³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

First post for me? Last post for England in SA.

Mr Dirs you make some good points and a lack of consistency is a key one for this England team.

The trip to Bangladesh maybe more important than previously expected for some players. Also in terms of monitoring progress I don't hold out much hope for the summer test match series' versus Bangladesh (again) & Pakistan providing any telling signs as to how the team will perform in Oz. But I agree we will have to take at least two new bowlers to strength the competition for places....

Ben

While I agree with the odd point you make, the thing you are missing is that South Africa are a better side than Australia. Australia have no Steyn, nor a Morkel, and have shown far more frailties recently than England, nearly losing to the West Indies at home in a Test, being bowled out for 180 against Pakistan, but scraping a victory due Pakistan hardly playing any Test cricket the last year. You are over-estimating Australia.

One further thing to add re Agnew saying "England cannot afford the luxury of 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers against the best sides in the World."

What excatly are South Africa? Arguably the best side in the World, and 4 bowlers worked fine this series IMO.

I sometimes wonder what actually goes through the minds of some of England's batsmen. I don't think it the fact that they lack talent, but maybe temprement at this level.

I'm still a strong believer in playing 'three openers' at the top of the innnings, as this would provide much needed protection of our fragile middle order and although not foolproof, would at least give us a chance of putting a foundation of an innings together, before the stroke-players come in. It worked against the Aussies in 2005 and I don't see why it can't work again.

I really don't like the attitude of 'The Ashes is everything'. England's goal should be to become the #1 ranked test team. If the ICC introduce the much mooted test championship, we should be looking to win it within the first few cycles. This will involve consistent performances against all the teams, home and away. It will not necessarily involve winning every series; no team will do that, they are too closely matched now at the top. Yes The Ashes will always have a bit of extra pizzazz due to the history, but it should not be to the extent that it is to the detriment of other series. Test cricket is about meeting the challenges of playing in the wide array of conditions experienced and the different strengths of the opposition across the range of test playing nations. If we focus too much on Australia, we will get nowhere. A series win away to RSA, PAK, IND, SRI is probably a bigger achievement than winning the Ashes at home.

England did well to win the ODIs and draw the test series in RSA, but you're right that the obvious frailties are worrying.

The Poms have never been able to win under pressure and it has just been proved again.Yes, when they are the underdogs they occasionally pull it off - but not when they are expected to win. That is the story of English sport. A good team is a team that wins when expected to win. All they needed in the 4th test was a draw and what did they do ? - they collapsed like a bunch of wimps.

What great SA bowling attack are you talking about? They had 2 good bowlers, Steyn and Morkel and no spinner ( Harris is not a spinner ).If their bowling attack had been good they would easily have won 3-1.

England need to find a Steyn for the bowling attack - a genuine world class pace man. Unfortunately, these do not grow on trees. Stuart Broad and James Anderson bowled well in spells, but once Steyn clicked into gear, he was a constant threat.

The batting is a mystery. I don't know how you can coach "don't give your wicket away" and "play attacking cricket" without accepting you'll lose your wicket cheaply a few times, but something has to give.

A change in approach might be required, as batsmen are getting in and getting out too often. Continuity is important - Trott can only improve at test level, and has some good innings under his belt already.

SA consistently managed to remove Strauss and KP early. In the past it has usually been one of these players that the innings grew around.

I see the logic in giving Strauss a rest but also feel that he should be in Bangladesh ensuring the development of the England team. I also can not see how Cook can possibly be considered a good enough one day player to be given the captaincy of the ODI team? Joe Denly and Jonathon Trott would be a much better option opening the batting.

Ben,

Not to put too fine a put on it, stuff the Ashes. It's an important away series against the 3rd-best side in the world. But we've just halved an away series against the 2nd-best side in the world. I'm at a loss to explain why we got away with 4 bowlers against a good team, but will need 5 against an average one? Sure, South Africa played badly at times and we played worse, but why, oh why, must every series against every other nation be viewed simply as good or bad preparation for the Ashes?

And even if the Ashes were the be-all and end-all, I fail to see the basis for your argument that Australia would be any more likely than South Africa to beat us. Our bowlers look good, more or less, despite the Kookaburra ball, and several key batsmen are in dreadful nick, but the team has a lot of spirit. Rather that than a spiritless or talentless team such as we have produced with alarming frequency over the last 20 years or so...

