Australia should be flattered by 0-3 Loss

There has been talk, coming mainly from those favouring Australia, that the 3-0 Ashes series victory margin was flattering to England. The argument is that the difference between the teams are not as wide as the results suggests, and that given more luck and less victimization by the weather, the score line would have been much closer. There may be some truth here. Australia might well have won the third Test at Manchester had not the weather intervened. There were also some close decisions that might have turned a few games had they gone in their favour. But England could make that claim as well; those things happen in every game -- every series. This might be consolation to Australian fans and pundits but the reality is that England remains the much superior side. Failure to accept this is not only delusional, it sets the stage for more heartbreak when the two sides clash again in November. It didn't help that Australia was a side steeped in tumult as the series approached. David Warner was banished to the "A" team for his part in a bar bust-up; coach Micky Arthur was hastily fired and replaced by Darren Lehmann; and rumours of rifts involving very senior players were rampant and might have dulled whatever sharpness the tourists would have acquired. If any team was flattered by the outcome of the series it was Australia. Before the first shot that signaled the beginning of hostilities was fired at Nottingham, I thought the visitors had little hope of winning even a single Test. The fact that they came so close to taking the first and third Tests is more an indication of England under-performing than anything else. England's bowlers did the business, but if anyone, at the start of the series, could have guaranteed that Kevin Pietersen, Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott would all average below 40, the Australians would have been overjoyed. The last time both sides grappled the three feasted on the Australian bowling: Pietersen scored 360 runs and averaged 60; Trott was a thorn throughout with 445 runs at 89; and Cook was unmovable, with a Bradmanesque 766 runs at 127.66. The Australians were let off lightly this time round. Captain Cook would therefore have been grateful for Ian Bell's very timely acquisition of career-altering form. The wielder of England's classiest blade made up the slack created by his underachieving comrades. His three hundreds were vital to all three of his sides victories as he added much needed steel to his always pleasing style. Australia's best player by some distance was pacer Ryan Harris. Hampered by injury throughout his career, Harris terrorized England's batsmen in the four games he played. Unwavering in line and demanding in length, the 33-year-old often outmatched his younger counterparts for pace, and forcefully provided explanation, if any were needed, to those who might have questioned Australia's wisdom in persisting with one so fragile of body. Only Graeme Swann, with 26 from five Tests, took more than his 24 wickets, and Australia's selectors will spend much of the time before the next Ashes encounter, sending up prayers for preserving Harris' health. It was he who caused England the most concern over the summer, and it will be a pity if they are forced to do without his services when the skirmishes move Down Under. So the battle for the Ashes will be joined again on November 21 when both sides will report to Brisbane for the rematch. And if the thinking of Michael Clarke and his men is that home conditions will give them some kind of edge they might be grievously mistaken. With plenty of room for improvement, England's batting should perform better as a unit than it did in England. Even now their normally gluttonous top order are scheming to put right whatever shortcomings prevented them from prospering at their normal lofty levels. They have made mountains of runs in Australia before and it will be difficult keeping such voracious appetites from having their fill again. To be sure, the Australian batsmen will also be planning for runs. There is a marked difference between the two units, however, with England's staffed by highly accomplished run-gatherers at the peak of their powers, and Australia's consisting mostly of struggling novices desperate to establish their careers. Players like Usman Khawaja, Ed Cowans, Phil Hughes, Davis Warner and Shaun Marsh will be worried about the curtailment of their young careers, a prospect Lehmann unwisely emphasized during the just ended series. Players do better when they are relaxed and the coach would do well to consider the suggestion of Steve Waugh and others to pick the best players and stick with them for a while. If the Australians are to gain the upper hand at home at any point, it is likely their pacemen will be their main instrument. England will continue to maintain its huge advantage in batting and spin bowling, but Australia's fast bowlers could inflict some damage on fast, bouncy tracks. The last time England visited Western Australia they were severely undermined by a very brisk Mitchell Johnson, and if he is anywhere close to his best form they would be crazy not to seriously consider him, at least for the Perth Test. Yet England might have a Perth trump card of their own in Chris Tremlett, who they unwisely left out of the Oval Test after Tim Bresnan broke down. His stifling bounce made him a handful during the 2010-11 series and he will be hard to handle again if the England selectors recover from their momentary lapse. All this is not to suggest that Australia has no hope. There could be a scenario where Michael Clarke and the rest of the batting manage to cobble together enough runs for their fast bowlers to bring them a victory or two. Still, not much is likely to change over such a short period, and backyard conditions will not provide them with much, if any, advantage. The much better team will still win.