The 1981 Ashes series revisited

[Rachael]

Ernest has been going on about the 1981 Ashes once again.. and through the familiar rose tinted spectacles... so I thought I'd revisit the reality of what happened..

The First Test (at Trent Bridge) was over in 3 days... with England slaughtered (failing to manage two sessions with the bat in their first innings.. and barely scraping through one session in their second innings). Less said the better.

E 185 (56.4 overs) + 125 (38.4 overs)
A 179 (86.5 overs) + 132 (54.1 overs)

The second Test (at Lords) was a draw: I don't recall but it must have been rain affected if the total number of overs bowled is anything to go by... but England were never, really, on top: nothing to shout about.

E 311 (124.1 overs) + 265 dec (98.4 overs)
A 345 (118.4 overs) + 90/4 (48.4 overs)

The third Test was the famous Headingley Test that Australia should have won comfortably and where (confounded by the brick wall that was Geoff Boycott) they somehow (faced with a straight-forward run chase) managed to conjure defeat from the jaws of victory (bit like in Mumbai, really). Actually a farcical result for a game in which the Aussies were dominant.

A 401/9 dec (155.2 overs) + 111 (36.1 overs)
E 174 (50.5 overs) + 356 (87.3 overs, following on)

The 4th Test (at Edgebaston) saw the Aussies again dominate in style.. and then again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a doddle of a run chase that went awry.

E 189 (69.1) + 219 (92)
A 258 (86.5) + 121 (67)

The 5th Test (Old Trafford) saw two dire 1st innings performances.. but one that was quite spectacularly dire on the part of the Aussies... followed by the ONLY decent (5+ session) English innings of the tour (but, bizarrely, one in which Gooch, Gower, Gatting and Brearley ALL failed and Embury was the 2nd most durable batsman after Tavare).

This Test ended with another typically excellent innings by the Aussies (400+).. one worthy of winning a match.. but one that ended before they had fully undone the damage of that first innings fiasco.

E 231 (86.1 overs) + 404 (151.4 overs)
A 130 (30.2 overs) + 402 (135.5 overs)

The final Test (at the Oval) was memorable principally for Boycott's obdurate 7.5 hour 137 (the only decent English knock of England's first innings) ... and for the equally obdurate defence of Brearley and Knott.. who somehow staved off what looked for all the world like another crushing victory for the Aussies.

A 352 (132 overs) + 344/9 (104.2 overs)
E 314 (110.4 overs) + 261/7 (95 overs)

All of which adds up to what? A classic case of a dominant team failing to get the results that their dominance deserved.... and a series win that should be dedicated to the mighty GeoffBoycott... who returned series figures as follows:

                                                         Runs per
Batting      M  I NO  HS Runs Avge 100 50  6   4  Min Bls 100 bls
G.Boycott 6 12  0 137  392 32.66  1  1  -  22 1650 1179  33

It's well know that strange things happen in cricket.. and I guess something equally bizarre could happen next year.. but the truth remains that England played abysmally in 1981... and were in many ways singularly undeserving Ashes winners. I really DO hope England play better than that next summer.. but sadly.. even if Vaughan and his friends manage that quite manageable feat.. they are likely to end up having been completely stuffed.

[Teatime FatCat]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest has been going on about the 1981 Ashes once again.. and through the familiar rose tinted spectacles... so I thought I'd revisit the reality of what happened.

.


The third Test was the famous Headingley Test that Australia should have won comfortably and where (confounded by the brick wall that was Geoff Boycott) they somehow (faced with a straight-forward run chase) managed to conjure defeat from the jaws of victory (bit like in Mumbai, really). Actually a farcical result for a game in which the Aussies were dominant.

A 401/9 dec (155.2 overs) + 111 (36.1 overs)
E 174 (50.5 overs) + 356 (87.3 overs, following on)


Ha ha ha - Rachael, are you saying that the only noteworthy performance in this game was the Boycott's? Did his stout defence andf unereal batting crush the Aussies into submission? No flashes of brilliance by a couple of 'flashy' and 'irresponsible' performers?

[Rachael]

Nothing of the sort: I think it's a plain matter of fact that England were being steamrollered in the 2nd innings by an attack with it's tail up exploiting VERY helpful conditions... and that Boycott's obduracy (as so often in that series) was the only thing that kept England in the game long enough to reach the easier session of play where a certain well known all-rounder could thwack the ball around a bit.

Botham could never have played the innings he did had Boycott not seen the team through the most critical phase of the innings... and indeed.. would almost certainly not have survived the onslaught: that was one sensational bit of classic Boycot style obduracy.

Thing is.. even AFTER the Botham heroics withthe bat.. the Aussies were left with a relatively straightforward run chase (comparable to the one they faced at Mumbai recently). In short, Australia dominated the game.. and only the most bizarre of flops in the 4th innings saw them slump to defeat.

I trust we don't hold that game up as a model for how we should perform: that was pretty desperate stuff!

[Teatime FatCat]

Ok, just checking!

[Milo]

You've put a clear slant on that one Rachael. It wasn't any better condtions for batting at all whilst Botham was at the wicket. Just because he and Dilley scored runs do not assume it was easier. Boycott actually got out just when he should have gone on and made a century. He scored 40 odd - his effort was no more important than Peter Willey's.

""Botham could never have played the innings he did had Boycott not seen the team through the most critical phase of the innings... and indeed.. would almost certainly not have survived the onslaught: that was one sensational bit of classic Boycot style obduracy.""

That is just a clear over-exaggeration. Botham was in the onslaught. He came to the wicket at 105-5 and soon found it 130-7. Dress it up as you like. If Botham (the best bowler in the first innings by a mile AND top score in 1st innings) and Willis' performances got 10, Boycott's was no more than a 4-5.

