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.

England Squads For South Africa Tour Announced

The squads for England's Test, ODI and T20I tour of South Africa were announced at midday today, ending weeks of speculation and signaling the side's post-Ashes direction. They are:

Test Squad: Strauss (c), Cook (vc), Anderson, Bell, Broad, Collingwood, Davies, Onions, Pietersen, Plunkett, Prior, Rashid, Sidebottom, Swann, Trott, Wright

One-day Squad: Strauss, Anderson, Bresnan, Broad, Collingwood, Cook, Denly, Mahmood, Morgan, Onions, Pietersen, Prior, Rashid, Swann, Trott, Wright

Two of the most notable omissions are Steve Harmison and Geraint Jones, for Plunkett and Davies respectively, leaving Andrew Strauss the only survivor from the previous Test tour of South Africa.

The consensus is that this move has ended the international career of these 2005 Ashes stalwarts. That's probably true in Jones's case - there are plenty of promising young wicketkeeper-batsmen on the England radar at present. Harmison though, rightly dropped for Plunkett, can still offer something different on his day. We all know the black marks against his name - the inconsistency, the bad travelling - but his uniqueness has the power to scrub them out once again in the future. If he really wants it. A very-nearly-31-year-old, father of four, two times Ashes winner, he's known for his talent, not his determination. I suspect we've seen the last of him, but if he marries the two, he could yet prove us wrong.

That said, there was an ODI recall for a man who can - on his day (a too frequently used phrase regarding England seamers) - match Harmison's hostility; Saj Mahmood. He and Plunkett have enjoyed brief success for England in the past, and it is hoped that, as with James Anderson, time away from the international scene will have enhanced their maturity, readying them for a renewed challenge.

Two men about to experience the international wilderness again, are Monty Panesar and Ravi Bopara. Ravi will surely benefit from the time off. He seems to struggle with the mental side of top international cricket, and should remember the start of the summer, when he was, along with KP, England's chief Test and one-day batting threat. He's sure to come again, Panesar less so; though he's recently spoken about his intentions to rectify the situation.

SA Tour: Jones In, Bopara Out?

England are set to recall Geraint Jones as back-up wicketkeeper, and discard Ravi Bopara for the winter tour of South Africa, according to Scyld Berry in The Sunday Telegraph.

Berry points out that Jones, who would replace Tim Ambrose as back-up to Matt Prior, has hit five first-class hundreds this season - more than any England gloveman in the past 25 years.

Bopara's struggles with the bat seem likely to see him dropped from both touring parties, with Berry claiming that "Joe Denly probably needs only one good innings in South Africa this week to become the reserve Test batsman in place of Bopara."

No light was shed on the selectors' thinking regarding the fifth seamer role - billed as a tussle between Durham colleagues Liam Plunkett and Steve Harmison.

CT Match 1 (v SL): Winning Start

25/09/09 - England won by 6 wickets.

Change of scenery, change of fortune. Before the game Andrew Strauss said he felt his side could beat anyone on their day - his players went on to prove him emphatically right.

Escaping the seemingly never-ending English summer, tired and muddled minds seemed freed from the rut of the NatWest series by a pitch which offered much for the bowlers, and an opposition that wasn't wearing green and gold.

England got it right from the start in dropping Bopara - possessor of probably the most tired and muddled mind of the lot - and winning the toss. Bopara has been handled well all summer - a four month period during which he enjoyed considerable success at the start. He was given every chance of an upsurge in form during the Ashes, until finally being dropped when his place became untenable after Headingley. His reintroduction for the NatWest series made sense, but his scores (49, 27, 10, 26, 18, 24, 13) were not enough to warrant a Champions Trophy starting berth.

Onions and Anderson furthered the promising start, reducing the Sri Lankans to 17-4 at one point. Given that, England had reason to be disappointed with Sri Lanka's eventual 212 on a tricky pitch, but to bowl any side out inside 50 overs is a notable achievement. The fact it was achieved despite conceding 25 extras and dropping short in length too frequently makes it even more impressive, whilst simultaneously highlighting what can be improved.

212 was still a worrying total for the batsmen; the lack of urgency to push the rate hovering over them as a potential pitfall. Losing Strauss and Denly early did nothing to quell the uneasiness, but the performance of the maligned trio of Shah, Collingwood and Morgan did exactly that.

In uncertain times, each has secured his place for the next two group games. Shah anchored with flashes of brilliance - he may be no KP, but he's the best option at three in the squad. Collingwood looked as carefree as he has all summer, hitting three 6s (one a flat-batted pull off Malinga) and backing up his recent fighting talk. Morgan's assurance as he came in at 82-3 was exemplary and belied the match situation.

