Dropped catches lose matches!

As a wise person once said, catches win matches. As a wiser person once countered, catches don't win matches, dropped catches lose them. England proved the truth of the second, more accurate maxim in the loss to Australia in the second Test at Lord's that all but guaranteed the Ashes are out of English reach for at least another two years.

Before the series and after the first Test, England's players were quick to publicly note that in order to compete with Australia, they had to take every opportunity. It would far from guarantee them even one victory, but to simply compete on level terms with a superior opponent, chances of all forms had to be seized. There is no more recognisable missed opportunity than a dropped catch, which was England's chief downfall in the second Test.

Through the first two Tests, English scores of 294, 164, 187 and 227 were not unexpected. Disappointing, certainly, but not surprising given the potency of Australia's attack. Since its batsmen could only be expected to manage competitive rather than dominating scores, the key to England's chances was bowling. For them, it had to be a bowlers' series. Thus the greatest disappointment for England in the series to date has been Australia's two match-winning totals, 576 and 401, and how they were achieved.

Though fast scoring and spectacularly dominant when playing well, Australia's style of batting is inherently risky. Its weakness in the recent past has been inconsistency, landslide one-session collapses, and an underperforming top order. Though the last flaw remains true, England gave itself no chance of realising the first two deficiencies through sometimes wayward, often misguided and, in the second Test, under-strength bowling, but more calamitously a spate of dropped catches.

The second Test was a more comprehensive Australian victory than the first. Don't let the comparative margins of victory fool you. Perhaps when Australia was 27/2 in the first innings England were better positioned than at any stage in Edgbaston, but overall their competitive moments were fewer.

Some may ask what might have happened had England set any kind of defendable total, given that Australia lost two wickets in reaching an academic target of 14. Realistically, it was a momentary loss of focus after victory had already been assured, though Darren Gough's dismissal of Ricky Ponting was a valuable psychological blow. With the second innings failure, Ponting will harbour more doubts than he otherwise would have after his first two innings in the series had been terminated by virtually unplayable deliveries. That, at least, is something Gough and co. can work in the third Test.

In the first two Tests, the Waughs have provided the pivotal partnerships of the Australian innings', which is both a concern for the tourists and minor source of comfort for England. Australia's two most experienced batsman have been forced not exactly to rescue their team, since it has never appeared in an undue amount of danger, but to establish the heart of the innings after it had been faltering somewhat. That is essentially the situation England would have wanted, but failed to build upon.

When Caddick had Slater caught behind on day two at Lord's, Australia were 105/3 and still 82 behind England's total, a position the Australians, if they were bowling, might have turned into a first innings deficit of less than 50. England ruined any chance of doing that through its misguided strategy to Mark Waugh and the lack of adequate support bowling for Gough and Caddick. Of the 12 Australian wickets to fall in the second Test, Gough and Caddick claimed 10, which says enough in itself. Yes, McGrath and Gillespie claimed 15 of England's 20 wickets, but they had powerful backup in Warne and Lee, whose two wickets were important ones taken at the right moments.

Craig White's figures of 0/80 from 18 overs, contributing 0 and 27 not out with the bat, is not enough to justify his selection. His bowling, which has to be the main reason he is picked, is not the style that troubles Australia. His stock ball slides in to the right-handers, which is not the angle of delivery to concern most Australian batsmen. Playing as a genuine bowler, Dominic Cork also was not threatening enough, either in pace or movement of the ball. He and White were not trusted by Atherton to bowl together, meaning one of Gough or Caddick had to be in the attack at all times and were thus overworked. Whether it be Chris Silverwood or someone else, England needs another quick bowler or two who can be accurate over a spell and at least build up pressure from one end.

After the Waughs had been dislodged to bring Australia back to 230/5, England was confronted by the middle order that was so destructive in the first Test, which is what made the dropped catches so agonising. Adam Gilchrist is singularly the wrong type of batsman to reprieve due to his explosiveness. For the record, Gilchrist was put down on 13, 32, 49 and 72 in his score of 90.

Australia's tail-order batting is not as strong as it is reputed to be, so if Gilchrist had been taken at second slip by Butcher first ball of the second over on day three, after the tourists resumed at 255/5, the match would certainly have been more competitive. That could have been termed the defining moment, if the mistake had not been repeated three more times.

Damien Martyn was unfortunate to be dismissed when he was, swaying away from what should have been a Caddick bouncer with the second new ball that failed to climb and deflected off the edge of his bat, for he was arguably in better form than Mark Waugh. His timing was consummate and the surety of his defensive strokes reminiscent of the best of VVS Laxman. The Caddick breakthrough was followed in the next over by the second miss of Gilchrist, which to be fair on Ian Ward at point was hit hard and forced him to lunge to his left.

Unfortunately for Ward, when either Hussain or Vaughan return it should be he, rather than Butcher or Ramprakash, who makes way. Under the examination of McGrath, Ward's back foot defence has been found wanting and the way he has left a gap between bat and body has made him both susceptible to catches in slips and being bowled off the inside edge.

Butcher's second dropped catch at gully was excusable for similar reasons to Ward's but the mistake at slip by Atherton, for whom one can't help but feel some sympathy, and the overall total of four missed chances off one batsman can only be interpreted as bad cricket.

The last day action was familiar to anyone who has seen Australia demolish its opponents in recent times. Some might say it demonstrates England's batting is still as precarious as a house of cards, but how much blame can they really assume? Australia has consistently captured a rapid succession of wickets against every side it has defeated. It's how they win Tests. Whether batting or bowling, their method is to dominate the key moments by striking quickly, almost before the opposition knows and can react to what has hit them.

They have had so much success doing it that they are easily and confidently able to ride through the opposition's better periods, knowing it is a matter of time before momentum swings back in their favour. After a hostile Lee had struck to remove Graham Thorpe for 2 and reduce England to 50/3 at tea on day three, England enjoyed its best period of play in the series to date in the batting of pre-series rejects Butcher and Ramprakash.

Ramprakash overcame his hesitation to play Warne comfortably (even batsmen with surnames of Indian origin can play Warne with ease, apparently) and Butcher did what he had promised to do in his previous three innings by passing fifty with assurance. Unlike several of his colleagues, Butcher has appeared defensively secure and committed to his attacking shots, let down only by temperament.

Gillespie, rated by Steve Waugh as being in the same class as McGrath and apparently impressing English observers as much as he has everyone else who has seen him bowl, snapped the partnership when Ramprakash fatally played back, but the positive session meant England carried hope of more resistance on the fourth day.

Instead, they were crushed in an hour, closing to within 26 runs of making Australia bat again before McGrath, seemingly always at the forefront when the match is to be won, struck with two wickets in two balls in his first over of the day. The fractionally extra seam movement in England has made McGrath even more effective than normal and his delivery to Stewart, who erroneously played back, was another example of the one that seams back sharply to the right-hander.

McGrath was deservedly named man of the match for doing what he does best, striking in the first innings when the match is always in the balance. Others have more pace and explosive deliveries but currently none match McGrath for rhythm and unrelenting testing of a batsman's judgement, economically placing the ball on the spot where he is most likely to get the batsman out.

Gillespie finished the job to collect his first five-for at Lord's and, as Australia's bowlers have decided to do now, acknowledged the feat by holding up the ball to the crowd as a batsman does after his hundred. Appropriately, England's innings ended with a feature catch, Mark Waugh snaring Gough to give Gillespie his fifth wicket and break the Test catching record. That feat, and particularly Ponting's earlier two-handed overhead grab springing to his right to dismiss Ward and start the slide, highlighted the catching disparity that was the most notable difference between Australia and England in the second Test.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw