Eoin Morgan insisted England's batsmen cost themselves the Tri-Series final rather than the return of their tormentor Mitchell Johnson.
Johnson was making his first appearance of 2015 and immediately turned back the clock to last winter's Ashes whitewash, where he was man of the series with 37 wickets.
This time he claimed three scalps, taking out James Taylor, Moeen Ali and Morgan in the space of 10 balls as England slumped to 166 all out and a 112-run defeat.
With most of the current one-day squad not involved during the previous Ashes, the idea of mental scarring is a red herring, but Morgan's suggestion that England had not given any special thought to facing Johnson rang hollow.
"I think it probably could have been anybody bowling," said Morgan, who was bowled offering no stroke by the 33-year-old.
"I don't think he swung it. We must have put ourselves under pressure. I don't know why we performed like this."
Morgan was eager to present a counter-narrative after Australia continued their winning run against the tourists.
They have now won all three meetings in the Tri-Series, underlining the dominance they established in 2013-14.
The sides next face off on February 14 in the World Cup, but Morgan insists it is Australia who go into that match with most to lose.
"I think the pressure builds on Australia from that perspective," he said.
"They're a home side playing against a dangerous side. We're going out all guns blazing, there's no pressure from our point of view."
Australia all-rounder Glenn Maxwell, who top-scored with 95 and picked up four for 46 with his pick-and-mix off-spin, was baffled by Morgan's comments.
Put to him that England had apparently been unconcerned about Johnson's efforts he said: "They should be... he had three for 11 at one stage and tore through their top order."
England coach Peter Moores echoed Morgan in his appraisal of the batting.
"Obviously today we didn't play well enough," he said.
"We just didn't bat well enough and we got the best of the pitch as well. A top score of 33 (from Ravi Bopara) just isn't good enough."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article