It never ceases to amaze me how fickle the press & supporters can be. The whole way through the series, England were praised for their manner of play until the inevitable happened & they finally lost to the better team. Now it is doom & gloom & dispair which amazes me because, quite frankly, their should have been a lot more panic prior to the fourth test. South Africa had a poor test in Durban & paid the price for it whereas the English had three poor tests & only paid the price in one. In the 1st & 3rd tests they held on by a wicket - pity Mr. Onions wasn't playing in the 4th or they may have held on for a draw there too! :P

What I'm trying to say is that the English fans and press had no real reason to laud the English team like they did prior to the 4th test - two single deliveries could have resulted in whopping defeats in both of these. This English team has more grit than its predecessors only because of fighters like Collywood & Swan (& to a degree, Bell) - without these guys you would have been dead in the water way before The Wanderers. There are still too many players living on reputation in the side & you can consider yourself lucky to have come away with a drawn series. All of this furore about team members, selection & performance should have been made way earlier in the series instead of putting mediocre performances on a pedestal.

South African in peace.

Test cricket desperately needs more pitches like this. Props to the Jo'burg groundsman.

Pace and bounce ... last year's SA vs Australia at this venue was also a cracker from memory.

A case of some of the English batsman not fancying the "chin music" ... and in this company (Steyn & Morkel) getting found out?

Always think it is interesting to put together a composite side at the end of a series. And for this series, I don't think you could argue over too many of the choices (De Villiers for Bell, perhaps, but no-one else).

Smith, Cook, Amla, Kallis, Collingwood, Bell, Boucher, Swann, Steyn, Morkel, Anderson

At 6-5 to SA, it perhaps reflects the balance of the series overall; but it doesn't quite capture how SA's top players are at the top of the pile in world cricket, while England's, with the exception of Swann, are not.

But it was an intriguing series - albeit a little anticlimactic (I say that as a Saffer) - which showed as usual how the unique pressures of test cricket bring out the best and worst in players. I would certainly say England could do with having a decent batting all-rounder in their line-up, but as you don't seem to have any obvious options, and as long as the batsmen are struggling for consistency you probably need 6 specialists which leaves you stretched in the bowling department.

1. When Laker was in his pomp Australia were the only test side capable of beating England with any kind of regularity. It is now 2009 and there are 3 other sides above us in the Test rankings. If Laker were playing now he wouldn't say what he said then (I hope). The press, fans and blogwriters with silly names need to move with the times. Besides, the nature of England-Australia contests has changed. The clear pattern emerging is for England to scrape a victory at home in between getting humiliated down under.
2. There is no logic in playing six batsmen, especially if none of them can bowl to any standard. It places too much burden on the 4 bowlers (well though Swann has performed he is no Warne - and there is no McGrath in our side) We can never bowl sides out cheaply - and this in turn places pressure on the batting unit. Until we get some real bowling genii, we need five bowlers. Prior should be batting at 6 anyway (his form has deteriorated at 7) and an all-rounder at 7 (Rashid could have been tried out this series -opportunity missed; Broad was another option -perhaps the added responsibility would have benefited him). The bottom line: if five specialist bats can't do the job, neither will six.
3. KP needs a challenge - I think losing the captaincy was more of a blow than his Achilles injury. The management should 'suggest' he go in at 3 against Bangladesh. The prospect ought not to terrify him and he might grow to like it. This would allow Trott to either open and get used to facing the new ball -essential for a number 3- or to move down and continue bedding into Test cricket safely at 5 (I hope not at 6!).

To be honest I don't really believe that either team played consistently well enough to win it, although it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if SA had Steyn at Centurion and didn't make the sentimental decision of picking Ntini for Durban when De Wet (pre-injury) was the man in form out of the two of them. For what its worth I saw Ntini at Newlands in a 40 over match on Friday night and in his first spell he was spanked all over the park at ease, a once great bowler who is sadly on the decline.

From an England perspective I wouldn't be too disheartened, Andy Flower IMHO has added a bit of steel to the team that was lacking for a few years. Bell finally decided that he wanted to play test cricket, Cook decided that he knew where his off stump was for the first time in his career and went from being a walking wicket to a prized wicket in two matches, Jimmy Anderson seems to have finally matured and was the pick of the England quicks, bowling like he was he'd be a match for most batting attacks in the world.

