Rain 'Saves' England

Rain caused the first T20I against Australia to be abandoned yesterday, just seven balls into the England run chase. Having restricted the Aussies to 145 - one over the par score at Old Trafford this season - England were 4-2 when the heavens opened - prompting "Lucky England Saved By Rain" headlines today.

Losing Bopara and Denly so early did represent a poor start, but such a thing is fairly common in T20, and, given the depth of the batting, a full recovery would have been a distinct possibility. Hopefully they will get another chance tomorrow.

The bowling was decent, with only Cameron White looking settled at the crease. The death-bowling duo of Broad and Sidebottom kept their cool admirably. But the fielding could have been better, with Wright and Denly uncharacteristically shelling catches.

It has emerged that Paul Collingwood doesn't know whether he will continue as T20 captain beyond tomorrow's game, but would welcome the chance to lead the side at the next World T20. A decision must be made as soon as possible.

Vaughan's England Blueprint

Under the sub-headline, "Mission: win the Ashes in Australia", Michael Vaughan offers his England blueprint for success in an interview with Scyld Berry in today's Sunday Telegraph.

He has interesting views regarding the make-up of the team, championing a three, four, five of KP - "because your best player should bat there" - Bell and Trott. He wants England to stick with Alastair Cook, introduce Rashid at number eight and take Bopara to South Africa. When pressed on bowling names he lists Broad, Anderson, Onions, Harmison and Plunkett as potential dangermen for the winter tour, and Chris Woakes and Steve Finn as ones for the future.

Sound as these comments are, Flower, Strauss and the selectors have given us plenty of reason to trust their current thinking regarding selection policy. One day, Vaughan may well find himself part of that process, but for now, this interview represents no more than the informed view of an interested bystander. Where one wishes Vaughan had a more hands-on role, is with regard to his comments relating to the structure of the English game.

Michael Vaughan is a universally liked and respected figure. He was an England weapon as a batsman and captain, and, despite recent retirement, could still be now - if only the ECB could find some sort of consultancy role for him. Even reading his newspaper column would be a start.

Vaughan is acutely aware of the fixture congestion faced by international cricketers today, and laments the lack of resting opportunities: "The players are going to get niggles in the next few weeks [during the upcoming T20I and ODI series' against Australia] and we wont go to the Champions Trophy with our best team in the best shape. It will be another tournament where we don't give ourselves the best chance of winning."

Vaughan understands the needs and necessities of both the county and international games. He excercised logic and diplomacy on the pitch, and could bring the same to an administrative role. He knows only too well that Ashes success can be wasted as a platform on which to build, and is perfectly placed to help avoid mistakes being made this time around.

Berry goes on to quote the Schofield Report, commissioned two years ago by the ECB. In the light of the recent decision to ditch 50-over domestic cricket, it makes damning reading: "The First Class Counties' One Day programme should mirror, wherever possible, the current ICC competition rules, regulations and formats. A reduction in the amount of cricket played at domestic First Class level county championship games played is essential in order to alleviate fixture congestion and allow for better preparation of the players. The domestic programme must aspire to quality and not simply to quantity and the 40-over discipline may be deemed surplus to proper requirement."

Vaughan's reaction? "It's just greed."

Denly Targets Opening Berth

Having made a promising start to his international career on Thursday by top-scoring against Ireland, Joe Denly has been enjoying some positive press attention. His score of 67 enabled England to post a just about competitive 203, though rain reduced the Ireland chase to 116 from 20 overs. They fell three runs short, despite the match again highlighting D+L's inability to manufacture a fair reduced target in heavily rain-affected games - something England discovered against the West Indies in the World T20.

The Telegraph described England as "underwhelming", which they were, but such games against the Associate Nations are essentially no win (defeat leading to heavy criticism, victory seen as no more than expected). After posting a sub-par score (only two batsmen achieved strike-rates of above 100), England did well to contain the Irish batsmen, who at one point needed just 57 from 12 overs - but not much can be read into most aspects of the performance. After all, Owais Shah claimed three wickets in as many overs with his part-time offbreaks.

However, Denly was able to make an impression, rising above the mediocrity to play an innings described by The Telegraph as "probably England's best performance by a new boy since Marcus Trescothick announced his arrival against Zimbabwe nearly a decade ago."

Nick Hoult's report went into further detail, and included another flattering comparison: "Only one England player truly coped. Joe Denly provided encouragement for the future with an innings of patient accumulation worth 67 off 111 balls. Tall and an elegant driver of the ball, there is a passing resemblance to Michael Vaughan and Denly made a strong case for keeping his place when Andrew Strauss returns for the one-day series against Australia."

No doubt mindful of Alastair Cook's quiet Ashes series, this successful first taste of international action has prompted Denly to target a place in the Test team.

