Why was it that Australia put in such a hazy performance in a match that mattered so much? Of the two teams they are the more experienced, the more used to winning and entering this week the more confident
Daniel Brettig at Edgbaston31-Jul-2015Test matches can be about big moments but also small ones. Australia’s hefty defeat at Edgbaston looked vast enough to have not really been influenced by little details, yet one pair of two-ball sequences summed up the gap between the two sides as aptly as the final margin.Shortly after tea on the second evening, Steven Finn dismissed Michael Clarke. It was a key blow for England, even if Clarke’s batting touch has all but deserted him. Adam Voges walked to the middle of Edgbaston amid a cacophony of noise and marked his guard. Finn ran in again and landed the ball on a length just outside off stump, coaxing the new batsman into an edge to Ian Bell before he had his bearings.Midway through the third day, Josh Hazlewood dismissed Adam Lyth. The second wicket down in England’s chase of 121, it was the last glimmer of any kind of hope for Australia. Hazlewood swung the ball to defeat Lyth, and the new batsman Joe Root could be vulnerable as anyone to the moving delivery. Hazlewood ran in again and hurled down a wide long hop, which sat up for Root to crack through point to the boundary.In those four balls was the game summed up – England taking every opportunity to put the tourists under pressure; Australia failing almost completely to do so. Voges had been in imperious form entering this series but has been gradually broken down by plenty of other balls like the one Finn gave him. Root has prospered mostly by being allowed latitude early in his innings when he is vulnerable.The Australians spurned opportunities to take control of this match almost from the first ball. With the exception of Chris Rogers, their batsmen showed neither enough experience in English conditions nor enough awareness to respect what such climes require. There was one brief window when Rogers and Voges looked capable of enduring, but when the latter hung his bat out at James Anderson the rest more or less ceased to exist.Adam Voges is one of Australia’s middle order under severe pressure, Shaun Marsh could replace him•Getty ImagesIt is always a dicey exercise to criticise a bowling attack when they have a mere 136 runs to defend, but it must be said that the Australian pace unit was also a noticeably lesser collective than they had been at Lord’s. On the first evening under lights they bowled the sorts of changeable lines and lengths that were seen in Cardiff, never approaching England’s level of consistency.Then on the second morning, when Mitchell Johnson’s pair of snorting short balls had accounted for Jonny Bairstow and Ben Stokes, pressure from the other end was virtually non-existent. The two overs from Hazlewood and Mitchell Starc that followed Johnson’s double strike went for 16 runs, and England were able to wriggle free. Johnson has admitted he could have bowled more short stuff than he did, but the bleeding of runs must have come at least partly into his thinking.Even so, England were still only 54 runs ahead when their seventh wicket went down. From that point Stuart Broad and Moeen Ali enjoyed some good fortune, but there was never a sense that they were being actively corralled or goaded into dismissal. They were not to be separated until England led by 141, more than enough as it turned out.After only David Warner and the tail had propped up the second innings, Australia really had very little chance of defending their measly lead of 120. They had to do everything right in the field, sniff out every opportunity and take every chance. But it was soon abundantly clear that this team was not in the sort of robust frame of mind to do so. It was Ian Bell, so out of form before this match, who showed the way for England with batting of a very positive mindset to quickly run down the total.By contrast, Clarke and his men seemed unable to grasp even the meagre chances to stay in the match that came their way. A Bell edge to Clarke at second slip was unaccountably shelled, and the potentially destructive Johnson was not even used until England needed only another 74 runs to win. Clarke rang plenty of bowling changes from that point, but it was all far too late, as England cantered to victory.Why was it that Australia put in such a hazy performance in a match that mattered so much? Of the two teams they are the more experienced, the more used to winning and entering this week the more confident after administering a 405-run hiding to England at Lord’s. Clarke in particular had a shocking week, even if his batting struggles are discounted. Based on his own performance relative to the importance of the fixture, he cannot have had a worse match as captain.The wider issues of the team’s succession planning, touched on yesterday, have provided a disquieting undertone to the tour. But that cannot account for poor decisions made in the middle, old lessons seemingly forgotten and new ones not even close to being learned. Something is eating at this team and its players, whether it is internal issues, the march of time or the suffocating effects of an Ashes tour.At Edgbaston, Australia were a team overwhelmed to the point that they made errors a club side would not be proud of, something epitomised by Hazlewood. England, meanwhile, rose impressively to the occasion, personified by Finn. Australia talk often of winning the big moments. To get back into this series, they must find a way to clear their heads enough to pay attention to the small ones too.