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.

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.

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.