A- A A+

Why we lost the Ashes: it’s politics, stupid

3 Comments
John Honner |  06 January 2011

I have collapsed in my ash-heap and done some thinking.

Job's comforters are no comfort. Australia did not lose the Ashes series because of the selectors, the umpires, the television replay system, the cricket balls, the coaches, the pitches, the players, the fast foods, the mexican wave, the alcohol, or even the journalists. Identical factors have been as much part of our wins as of our losses.

There must be a deeper reason.

It's politics, stupid. As the table below demonstrates, the fortunes of the two cricket teams involved follow the fortunes of their nations' conservative governments.

Since cricket became seriously professional in 1981, after the concordat between Kerry Packer and the Australian Cricket Board, Australia has had a 75 per cent success rate in Ashes contests under conservative Liberal governments, winning six series and losing two. Under Labor governments, however, Australia has only a 55 per cent success rate, winning five and losing four Ashes series.

England, in the same period, has won four and lost six Ashes campaigns under conservative governments (40 per cent success), while winning only one series and losing six under Labour governments (14 per cent success).

The trends are undeniable. Australia's exceptional wins in 1990–94 can be attributed to both the deregulating neoliberal tendencies of the Hawke-Keating Governments and the Accord on the one hand, and the imminent death of Thatcherism on the other. Likewise, Australia's loss in 2005 reflects the beginning of the end of the Howard years and the terminal condition of Britain's New Labour.

The only real aberration (England's loss in 1982–83 at the height of Thatcherism) was due to the fact that England was suffering from its own post-Packer professional crisis, with its best players being excluded while on a rebel tour in South Africa. 

Table aligning Australian and English political regimes with Ashes results

The Julius Sumner Miller questions then arises: why is this so? How can we regain the Ashes? I have my theory, but I shall rest for a moment — it's summer after all — and leave these questions for Eureka Street readers to consider. There are no prizes for guessing. 

 


John HonnerJohn Honner is on holidays.

 



Comments

Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

Hello, I was thinking of forwarding this article to my expatriate South African Professor, but at this point he hardly needs any encouragement...

Bligh Grant 10 January 2011

mmm... methinks this is the stuff for a PhD thesis - establishing a causal relationship between national politics and the outcome of the Ashes cricket series. Perhaps a parallel investigation could be made comparing the results with prediction through steaming goat entrail analysis. Happy holidays, John HONNER.

Bob GROVES 10 January 2011

This is thus far the most convincing explanation I have heard, and I hope Cricket Australia takes note. It seems to me, however, that you have overlooked one factor which I am sure also had a profound effect on the result - the ICC's rejection of John Howard's bid to be its Deputy Head.

osmund perera 10 January 2011

Similar articles

Will John Howard stay the course in Iraq?

Jack Waterford | 12 September 2007


Great leaders love their teams

1 Comment
Chris Lowney | 25 July 2007Great leaders love their teamsEric Shinseki was the highest ranking US military officer in the United States until he ran afoul of his boss, former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsel. He had told a Congressional hearing that the US Army would more soldiers to Iraq than planned, to keep the peace Saddam Hussein's removal.


Political opinion polls matter

1 Comment
John Warhurst | 25 July 2007Political opinion polls matterMuch of the flesh of an election year grows on a skeleton made up of public opinion polls. But  they are only as good as the interpretation that accompanies them. Sometimes commentators see only what they want to see.


The disappearing distinction between Labor and Coalition welfare policy

Philip Mendes | 25 July 2007Is there a point of difference in Labor's welfare policy?The ALP has historically been committed to government intervention in the free market to promote a fairer distribution of income. However, since Hawke and Keating, the ALP moved towards a free market agenda focusing on the alleviation of poverty rather than structural change.


Lifelong friends at first sight

Chris Fotinopoulos | 08 August 2007Lifelong friends at first sightFriendship and family are invariably mentioned in the same breath. Although most parents expect their children to trust family ahead of friends, children tend to place greater faith in friends, who are more likely to ‘allow them to breathe’.