The Real Test

This is an auspicious moment for a column’s birth. All the nakshatras areimpeccably placed. And they point to two countries, which have fought four overtwars in the last 58 years, resuming their chequered cricket rivalry in threeweeks.

However, with all the immodesty of a boundless newborn, Reverse Swing wouldlike to set aside, for a week or so, this battle between India and Pakistan andlook ahead, a long way, to July 21, when the first Test of this year’s Ashesseries begins at Lord’s.

Pakistan’s tour of India, during which they will play three Tests and fiveone-day internationals, will be, like all India-Pakistan encounters, packed withemotion and charged with emotion. It will also showcase some fine cricket. Yet,regardless of the outcome, it will not change the world order. For any encounterto do that, Australia must be a party to it.

Theoretically, such encounters will take place when Australia visit NewZealand next. But, going by how New Zealand were demolished when they playedTests in Australia late last year and, before that, in England, they will belucky to get away with half their limbs intact.

That brings us to the Ashes, which five successive England captains havefailed to win since Mike Gatting’s men triumphed in 1986-87. All of England’sdefeats since then have been tame, to the extent that Australia are largelyunderstood to have held at least four generations of England cricketers in apsychological snare.

The build-up has started in earnest. Npower has conducted a survey in which80 per cent of Britons say they expect England to win the Ashes. Former Pakistanall-rounder Wasim Akram believes the Ashes "could go either way".According to Ian Botham, it will be the closest since the triumph of Gatting’sside.

Australian crowds, watching Tests against Pakistan, cheered whenever newscame in about England losing wickets in South Africa. Australian captain RickyPonting admits to staying up late to watch the second and third sessions of playin South Africa after ending his own day’s play against New Zealand andPakistan.

All of this is warranted. The year just gone by has been extraordinary forEnglish cricket. The national team did not lose a single Test during the year.Its victory in the first Test in South Africa was a record eighth consecutive.It rose to number two in Test rankings as compared with its place towards thebottom four years ago.

More importantly, what promises to quench the mass thirst for a credibleopposition to Australia – now that India have been vanquished in their ownbackyard – is a rise of match winners in the England team: Andrew Flintoff,Stephen Harmison, Andrew Strauss, Matthew Hoggard, Michael Vaughan and MarcusTrescothick. And now, they have started the year by becoming only the secondside to beat South Africa in Tests on their own soil. (Australia won there 1997and 2002.)

Yet, ironically, the 2-1 victory in South Africa portends that while Englandmay present a credible opposition to Australia, they are unlikely to do any morethan that. Everyone expected England, a side on the up, to beat South Africa, aside in downward transition. Yet, the Englishmen made a royal mess of it, losingthe third test in Cape Town by a whopping 196 runs and conceding the firstinnings lead on more occasion than one.

As Lawrence Booth pointed out in The Guardian, England had gone offthe boil before each of the last three Ashes series: against India in 2002,Pakistan in 2001 and Sri Lanka in 1998. This time, they have won in SouthAfrica, but failed to provide fireworks in team performance or flare-ups inindividual brilliance save Strauss, Hoggard and Flintoff. These three, andTrescothick at times, were frequently called upon to perform either the winningthrust or a rescue job. In short, England have won a series in which they, as ateam, played less poorly than their opponents.

Australia, on the other hand, have conquered the Final Frontier anddemolished Pakistan and New Zealand. All three vanquished sides can presentsearching questions to England.

Still, what will hurt England most is that their best Test batsman andbowler, Vaughan and Harmison, appear to have misplaced their bearings. Onoccasions last year, they were ranked number one in their disciplines. But whatwe saw in South Africa were pale shadows of those giants that lorded overcricket fields in 2004.

In sharp contrast, Australia’s two most potent weapons, Glenn McGrath andShane Warne, have made triumphant returns. Michael Clarke is the brightest stardestined for greatness. And the Waugh Brothers are associated with fond memoriesrather than painful vacuums.

The silver lining for England lies in the laws of probability. Australiacannot win forever. But any side aspiring to beat Australia ought to have eightor nine players performing over five days. Most of England’s recent victorieswere even contests on the first three days until the opposition wilted on thefourth or fifth. Australia are unlikely to lengthen this pattern. They wilt whenextraneous factors, such as the Mumbai pitch, become a distraction. They havenever been very happy at Headingley. But the ground is not hosting any Test thisAshes.

Ponting has already pointed out how previous England sides have promised morethan they delivered facing Australia. Post South Africa, McGrath’s boast thatthe Ashes could be very close, ending in Australia’s favour with only atwo-Test margin, has begun to look like a prophecy. And Adam Gilchrist’s wishthat he should never be a part of an Australian team surrendering the Ashes maystill be valid by the time this year’s winner is decided.