Moving On: Lessons From 2005

Having spent the last few months trying to replicate the summer of 2005 on and off the pitch, we now want things to head in a very different direction. And if the immediate post-victory signs are anything to go by, they will.

Sunday's scenes from the Oval may have been comparable with four years ago, but the after-party and player and press talk have been anything but. The 2005 Ashes was one of the greatest series ever played; an excellent England team peaked to beat an almighty Australian one. In a way, it was too good. The fans were left wondering if they'd ever witness cricket of such excitement and quality again; the players were left wondering if they'd ever play so well again.

Of course, as a team, and for many, as individuals, they didn't. The class of 2005 partied hard - and in hindsight thank goodness they did revel in their most glorious moment - before failing to trump it, or even adequately build on it - winning only one of their next four series before the chastening experience that was the Ashes tour 06-07.

This year is different. There has been considerably less partying, the opposition were not the greatest side in the world, and the gulf between the two sides was small. No England players, except Andrew Strauss, will be left wondering if they can better themselves, or worrying that they've peaked.

Strauss surely has; Ashes winning captain, series leading run-scorer and Man of the Series. It doesn't get any better. But he will be excited about his team improving to an extent where they don't rely on him as much as they did this series.

The immediate challenge for the Test side, is South Africa this winter. This is key. Not only does it provide an opportunity to build on Ashes success by targeting a series win against probably the best side in the world, but it represents their biggest challenge between now and the next Ashes, with Bangladesh (twice) and Pakistan being England's only other Test opposition in that time.

Michael Vaughan knows what lies ahead better than anyone, having been in Strauss's position four years ago. In Tuesday's Telegraph he wrote, "When we win, we have to focus on winning again. When we score a hundred, the next step must be to score another hundred. Never relax and revel in the glory of winning. Whatever [the players] did between Headingley and the Oval was perfect: we must adopt that attitude every week."

There was a rueful undercurrent to Vaughan's piece - he knows all that now, but was unable to implement it then. This Ashes win was excellent and must be used as a starting point on which to base Vaughan's vision. Crucially, Flower and Strauss are better placed to make that happen than Fletcher and Vaughan were four years ago.

Maybe 2005's greatest legacy will turn out to be a revised and improved approach to the all-important what happened next phase.

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.

Ashes Victory: Press Reaction

The reaction of Monday's Press to England's epic series win:

The Times - Headline: "England's moment of triumph"

Mike Atherton focussed on the England captain, saying, "Strauss had taken on the England captaincy after a period of turmoil under Kevin Pietersen and Peter Moores and, now, only eight months later, was enjoying what he will surely look back upon as his proudest moment as a cricketer: winning the Ashes as a player is one thing; winning them as captain, quite another. The Ashes is the biggest Test of an England cricketer, captaining in the Ashes the biggest test of character and temperament of them all. And what a job he has done."

Simon Barnes captured the fans' mood in typically lyrical fashion, describing Flintoff's run-out of Ponting thus: "First Ponting hesitated at the non-strikers end before setting out: Andrew Flintoff - a muted figure for most of this final Test - gathered the ball, swung the mighty shoulders and brought off a direct hit. Ah, that Freddie should live to see such a day, emulating no lesser cricketer than the great Gary Pratt."

Gideon Haigh focussed on how the defeat will affect Ponting's captaincy, recalling a famous quote by Kim Hughes after losing the 1981 Ashes: "'Reckon me Mum and Dad'll still talk to me. And me wife. But who else?'" Haigh concluded that "the reality is that the captaincy is his for as long as Ponting deigns it. For all his merits, Michael Clarke cannot captain Australia from No 5; no other batsman is remotely equipped to succeed Ponting at No 3. The difference between Kim Hughes and Ponting, moreover, is that the cap on Hughes never quite fitted, where the cap on Ponting's head is faded, battered, very proudly sported and universally respected."

Shane Warne congratulated England and lamented Australia's decision to omit a front-line spinner. On Stuart Broad he said, "He's really grown up over the past week. The good thing was the way he concentrated on line and length, which is what you want from that third-seamer role." He also singled out Trott for praise, noting his admirable ability to handle pressure.

The Guardian - "England back in paradise"

Vic Marks observed a changing of the guard as Flintoff departed the Test arena. "His was such a dignified exit, avoiding all the traps that were highlighted when he announced his retirement before the Lord's Test. Yesterday was more about the Ashes regained than Flintoff retired. He looked on while those younger and fitter than him did the job. He was content in that role. But he had to intervene once, just the once to leave us a reminder."

Paul Hayward suggested that "only in Ashes cricket, probably, could a team lose by an innings and 80 runs in Leeds and then recover to dominate a Test which Australia needed only to draw." He also noted that, impressively, England "won this series with their finest all-rounder on one leg and their best batsman (Kevin Pietersen) on no legs at all."

