The difference between England and Australia has been Paul Collingwood.

That may
seem eccentric but these were Collingwood’s Ashes

The difference between England and Australia has been Paul Collingwood. That may
seem an eccentric judgment on a batsman whose record in the Ashes series was 83
runs in six innings at 13.83. Nonetheless, these were Collingwood’s Ashes.

Or, to put it another way, all teams are about trust. You may bat and bowl with the
hands of men and of angels, but without trust, you are nothing. And an essential
aspect of trust is forgiveness. Without the possibility of forgiveness, no team last
long: ask any marriage counsellor. Every member of this victorious England side
knows that when they err, the possibility of forgiveness exists. A good number have
needed forgiving, and are the better for having been forgiven.

Collingwood was forgiven four times in this series. He failed with the bat again and
again. But he fielded like a demon, held some stunning catches and took a vital
wicket in the fifth Test. Now he has retired from Test cricket: 4,259 runs at 40.25, a
double hundred in Australia four years ago and some wonderful defensive innings,
particularly his 74 against Australia in Cardiff in 2009 to save the first Test.

He has also — and perhaps crucially in this series — revolutionised England’s

fielding, by personal contribution, example and informal coaching. He was
persevered with; he was trusted; he was forgiven.
In former times England cricketers who lost form were almost always dropped. They
also dropped people for questionable behaviour or unconventional attitude. They
dropped David Gower for insouciance, Geoffrey Boycott for scoring a century too
slowly and banned Ian Botham for smoking dope. They fined Phil Tufnell for
suffering a breakdown.

In those times all England cricketers knew that the priority in life was holding on to
your place. Winning matches was secondary, especially if you were having a poor
run. But the present carefully tended culture of forgiveness has allowed player after
player to concentrate on wider issues than self.

The player of the series, without question, has been Alastair Cook: 766 runs at
127.66. In the old days, he probably wouldn’t have made the tour. Cook has always
been the prodigy to whom everything came easy: the youngest Englishman to reach
1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 Test runs.

But it all got horribly difficult last summer. It wasn’t until his fifth Test that he passed
50. His technique seemed over-elaborate, self-conscious, inhibiting. He managed a
century in a losing cause against Pakistan. Not everybody agreed that it should save
him.

The England selectors trusted him, forgave him and were repaid. It is scarcely
possible to play better than Cook has in this series. A quarter-century back he’d have
spent the winter fretting and netting or going on a rebel tour to South Africa because
he no longer cared about being banned.

Andrew Strauss, the captain, knows what it is like to be forgiven. He was dropped for
the 2007 tour to Sri Lanka after a poor run, but was forgiven and brought back into
the side. He was made captain after Kevin Pietersen’s enforced resignation and has
made runs and right decisions.

Pietersen needs to be forgiven on a fairly regular basis. Many would not have
selected him in the first place because of his extravagant style, demanding nature and
failure to realise that there is an Other People element in most forms of life,
especially team sport.

But one of the basic principles of team-building is that any side can accommodate
any individual, so long as he is good enough. A team with nothing but Stakhanovite
toilers such as Collingwood would be rather limited. You need temperamental artists
as well, and you need to trust them. It is probably fair to say that without Pietersen,
England would not have won the Ashes series in 2005 and perhaps not this time
around, either: Pietersen’s innings of 227 in Adelaide was murderously brilliant.

Before the tour began, Pietersen had not scored a first-class century in 20 months. He
had been shattered by his loss of the England captaincy. But he was still trusted. He
was forgiven his failures of form and temperament and played a crucial role in the
series.

Matt Prior has always been able to bat. It is his ability to keep wicket that has been in
question. He came into the team as part of the recent England tradition of iron-gloved
goalies who could bat a bit. He was dropped for poor wicketkeeping in 2008.

But he has worked on that aspect and not only improved his technique, but vastly
improved his confidence. He scarcely missed a chance all series and took some
blinding catches, routinely diving in front of first slip to take ’em low down, as a
good wicketkeeper should. He is not looking to play safe, he is looking to play well;
and that has made all the difference. And it is precisely what the culture of
forgiveness means.

James Anderson has experienced the gamut of mistrust and unforgiveness. He came
into the England set-up in 2003 at 20, a lanky lad with talent but no presence. He
overcompensated with a purple hair-streak, bringing a magisterial rebuke from John
Woodcock in these pages: “The more he tries to look like a peacock, the more he will
bowl like one.”

He had his action remodelled by earnest coaches seeking to justify their existence and
was in and out of the side. But when the revolution came in New Zealand in 2008 and
England dropped Stephen Harmison and Matthew Hoggard, the 2005 Ashes heroes,
Anderson was at last ready. And from that point on he was trusted, not least because
at the time there was nobody much else. He went back to his original action. He was
mature, he was England’s main man. He was England’s leading wicket-taker in the
Ashes series.

Graeme Swann was got rid of by a former England coach, Duncan Fletcher, because
his attitude grated. Swann’s attitude is now at the heart of the England team: cheerful,
buoyant, hard-working, a trifle cocky, deeply confident.

True, Steven Finn was dropped after the third Test. He was taking wickets, but was
too expensive. There is no question that this was done with full assurance that Finn
was a key part of the England set-up and would remain so for a long time.

There is always a dilemma in team selection. When do you drop? Or, to put it another
way, for how long should you forgive? It is likely that Collingwood would have been
dropped if he hadn’t resigned, but the point is: on which side do you err? Do you err
by dropping too quickly or by keeping faith for too long?

The traditional England set-up erred by dropping people fast and often, the selectors
believing that ruthlessness made for a better team. The present system operates with
trust and forgiveness as the default option. They hold to the belief that it is players
that need to be ruthless, not management.
And that’s why England hold the Ashes.