TLC 'End Of Summer Awards', Pt 2

Individual One-day Performance of the Summer - Eoin Morgan v South Africa, Champions Trophy

Too few performances to choose from, and most of the aptly named shortlist came from this match, but it was Morgan's knock which carried the most significance. His 67 came off 34 balls, including five 6s at a strike-rate of 197.05. Whilst not an altogether unheard of feat in world cricket, it was an innings rarely achieved by an Englishman - ok, Irishman - and came against the hosts and No 1 ranked team in the world. Along with Collingwood's performances in that tournament, and Wright's potential, it showed that maybe England do have the modern-day firepower to match the Albie Morkel's of this world.

Unsung hero of the Summer - Kevin Pietersen

I whole-heartedly supported Kevin Pietersen's actions at the start of the year. They cost him the job of England captain, and Peter Moores that of England coach, but in the long run, I felt that only good could come of it. I was wrong about the long run bit. The new coach and captain, plus Pietersen's attitude since the affair, enabled an outstanding turn-around and an Ashes result which would not have been previously possible.

An honourable mention to the selectors, who had an excellent Ashes series. They kept faith with Bopara and Broad, giving them every chance of a form recovery during the Ashes, and comprehensively won the 'battle of the gambles' - the inclusion of Trott vs the omission of Hauritz - at the Oval.

Best Opponent of the Summer - Ricky Ponting

Quite simply didn't deserve to become the first Australian captain to lose the Ashes twice in England since Billy Murdoch. Vilified by the English crowds for being too good, he finally garnered the reception he deserved at the Oval, during a match in which he demonstrated admirable humility. Not at his absolute best with the bat, his wicket is still the most prized of any Australian, while his captaincy is remarkably underrated in his homeland. Class act.

Best thing about the Summer - England's character

One thing this England side certainly have, is character. They bounced back from leadership implosion and Test series defeat in the Caribbean to win the Ashes, unthinkable embarrassment against Holland to beat Pakistan, disaster at Headingley to triumph at the Oval, and so on. Now Flower's job is to make such recovery unnecessary; but should we go 1-0 down in SA, all is far from lost.

Worst thing about the Summer - Devaluing of the England v Australia Contest

This occurred during the 6-1 post-Ashes ODI series defeat, and was nothing to do with the score, which merely devalued the ODI format. As the 50-over circus lumbered around the country, it threatened to take the shine off an otherwise memorable summer of anglo-antipodean battles.

Three Lions Cricket 'End Of Summer Awards', Pt 1

Time - during this well-earned international break - to review the summer of 2009. Only one team in the world could lose to Holland then triumph over Australia in the space of a few months.

Man of the Summer - 1. Andrew Strauss

A stunning summer, in fact, a stunning past 18 months. Grew into captaincy - improvement between Cardiff and Oval Tests was highly significant. Top scored in the Ashes (ave: 52.66) and ensuing ODI series (ave: 38.14). Married great batting and brilliant captaincy in an Ashes series; even Michael Vaughan didn't manage that.

2. Matt Prior

Finally, a worthy successor to Alec Stewart. Only just behind Strauss in terms of consistency during the Ashes. Has become a genuinely world-class keeper in remarkably short space of time. England conceded 106 fewer extras than Australia during the Ashes. Only criticisms being a moderate high score of 63 from seven Tests this summer (Ashes high score: 61) and an inability to consistently transfer Test batting cameos to one-day arena.

3. Andy Flower

Just brilliant. Comfortable in underdog role - a product of his playing career - but aiming to guide England to a level where they can dispense with the tag. Promising early signs of a special working relationship with Strauss. Showed his humility by opting out of the Oval victory lap.

Moment of the Summer - 1. Flintoff running out Ponting at the Oval.

A script writer would dare not pen it: Ponting run-out? Flintoff heroics? Been done before. But this was how it was meant to end. With his body restricting his bowling, Freddie, at wide mid-on, defied it one last time. The purest form of theatre, no-one could have predicted it. Except it didn't really surprise us. Flintoff's last offering of utter perfection to the Test match scene.

2. Panesar and Anderson Holding On At Cardiff

A monumental passage of cricket in the context of the rest of the summer. Few figures inspire less confidence with the bat than Monty Panesar, but his contribution that day - along with those of Anderson and Collingwood - were the first glimpses of the steely character which was to prove the difference between the sides.

3. Swann's Ashes Winning Wicket

Always a sweet occurrence, but made even more sickly by the the fact England were denied an on-field winning moment in 2005. I'm sure Swann doesn't mention it. Much.

Team Performance of the Summer - 1. The Oval Test (Ashes)

Edges out the Lord's Test purely because it followed the Headingley debacle, which, though both were bad, was far worse than the performance at Cardiff. An outstanding team effort, with argument-ending contributions from Stuart Broad and Jonathan Trott.

2. v Pakistan, World T20

A win, under huge pressure, against the eventual winners. Highly commendable due to the unthinkable embarrassment defeat would have caused. Going out of your own tournament after three days, before some teams have even played a game, would have rivaled World Cup '99 - when we exited the tournament before the official team song was released.

3. v South Africa, Champions Trophy

So they can do it. And how. The hosts barely knew what had hit them as England compiled a Shah-and-Morgan-inspired 323. Strauss said it was the best he'd seen England bat in a 50-over game, and, backed-up by sound bowling, it can act as a model performance to aspire to.

Individual Test Performance of the Summer - 1. Strauss at Lord's (Ashes)

The innings which announced England's arrival in the series as a team with pretensions of winning it. Batted for a whole day, and put on 196 with Cook for the first wicket. Fell early on day two, for 161, but had made the decisive contribution of the match by then, despite Flintoff taking the man-of-the-match honours on day five.

