Did England Deserve To Win The Ashes?

In short, yes, though some, including Australian cricket writer, Robert Craddock, suggest not - basing their argument around the issues of stats and luck. But they're missing the point. Stats can be misleading, and luck plays an essential part in any series win.

As Ponting alluded to in his post-match interview at the Oval, many of the Ashes 2009 stats weigh heavily in Australia's favour. But the vast majority of these figures are batting related; top seven run scorers (6-1 Australia), centuries (8-2 Aus), scores above 400 (3-2 Aus), partnerships of 100 or more (8-5 Aus) and so on. Despite some of those stats being misleading - for instance, four of Australia's centuries were in their first innings at Cardiff, which means three of them were 'Ian Bell centuries': made in the wake of a teammate achieving the feat - they merely confirm what the team-sheets suggest: that Australia possess superior batsman.

It's been said of Bopara that he must learn it's not how but how many that's most important when making runs in Test cricket. It's also when, and England's two hundreds were crucially and beautifully timed.

However, it's bowling that wins matches, and here England's stats do measure up. England had four five-wicket hauls to Australia's two. England took 20 wickets twice as many times as Australia and in two matches England coupled devastating, match-winning spells with an ability to finish off the tail. The wickets were shared amongst the attack, and Flintoff, Anderson, Onions, Broad and Swann all had their moments of glory - with bat and ball.

Luck, in varying degrees, is a factor in any situation which requires a team to string a set of results together - such as a tournament or Test series. This can range from large slices of luck, like the Danish football team winning the 1992 European Championships despite originally not even qualifying, to moments of mere good fortune, like Dhoni winning five coin tosses in a row on his way to captaining India to the World T20 crown in 2007. It can even simply mean the avoidance of any bad luck, like England being able to field an unchanged team for the first four Tests of the 2005 Ashes.

England had a bit of luck in this series, but it was a brand of luck which shared more of an affinity with Dhoni than some now-retired Danish footballers. Umpiring blunders - which usually even themselves out over the course of a series - still favoured England slightly by the end, and Strauss managed to win four out of five coin tosses. However, they would happily have given these snipets of fortune for the full fitness of their best batsman and talismanic bowler.

On rare occasions, luck can be a decisive factor in a one-off encounter, but not in a five match series, and certainly not in this one. England were dealt a few breaks, and used them spectacularly to their own advantage. When it really mattered, they triumphed in a one-off game which Australia only needed to draw, by a margin of 197 runs.

Ultimately, stats, and, to an extent, luck, are measurable variables. Fortunately, in sport, such factors can be trumped by courage, character and resolve - qualities which present themselves in the form of the only two numbers which matter: 2-1.