There have been many post-mortems into the twitching corpse of England’s Ashes campaign, but the conclusions that have been drawn are as wide of the mark as a Stephen Harmison loosener.

The experts have blamed everything from a lack of preparedness to a lack of heart. They have pointed the finger at Duncan Fletcher (for being a selector as well as the coach) and at Andrew Flintoff (for failing to have borne the burden of captaincy). Some have even convinced themselves that “England bottled it”.

But amid this forensic subtlety, few seem to have noticed a more conspicuous culprit. Might it be that England lost because they were up against a superior cricket team, a team with craftier bowlers, sturdier batsmen and snappier fielders, a team blessed with bona fide titans such as Warne, Ponting and McGrath? The obvious response to this is to ask how England won the Ashes in 2005? The answer, however, is equally obvious: for the same reason that West Ham United, who are battling relegation from the Barclays Premiership, beat Manchester United, the leaders, last month. Bad teams beat good teams occasionally.

Let us look at the facts. Australia have been the best team in the world for a number of years. They win an impressive 75 per cent of the Tests in which they play, whether you look at the past 20, 40, 60 or 80 matches. England, on the other hand, win only about 50 per cent. This demonstrates Australia’s superiority over England in much the same way that the results from a Premiership season demonstrate Manchester United’s superiority over West Ham.

The Ashes tell the same story if one applies a modicum of perspective: over the past two series, Australia have won six times, England twice, with two draws, which is what one might expect.

The same tale is told by looking at the players. If we take the Australia top order of Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke, the batting average (ie, the average of their Test averages) is 55.88. That compares with 44.36 for the England top order, a massive difference for a sport measured in fractions.

The same gulf applies to the bowlers. The bowling average for a composite of Warne, Lee, Clark and McGrath is 24.11 compared with 31.79 for Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar.

Some might suppose that Flintoff’s batting ability would haul the batting statistics of the England lower order above that of Australia. But it does not. Flintoff’s contribution with the bat is balanced by the superior batting of Warne and Lee when compared with Harmison and Hoggard. And when you factor in the wicketkeepers, England are blown away in this department, too.

Those who believed that England’s victory in the summer of 2005 was a herald of things to come ignored every long-term indicator. They hymned Fletcher’s genius in the same exaggerated terms in which they are now castigating England and calling for the coach’s head. They could not distinguish a blip from a trend if it was set on fire and encased in an urn.

England played above themselves in 2005 and Australia played below, creating a gloriously improbable result. But for England to beat Australia over the long haul, the players would need to improve their core level by at least 15 per cent. We delude ourselves if we think that this will be delivered by better preparation, selection or attitude — or by leaving the WAGs at home. One suspects that the ECB inquest will do nothing other than rake over well-worn ground.

If England want to address their long-term inferiority to Australia, they must look beyond convenient scapegoats. But that is no longer a post-mortem; it is a debate — and one that is unlikely to be illuminated by those who lack perspective.

By comparison

75
Percentage of matches won by the Australia team against all opposition in past 60 matches

47
Percentage of matches won by the England team in past 60 matches

55.88
Test career batting average of Australia’s top order

44.36
Test career batting average of England’s top order