It is, of course, completely natural to ask if anything could have been done differently. That’s the nature of loss – or of draws, which, as Ben Stokes prophesied and which England fans now know, are actually worse.
You can bet on the 2023 Ashes with our Match Centre partners, bet365.
And then there’s all the time you have to think about it. Two whole days of waiting, punctured by 30 overs of damp action, with a soggy ball and umpires in shades saying it’s too dark for the quicks. Every minute spent not checking AccuWeather, and then the Met Office, and then Googling ‘Old Trafford weather’, and then opening the Weather app on your iPhone, and then checking AccuWeather again, is spent wondering what more could Ben Stokes and his side have done.
England were basically perfect at Old Trafford. They kept Australia to 317 with the ball, and then showed with the bat just how impressive that was, finally, emphatically getting on top of Australia’s fabled bowling attack for a sustained period.
Moeen Ali justified his elevation to No.3 with an excellent half-century, Zak Crawley carved out his best century in an England shirt to answer his critics, and Jonny Bairstow just missed out on a hundred of his own to answer his. There were half-centuries for Joe Root, Harry Brook and Stokes himself as well, and more inroads made on day three.
Australia were flat, and Pat Cummins looked out of ideas. And yet still you try and puzzle it out: could they have somehow winkled out another hour and half on the first three days, when, for a glorious moment, it felt as if the greatest comeback in Test history might actually be on?
So: Could they have? Much of the discussion has centred on the declaration, or lack thereof, on day three. England were 506-8 at lunch, leading by 189, and a little over an hour later – though with play having been extended by 13 minutes due to a rain delay – that lead was up to 275. If you assume the game would have played out the same way, but remove England’s post-lunch runs, then given Australia had cut the deficit to 61 by the end of the game, that would have left England needing to bat again.
But is that a fair assumption to make? The accepted thinking going into the last two days was that any sessions possible would be perfect for bowling, with charged-up quicks and cloud cover in place. Instead, with the outfield far from dry, the ball quickly lost some of its potency, and the clouds were so insistent that England had to bowl the spinners.
On the other hand, perhaps that lead could have been more than 189 at lunch. England didn’t exactly dig in, but there was an element of playing for the close on day two, and they were largely content to knock it around on the third morning. Had they had a specific declaration time in mind, it’s possible they might have scored quickly. Equally, they could also have fallen flat on their faces, without the lead to truly to dictate the game.
The base point is, would England have run through them on day three with a bit more time? That too feels unlikely, given the pitch was benign and Australia had set their stall out to defend. It would also have required England to put even more trust in the forecast than they did, when there was little agreement from the meteorologists on how the final two days would pan out. This is not where England lost the Ashes.
There are other ‘what-ifs?’ throughout the first three days. Chris Woakes was denied Australia’s 10th wicket in the second over of day two by a marginal – and, in many eyes, incorrect – no-ball call, and England were kept in the field for another 27 minutes. Steve Smith could have been out second ball, if a review for a low catch by Joe Root had gone England’s way, but instead faced another 36 deliveries. That’s, all in all, just under an hour’s play that, another week, might have been England’s.
And then there are the moments that aren’t moments, and that’s precisely the issue. Delays for sun glares and glove changes. Fields set and reset. Batters not ready and bowlers distracted. Australia came into Old Trafford with a team designed to get through their work slowly: no spinner, and just three frontline quicks, and so it proved. England’s innings occupied 107.4 overs and eight and three-quarter hours, an actual rate (not an ICC rate, which allows for time lost to wickets, reviews, drinks breaks and much else) of just over 12 overs per hour.
And England were culpable too. Australia’s innings lasted 90.2 overs, and yet took a chunk out of day two, rather than just two deliveries, England having managed only 83 overs on day one. In the three hours and 20 minutes they bowled on day three, they managed 41 overs – a rate of 12.1 per hour. Even on day four, with the forecast dire and spin in operation, they managed a mere 31 overs in two and a quarter hours, a rate of under 14 with only the one wicket falling.
In total, 239 overs were bowled across the first three days. Even adding on an extra four for innings changes, that leaves 27 unbowled before the first over was lost to rain. Maybe one more session is all England needed.
