets and scores runs and puts pressure on the opposition. Second, he is world-class and what England have lacked for a long time are any world-class cricketers.
Where does the Ashes defeat leave Australia?
MS: This series has revealed quite a few things about Australia. It is an ageing side and changes need to be made sooner rather than later. What could happen, though, is that they will go back to Australia and again run over all other opposition and the smokescreen is back up. This was always going to be their biggest test for a long time and they have been found wanting. The discipline of England’s bowling hasn’t allowed our guys to get going, but it was surprising to me that the batsmen were not able to adjust quicker in the series to convert starts into bigger scores. There are a lot of red flags and signs that they have got to be looking for the next generation.
It’s clear that Jason Gillespie is going to struggle to get back into the side, while you’re going to see retirements. Glenn McGrath is struggling physically now. It wasn’t his fault that he trod on a ball, but the body doesn’t cope with those sort of things so well at the age of 35; Shane Warne and some others will also be thinking about when to go.
But these players are paid such good money they are going to want to stick around and keep playing even if they aren’t loving the game like they used to. That’s when the selectors have a difficult job and have to step in and force the situation.
TG: They [the selectors] will want to introduce a few players who are going to keep Michael Clarke company. McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Gilchrist are stone cold certainties to be in for the [Australian] summer season but I don’t know about the others. We’re talking about these players’ careers and the selectors know they are going to have to be very careful with any decision they make. But I would be very surprised if we don’t see players like [Mike] Hussey given a go.
MN: They’ve also got a very tough three months ahead of them. They have to play a World XI, which will cane them around the park. Then they have to play a very resilient South Africa side, which, if it picks its best side, as it did only at the end of the England series, will feel they have a real chance. I’m not sure the selectors will make as many changes as people think. They need a fast bowler – Nathan Bracken, Ashley Noffke and Shaun Tait all come into contention – and maybe a young opener.
MS: The players are there. Our first-class competition is very, very strong and the intensity and standard of that is the reason why we continue to keep churning out top cricketers. As Mark alluded to, England needs to do the same with county cricket.
TG: It doesn’t take long for a young champion to get through the ranks in Australia. If there’s a really good fast bowler who turns up at the Eastern Suburbs nets next week and he’s really fast, it won’t be long until he’s in the New South Wales side and if he takes wickets there the Australian selectors will be taking notice. You don’t have to play for four years to make the grade.
MN: There are lots of bloody good players in Sheffield Shield and most of them are better than quite a few Test cricketers nowadays
MS: But they won’t be building for the next Ashes series just yet. That’s not the Australian way really. They will identify the problem areas and sort them out as soon as they can and get the best side on the park. It’s important that they integrate the new players with the experienced players because we could have four or five players who retire in the next year – and that could be disastrous.
MN: I think there is going to be an amazing twist in Australian cricket soon. And don’t be surprised if we see Shane Warne playing against England in 18 months time and as captain as well.
Warney has a good cricket brain. Why isn’t he Australia captain?
MS: Yes, you can see that from the way he runs the ship at certain times; particularly that last day at Trent Bridge. There was no doubt for me that Shane Warne was running the ship out there. His cricket brain is unbelievable and it’s a shame that the other stuff has persuaded the selectors not to go that route. They’ve missed an opportunity because he would be a fantastic captain.
MN: Australia doesn’t have a history of
sacking captains who are incumbent players. Kim Hughes sacked himself. They generally retire; if you go back to [Steve] Waugh,
[Mark] Taylor, [Allan] Border and the
Chappells, there isn’t a history of the selectors sacking captains who would remain in the team so I would be very surprised if Ponting was axed, but the only realistic replacement seems to be Warne.
TG: The captaincy has to be looked at, but one thing I would say is that most decisions seem to be made collectively. Warne and Gilchrist stand next to Ponting in a little triangle in the slips and they would make decisions together but Ponting has to take responsibility as the skipper. I’ve seen huge changes in Ricky since he started playing for Australia. People used to question his behaviour in the early days but for a long time now he has behaved impeccably and has done the job well. Warney has a bit further to go to turn all that stuff around.