A few things worry me though. Team selection, ask any Saffer and when they saw that Onions was dropped they had a sigh of relief as he was the understated star of the first three matches and by bowling tight and with movement built the pressure that allowed Anderson, Broad and Swann to get the wickets, very strange decision as I think that he can be a real star. Broads attitude also worries me, every other team in the world will now be targeting him as its obvious to a two year old that you can get under his skin in about 2 seconds flat, he honestly looked like he has nothing but cartilage between his ears at times. Andy flower need to sit him down and sort it out quickly else it will cost the team dearly, umpires will also be taking a serious dislike to him if he keeps abusing them.

Over all I think that it was a fair result from a really exciting series.

Just one word on next year, I have had the pleasure of sitting next to many pommes at cricket this year and all seem to knock Mitchell Johnson, which is strange because although I accept he went into the last ashes with a big reputation I do believe that he was either the 2nd or 3rd highest wicket taker in the series, so he's not too bad, also wait for him to get on harder wickets with the kookaburrah ball and you might just change that opinion, we saffers did!

Warren Potter, nobody claimed this England side are the finished article. However, SA do claim this and I find that much funnier considering you have no spinner and a nack of consistently failing to press advantages home (like you did a couple of times in this series).

Never mind though, just claim moral victories and slate the opposition instead, eh?

Is there a side in the world without frailties?

You can read too much into individual match results. Wanderers was a tough pitch and 250 would not have been a bad score. SA's score was built on 2 key partnerships - Smith/Amla and De Villiers/Boucher, in total worth 285 of their runs. Reverse the 2 questionable referral decisions and those partnerships would have contributed 7 runs in total.

England seemed to lose the plot because of a) Strauss's very unlucky dismissal to a brilliant piece of fielding and b)the Smith non-decision.

OK, they both came at crucial times of the match, but England have to learn to keep their cool in test matches. Bad decisions and bad luck are part of test cricket - they don't decide the match, it's what happens afterwards that does.

If your captain goes 1st ball, knuckle down and eke out the runs. Don't come out swinging in panic. And if you get a bad decision, make up for it by bowling accurately and consistently till another chance comes along.

Correct me if I'm wrong, England won't play Australia for another year! In that time all kinds of things could happen, injuries, form, but also new discoveries! Whilst not in the best of form, England have shown guts and spirit in the last two series, crucially avoiding defeat. The quality is clearly there, what is lacking is concentration. If you can thrash South Africa, making hay in bat one game, where is the justification of 180 all out the next? I don't care how fast their attack is. That's it, just fast, no swing, no guile, just speed, line and length. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. What England have been missing for years is someone who gets in and stays in consistently. The last player to be able to do that was Graham Gooch. Once in, Robin Smith was also notoriously difficult to get out, however it normally took him ages to get settled. England need someone like Boycott.

Ben, you said "one rough series does not make Trott a bad player", and I'm inclined to agree, though I seem to remember one rough series last summer did apparently make Ravi Bopara an awful player in the eyes of selectors and various commentators.

To the extent that Bopara doesn't even get a mention these days...
Not sure it's fair, but maybe a symptom of our selectors rather than Trott or Bopara's form.

England performed well with all the players out of form and showed real qualities. The powers of Australia are overestimated. If no one has noticed they have been bundled below 200 in 3 of the 4 innings in three matches against west Indies and Pakistan. By next year there bowling attack will be even more fragile as they don't have bowlers for patient batsmen. Unfortunately Pakistan and West Indian top order lack that

First Innings scores might not be able to win a game, but definitely will apply appropriate pressure on the team following if substantial enough - obvious enough I suppose. And comments from the Team England have noted that currently this is an issue that needs addressing, more so than having 4 or 5 bowlers. I believe the bowling unit is solid and cohesive enough to take on any team - if they have something to bowl at. Any new ball, with a decent enough bowler, can remove the openers accordingly so it's down to three and four - which in this series has been the achilles heel for England in the Centurion / Cape Town / Wanderer's tests that put them on the back foot - even solid 40's or 50's would have made a substantial difference mentally. Down to attitude I'm afraid as shown by Colly / Bell - especially in the first innings.

interesting piece. I've written a decent response but struggling to putit on here. try this link

Re the 'benefit of a few miles-an-hour of extra pace': I bet Steve Harmison's having a wry smile or two.

