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."

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

Atherton's All-Time England ODI XI

Mike Atherton drew the readers of his column in yesterday's Times into a "fictional selection room", where he discussed the role of each position in the side and named his all-time England ODI line-up. Here it is:

Trescothick

Gooch (c)

Gower

Pietersen

Fairbrother

Stewart

Flintoff

Botham

Gough

Underwood

Willis

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.

This Time Last Year...

England were completing a 4-0 ODI series win against South Africa - now arguably the best side in the world - with only rain in Cardiff preventing a 5-0 whitewash and a leap up to second in the world rankings. Peter Moores's England were remarkably dominant in this series, and, had a World Cup been scheduled for September, would have fancied their chances. Pietersen, the newly appointed captain, and Flintoff were rampant, but England carried no passengers; every single member of the team made telling contributions.

As an opening partnership, Bell and Prior failed only once and England seemed to have solved a lingering problem. The depth of the whole batting line-up was such that from the second match onwards Luke Wright batted at eight, with Stuart Broad at nine. Crucially, such firepower did not come at the expense of the bowling armoury, which consisted of Anderson, Flintoff, Broad, Patel and Harmison with Collingwood and KP if needed. Only the four frontline quicks were called upon at Trent Bridge, where Broad produced one of those spells (5-23) and the tourists, victors in the Test series a few weeks earlier, were dismissed for 83.

But England failed to cash in on this undoubted momentum, and ended up on the wrong end of a 5-0 whitewash a few months later in India. One-day cricket inconsistency had reared its ugly head once more.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Preliminary ICC Champions Trophy Squad Announced

England announced a 30-strong squad for the 2009 ICC Champions Trophy, yesterday. The tournament will be staged in South Africa in September and the squad will be halved by August 23.

England's ODI form in recent years has been extremely frustrating - not least because it has at times - 2007 home series v India, 2008 home series v South Africa - been excellent. However, for each of these results there is also the whitewashes of the 2008 winter series v India or the 2006 summer series v Sri Lanka.

So, results suggest that England are not a million miles away from finding a successful ODI formula, but the current one is not good enough; one or two steps forward, followed by the same number back. They have to try something a bit new. Although the selectors have named only one uncapped player (Hampshire's Michael Lumb), the squad includes a number of fresh, young and inexperienced names. Their inclusion could provide the subtle change in direction which leads to that illusive consistency.

This is the perfect tournament in which players can shed the label of potential in favour of the far more useful tags, experienced and good enough. It's not a World Cup, and I would suggest that signs of significant improvement (an obvious and suitable gameplan, clearly defined roles within the team, picking the right players and evidence of tournament-savvy play) is more important than returning with the trophy. The logic behind that being that should England happen upon some consistency, they may one day return home with a coveted World Cup.

That means making tough calls - dispensing with good servants of the county game who have served England passably in the past - Rob Key and Gareth Batty - and even those who have an obvious Test future but have failed to grasp countless ODI opportunities - Ian Bell and, in my opinion, Andrew Strauss.

Here's my squad. The main difference between this XV and the one which will be chosen is the absence here of the captain, Strauss. For me, his inclusion is indicative of the two steps forward, two steps back policy - he's shown at times (as recently as the Caribbean tour) that he's capable in the format, but struggled badly with its concept at other times, thus, as an opener, hampering the whole team. I would certainly keep him in the selection mix, but for this tournament would give the captaincy to Stuart Broad - eighth in all-time England ODI wicket-takers list and highly-rated as a thinking cricketer by Michael Vaughan.

My XV:

James Anderson (Lancashire)

Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Paul Collingwood (Durham)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Andrew Flintoff (Lancashire)
Michael Lumb (Hampshire)
Dimitri Mascarenhas (Hampshire)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Kevin Pietersen (Hampshire)
Matt Prior (Sussex)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)

Luke Wright (Sussex)

Pietersen To Miss Rest Of Ashes

The news wasn't exactly a surprise, but there was still an element of shock attached to the revelation that Kevin Pietersen will miss the next six weeks, and the remainder of the Ashes series, following surgery on his right Achilles tendon.

Deep down it was news I knew was coming - the shock stemming from the fact I didn't want to believe it and an irrational hope for a Flintoff-esque doctor-defying soldiering on (because, let's face it, a 70% fit KP is still one the Aussies are scared of.) Of course, that was a vain hope. Even Kevin Pietersen is incapable of miraculous recoveries. Off the pitch, that is.

The world's leading Achilles specialist was flown in to tell KP what we all already knew. I've never doubted his commitment to the England cause, and there's no doubt he'll be distraught at the news - this is the stage that he craves the most, and one on which - with an average of 50.72 against Australia - he invariably shines.

So, where does the news leave the player and his country? Well, it puts to bed one of this summer's perpetual worries, and should ensure that England set off for their winter tour of South Africa with their best player fit and revitalised (it would after all have been a tall order without both KP and Flintoff.) So, long-term it's a plus for both. Short-term though, is another matter.