2. Broad at the Oval

Kudos to the selectors for sticking with him, kudos to the man himself for the decisive spell of the series. Stuart Broad won the Ashes for England in 12 overs, on day two of the last Test, during a spell of 5-37 - which included four wickets in 21 balls. Stunning stuff, and a 2005-shaped dose of excitement.

3. Trott at the Oval

A scarcely believable debut. So many parallels with KP's 158 four years ago. Siddle looked for all the world to have him caught behind off the first ball of day three, just like McGrath seemed to have snaffled Pietersen first ball in '05, but two great umpiring decisions enabled two historic innings - Trott's every bit as good as his countryman's. Actually, better. As Scyld Berry put it, "one of the all-time best England debuts."

England's Contrary Test And ODI Form

It should come as no surprise that - at 3-0 down - England appear to be heading for defeat in the ODI series against Australia. After all, we won the Ashes.

When Test and ODI series have been paired together in recent years, England have an uncanny and near-impeccable record - at winning one and losing the other.

Rarely have England been able to buck this trend; they even triumphed in the Commonwealth Bank series that followed the Ashes mauling of 06-07 - an event no-one could have predicted with any conviction.

In the summer of 2006, a few months before that ill-fated Ashes tour, England had recovered from a comprehensive 5-0 ODI series defeat to Sri Lanka by beating Pakistan 3-0 in a now infamous four match Test series.

The following summer, fresh from a disappointing World Cup showing, England dispatched the West Indies 3-0 in another four match Test series, but couldn't translate that form to the 50-over game as they lost to the same opponents in the accompanying three match ODI series.

Gaining top marks for inconsistency during the second half of that summer, Vaughan's England then lost a Test series to the touring Indians, before Collingwood's 50-over side triumphed 4-3 in an outstanding ODI series - the limited-overs equivalent of the 2005 Ashes.

England's promising ODI form continued in Sri Lanka that winter with a 3-2 series win, which preceded - true to form - a 1-0 Test series defeat.

On to New Zealand, where the pattern continued, this time with defeat in the ODIs (3-1) and victory in the Tests - the last of which saw Panesar spin the side to victory and Andrew Strauss save his career with a Test high-score of 177. That innings has taken on extra significance given his form in the last year.

When England returned the favour and hosted New Zealand a couple of months later, the on-pitch results were almost identical - victory in the Tests (2-0), followed by defeat in the five match 50-over series (3-1).

The outcomes were reversed for the visit of South Africa later that summer, with Test series defeat prompting Michael Vaughan to relinquish captaincy duties and Kevin Pietersen making an excellent start with a win in the dead rubber Test and a resounding ODI series win.

Following defeat in all forms of the game in India in late 2008, a wounded England succumbed to dressing room chaos, misjudged declarations, flat pitches and Test series defeat in the West Indies in the new year. This was however followed up - in now familiar fashion - by ODI series victory, 3-2.

This record highlights that the reign of Peter Moores, though defined by home Test series defeat, did include a number of notable ODI series victories. It also reveals how different these two formats of the game are and how, in England's case, momentum in one counts for little in the other.

Credit England for the examples of recovery, dispair the meek squandering of the upper-hand. Andy Flower has overseen both ODI and Test series victories, his challenge is to combine the two.

England's Misfiring Top Order

Ahead of the second ODI against Australia at Lord's tomorrow, Strauss has called upon the top order to contribute more runs, and in doing so has highlighted his teams' main problem across all forms of the game.

He said, "If you want to win consistently one of your top four or five needs to get hundreds more often than not. That is an area we are looking to an address."

They're focussing their attention on the right area.

The bowling unit is in good shape, and has depth - it restricted Australia to 260 yesterday, and enabled England to win the Ashes, despite their inferior batting. Indeed, the likes of Swann, Broad, Anderson and yesterday Rashid, have contributed with the bat too and in doing so, disguised, to some extent, the frailty of the specialist batting line-up.

Take the Ashes series. Of the seven innings in which every member of the team batted, the players selected for their batting alone (numbers one to five in the batting order) - were outscored by the all-rounders and bowlers (numbers six to eleven, plus extras) on five occasions, coming out on top just twice. Take extras out of the equation and the non-specialist batsmen still come out on top, four-three.

The Ashes averages back-up this evidence. Removing KP and Trott, who played two and one Tests respectively, leaves Andrew Strauss as the only specialist batsman - though you could argue that as captain, he's an all-rounder - in the top four; where he's joined by Swann, Flintoff and Prior - all primarily in the side to fulfill a different role.

The problem resurfaced yesterday in the 50 over game. Ideally, one of a team's specialist batsman would make a century once in every three/four - five at the most - ODIs. A side would expect at least three half-centuries in the absence of a three figure score. No Englishman passed 50 yesterday, which is no basis on which to expect to win a match.

It's not all bad news for England though. Their tail are wagging like never before, and gone are the days when they stutter from being six wickets down to all out in under five overs. James Anderson is as decent a Test number 11 as England have ever had.

Also, when their top batsmen do perform, they win. The two occasions when the specialist batsmen did outdo their all-rounder/bowling team-mates in the Ashes, were at Lord's and The Oval. So either England should play all their matches in London, or concentrate on sorting out their top order - something which Jonathan Trott's immediate success has ensured will happen anyway. Factor in too that England were without their best batsman for 60 per cent of the series, and Strauss may soon be blessed with the improvement he seeks.

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.

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.

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.