The Telegraph - "Ashes Wonderland"

Derek Pringle's match report sat below a sub-headline reading, "Strauss and Flower can move forward with confidence after distant wish become reality." He decided, "On balance, England deserved their 2-1 win. Their captain, Andrew Strauss, top-scored in the series and while they may have trailed Australia in the leading wicket takers, they possessed the stronger bowling attack and in Test cricket that prevails more often than having the stronger batting line-up."

Simon Hughes agreed that England's bowlers were the "decisive factor". He wrote, "Twice England took twenty wickets in a match. Australia achieved [this] only once, at Headingley. They managed only tow five-wicket hauls in the series, England had four. Wickets work better when they come in clusters."

In today's Telegraph, Michael Vaughan warned that England must "stay focussed and ensure the winning habit remains for the long term". He expanded by saying, "It will be Flower's job, with help from Strauss, to keep the guys focused and fresh. Before he became team director, Flower was never really able to fully express himself as coach. But it is clear from speaking to all players that they rate him highly. He is very 'chilled': he knows the direction he wants to take the team and is guiding them in a professional manner."

The Mirror - "Arise Sir Freddie"

Sir Ian Botham wrote an upbeat piece predicting "the dawn of a great new era for England". He said, "The result is enormous for English cricket and I really feel it can be the start of something special and not the end like 2005 turned out to be." He ended with the following praise for Flintoff: "For what you've done, for the man you are and for the friend you've been and will continue to be - thank you, Fred."

Ashes Victory: Web Reaction

Excitement and reaction to England's win is rife across web, nowhere more so than on the BBC website. One of their most emotive features is the audio commentary of all ten final day Australian wickets. The crowd match and surpass football ground decibels as Aggers and CMJ reach dangerous levels of excitement.

There's also immediate reaction from man of the match Stuart Broad, and morning-after thoughts from retiring hero Freddie Flintoff. Elsewhere, there's an analysis of the series, a media round-up, an account of that historic final day, player ratings for the series and Justin Langer calling for Strauss to be knighted.

Cricinfo provide a typically high class report of the day. Andrew Miller examines captain Strauss's monumental impact on the series and Andy Zaltzman points out, in a way that only he can, that England won despite averaging 6.49 runs per wicket less than Australia - the biggest deficit ever overcome to win a Test series.

Patrick Kidd offers his stat-fuelled take on how England regained the urn on his excellent Line and Length blog, but Charlie Randall gives his rather more sobering reaction to England's success - in which he claims that the "selectors had a poor series". Over on Cricket-blog, JC has recorded some typically humorous and Australian observations, while further Aussie reaction is provided by The Wisden Cricketer with a round-up from the Australian press.

Ashes Regained!

Unbelievable. England have won the 2009 Ashes, 2-1, following victory at the Oval by 197 runs. At 5:49, in the early evening light, a Graeme Swann delivery flicked off the bat and pad of Mike Hussey and nestled in the hands of Alastair Cook. Now the Ashes are back in English hands.

The cricket may not have quite matched the quality of 2005, but the scenes from the Oval today and the winning feeling are every bit as good. 2005 banished two decades of hurt, now 2009 has all but banished painful memories of the whitewash down under in 06-07.

This was a fantastic effort by the England team. To bounce back from off-pitch chaos and disappointing defeat in the Caribbean at the start of the year - not to mention on-pitch chaos and disappointing defeat only two weeks ago at Headingley - represents a remarkable achievement.

An Ashes win is the pinnacle of an England cricketer's career. Strauss and his men have deservedly triumphed after two months of the most hard and intense cricket they will ever play. They must make sure that 2009 is the start of something, not, as in 2005, the culmination.

For England, the series was not littered with outstanding individual performances - that can be worked on and improved in the future. What is less easy to manufacture, is character. No worries there; this England team have got it in spades.

Anderson Breaks His Duck

One of Test Crickets few certainties was brought to an end today. As Jimmy Anderson strides out to bat, cricket commentators around the world immediately reach for the stat revealing his ever expanding record of Test innings without a duck.

But, when Ben Hilfenhaus trapped him lbw early this morning, Anderson was out without scoring for the first time in 54 innings - a remarkable record for a man with a Test high score of 34 and an average of 14.20 - and one of Test cricket's greatest anomalies finally came to an end.

This Is It

It's time. Time to find out how good this England team really is. Time for a thorough examination of character and skill. Time to determine where the real England lie on the scale spanning the highs of Lord's and the lows of Headingley.

Flintoff has described it as the biggest Test he'll ever play in, and it will certainly be his last. Let's hope he gets the dream send-off.

T20 Squad Reaction

The selectors have drawn the following conclusions from the World T20 in June; they've dropped Mascarenhas, Key, Foster and Napier, and called up Trott, Prior, Denly and Bresnan for the upcoming games against Australia. Flintoff returns from injury, whilst KP has succumbed to it.

