England ended their 15-year wait for an Ashes win in Australia by completing victory at the iconic Melbourne Cricket Ground inside two days. At any other point in history, a two-day win for England in Melbourne would have been earth-shattering.
But in the ongoing Ashes Down Under, the shocking result is generating reactions that are a lot more grounded.
Was it really an exceptional performance from England or a poor one from Australia who probably lowered their intensity a bit having already secured the urn with wins in the first three Tests? In all probability, it was a bit of both and also, mainly, about the conditions.
The first Test in Perth finished inside two days. The duration of that game was not scrutinised as much since it was the first match of the series. But the fourth Test – on Boxing Day at the MCG – had no room for such outlandish results. A sell-out crowd expected a proper contest between bat and ball, and also between the sides whose players should have become accustomed to Australian conditions.
But the pitch curator decided to leave an additional few millimetres of grass, which resulted in the ball overpowering the bat with such fury, both sides were left aiming for just three figures while batting.
England captain Ben Stokes was a relieved man at the end of it, as he got the long-awaited ‘W’ in a Test in Australia. But even he admitted the pitch was a lottery and skewed heavily in favour of the ball. His counterpart Steve Smith also said it was tough to defend the surface.
Which brings us to the larger question. Does England’s win in Melbourne change anything? Does England’s cavalier ‘Bazball’ approach to Test cricket still have any merit?
Now let’s assume England escape with a draw in the final Test in Sydney. Or somehow win it; which is not unimaginable as both sides have lost a number of players and are still figuring out personnel strategies. The scorecard would say 3-1 or 3-2 in Australia’s favour. That won’t be as horrific as 5-0, which seemed possible after the third Test.
But that won’t change the fact that England were outplayed when the series was alive. And that is the vantage point from where England need to view the aftermath of the battle in Australia.
Let’s take the best case scenario for England – a 3-2 Ashes defeat. Not bad, when coupled with the 2-2 draw at home against India earlier in the year. Just the kind of scoreline that can lead to a split decision from judges. Should England stick to what they know and have grown accustomed to, or go back to a more conservative approach which would require the infusion of more traditional red-ball cricketers?
It is a call that the England cricket board and its management need to make. A 5-0 whitewash would have made their job easy. Even a 4-1 result might be enough to wield the axe. But that would be reactionary instead of being proactive.
What England need to decide is whether a style of cricket that can bring two-day wins out of nowhere and offers hope of a decent scoreline by the end of a series is what they signed up for. Whatever happens in the Sydney Test, they should make up their mind about the Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum partnership and figure whether they wish to see more of this for the rest of the ongoing Test cycle.
All teams currently playing Test cricket are gauged by where they land on the championship table and whether they make it to the World Test Championship final. All other metrics only look good in annual reports of cricket boards.
Thankfully, the new Test cycle only started half a year back, so there is time to change course if needed. There are enough qualified cricket minds in the world if England wish to be guided down a more traditional path of Test cricket.
But before that, England need to be honest with themselves. The Melbourne Test was either the beginning of a new chapter or a misleading peak of sunshine during a thunderstorm. Select carefully.