As for Mendis, England showed him respect and nullified his threat. The batsmen were given a platform - not by the top order but by the bowlers - and they made it count, crossing the finish line with 30 balls remaining. England join New Zealand as the only sides Mendis has played but failed to take a wicket against in ODIs. His partner in crime, Muralitharan, was subdued and went for six runs an over.

No hint of getting carried away in the England camp - with Flower today saying, "It's only one game but it is confidence boosting," - but it does prove that England aren't woeful at one-day cricket. They're just woefully inconsistent.

The Champions Trophy 2009

The ICC Champions Trophy kicks off today in South Africa. Weary England barely have time to breathe before their first match - Sri Lanka on Friday.

What is the Champions Trophy?

A mini, less-important World Cup, this year to be contested by the eight highest ranked ODI sides in the world. Contrary to popular opinion, that includes England.

Australia won the last tournament in 2006, and England reached the final in 2004, before losing in improbable fashion to the West Indies. The odds for those two reaching this year's final are not high.

Do England have a chance?

In theory everyone does, which is rare for a major international tournament in any sport. It's the top eight sides in the world, all of whom have been proficient in this format at different times. However, in practice it would appear we can cross England (and the West Indies) off the list of potential winners due to dire form, crass home ODI series scheduling and non-stop cricket for a core group of players. That said, whether they're recovering from defeat to Holland in the World T20, or demolition by Australia at Headingley, England seem intent on styling themselves as comeback kings. This would be their neatest trick yet.

Are they taking the right squad?

Seemingly not, although they were hampered by a squad submission deadline which predated Jonathan Trott's reintroduction to international cricket. The luxury of a post-Australia ODI series decision would have been ideal, but it gives the consistently average performers (Morgan, Bopara, Bresnan) the chance to snuff out a few question marks.

Who will win it?

Take your pick between the top sides in the world. South Africa have the local knowledge and will be fresher than most England players will remember being since their teenage years. Australia have some serious form behind them, and Pakistan are capable of literally anything - which could be good or bad - but I'm going for Sri Lanka.

Strong batting, led by Tillakaratne Dilshan, who's been unstoppable in one-day cricket for the past year, and thrived on the South African pitches during an explosive IPL spell with the Delhi Daredevils, is backed up by the irrepressible four Ms attack: Mathews, Malinga, Mendis and Muralitharan. England have practically no time to consider this prospect before they meet it head on. It's probably just as well.

It's a big tournament for...

Everyone - England are crying out for a new one-day hero - but Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah in particular. Collingwood has been a fine limited-overs player for England, and has usually managed to up his game when required in the past. This is one such time, as the burden of all-year-round cricket, across three formats, is starting to see his form slide.

Shah is in better touch than his scores in the NatWest series suggest, but his Benny Hill impersonation between the wickets and genuinely poor fielding must have put him in somewhere approaching last chance territory.

Who cares?

Well no-one usually, the Champions Trophy having been out-muscled in recent times by its bullish yet disorganised big brother - the World Cup. However, this year it's perilously close to actually meaning something. Recent 50-over World Cups have been woefully administrated, this is the ICC's chance to show lessons have been learned. Interest here - and in Australia - is likely to be fragile and entirely performance-dependent, but this time that's thanks to the ECB's late-summer flogging of both the format and the players, rather than the ICC.

The 50-over game itself has been taking a battering - from fans, commentators and players alike. England have done it no favours over the past few weeks - the rest of the world now have a prime opportunity to rectify that.

Tendulkar's Playing A Different Game

Sachin Tendulkar scored his 44th one-day hundred yesterday, as India defeated Sri Lanka in the Compaq Cup. This nudged him one century ahead of the entire combined total achieved by the all-time England ODI side chosen by Mike Atherton in The Times last Thursday.

It would be easy therefore, though entirely pointless, to concoct unflattering comparisons with England batsmen past and present. A fruitless venture; Tendulkar has been blessed with a rare talent and one which has graced an ODI pitch on no less than 428 occasions.

Only one England player in history can boast an ODI century count in double figures. Only one. And although Marcus Trescothick's career tally of 12 is dwarfed by Tendulkar's exploits, his games per century count is comparable: one in every 10.25 games, compared with the Indian's one in every 9.7.

Mind-boggling though Tendulkar's numbers are, the fact that Trescothick stands alone as the only Englishman to score more than eight career hundreds is the stat that should most concern England. Pietersen, on seven, must have him in his sights. A rejuvenated Strauss, on three, must be looking to double that at the very least. The likes of Trott, Denly, Bopara, Morgan, Kieswetter (from February), even Bell should be looking to share the load and inch as close to membership of the double figures club as is humanly possible.