I think they've got all four of the form-related changes right. Mascarenhas has never done much wrong for England, but it could be argued he hasn't quite done enough right since his debut two summers ago.

It would be unfair to judge Key on his sole World T20 appearance - the ill-fated tournament opener against the Netherlands - and with a career T20 average just shy of 30 and captaincy credentials he deserves his place on the selectors radar. But in a way, despite being capped just once in the format, he is synonymous with England - good, but not quite good enough.

Foster was a success at the World T20 in keeping terms, but was one of a band of middle order hitters who came up short. At the time I felt there was a case for including him and Prior (as a batsman), but the latter's glovework in the two months since suggests England can dispense with Foster.

England's unwillingness to use Napier probably says it all. Certainly one to monitor - as anyone capable of scoring a 20 over 150 should be - but so far he's failed to convince that that innings wasn't a one-off.

Denly Named In Champions Trophy Squad

Joe Denly is the only new face in England's 15 man Champions Trophy squad, and a welcome inclusion. Andrew Strauss will lead the team, who will take on the Australians in seven ODIs before heading to the tournament in South Africa next month. KP misses out through injury, and Mascarenhas has been dropped.

Collingwood keeps the captaincy - in the absence of Strauss - for the forthcoming T20 internationals against Australia, and Denly and Test new-boy Trott have been included.

Only one new face puts paid to the significant changes I was hoping for, and I'd love to have seen Michael Lumb make the cut, but Bresnan, Rashid and Morgan are largely untried at this level, so hopefully they'll get a chance to impress. Overall, there is potential for fielding a relatively new-look team, which, given the lack of consistency of the current side and the relatively unimportant nature of the Champions trophy, is what I hope the management go with.

ODI series v Australia and Champions Trophy

Strauss (capt)

Anderson

Bopara

Bresnan

Broad

Collingwood

Denly

Flintoff

Morgan

Prior

Rashid

Shah

Sidebottom

Swann

Wright

T20 Squad v Australia

Same, minus Strauss and plus Trott.

Bopara Out, Trott and Panesar In

So Jonathan Trott will make his Test debut in England's most important match for four years. Nothing like a baptism of fire.

Harmison and Sidebottom are also included, so the decisions left to be made now concern the composition of the bowling line-up.

The selectors are closer to the action than we are, and have presumably decided that Bopara is mentally shot. Assuming that's the case, he had to step aside, with Key, Trott and Ramprakash all touted as replacements.

All have been in good form. An extra argument for Ramps seemed to be his knowledge of the Oval pitch. Whilst I can see the merit in the odd horses-for-courses selection in the bowling department, it doesn't say much for the talent available to England if they're picking specific batsmen on a renowned flat track. All three should be capable of making runs at the Oval.

Key would have been my choice given his Test experience, favourable temperament and the crucial fact that he could slot in at three without any fuss. The main problem with Trott's inclusion is it will push Bell up to three, where he averages 31 with no hundreds. Still, there wasn't much in it, and Trott seems capable of making the mental step up. Good luck to him.

Now to the bowling. Surrey manager Chris Adams suggests playing two spinners, and there would be a nice symmetry to a summer beginning and ending with Panesar heroics. But I can't see it happening. It says it all that the Panesar heroics of Cardiff concerned his batting. He's in the team as a spin bowler, but he hasn't taken more than four wickets in a Test in his last ten appearances. He's had a flat season and lacks spark and invention. Cardiff aside, he fails to offer the all-round package of a Swann or Rashid.

I would have included Rashid and seriously considered playing him. Sure, he's unknown at this level, but Panesar being the opposite is his problem - he's become predictable and easy to play. Rashid at least has form with the bat against the Aussies this summer. Then again, so does Panesar. Crazy world.

Twenty20 Finals Day

Much like the game of cricket itself, we English invented Twenty20, only to sit back and watch a host of other nations surpass us. Since the first domestic Twenty20 Finals Day - in 2003 - two World Cups have been staged, and England have failed to make it as far as the semi-final on both occasions. More galling for the ECB has been the advent of the IPL, which, in terms of domestic competitions, has blown their own competition out of the water. A problem for the England team has been their limited participation in the event; a smattering of players in 2009, none at all in 2008. Other major nations have benefitted from their players' involvement in the IPL, which provides an atmosphere comparable to that of a World Cup.

So to the ECB's showpiece today; four teams, 120 overs, a packed Edgbaston and a television audience. A number of England players and hopefuls were on display, all knowing there's no better occasion to state an international claim. Here's how they got on:

Northamptonshire (lost first semi-final)

Panesar - Not really his format of the game, not really his season, but he did well today in bowling three overs for just 12 runs. However, Northants were flat and needed more. Has only ever played one international T20, and his form in this year's competition suggests he is no higher than third choice spinner, if that. No chance to repeat Cardiff batting heroics.

