The fact that the Ashes have been retained by the better side is now subsidiary. A Test match is a Test match and some of the most memorable have been contested when the Ashes were no longer in dispute: England's wholesale victory in 1938, for example, that of Australia in 1972, and, most famous of all, England's by one wicket in 1902.
Shades of Jessop, Hirst and Rhodes, and of Sir Leonard Hutton: memories of fine hundreds by the Chappell brothers which squared the rubber 2-2 after England had retained the Ashes.
HEAVEN knows, we need cricket to admire after the sorry happenings of recent days both in print and on the field. How greatly overwritten cricket is these days - and written down much more than written up. And where is forbearance, where charity? Have media chequebooks driven reticence and good taste completely out of the window?
Some of England's cricket at Trent Bridge indeed negatived some that was admirable. I liked the current TV euphemism, ``England rather lost the plot'', after a profusion of wide long hops: and there was a regrettable lack of phlegm in some of the second-innings batting. But pray who is Nasser Hussain, a senior member of the England eleven, to be deploring in the Daily Mail the performance of his fellows and implicitly criticising his hard-pressed captain, Michael Atherton?
England lost the Ashes apparently not because Australia are intrinsically the stronger side but because ``when the pressure point comes they crumble''. Hussain adds insult to injury by quoting this brash comment by one of England's chief opponents, Shane Warne. Hussain went on to explain the ``softness''. ``It comes from playing county cricket, which is all very matey and lovey-dovey. No one is sledging any more. We are all mates out there and it is all about a few cups of tea and maybe a Pimm's or two afterwards.''
Comparing the gap between ``this cosy little world'' and the way Australians play, he said: ``They are abusing you, rucking you [whatever that means] and making it very clear that they want you back in the pavilion pretty quick.''
By a singular bitter irony, the very same day Hussain, as the acting Essex captain, was involved in what millions of television viewers could see was a thoroughly abrasive, ill-tempered match. The NatWest semi-final at Chelmsford, far from being ``matey'', was the worst possible advertisement for the more competitive spirit which is being called for in the bright new world of English cricket.
Yet what was the official re- action to Hussain's outburst? Brian Murgatroyd, the recently appointed England and Wales Cricket Board press officer, was reported as saying that ``we have seen what Nasser has had to say and he appears to agree with a great deal of our blueprint for English cricket . . . we appreciate that the game is too soft in certain areas. There is too much meaningless cricket''.
Who, incidentally, is Mr Murgatroyd to describe any English cricket as ``meaning- less''?
IT seems as though poor Lord MacLaurin might have to authorise an appendix to the Board's blueprint, Raising the Standard, enshrining the Board's code of conduct along with a little homily, emphasising that there is and always has been a clear line which differentiates between hard, competitive cricket, as it should always be, and any ill-tempered, unsporting perversions of it.
Sledging, the offensive Australian import into our cricket at various levels, has much to answer for, though I would add that, so far as the present series is concerned, two England captains, Tony Lewis and Mike Denness, who have been present at all the Tests, confirm my own impression that this summer's series has been fought hard and fairly enough.
A sad eyewitness at the game at Chelmsford, Lewis says: ``Call it what you will, it was not cricket.'' He completely exonerates, by the way, both the crowd and the umpires, David Constant and Chris Balderstone, whose handling of the game was exemplary.
As Alan Crompton, the Australian manager, at the weekend was enjoying the matchless splendour of a house full, tented Canterbury, I asked him his view of the spirit in which the Test series was being played.
He said: ``Test cricket is no picnic. It's played hard and tough, as it always has been and always should be. But the atmosphere has been good, and several of the England side join us for a beer or two after close of play.''
Mr Crompton's presence over here, it may be mentioned, is indicative of the concern of the Australian Board to eradicate the poor image of the team of a few years ago. An improvement coincided with his becoming the Board chairman and the sub sequent appointment of Mark Taylor as captain.
AS a final example of comment uncalled for, Atherton surely deserved better than to read speculation from one of his fellow selectors, Graham Gooch, on his continuation or otherwise as captain of England in the West Indies this winter. ``I think he could have had enough,'' says Atherton's predecessor in the leadership. ``If you are not getting a response from your players maybe it's time to move on.'' Apart from the fact that Gooch's chairman, David Graveney, apparently sees the situation differently, how stands the principle of cabinet reponsibility?
I AM asked to define what is meant by a pull and a hook. Many people will give different answers. I describe anything played off the front foot to the midwicket area and square of that as a pull: anything off the back foot to the on side as a hook. The sweep speaks for itself - and for that matter, among English batsmen does so all too often.