Some people may have had the idea that once England retained the Ashes, interest in the present series would be over. Not me. And not now, either, Dan Hodges. But I must say I find Dan’s effort to argue for the proposition that there’s still some interest to be had from this series somewhat strained and artificial. In itself he thinks the series is dead; or it would be if you didn’t regard it as part of a longer ten-match event: ‘a ten-Test Super Ashes’, a great ‘extravaganza’.
Well, if that’s how you want it, I suppose there’s no harm done. But I don’t see the need. True, the primary aim in contesting any Ashes series is to retain the Ashes if you already hold them and to regain them if you don’t. But who says that’s all that’s at stake? The result of the series also matters; winning it is better than drawing it, and drawing it better than losing. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the drama of the final day at the Oval in 1968 when Derek Underwood bowled England to victory with only minutes to spare, enabling England to level the series at 1-1, with the Ashes already retained by Australia since they’d won the first match, and the second, third and fourth had all been drawn. Wisden for 1969 described it as ‘a momentous day’. In The Australians in England, 1968, Bobby Simpson wrote:
This was one of the most exciting half-hour’s cricket that I have ever watched and the drama of the situation had been unbearable at times.
Underwood himself wrote in his autobiography, Beating the Bat:
I doubt whether anything will compare with that fantastic victory against the Australians at the Oval in 1968 which enabled England to draw the series one-all.
Drawing the series meant something to England, as it would now mean something to Australia, though there’s little chance of this happening, I think. More than that, the Oval victory was, just in itself, something to celebrate for England supporters. A Test match is a Test match is a Test match, and it’s because each one is fought as seriously as it is that the five-match Test series as a whole is the incomparable thing that it is. Furthermore, in the shape of one series there may be signs of what the future holds for the next, seeds of development or decline or a mere shift of emphasis. And teams care whether they win or lose by one Test only or by three, four or all five. It makes a difference. All five happened to England in 2006-07, in the wrong way, and it was noticed and is now part of history.
In 1972, incidentally, it was a similar story but in reverse. After four Tests England were 2-1 up with one to play, and so had retained the Ashes won by Illingworth’s team in Australia in 1970-71. Australia then won the fifth Test at the Oval to level the series, Dennis Lillee taking five wickets in both England innings. In his The Ashes, 1972 John Arlott wrote ‘The Australian celebrations were wholehearted’; he quotes Ian Chappell as saying, ‘The team should be better the next time we meet England in our own country in 1974-5’! In his own book on the same series, Tigers among the Lions, Chappell recalled:
The scenes in the dressing room were quite fantastic. People came from all directions to congratulate us and join us in our mood of celebration.
So for my money, though I, too – simply because I love Ashes cricket – am glad of the ten-match extravaganza well under way, I don’t need it in order to maintain interest in what is going on right now. The Ashes are always alive.