None will get even close to the Little Master, but to match his sublime achievement as a collective unit would represent a marked improvement. Tendulkar deserves the adulation of a billion people, but what England need to build is a team of Marcus Trescothicks.

Central Contracts: Harmison And Panesar Dropped

Despite Andy Flower reiterating that "central contracts don't decide selection - performances do," there are signs in yesterday's central contracts announcement of the direction in which England will head over the coming year. Onions, Swann and Prior - three of England's leading lights in the last twelve months - have been awarded full contracts for the first time. Panesar and Harmison - along with Patel, Ambrose and the retired Michael Vaughan - have lost theirs.

Ian Bell also received one of the eleven full-time deals - an indication he'll be on the teamsheet for the first Test in South Africa, though hopefully at four, with KP moving up to three.

With their contracts taken away, the onus is firmly on Panesar and Harmison, and neither can have many complaints. The former has slipped behind Adil Rashid in the pecking order, who, with his all-round skills will be hard to overtake. Harmison does not have the threat of a like-for-like replacement breathing down his neck. The news will test his hunger, his options being retire now or add another chapter to his jekyll and hyde England career.

Full Contracts

Anderson, Bell, Broad, Collingwood, Cook, Onions, Pietersen, Prior, Sidebottom, Strauss, Swann

Incremental Contracts

Bopara, Bresnan, Flintoff, Rashid, Shah, Trott, Wright

Third ODI (v Aus) Reaction

Australia won by 6 wickets.

Strauss opted to bat first, hoping for a different story. Instead all we got was variations on a theme.

England's is a batting line-up out of form. Strauss - as he has done all summer - has demonstrated fluency, but at present, he's alone in his contentment with his own game. His teammates are wrestling with theirs.

None more so than Bopara. Potentially a dashing striker of the ball in limited overs cricket - recall his T20 exploits at the start of the summer - he is currently consumed with fear in pursuing his natural game, but clearly frustrated by the alternative. The end result has been 86 scratchily put together runs in three games.

Prior has lost his form completely, leading most to the easy conclusion that he experiences altitude sickness coming in at number three. Maybe true in normal circumstances, but as a natural stroke player in a Pietersen-less side, the idea had potential. Shah has looked closest to Strauss in terms of touch, but has been shackled by a run of bad luck, not all of his making.

Collingwood has made a successful career out of scratchy innings at Test level, enabling him to dispell his 'one-day specialist' tag. But he acquired that tag originally for good reason - an ability to adapt to limited-overs situations as required, be it nudging and nurdling or consistent boundary hitting. There has been little of the latter in recent times. Should really be given the rest of the series off if the management are to expect anything from him in the Champions Trophy.

Add these elements to an equation and it's no wonder the outcome has thus far been lop-sided. The imminent Champions Trophy has effectively ruled out the possible solution of drafting in fresh blood.

First ODI (v Aus) Reaction: Rashid's Breakthrough

Australia won by 4 runs.

The England run chase fell just short - with Ryan Sidebottom needing to hit his first international six off the last ball to win - after Australia posted a patiently constructed 260 for 5.

The tourists' "risk-free approach", as Derek Pringle described it in The Telegraph, was akin to the mindset of the England batsmen in the last World Cup - careful accumulation by the top-order, setting a platform for middle-order big hitters. Unlike with England in the Caribbean two years ago, it worked - just - with Ferguson's 71 not out providing the necessary impetus.

England approached their innings in similarly slow fashion - largely due to Bopara's 49 from 88 balls, which, in the circumstances is forgivable; ten innings against Australia in all forms of the game (prior to today's match) with a highest score of 35 is mental block territory. The half century remains illusive, but if his 49 at a strike-rate of 55.68 is enough to spark him into action for the rest of the series, then it will be worth it.

Despite going 1-0 down in the series, England have reasons to be encouraged with six matches still to play:

• Strauss won the toss yet again - and chose to chase, a recurring theme in England's recent limited-overs strategy. They were always slipping slightly behind the run-rate today, but in general seem a more contented batting unit when chasing, rather than setting, a score.
• Luke Wright (38 from 27) has found his ideal position at six, having flirted with seven and eight in the past. Today he came in during the 37th over, which is ideal, but England shouldn't be afraid to move him up if the match situation requires it. His game is maturing after a good season at Sussex - scoring successive Championship hundreds, bowling more overs and taking more wickets. England's Albie Morkel.
• Adil Rashid. Wicketless, but bowled beautifully. Only England bowler to bowl ten overs, with best economy rate of 3.70. Also demonstrated one-day savvy batting (much improved since the World T20), dragging England to within an inch of the line with 31 from 23.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.