Was this the worst Ashes series of all time?

Was this the worst, the most disastrous, of all Ashes series? Many have concluded that it was the worst anyway for a hundred years, the worst since the tour of Australia after the First World War. That series was lost 5-0. We at least drew one match this time, thanks to some rare resilience and time lost to rain and bad light. There was a similarity. In 1920-21 as now, England was outgunned by Australia’s fast bowlers.

No one can pretend that the series just finished was anything but depressing for England and their supporters. It’s hard to find consolation or any cause for optimism. We were well and truly thumped; no getting away from that.

All the same, it wasn’t the most depressing Ashes series of my life. Dismal, yes, but not as bad as 1958-9. There were a good many doubts about Joe Root’s team before they set off for Australia. There were almost no doubts about Peter May’s in 1958.

England was the strongest team in the world for most of the Fifties. They hadn’t lost a series to anyone since Freddie Brown’s side lost in Australia in 1950-51. They had won three consecutive Ashes series: 1953, 1954-5, 1956.

They had an array of fast bowlers – Frank Tyson, Brian Statham – the heroes of Len Hutton’s winning side four years previously – Fred Trueman and Surrey’s Peter Loader.

They had two great spinners, Jim Laker and Tony Lock, though this department would have been stronger if the invitation to Johnny Wardle who could bowl wrist-spin as well as orthodox slow left-arm hadn’t been withdrawn after he was sacked by Yorkshire and had given his name to some injudicious newspaper articles.

There were three batsmen, judged great by any standard: Peter May, Colin Cowdrey and Tom Graveney; and there was vast experience from the all-rounder Trevor Bailey and the wicket-keeper Godfrey Evans.

Like Root’s side, they lost 4-0 with one match drawn. There were some extenuating circumstances. Tyson was no longer the bowler who had destroyed Australia on his earlier tour. Trueman was injured and missed the first two Tests. Lock, as some had feared, was much less effective in Australia than in England.

Then two Australia bowlers, Ian Meckiff and G F Rorke, were (rightly) accused of having illegal actions. Meckiff was especially successful in the Second Test when he took 6 for 38 as England were dismissed for 87 in their second innings.

All the same Australia’s best bowlers were Alan Davidson and Richie Benaud who took 55 wickets between then in the series. Well, they were both outstanding bowlers: Davidson as good a left-arm quick as I have seen, Benaud the best leg-spinner between Bill O’Reilly and Shane Warne. All the same, the scale of this defeat was a shock.

That couldn’t be said this year: deeply disappointing but by no means a shock. One always feared that the batting was fragile, too much depending on Root and, with more hope than reason, on Ben Stokes.

After his remarkable year, Root fell away somewhat, though he did finish with a higher average in the series than Steve Smith.

But he has always, on three tours now, found it difficult to cope with the higher bounce on Australia pitches, one of his stock run-scoring shots, the back-foot force on the offside, carrying more risk than in England, India or Sri Lanka.

As for Stokes, he never seemed fully fit and, perhaps, in consequence, lacked his usual authority. To have a chance, England needed big scores from both of them, and the big scores didn’t come.

Otherwise, Bairstow, playing in only two Tests, made a fine hundred in Sydney, but his recent Test form made his omission in Brisbane and Adelaide understandable. Young Crawley batted with just enough authority to secure his place for the tour of West Indies in the Spring but twice got out to poor shots when going well.

The rest of the batting doesn’t bear thinking about, the chief disappointment being young Ollie Pope. Two years ago in South Africa, he looked the best new batsman since Root himself first appeared on the scene. Now he looks all at sea.

The bowling wasn’t too bad in the circumstances, though there were some odd selections. Stuart Broad should surely have played in the first Test in Brisbane, if only on account of David Warner’s inability to read him.

As it was he was missing and Warner made 94 there. Mark Wood had a good tour, and, given the lack of variety in the England attack, it was to their credit that Australia didn’t run up any really big scores.

One might say that England was never batted out of any Test but bowled out of every one. Even so, the series would have been closer if England’s close catching had been better. Almost every Australian who played a significant innings was dropped early on.

Considering the Second Boer War, Kipling wrote: “We have had no end of a lesson – it will do us no end of good.” Well, this Ashes series has undoubtedly been no end of a lesson. The question is whether the lesson will be acted on.

There is at least some sign that the stupidity of consigning first-class county cricket to the early and last weeks of an English summer is being recognised. That said, it will take some time to develop batsmen whose technique is orthodox and sound.

The trouble is that many talented young players may wonder why they should bother. Play audacious white-ball cricket, and you can pick up a good living in the 20/20 competitions that flourish everywhere.

Fair enough, but what works in the short forms of the game may not translate to Test match cricket. The Test match failure of star white-ball players like Jason Roy and Jos Buttler should itself serve as a lesson.

In contrast, players with an orthodox technique such as Virat Kohli and Kane Williamson have excelled in all forms of the game. If the basics are good, a player can adapt to 50- over and 20-over cricket. If they aren’t, few will succeed in the most demanding form of the game, Test cricket.