[Rachael]

Interesting... I've heard a crew on TMS (and I'm not talking when Boycott was a part of that set-up) make a very big deal of the fact that Boycott's innings was at least the equal of Botham's in that match (and most especially as critical to the result, as the despair in the dressingroom must have been horrendous as the wickets fell the other end).

Surely the key point, though, is that a fairly mediocre Australian side dominated that Test for all but the final act... and really should (as the they should at Mumbai the other week) have sewn up victory with some ease. Boycott got in the way... Botham helped England to a very slender lead that should not have been enough.. and then we saw one of the most curious Australian innings of recent decades.

My broader point would simply be that this Test series is a poor example for Ernest to keep trotting out as a model performance: over the course of the 6 match series... against a side you acknowledge elsewhere as pretty mediocre.. the England boys lost far, far more sessions than they won.. and basically scaped home through the odd turnaround that was very much against the run of play.. and staved off defeats mostly through the sheer obduracy of the likes of Boycott, Tavare, Brearley, Knott and (in at least one instance) Embury.

Postcript...

Just looked up the England second innings performances again.. and Boycott was in for 141 deliveries to Botham's 148... but saw out the following as partners: Gooch, Brearley, Gower and Gatting. That's a reasonable array of seriously competent batsmen who couldn't cope and ended up heading back to the pavillion after (let me chack) 3, 29, 22 and 10 deliveries respectively. By contrast.. Willey came out just before Botham and did rather better (33 off 56 balls) and when Botham was making his big impression even Dilley and Old were getting in on the act (56 off 75 and 31 off 29).

I somehow find it hard to believe that life was as tough for the tailenders as it had been for the top order: at the very least the ball would have been softer and the bowlers wearier.. and what I recall is that the ball stopped moving around as much.

[Milo]

Rachael, can you not contemplate Dilley and Old growing in confidence from what was going on at the other end, also playing with abandon due to the fact that England were still 100 behind when Dilley came out (and Boycott back in the pav). It is funny how your analysis of the series at the top fails to mention Botham once. Your analysis of the first test was terrible. England slaughtered?? They lost by 4 wickets after having had a first innings lead. England clearly won the Old trafford test, but you highlight England's 'awful' batting in the first knock. Typically, Australia 'dominated' the Birmingham test but managed to score fewer than 400 for 20 wickets.

You clearly do not remember this series, you didn't watch it did you Rachael? Don't look at the statistics because they very rarely tell you the true story. Your postscript adds little. You find it hard to believe the pitch hadn't got better for Old and Dilley (and Botham of course). Well, if that is the case, then it just goes to show how well Willis bowled. Oh but of course, Australia threw the game away. England bowled well that summer (as did Alderman and Lillee), the batting was poor on both sides. And that is why we won. Only three months before the tour, Australia had to pick Dougie Walters out of retirement to bolster their middle order. He didn't come to England and they needed him.

[Rachael]

Quite prepared to defer to you on the 1981 series Milo: your account has a level of credibility about it. I'm certainly not going to dispute the central explanation you offer: "England bowled well that summer (as did Alderman and Lillee), the batting was poor on both sides. And that is why we won."

I was actually just 11 / 12 years old when that series was played.. and whilst I watched... and listened.. it made only a very limited impression. The only thing that really stuck was a huge admiration for the was Boycott ploughed a lone furrow through the summer as those around him repeatedly caved in.

Looking back.. the only thing I'd say with any degree of confidence about the series is that it was one which has bugger all relevence as a precedent for any forthcoming series with the NEXT Ashes series: the 1981 series showed that with two ordinary batting line-ups both doing badly.. pretty much ANYTHING can happen... whereas one side at least, next summer, (and hopefully both sides: we can live in hope) is pretty much certain to come with a very, very strong batting line-up - recipe not for rather random outcomes but for familiar and predictable outcomes.

[Andy Mellon]

Some things I agree with you on Rachael, others I don't.

What I think is clear about the Headingly test is that the victory was mainly down to the morale boost that that came out of the partnership between Botham and Dilley. This is quite similar to the impact that Graeme Smith had at the start of the tour to England last year and the effect that Andy Flintoff had at the end of that same series. The effect on both teams morale of seeing ball after ball hitting or going over the boundary ropes is incalculable. Whilst the morale of the batting team is boosted, the major effect is the catastrophic damage to the fielding side - this is especially stark when the batters are tail enders. Hence, from the Aussies looking invincible at Headingly, they lost morale and then team discipline and nerve due to the effect of seeing Botham and Dilley hit those boundaries. Whilst the importance of Boycott's innings should be mentioned, I doubt whether the typical obdurate Boycott batting destroyed the morale of Australia. That is what caused their terrible batting in the second innings! If they could have blanked out that batting from Botham and Dilley, they would almost certainly have made the score, even though Bob Willis had his tail up (which was also due in no small part to the morale boost from Botham and Dilley's batting)

What I do wholehearthedly agree with you on is that the performance at Headingley should not be seen as the ideal way to win a test match from the team's point of view. From a supporters view, we'd love every game to be a nail biter like Headingly, but ideally England should keep playing as they have over the last few months with more tenacity and perseverence than I've ever seen from an England side (apart from in Nasser Hussain's subcontinental conquering team)

[Pabs]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I was actually just 11 / 12 years old when that series was played.. and whilst I watched... and listened.. it made only a very limited impression. The only thing that really stuck was a huge admiration for the was Boycott ploughed a lone furrow through the summer as those around him repeatedly caved in.

And do you also remember Boycott's single-handed destruction of Yorkshire round about the same time? Quite the hero, he was.