'The Poms have never been able to win under pressure and it has just been proved again.Yes, when they are the underdogs they occasionally pull it off - but not when they are expected to win. That is the story of English sport. A good team is a team that wins when expected to win. All they needed in the 4th test was a draw and what did they do ? - they collapsed like a bunch of wimps'

Oh you silly boy Richard!! The aussies have never done that have they??!!!! Even during their years of success they often capitualted chasing low 4th innings totals. I also seem to remember them collapsing every time an England bowler bowled a quality spell last summer (Flintoff, Anderson and Broad all benefitted form some atrocious batting). Face it old boy the years of aussie aporting success are over and England/GB are now on an upward curve and statistcially better than the boys (and girls) down under across a range of sports. Beijing proved that and subsequent events have confirmed it.

Don't be fooled by the Oz wins over the Windies and Pakistan. The green and gold looked very vulnerable at times against these weak test sides. England aren't great (maybe never will be with only 10% of state schools playing the game - a frightening, yet little known statistic). As for the Saffers, they have plenty of talent but I think they'll come unstuck in India as I think only Kallis is good enough against spin (see how they struggled against Swann at times), Steyn and Morkel will not get the same life out of Asian pitches and they have no spinner to fall back on of their own - it will be a good series though and I would bet on SA beating India at home whenever they play them.

England have guts and make the most of their (slightly limitied) ability which is all you can realistically ask for. They are capable of climbing to No3 in the rankings (above Oz) but I don't think they can go further with the current group of players.

Degenerating into a typical Ashes thread -some people don't learn it seems.

Oh good, an Ashes blog, already.

A good result against one of the strongest teams in the world reduced to a sighter as to how we will do against a team that isn't quite as good.

10 months of cricket, including two series against Bangladesh, one against Pakistan, plus Australia against Pakistan in England, the world Twenty20 and the entire domestic season, reduced to a couple of lines on how results in Chittagong or Mirpur might effect the Ashes.

'Ashes years' are depressing.

Ashes years are depressing? Don't be such a pussy... if it wasn't for the Ashes where would test cricket be currently headed? Oblivion most likely.

So long as the attention stays more on the side of conjecture than outright hype then I'm all for it.

Some interesting pre-Ashes stuff to consider over the coming months.

For England:
Will Broad continue his slow improvement with ball? (if you don't believe me, check out the bowling averages for the last 6-12mths)
Can Swan continue to cause good batsmen problems, and on all surfaces?
Is Trott really good enough?
Will KP start to find any form?
Should Bresnan get a look in as the all-rounder (and England go in with no recognised number 7 and three number 8s)
Is Sidebottom finished as an international class bowler?
Can Bell consolidate his position with some consistency?

For Australia:
Is Watson good enough or will he get found out once the analysis starts?
If he isn't.. is Hughes going to come back stronger?
Is Ponting on the slide.. even slightly.. and if so, where will he be in 11-12 months time?
Can Clarke step up and deliver as often and as reliably as Ponting has in the past?
Is North good enough?
Is Johnson going to improve or has he peaked already?
Will Hauritz continue to take wickets against better batsmen than the current WI/Pakistan crop?
Will Hilfenhaus regain form and fitness?

And for both sides, will someone make a late run for selection in time?

Its brilliant isn't it?

Slade should give up on Christmas and write a song about the Ashes being every day instead.

I think it you are right about the Kookaburra Ball not giving assistance to the seam attack abroad, unlike the DUKES here
It will be interesting to see how the Kookaburra ball fares in the two Australia / Pakistan tests here later this year. First time being used in Test Matches in England.
Should England change to using Kookaburra ?

"Ashes years are depressing? Don't be such a pussy... if it wasn't for the Ashes where would test cricket be currently headed? Oblivion most likely."

I love the Ashes, but its inflation to the point where all other cricket is reduced to fodder for mindless, repetitive speculation leaves me cold.

I'm sure I'll enjoy the Ashes, and I will probably enjoy the build up immediately before, but first I intend to enjoy what should be some interesting cricket in its own right.

"but first I intend to enjoy what should be some interesting cricket in its own right"

Hear hear to that my friend.

Australia, regardless of where they rank, are still the best team in the world. That point is made even more clearer by the fact that they are a team in transition. Better than South Africa and England. Remember Englnad got lucky when they beat them in in the summer but their luck will eventually run out.

On a lunch break at work so figured I'd answer some of Ozzie Stan's questions above. Also liked your opening couple of Sentences mate. Couldn't agree more. Happy to leave hype to T20 but that doesn't mean I don't want to talk about the Ashes....

For England:
Will Broad continue his slow improvement with ball? (if you don't believe me, check out the bowling averages for the last 6-12mths)
Unfortunately, I don't think so. I think he has reached his full potential now and his frequent bouts of petulance suggest a man (and lets not forget, he is actually a man and not a boy) who can't find anything else in the locker. I think his only hope of further improvement is to work on his temperament and learn to consistently find the right line and length - 5 out of 6 balls per over on the money will find wickets.

Can Swan continue to cause good batsmen problems, and on all surfaces?
Yes. Here's a guy who now has the temperament for test cricket and the more he plays the 5-day game the more he improves (In the Ashes he was taking wickets with jaffas and many forgot that he bowled a fair amount of dross either side). He seems to thrive on the intensity and he understands how to fight those personal battles with batsmen. I also like the fact that he only takes the sport too seriously once he's crossed the white line.

Is Trott really good enough?
We just don't know yet. The technique is there but again, its about temperament.

Will KP start to find any form?
Golly, its about temperament again in my eyes. Though he genuinely is a special talent and its hard to imagine him not producing once more.

Should Bresnan get a look in as the all-rounder (and England go in with no recognised number 7 and three number 8s)?
No.

Is Sidebottom finished as an international class bowler?
Yes.

Can Bell consolidate his position with some consistency?
As long as he stays at 6, yes.

For Australia:
Is Watson good enough or will he get found out once the analysis starts?
He has averaged well against some decent attacks and his temperament is good. He'll be opening in the winter (Ozzy Stan's summer obviously!)

If he isn't.. is Hughes going to come back stronger?
From what I've seen, Hughes is a potentially great player and if he had emerged 4 years ago would now be a test regular but, assuming Watson keeps his place, where could he come in? 3 or 4 is arguably too high - you wouldn't want him taking guard if Aus had lost 1-2 very early wickets. Ideally he'd be a 5-6 batsman I think, but this is not the Australia side of old and I think they'll be looking for more solidity rather than aggression in the middle order than they may have done a few years ago. Also not sure how he fares against spin?

Is Ponting on the slide.. even slightly.. and if so, where will he be in 11-12 months time?
If Ponting loses 10-20% of his game, he'll still be out there on merit. Is already a legend.

Can Clarke step up and deliver as often and as reliably as Ponting has in the past?
Yes. Fantastic player with an impressive ability to size up a game and play the right kind of innings. Similar to Collingwood but a better player overall.

Is North good enough?
Haven't seen enough of him to properly answer I'm afraid.

Is Johnson going to improve or has he peaked already?
I don't think he's peaked. A tiny bit more consistency should come into his game. Injuries will be the determining factor in this. He has an unorthodox action but the fact it hasn't been tampered with or coached out of him too much suggests it is his natural one and this sshould bode well for the future.

Will Hauritz continue to take wickets against better batsmen than the current WI/Pakistan crop?
I don't think so. Again, its an issue of the batsmans temperament and this is something Pakistan appeared to leave at home. If England don't a) see him as cheap runs, b) focus on the bowler at the other end, c) decide to always play him on the front/back foot but take each ball on its merits then I don't see him troubling us. Not saying he's a bad bowler but I do think that he is a bowler that an average batsman with a good temperament could keep out easily.

Will Hilfenhaus regain form and fitness?
Don't know. How important is this to Australia?

There you go. Lunchbreak nearly over!

I do wish Vaughan would keep quiet more, his suggestion we need five bowlers for Australia subscribes to the theory that quantity is better than quality. We had Flintoff last Ashes tour, this tour we won't even have that - although I suspect he will be very much tempted to come out of retirement for the series.