I think this is the worst possible news for England. He's the one player they can ill afford to do without. Even given Freddie's Lord's heroics I could be confident without him - after all England have shown they can live (even thrive) in his absence, and they have a strong battery of reserve bowlers who could take his place. The same is not true with KP.

In many ways it will be a great test for the team, and one they probably needed at some point. Any time but now. Not against the Aussies. Not when we're one nil up with three to play. Much pressure will be heaped upon his replacement Ian Bell, but the pressure notches will rise considerably too on each of the batsmen in the line-up. Each will need to offer an extra 30% in effectiveness to compensate for the absence of the classiest act among them.

On countless occasions Kevin Pietersen has got his side out of trouble. For the next three Tests they must avoid that trouble in the first place. It wont be easy, and I hope I'm placing too much importance on his inclusion, but his loss is a series prediction-altering one.

Second Ashes Test: The Andrew Flintoff Show

England win the match by 115 runs.

When the England captain scores 161 runs in the first innings and leads his side to victory over Australia at Lord's for the first time since 1934, it takes something special to eclipse him to the man of the match award. And that's exactly what Andrew Flintoff provided - on his last Test match appearance on the famous ground.

I don't think I've seen Flintoff bowl as well as he did yesterday (in returning second innings figures of 5-92) since 2005. It was epic stuff - a big match performer putting his body through one last series of duels against the toughest and most prized scalp in the game. On the final morning, with Australia still needing 209 to win with five wickets in hand, Flintoff was hell-bent on making sure his country did not suffer an unlikely and unimaginably catastrophic defeat. The night before, Clarke and Haddin (who put on 185 together) had, with every confident stroke, gradually increased the possibility of that outcome occurring. Flintoff though, bowled an unbelievably potent Monday morning spell in claiming the third five-for of his Test career (improbable but true) and making history for the England team.

It was, as Flintoff himself was at pains to point out, a true team effort which put England 1-0 up in this Ashes series.

Flintoff To Retire From Tests After Ashes

This Ashes series will be Andrew Flintoff's last Test series. His body can take it no longer. The countless comebacks and subsequent breakdowns have finally taken their toll, and no wonder - the strains and stresses his mind and body have gone through, and the nature of 21st century elite cricket, have made today's announcement somewhat inevitable.

It is a great shame, but in some ways also a relief. News of setback after setback was hard enough for us as fans to take, so goodness knows how he's got through it. Eventually, England were going to have to move on permanently, now that can be done in the Test arena, while the charismatic all-rounder prolongs his international career in one day cricket.

In Jonathan Agnew's reaction to the news, he says that its hard to feel too sorry for Fred - in that he'll continue to play ODI and T20 cricket for England and no doubt a few years of IPL. True, but I do feel sorry for him. It's not inconceivable that actually Test cricket means a good deal more to him than T20 cricket, whether he's playing for his country or the Chennai Super Kings. No one would say no to the money of the IPL, but when Freddie sits back to regale his grandchildren with tales of his glory days, his stories will be of Test matches in 2005 (and 2009?), and it's far from inconceivable that he'd give up all that one day glitz for a prolonged Test career. I'd like to believe he would.

If anyone can sign off at Lord's in style, Andrew Flintoff can.

First Test, Day Five, Lunch Time. Australia Nearly There.

England lost three wickets this morning in stumbling to 102-5. They still trail by 137.

Come the Lord's Test, England have very few positives to cling to. I defy even Andrew Strauss to 'find the positives' from this match. There have been plenty the past six months, but none the past five days.

Collingwood, who has batted well for his 35*, and Flintoff have a chance to provide one positive. Forget saving the match - for now - they should be aiming to be in at tea. That way they give the team a chance of a draw, and, crucially, will have played out a passage of play during which they frustrated Australia and stopped them, for the first time this match, looking like a world beating attack. After all, the pitch is not doing much. It's a tough ask, but a situation they've got themselves into. A limp capitulation here would undo much of England's recent rebuilding work. This session could have a bearing on the Lord's Test.

First Test, Day Two, Morning Session

England eventually all out for 435.

99 added to overnight score, and at quite a rate. 66 runs flowed from the first nine overs of the day, 16 off one Hauritz over which included three successive fours from Swann. Swann and Anderson made their 50 partnership from 38 balls. One day stuff.

England's perceived weakness - their lower-middle order - has got them into this match. The batting during the first few hours of yesterday's play was cagey and nervy. Apart from Bopara, the approach was conservative. Yesterday evening and this morning was anything but. Memories of the first day of the 2005 Edgbaston Test were evoked by Prior, Flintoff, Broad, Swann and even Anderson - who all batted with fluency and aggression in taking the fight to the Aussies. It was particularly good to see Flintoff batting naturally and positively. With a clear head, free of niggling doubts about technique, he is capable of scoring a number of 50s in this series.

Psychologically this morning's tail wag and Swann's targeting of Hauritz has put England in a strong position. Also, the pitch is turning more than yesterday. It will be fascinating to see how Australia approach their innings.