Absurd to call it a dead rubber with the series at stake
Ashes should abolish antiquated rule that says holders retain the urn in the event of a draw
This series died before it needed to. No sour grapes are at play with the observation that “retaining” the Ashes is a bizarre anachronism bound up with the idea of an urn that is either held on to or “regained” by the challenger.
No other major series in sport operates this way. The protagonists start from zero with three possible outcomes: win for team A, win for team B, or a draw – which the 2019 Ashes series might turn out to be, given that England improved their prospects of a 2-2 final score on day two at the Oval.
Jofra Archer and Sam Curran, however, set about Australia’s batsmen knowing that Tim Paine’s men had already celebrated “victory” in Manchester, despite the score being 2-1 with one Test still to go.
Chris Woakes caused Steve Smith to finally miss a ball aimed at his stumps knowing that removing the immovable for 80 would not change the course of the series.
Australia would rightly resent England trying to change the rules just because they have “lost” an Ashes series at home for the first time since 2001. Under the current system, which evokes medieval chivalry, the Ashes are Australia’s to hold until England can prise them from their hands. But who can ignore the absurdity of a fifth Test being designated a “dead
rubber” when one of the teams still have a chance to achieve parity?
When the British and Irish Lions last toured New Zealand they pulled off a spectacular draw. New Zealand won one Test, the Lions equalised and the third match was drawn. The two captains each held an ear of the trophy and everyone went home underwhelmed by a stalemate, but accepting that neither side had actually won.
Nobody suggested that because New Zealand had smashed Sir Clive Woodward’s Lions on the previous tour, the All Blacks had “retained” the cup.
With the urn so inextricably rooted in Victorian mythology and burnt-bail hocus-pocus, the convention is: “A drawn series results in the previous holders retaining the Ashes.”
This seldom stirs much controversy. Bizarrely, Ashes series are seldom drawn. Australia have won 33 and England 32, with only five “tied” – in 1938, 1962-63, 1965-66, 1968 and 1972. That run of draws in the Sixties led to accusations that Australia were nesting on the urn, in the knowledge that a 1-1 draw was sufficient to keep England Ashes-less.
After losing Jos Buttler and Jack Leach in the morning session for a first-innings total of 294, England’s hopes of winning this fifth Test were revived by the effervescent bowling of Archer and Curran, and by Smith’s rare failure to put bat on an lbw ball from Woakes.
It would be wrong to say the Oval crowd had given up on this match as a serious contest. From the start enthusiasm was high. Spectators knew England would come out fighting to avoid a 3-1 defeat and that Smith would probably lay on another masterclass. There were plenty of good reasons to clutch a match ticket gratefully. But how much
Australia deserve their victory party, yet the talk of ‘winning’ the Ashes ignores an anomaly
keener would the audience have felt if England had a chance to “save” the series and close the summer circus down with honours even?
This is not a patriotic perspective. Abolishing the “retention” principle would work equally for both countries. There could be no playing for a series draw, in Sydney or in London.
The chances of a series remaining active for all five Tests would be increased. A reigning champion holding a 2-1 lead in the final Test would be forced to play through to the end. Best of all, the Ashes would show themselves capable of evolving in line with modern practice, and in the interests of the public, rather than serving the ghosts of history.
So this is not to begrudge Australia their victory party in Manchester, their lusty songs of vindication after six weeks of being called “cheats”. The best team thus far will go in the books as 2019 Ashes champions.
Australia are in no way unworthy of what they achieved at Old Trafford. Yet all the talk of them “winning” the Ashes ignores an anomaly. What they did was make it impossible for England to come out of the series with 50 per cent of the prize.
A 2-2 Ashes draw and the World Cup would add up to a honeyed summer for English cricket. It could still end that way. The system cannot be changed before Monday and nor should it be. A polite suggestion though is that “retaining” the Ashes should be consigned to the dustbin of history so that everyone starts from zero. For the benefit of both nations.