Kent (lost second semi-final)

Key - At home in this format of the game, making 34 from 38. Top scored for his team in last year's final.

Denly - Only lasted two balls before being clean bowled. Was top scorer in last years competition.

Khan, Amjad - His one over went for 16. His Test debut in March seems a long time ago.

Somerset (lost the final)

Hildreth - Run-a-ball 36 in the semi, but failed in the final. Has good figures, but the Taunton pitch will always count against him. Gradually improving consistency should ensure him a spot on the England radar.

Kieswetter - A future England international, but didn't get a chance to prove why with the bat in the semi, and failed in the final. 'Kept well and claimed the stumping of man-of-the-match Smith.

Trego - Says he has England aspirations and demonstrated his destructive qualities with the bat with 27 from 14 balls in the final. Bowled reasonably, but a career T20 economy rate in excess of eight means there are plenty above him in the queue for the Mascarenhas role.

Sussex (winners)

Wright - Decent, but not the fireworks we know he's capable of. Scored 18 and 20 and took a wicket in the final. Now needs to kick on as an limited-overs international, and should be given game time in which to do so.

Hamilton-Brown - Contributed well all day. Scored 29 and 25 batting at three, and claimed a wicket in his sole over of offspin in the final. At 21 there's no need to rush him in, but international cricket should be a question of when rather than if.

Yardy - Shouldn't be discounted by England in limited-overs cricket. Followed up his unbeaten 92 in the Friends Provident Trophy Final with a tidy bowling display. His four overs in the final went for 17.

Joyce - Quiet day, but, on this season's form, he seems to have improved since his last international appearance in 2007.

The Langer Dossier

Here it is in full, and here's some reaction to selected highlights:

On England: "English players rarely believe in themselves. Many of them will stare a lot but this is very shallow... They will retreat very quickly."

Traditionally it is hard to argue with this assessment, but it must be remembered that, 2005 aside, Langer played in a number of extremely one-sided Ashes series, including some of England's darkest days in the 90s. Also, he will have encountered much mediocrity since his association with county cricket began in the early 90s. I would also argue that things began to change on this front in around 2004, when the performances of Flintoff, Harmison and KP adopted something of a swagger and Fletcher's England began to gell in a serious way. With the nucleus of that team now disbanded, they could currently be building their second significant team of the decade. The reason for my optimism? The character of the newcomers - Broad, Swann and Bopara. Quality-wise, it remains to be seen how far they can go, but in terms of temperament I believe they compare favourably with their predecessors, and could end up banishing Langer's assertion once and for all.

On James Anderson: "He is swing [sic] the ball well but again can be a bit of a pussy if he is worn down."

I think he's describing Jimmy Anderson mark 1 here. His second coming, since coaches have stopped mucking around with his action, has seen him turn from a promising but confused youngster into one of the world's best swing bowlers, and one worthy of leading the attack. The maturity of his performances in the Caribbean confirmed his new status, even if the stats don't always. There's still room for him to improve on flat pitches, but his rate of improvement suggests he will.

On Ravi Bopara: "He is a bit of a street fighter who is sure to wind the boys up by his strutting around... I would leave him alone and just bowl at him rather than letting our egos take away our focus."

Langer is actually complementary about Ravi in the email, calling him a "good player". Obviously the Australians have got to him with the ball this series, but I actually think Langer's comments are positive - he clearly sees something in Bopara if he's worried the Aussies could lose focus by concentrating too much on trying to out-psyche him.

On Matt Prior: "I would chip away at him about his wicketkeeping... I am not sure he actually likes keeping that much and from all accounts he has a massive ego."

Well, whether they have done that or not is irrelevant - for me Prior has been the individual success story of the series for England. Langer's referring to how close Prior came to giving up the gloves and concentrating on an international future with the bat alone, and he's right in that there was a massive question-mark concerning his keeping even directly prior to the Cardiff Test. But, he's been brilliant with the gloves and as good as ever with the bat.

Also, on the ego issue, surely that's no bad thing? It's something he levels at Swann, Prior and Ravi (presumably it's too obvious with KP) but seems to contradict his ideas about English players' lack of belief. I'd take big egos any day - a swagger and a few choice words are exactly what we need to compete with the likes of Australia, and if that turns out being one of Pietersen's many legacies, then that's no bad thing.

If Only England Had A Langer

Due to its timing, this whole episode caused quite a storm. I imagine that was media intended - that they waited on publishing the dossier until England either lost - thus proving Langer's points - or regained the Ashes - thus dismissing them.

