Fourth Test: England won by an innings and 171 runs (Australia 98 & 258, England 513). England retain the Ashes.

When I was a kid, playing out my sporting dreams in the backyard, the wins I invented for my teams fell almost entirely into two categories: either the improbable comeback or the utter, crushing dominant victory. Usually in the former, I’d miss out on the first half of the game through some contrived circumstances – a bullheaded coach or a crippling but not incapacitating injury, say, which would make my second-half return even more impressive to the imaginary crowd. In the latter, I’d take over the game from the beginning, as virtually everything went right; I’d hit two grand slams in the first inning, or pour in thirty-four points in the first half, going ten-for-ten from behind the arc and turning two steals into thundering breakaway dunks.

In real life, of course, such dominance seldom happens. That said, England’s performance in the fourth Ashes test, the traditional Boxing Day test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground that was referred to by some as the “jewel of the Australian sporting calendar” – well, for the English, that had to come close.

It’s the first time ever that Australia have lost two Tests in the same series by an innings. It’s Australia’s biggest Ashes loss since 1956. 98 was their lowest-ever score in a Test innings at Melbourne, and innings-plus-171 their worst defeat at Melbourne since 1912. By the time that Chris Tremlett bowled Ben Hilfenhaus to complete Australia’s first innings – just before bedtime on Christmas Day in America, just after teatime on Boxing Day in Australia – it already had to go down as one of the worst days for the Aussies ever.

By the time the first day ended, Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook had already gone past Australia’s total, putting on 157 without losing a wicket. On day two, Jonathan Trott put together the beginnings of what would become his match-best 168, batting until the end of England’s innings early on day three. By the time Australia got back in to bat for their second innings, they trailed by 415 runs and had no chance of winning the match and virtually no chance of drawing, either. In the end, only Shane Watson and Brad Haddin made it past 50 in either Australian innings, something Strauss, Cook, Trott, Kevin Pietersen, and Matt Prior all accomplished for England.

So that’s the Ashes retained for England – a feat they hadn’t accomplished Down Under since 1986. Since that series, England had been going south for the summer every four years and regularly getting comprehensively annihilated, so this marks a serious accomplishment for the “Poms,” as the Australian media calls the English. They’ll now head to the fifth test in Sydney, looking to win the series with a win or a draw there.

I’m no analyst, but here’s what I know: if England and Australia got together and chose up sides, based entirely on performances this series, almost all of the first-string players would be English. Let’s say you’re picking the teams as follows: two opening batsmen, four middle-order batsmen, a wicketkeeper, three fast bowlers, and a spin bowler.

Your opening batsmen would probably be Cook, and either Watson or Strauss. The former averaged more runs than Strauss and made two more half-centuries, but also factored in a couple of silly run-outs suffered by the Aussies. Plus if the team needs a captain, Strauss is your choice by far.

Your middle-order batsmen would be Trott, Australian Michael Hussey (probably the lone bright spot for Australia so far), then Pietersen and Ian Bell, who batted at number 6 for England, occasionally too late to have much impact.

You could make an argument for either wicketkeeper, and I won’t try to distinguish between them. The Australian announcers could not stop raving about Matt Prior’s keeping for England, and he did seem to get to absolutely everything; when he screwed up on the final day of the Melbourne test, dropping an easy opportunity, it seemed unbelievable. On the other hand, Brad Haddin was Australia’s second-best batsman, and scored far more runs than Prior.

Your spin bowler would be Graeme Swann from England, and there’s no argument at all for even a minute, mostly because Australia’s Xavier Doherty was so bad in the first two Tests that Australia gave up on spin bowling entirely in the next two and just picked four fast bowlers.

And your fast bowlers would be James Anderson from England, and then probably one of Chris Tremlett or Tim Bresnan or Steven Finn from England, and then you can argue about whether you want one of the other two or Australia’s Peter Siddle.

So that’s what, four Aussies out of eleven, if we’re very generous? And a serious argument that the only way England could have improved the team would be by trading Paul Collingwood for Hussey?

When I type it out this way, the only surprising thing is really that Australia won a Test at all. Of course, they’ll probably win by 350 runs at Sydney, draw the series but lose the Ashes, and make all of this look silly.