MS: Yeah, at 36 and with the history I’m not sure the selectors would go that way.
MN: It probably is too big a wheel for him to turn to get the job, especially at his age. Ponting hasn’t offended anybody in any major way but Warney has offended people, so forget it! [laughter from all at Mark’s apparent about-turn].
TG: A lot of us cricketers, though, would say forget about everything else and get the best man for the job on the field and as Warney has a bloody good cricket mind he would clearly be that bloke.
MS: Ponting has to stay, for me. For a long time, there hasn’t been an Australia captain tested like he has been on this particular tour. The only way he can go from here is to grow as a person and as a captain, realise his mistakes and learn from the experience.
MN: He should definitely stay. He’s been unlucky in the way his bowling attack has crumbled around him and the way some batsmen haven’t performed. He will probably get home and have former captains like Ian Chappell in his ear saying ‘Attack, attack, attack’, but he should definitely stay. They had a difficult tour and he handled all the off-the-field stuff brilliantly, until that one moment at Trent Bridge when he cracked.
TG: Yeah, stay.
How can the ECB sustain this groundswell of interest in cricket into next season?
TG: It won’t be easy but they have to take advantage of this opportunity because they won’t get many better chances to flog their game. I can’t remember such hype. They should target the grass roots through clubs and schools and also look at computer
games, as all kids play them. But we also
have to ensure cricket gets into as many homes as possible and the business of
locking out 70 per cent of homes in this
country by selling out to satellite TV is a shame when you consider the possibilities available at this time. I’m not sure any money can buy the kind of interest in the game that we’ve seen this summer.
MS: England winning will keep a cricketing buzz and people coming through turnstiles, and the TV debate is quite simple: if a kid comes in and switches on his TV, you want cricket to be available.
MN: I’ve always believed that the game should reach the biggest possible audience. I have no axe to grind with any television company; only with the ECB for not understanding that. This is not an issue about Channel 4, the BBC or Sky. Cricket is threatened; soccer is the game the country most relates to and the smaller the audience for cricket, the more that problem will increase.
What legacy will Channel 4 leave after its seven seasons covering English cricket?
MS: I would say the way everyone has been so positive about cricket…
MN: Channel 4 has made the game more approachable as there has been an elitist tag hanging around cricket and there is an argument that the BBC coverage did not reach out to the people. C4’s coverage has been colourful, positive and we’ve tried to educate -– without patronising people – to add a bit of insight into what can be a complicated game to add fun to a wider section of the nation.
TG: Channel 4 has taken cricket coverage to another level in the same way that Channel 9 (in Australia) did during World Series Cricket in the 1970s. It’s been a pleasure for me to come over and see that things can be done differently, whether it’s the technology used or the way the show is presented. MN: When I left school in 1978, I went to Australia and during that time I must have watched every single delivery of World Series Cricket and I probably know more about it than anyone who played. The TV coverage, with its camera angles, graphics, replays and presentation was like nothing I’d seen before. It was all riveting. And if people watching Channel 4 have felt like I felt then, then we’ve done a great job.
And finally, English commentary boxes have seen the last of Richie Benaud. What will be your abiding memories of working with him?
MS: It was overwhelming when I first sat next to Richie in the commentary box. I was so nervous not to mess up all my words or tread on his earpiece cord, and I did both. He’s a legend and I feel very lucky to have worked with him.
TG: He’s a pleasure to work with because he brings so much history with him. He’ll give you as much help as possible if you asked him anything, but the thing I love about him is how every day he does things that are important: he puts down, next to the microphones, the latest and most concise version of the laws of the game, which change all the time. Beside those will be some binoculars. These aren’t just for his benefit, they’re for everyone. He is so organised, he’s the master of understatement and is an example to us all.
MN: I grew up listening to him and watching him, he was even my Dad’s hero. The greatest pleasure is just seeing the fun he has every day. He laughs, jokes and takes the mickey and it’s nice to see that. He’s become a great friend and if someone had said to me 25 years ago that I would work for so many years with Richie and become a friend I would have said, ‘I’ll take that.’