There are three important points to be made:

• There is absolutely no problem with what Langer did, and I hope an Englishman in the same position would do the same.
• Many of his points are valid.
• Wouldn't it be great if England had ex-players with similar amounts of Ashes and Australian domestic cricket experience. Having played copious quantities of county cricket, not to mention more than a decade at the top of the international game, there is no one better qualified than him to pass judgement on our game. We don't have an equivalent - the closest I can think of being Graham Thorpe, his credentials being 16 Ashes Tests and a stint as a coach at New South Wales.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Bopara?

If there were selection issues before the the innings and 80 runs defeat at Headingley, they've doubled in two and a half days - and that's just the batting. The bowling will become clearer with concrete news about Flintoff's fitness - which looks promising - but for now, here's what the experts would do with the top order at the Oval:

Steve James (The Sunday Telegraph) - No change. Keep Bopara at three and Bell at four. He is against Trott making his debut in such a crucial game - quoting advice that England psychologist Steve Bull gave him before his second Test cap: "Your first Test was for acclimatisation, the second is for performance."

Scyld Berry (The Sunday Telegraph) - Drop Bopara down the order and bring in Ramprakash at three. About Trott he writes: "His being next in line as a middle-order batsman is no commendation of the rest of the field."

David Gower (The Sunday Times) - Axe Bopara and Bell and bring in Key at three and Trott at four. About Robert Key he writes: I like the way he plays and believe he would respond well to the chance to play a part, even if there might be a feeling that it could be a one-off situation."

David Lloyd (The Guardian) - "If Rob Key comes in, I'd move Ravi Bopara down to number four and maybe look at leaving out Ian Bell." He is more clear cut about the bowling, saying Harmison should retain his place and that England must play two spinners.

Graham Thorpe (BBC) - Push Bopara down the order and bring in Key for Bell.

Trott will be given a chance to impress the selectors on Saturday, when he plays for the England Lions against Australia.

The Philosophical Approach

That's what I'm adopting after another horror show for England.

Bad days and bad Test matches are nothing new, but a match containing so few crumbs of comfort is rare, even for England. In fact, Stuart Broad's figures of 6-91 are the sole positive aspect of the past two days play. But, Test cricket is prone to over-reaction, and just like many of us got carried away after Lord's - reading too much in to one fine win - it would be easy to do so here. After all, six days ago we woke up with a genuine belief that one more good day from England would see the Ashes home at Edgbaston.

Most people are forgetting two important things:

• There is a decent sized break between Headingley and the Oval - even bigger given the quick nature of our capitulation here. Test cricket is a wrestle for momentum, and the longer England have to regroup, the more chance they have of negating Australia's current advantage.
• If England win the next Test, they win the Ashes. Australia have been brilliant here, but in Tests two and three they showed themselves capable of ordinary cricket. England wont bat and bowl that badly again.

England chose the most unforgiving of Test grounds on which to bat and bowl abysmally during the same match. Add an excellent Australian display to the mix, and you have a recipe for the sort of disaster we have witnessed here.

But I grew up during the 90s, so to watch a young and largely inexperienced England team approach the final Ashes Test knowing a win will be enough, is the sort of scenario I used to dream of. The 2005 series skewed our outlook and expectations a bit - it was the pinnacle of Vaughan and Fletcher's England, but this is Strauss and Flower's. Sure the Aussies are rebuilding, but so are we. Winning the next Test would be a great start.

What England Could Learn from Marcus North

In terms of talent, not much separates Marcus North, Ravi Bopara and Ian Bell. Indeed, convincing arguments could be made that the Englishmen edge it. But it's the Australian who has worked out how to play a Test innings. While Bopara and Bell offer style over substance, North favours the latter, and in doing so offers both.

A look at the stats reveals North pays almost obsessive consideration to a shot that Bopara probably doesn't consider worthy of the name - the leave. His 125 at Cardiff comprised only 69 scoring shots and included a mammoth 173 dot balls. And why not? This is Test cricket, and not so long ago such stats were the norm.

North has form in this area. His 117 on debut against South Africa included 65 scoring shots and 168 dot balls. That Bopara and Bell take pride in aesthetics is no bad thing, but both must learn to prize their wicket above all else.

Bopara's 18 in the first innings at Lord's was scored at a strike-rate of 94.73, until he got carried away and fell lbw. There is a time and a place for such batting in Tests, but that role rarely falls to a number three batsman.

Clearly Bopara likes to score quickly, which made his two hundreds against the West Indies earlier this summer all the more pleasing - because they were scored at strike-rates of 50.35 and 51.92. The first of those innings included 204 dot balls. So he can do it.

For all the good temperament shown on those occasions, he was dropped a number of times by sloppy West Indian fielders. This is something else he must work on - 50 per cent of his Test dismissals (7/14) have been caught, and only once by the wicket-keeper. This suggests an abundance of unnecessary shots - too risky an approach to Test cricket, especially against quality opposition. Time to rediscover the art of the 'leave'.

