‘Cry me a river, England’ – Australian press reacts to the flip of occasions at Old Trafford
Australia have retained the Ashes with a serving to hand from the Manchester climate in a recreation the place they felt the complete drive of Bazball. But, no matter their place at Old Trafford when the weather closed in, they’d gained an early foothold within the collection with hard-fought wins at Edgbaston and at Lord’s.
After the second Test, Ben Stokes was adamant that it was a superb place for England to be in, focusing the thoughts on the necessity for 3 consecutive victories to develop into simply the second group to get better from 2-0 all the way down to win an Ashes. They succeeded, by a slender margin, at Headingley, nevertheless it left them no wriggle room for occasions like these which transpired in Manchester.
So, for the fourth consecutive time, the urn will stay in Australia’s fingers and England’s subsequent probability to regain will probably be daunting, in Australia in 2025-26.
The in a single day response from Australia has largely been an acknowledgement they had been outplayed on this Test, and there may be some disappointment that the collection will not get a grandstand decider at The Oval. But there has not been a lot room for any sympathy in the direction of England given their early losses.
“Well done Australia winning early doors in the face of the Bazball furnace, they lost tosses and had the worst of conditions but played the better cricket,” wrote Peter Lalor within the Australian. “Those wins at Edgbaston and Lord’s had been onerous received and an achievement to not be sneered at.
“Here’s a suggestion, if you wish to win the Ashes, do not lose the primary two Tests,” he went on to add. “If you need to win do not declare too early within the first match or too late on this one.”
A similar theme was taken by Daniel Brettig in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald, where he pointed to the value of the Marnus Labuschagne-Mitchell Marsh partnership during the 30-over window of play on Saturday, in which Australia only lost one wicket.
“Of course, after three days it had appeared that England solely wanted one other couple of hours or so to win, so downcast had the Australians seemed in declining to 4-113,” he wrote. “But Marnus Labuschagne and Mitch Marsh performed staunchly sufficient throughout the 30 overs potential on day 4, they usually all the time had the cushion of Australia’s wins in Tests one and two.
“When it comes down to a final analysis, Australia played the sounder cricket in those opening two Tests when it mattered most. Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith and Travis Head did the heavy lifting with the bat, Pat Cummins, Nathan Lyon and Mitchell Starc with the ball and yes, Alex Carey was alert to stump Bairstow with the gloves.”
Over within the Daily Telegraph, Ben Horne wasn’t pulling any punches over England’s Bazball philosophy.
“It’s time England stopped acting like the urn has just been stolen from their back pocket by a thief in the night,” Horne wrote, “and ponder how they put themselves in a predicament where rain at the rainiest venue in Test match cricket has blown up its Ashes comeback hopes on the tarmac.
“There isn’t any such factor as ethical victories in prime degree sport, not even once you play an attacking model of cricket and swear your main goal is to entertain to not win.
“The best thing about this enthralling series, by far, has been Baz Ball. It is captivating and brilliant. But the most tedious thing has been how in love England are with themselves about Baz Ball.”
Back within the Australian and Gideon Haigh introduced a really measured view to the way it all performed out, bemoaning how such a fascinating collection had seen the Ashes determined by two days of rain, but additionally elevating the query as as to whether retaining the urn with a drawn collection wanted to be revisited.
“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,” Haigh wrote. “Alas for England, a little Australian edge in experience had already stood them in good stead through two nipping finishes, in the latter of which they played the match’s second half with ten fit men.
“Convention dictates that the Ashes can solely change fingers if received outright, by a margin of a minimum of one Test. Yet it’s a conference of mysterious provenance, understood somewhat than codified. And I wonder if it’s fairly truthful, on condition that it confers a sizeable benefit earlier than the groups even begin, by successfully lending the draw a weighting that favours the holder: no clearer instance might there have been than this Old Trafford Test.”
A similar theme was taken by Andrew Webster in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald – he did not like Josh Hazlewood’s ‘praying for rain’ stance after the third day.
“We’re Australians, apparently. We do not pray for rain: we bludgeon our approach with bat, ship pure hearth with ball, and area like Dobermanns. We do not retain issues. We grasp issues. We hoist issues. We seize a stump and dubiously thrust our hips, as Warnie did at Trent Bridge in 1997,” he wrote.
“But if there may be one anachronistic edict that should change, it is retaining a collection merely since you’ve received it earlier than,” he later added. “What’s mistaken with calling it a drawn collection when it’s, certainly, a drawn collection?”
Over on Australian radio, meanwhile, Gerard Whateley of SEN acknowledged Australia were outplayed, but quickly switched focus to some of the reaction in England.
“Cry me a river, England,” he said. “The bleating coming from the opposite aspect of the world, truthfully, you’d assume they’d by no means been a Test match washed away and that the cliched bleak English climate had by no means assisted the house group’s endeavours beforehand… like a lot on this collection, the English are very selective in reminiscence.”