Our problem down under was batting collapses, although our bowlers didn't have as much impact as 18 months earlier or 30 later

ASHES 2006/07

1st Test - conceded 602/9d and then were bowled out for 157 1st innings and lost by 277 runs
2nd Test - established a 1st innings lead, then were bowled out for 129 and lost by six wickets
3rd Test - bowled out for 215 to trail narrowly on 1st innings, but our bowlers could match their's 2nd innings
4th Test - bowled out for 159 and 161 to lose by an innings
5th Test - conceded a 102 run 1st innings lead then were bowled out for 147.

Five bowler theory clearly didn't work, if they checked the stats they'd find England are more robust playing six batsmen overseas. The top order didn't do enough and the middle-lower order even less, with a fragile batting line-up of Flintoff, Jones/Read, Mahmood/Hoggard, Harmison and Anderson.

Collapses are nothing new, we've developed a trend of getting in and getting out as many of our batsmen showed in South Africa.

Strauss - one of too many getting in and out, made three scores between 45 and 53 against South Africa, and four between 39 and 75 in the last three Ashes Tests

Cook - like Strauss he gets in and doesn't go on to big scores far too often, FIFTEEN of his 94 Test innings have ended between 50 and 65 (16%)

Trott/Pietersen - made 218 runs between them in the 1st Test @ 54.50, then 149 runs between them in the last three Tests @ 14.90. Both are capable of so much more, Pietersen may have a ready made excuse but does injury mean you come back and have to throw your wicket away so often?!?!?

Collingwood/Bell - the only batsmen who showed sufficient resolve for me, Cook was the other England batsman averaging 40+ but these two contributed as much as anyone to saving two Tests and Collingwood as much as anyone in trying to save the last

Prior - two fifties, five scores of 0-14. We need a bit more consistency from the keeper

Broad - his batting let him down badly in South Africa, he is taking more wickets in series now but still too often anonymous. Is he improving? Hard to tell as he's played windies home and away which isn't exactly a great Test of his improvement. Needs to get his bowling average down to nearer or below 30 if he's to be part of a four man attack

Onions - 10, 10 and 8 wickets in his first three series isn't too bad, especially as he's played only eight Tests. Didn't pass his first overseas Test with flying colours, maybe another suited better to home conditions.

Sidebottom - struggling to get back into the side, I think his variey and ability to win Tests should see him kept in the side barring poor form. He still averages under 30 with the ball in Tests, but like many England bowlers he looks great when playing weaker Test sides and not so hot when playing India at home (37.88), Sri Lanka away (63.60) and struggled somewhat in windies and South Africa (181.00 and 49.00)

Anderson - should be our star bowler, but an average of 34.81 with ball isn't as good as it could or maybe should be, and he showed in this series and the Ashes he can be great one Test and might as well not be playing the next - 5,3,8 & 0 wickets in the South Africa Tests, 2,4,6,0 & 0 in the Ashes Tests

Swann - the star of England at the moment, with ball and sometimes even with bat. Surely he deserves promoting up the order, chipping away with scores and averaging 32.81 with the bat. He may make a Test century soon, but only if circumstances are just right unless he is moved up the order. With Anderson used as nightwatchman he is going to have even less partners below him at times, I think he's looking a lot more likely to make three figures than Broad above him who hasn't looked that likely with the bat for a while. His bowling average has crept up just above 30, but he's picked up four 5wis in just 16 Tests and is looking every bit a Test spinner. He's taken 14+ wickets in every series bar two where he played only two Tests, taking eight and seven in those. He has yet to take a 5wi in England though, if England were to take note of such stats they might include Monty at home and Swanny away - Swann has taken four 5wi away, Monty has taken eight of which SIX were at home (and his average is 28.77)


There are frailties in batting and bowling, the batting is a more obvious one because it generally costs us. But when you are bowled out cheapley, or for a below par score, it is when you need your bowlers to force the pace and battle England back into the Test. Unfortunately I don't believe this bowling attack capable, maybe we could have followed South Africa's lead and played four quicks in the final Test. That's not to say Swann didn't bowl well, but was never going to bowl us to a win. When needed Anderson took 0/111 and recalled Sidebottom 2/98. It was our batting that cost us, but on a pitch that the saffers bowled us out twice for under 200, our bowlers looked relatively toothless and they scored one hundred and three fifties in their one innings to our one fifties in two innings.