Headingley Day One: Analysis

So, what prompted the eleven mug-shot-style photos of anguished England batsmen on the front of the Telegraph today? Are Australia that much better than us, or was it just one of those days (x 100)?

Well, yesterday they were that much better than us, and it certainly had the feel of one of those days. I had no problem with us choosing to bat - Ponting would have done the same - but the locals feared the worst at that point. There were plenty of "typical Headingley morning" comments flying around, and it was clear early on that batting would be tough. Shouldn't have been that hard though. Australia bowled exceptionally well, but it was never a first innings 102 pitch.

• England's batsmen are still slipping in and out of 'Test mode'. Marcus North was still on three after more than an hour at the crease. Not thrilling, but there's a lesson there for Ravi and co. Bopara in particular got out to another ball he simply didn't need to play at. England's batsmen need to start valuing their wicket above all else.
• The bowlers failed to learn from both the tourists' performance and their superior Headingley experience and came out looking for glory balls straight away. That's not how Clark and Siddle got their success. Far too much short stuff, and no where near enough full and straight. Broad was much improved, and, in their defence, Anderson had a niggle and they can't have been expecting to turn their arms over at 2:30 on the first afternoon.

Of the two disciplines, the batting was the most disappointing - leaving the bowlers with a thankless task. It struck me that in 2005, the Tests were more spaced out - allowing the players the chance to return to their counties for the odd day of out-of-the-spotlight batting. Tresco, Flintoff, Bell and KP all returned to the less pressurised confines of county cricket which provided them with a change of scenery and time in the middle. Poor old Ravi has been stuck in a rut of low scores this series (35, 1, 18, 27, 23 and 1) and would have really benefitted from a brief return to Essex and a confidence boosting innings. Unfortunately, due to two Test series and a World Cup he has not been afforded the luxury enjoyed by Vaughan's top order four years ago.

The way things are going, an optimist would recall this Test from 1981. A realist wouldn't bother.

England Reeling...

Well, we've had the rub of the green up until now, but today has been an almost comically tragic catalogue of catastrophes, starting at 4:50 this morning:

• The England players are woken by their hotel fire alarm, forcing them onto the early morning streets of Leeds.
• Flintoff ruled out of Test at 9:00am.
• At 10:00 am Matt Prior experiences back spasms while warming up playing football, and looks a major doubt at one stage.
• England elect to bat. This is not a criticism - it was a positive and brave decision - but Tuffers called it on TMS when claiming it's "a good toss to lose".
• 2.22 pm - England all out for 102, in 33.5 overs.
• Australia end the day on 196-4. England bowl badly and Anderson is clearly struggling with fitness.

Ouch.

Sydney Morning Herald Welcomes Trott

Here's the amusingly over-the-top Australian reaction to the possible inclusion of Jonathan Trott in tomorrow's Test team. They don't seem happy about it.

Trott is, to all intents and purposes, South African, and I can't say that fact sits easily with me. But it's never bothered me about KP, who, after all does have genuine English pedigree through his mother and was forced in that direction by the ridiculous system he encountered in South Africa.

But the journalist is way off the mark in trying to pass off Matt Prior and Andrew Strauss as South African. Both were born there, but Strauss moved to England aged six, and Prior aged 11. They received the vast majority of their cricketing education on these shores, not to mention the shaping of their personal development.

As well as having some problem with Flower being a foreign coach - which is neither disallowed nor a new thing for England - the other names mentioned in the article are possible future internationals Craig Kieswetter and Ryan McLaren. The McLaren case underlines the problem with Kolpaks - he was forced to withdraw from a South African ODI squad last year. I'm not sure what the latest is, but I haven't heard him linked with England recently. It's fair to say there are English born and bred players above him in the pecking order.

21-year-old Kieswetter is Matt Prior's natural successor, and is destined to be some player. But England can claim an element of credit for that; having grown up in South Africa he was sent to Millfield School, in Somerset.

It's nice of the SMH to take such an interest in our affairs, but the message conveyed in this article - that in England there's a massive dearth of home-grown talent and a national team full of foreigners - is simply not true.

1953 And All That

The 2009 Ashes has matched the 2005 series for national fervour, but fallen understandably short in terms of quality and sheer drama. At last people are starting to view the events of four years ago as once-in-a-generation stuff.

This series is comparable to the 1-0 victory England achieved in 1953 - ending a more than twenty year wait for the urn. This was a summer drama, but of the bad weather and draws too. Sound familiar?

In truth, England stumbled through, peaking at just the right time to tilt the scoreline in their favour. The second Test (at Lord's) had a definite Cardiff feeling about it - with Bill Bowes writing in The Cricketer that the final day defence of the England batsmen "brought a draw as glorious as any victory". England started that final day at 20-3, and finished on 282-7 with Bowes suggesting that "perhaps in the very impossibility of [a win] there was a mental ease for the batsmen."

