By Gaurang
September 12 2005

There is still the small matter of 90 odd overs, weather permitting, to decide whether the Ashes do indeed come back to England after nearly two decades, but already the pundits are pronouncing this as the beginning of the end for Australia’s dominance in Test cricket.

And even if Australia somehow manage to win the match and draw the series 2-2, it will be a huge climb down from the arrogant, Invincibles talk that they started the tour with.

But didn’t Australia lose to India in India in 2000-01, and yet continue to dominate the Test cricket world? So how is it different this time?

First of all India’s 2-1 defeat of Australia, though quite a stunning feat, especially considering that the Australians had won 16 straight Tests and steamrolled India in the first match in Mumbai, was maybe not as much an indicator of a change in tides as England finally managing to win an Ashes series at home. The fact was that for the past 30 odd years, since 1969 to be precise, Australia had not beaten India in India, so there was always the possibility they would be thwarted once again, ice vests or no ice vests. The more stunning thing was that India did it with a bowling attack hamstrung by the absence of two champion bowlers, Anil Kumble and Javagal Srinath, and with only one very inexperienced, if world-class, spinner and very little support bowling. In fact, it is still stunning to think that Sachin Tendulkar was India’s second most successful bowler after Harbahajan Singh. Has one bowler ever carried so much of the load alone in a series in the history of the game, and that too so successfully? England currently has five bowlers who are all in their prime challenging the Australians.

Secondly the Australians were at their absolute peak in terms of their cricketing skills when they were vanquished by Sourav Ganguly and his men. The batting was formidable with the Waugh twins still in the line up and with McGrath and Warne closer to 30 than to 40 as is the case presently.

Finally Australia had a leader at the zenith of his prowess when they stumbled, and then were humbled in India. The present Australian captain, while not a rookie, has certainly not shown the qualities of a natural leader and shrewd thinker. He has been more of the lead from the front, “enjoy boys” type of leader who has enjoyed Test match success by riding on the coat tails of his predecessor rather than stitching it together himself.

So is it any wonder that some, experts and non-experts alike, have decided that unlike Australia’s defeat versus India in 2000-01 this is not simply a hiccup in the otherwise smooth reign of a formidable team, but quite possibly the beginning of the end of their relatively short era of dominance in Tests which started in the late 1990s with a win in the Caribbean over the once mighty West Indians, and which may now end with the rise of a formidable England team who feel that they are getting very close to being the best Test side in the world.

But to really know if the tide has shifted permanently, a few more series will be required. Since Australia’s next Test series is against the now woeful West Indians, it is unlikely to indicate much. However England’s next couple of Test series happen to be against Pakistan and India in the subcontinent, and will be crucial indicators of progress. If they emerge victorious, not merely morally, but actually victorious from those two series, few would begrudge them the tag of the new world champions.

Meanwhile all of this of course makes the ICC devised Australia versus The Rest of the World “superseries” seem a bit superfluous and anti-climactic.