More exceptional survival cricket from England in the fourth Test secured another draw - the fourth in a row. Keith Miller starred again for the tourists. I wish I'd seen him play - he strikes me as being like KP in character, though more appreciated.

And so to the Oval, where England won by eight wickets to take the series 1-0. Not that Bowes got carried away. He wrote the next month in The Cricketer that "satisfaction in the result must not blind us to the need to build strongly."

The same will certainly be true this time round if England are to regain the Ashes once more.

Decisions, decisions...

Given the way Flintoff's fitness waned badly at Edgbaston, and having just seen Sky images of him bowling today in the Headingley nets, I don't rate his chances of being fit for tomorrow. This is a huge game and will quite possibly decide the series - full five-day fitness is clearly key. Even Flintoff is not worth a risk, and the selectors must remember that despite his Edgbaston batting heroics, he's mainly there for his bowling. I don't think he'll be as big a miss as KP, though it does pose problems in terms of balance.

There was a time - not long ago - when an often injured Flintoff's absence actually improved the balance of the England team. Right now, given his recntly improved batting, Broad's emergence and Prior's form at six, that is not the case. There are a number of possible combinations involving the three squad extras; Harmison, Sidebottom and Trott.

I would keep the changes to a minimum and swap him for one of the bowlers. Sure, that weakens the batting, but our lower order is not that of years gone by, and Swann, Broad and co can cope with a one place promotion. I'd pick Sidebottom given that he's a fine exponent of our greatest weapon against these Aussies. That deprives England of a hit-the-deck bowler, but as long as the Headingley pitch lives up to its swing-receptive reputation, I don't see that as a problem. Except that according to Matthew Hoggard, that's a big if. Still, Sidebottom has the local knowledge and has never let England down. The same cannot be said of Harmison.

Broad must keep his place, and not just because he strengthens a weakened batting line-up. He's a quality bowler and better than he's shown at times this series. He's learning all the time and is commendably unafraid to take the fight to the Aussies. He could do with a bit more guidance as to what his specific role is within this bowling attack.

I would also continue with Bopara and Bell, although two failures here by Ravi should open the door for Trott at the Oval. There, big scores and batting time on a good pitch are likely to be the order of the day - especially if the score is still 1-0 - and if Bopara still hasn't played an innings of substance since early summer by then, then Trott should come in, because he undoubtedly has.

England will decide on Flintoff in the morning.

Third Test Drawn

This Test merely underlined how closely matched the two teams are. Australia dominated the two outer days, England asserted themselves in the middle and rain wiped-out a whole day completely.

Friday and Sunday were the magic days for England, who first managed to decimate Australia's promising day one start in bowling them out for 263 (after they'd been 126-1), and then scoring 376 themselves and even managing to dismiss Katich and Ponting late on Sunday to set up a potentially thrilling last day. However, in more favourable batting conditions, Clarke and North kept England's attack at bay on Monday, and began to build up a sizable lead. An extra day would have proved fascinating.

There are several ways of looking at this match. Firstly, that Australia ended the final day well on top (at 375-5) and with a good chance of winning given an extra day. That the England attack was toothless on Monday and that with the team's history of batting collapses a further day's play would have leveled the series at 1-1.

Or, that England, save for the only session of day one, were well on top, had all the momentum and would have survived another day's play on what was still a pretty flat pitch and against an attack adept at flattering to deceive. Besides, the Australian second innings was given a somewhat false complexion by Strauss's use of Bopara and Collingwood as bowlers once the result had become obvious.

The answer lies somewhere between the two. When the ball's not swinging, the attack lacks serious penetration. The flip side of that is that when it is, England's bowlers look capable of winning the Ashes for England on their own. It remains a concern though, and weather forecasts are becoming as crucial as team-sheets as the series reaches a conclusion. The top order still looks fragile, but is capable, and can be bailed out to an extent by England's superior bowling.

The sides are close, and have at different times produced excellent cricket, but the fact remains that in the last two Tests, England have produced the stand-out sessions of play - one match-winning, one potentially so. At Lord's and Edgbaston their bowling produced the innings anomaly of each match. The Australians posted low first innings totals in each of their first innings in otherwise high scoring games. At Lord's the England bowlers won them the match in the only decisive session of play so far, at Edgbaston, who knows...

The Aussies have had their moments, but not in terms of potentially winning positions. Heroic match-saving attempts - Clarke and Haddin at Lord's, Clarke and North in Birmingham - are all well and good, but not the way to level the series. Their bowlers have to really turn up to do that.

And on to Headingley. The quality isn't 2005 standard, but the nervous anticipation is exactly the same.