South Africa was one of those series where one side was statistically superior and yet the series and Test results don't reflect that. Collingwood is about the closest thing we have to a Kallis, and Kallis is a better batsman and far better bowler. We don't have bowlers of the class of Steyn (23.71) or even Morkel, we were lucky their bowlers couldn't finish us off in two Tests. Perhaps the one thing England need to do is learn from mistakes, the batsmen in particular who keep repeating silly shots. Other than learn more consistency I'm not sure what the bowlers can do, we certainly aren't going to get much out of the next Ashes tour if we put in another average Joe bowler who can't really bat and hope to somehow drag the aussie totals down to our's - they're low enough as it is with six batsmen

This is an interesting discussion but I think it needs to be put into a different context, i.e. how much can we reasonably expect from this England team?

The truth is that this is a team playing above themselves, and they deserve credit for that. Whilst people have been very critical of England over the course of the test-series, the reality seems to be that these people have a mindset that tells them England should be winning every series. This is simply not the case. England acheived a battling 1-1 draw, and this in itself was an upset. We do not have a batsman of the quality of Smith, an all-rounder of the quality of Kallis or a bowlerrr with the quality of Steyn (in the case of the latter two, I don't think any country does).

People can talk till the cows come home about how England need a bowler of the calibre of Steyn or Morkel with express pace, but if such a bowler doesn't exist then what's the point? It's like saying that Portsmouth FC should avoid relegation by signing Rooney, Fabregas and Drogba. It can't happen. We have the bowlers that we have and the best we can do is try and help them consistently play to their potential and create a team spirit that on occasions helps them play above themselves. This may happen once a series, as has been the case v SA and Aus.

Strength in depth in the batting department is also a concern, with only Carberry having made a decent case for inclusion in a squad.

The key factor affecting the above comes from far away from the test arena and is mentioned above. Cricket is played in under 10% of state schools (even fewer at a primary level). As long as this situation continues, lets not kid ourselves that we should be winning series v Aus and SA. Lets celebrate when we do win, appreciate it when we draw and try and do what we can to make sure that our kids (for those of us that have them) have the opportunity to play one of our national sports without us having to shell out £000s in school fees.

I would like to see the current group of players left to develop, all players go through form issues whatever country you play for. everything needs to looked at with less of a fine toothcomb. Petersen is clearly struggling to find form, he ll be fine in the long term. I like the fact that Graeme Gooch came on a tour to help out alaister cook, i would like to see more of this. I really can't believe english cricket has never used the services of geoff boycott, we still have a chance. there seems to be an attitude in all sport that once you reach the national team you have finished your development, it is surely just the start.

Look at current succeses, Graeme Swann had to go back to county cricket to learn his craft before becoming a test class player. Look at Monty, lost it seems, will he ever return? Ian Bell in and out of the team but still can't help trying to play the rising ball from the quicker bowlers giving slip catching practice( the reason why he can't bat at 3) Stuart Broad is another player who is far from the finished article. His bowling is coming along nicely but the attitude that he is the new freddie is somewhat falling short of reality. When he has freedom to attack he looks a better player. Defensively he still looks like a schoolboy cricketeer. His footwork his poor( Where's Gooch). Without focusing on the negative's too much i would just like to mention Matt Prior, the perfect Keeper now it seems, with the help of Bruce French( what a keeping legend), looks like he could do with some batting coach now.

The problem with english cricket doesn't relate towards the five bowlers and five batsmen discussion or where certain players play which is currently doing the rounds. It skills that need to be focused on, this problem does not just relate to the national team it runs through the culture of english cricket. Not enough coaching and too much playing. This has become cultural in english society, it comes from the top. Individual wealth is held in too high regard and this gets in the way the development of the english game.

I'm 40 now and i love cricket, i would have loved to play cricket proffesionally, i was playing for a large town playing when i was 18(ok maybe i was a little too old), playing with lots of minor counties players, but there was no development for me, Um thinks!!!!!!!
well i'm still playing and still learning and coaching a bit myself( as an ECB level one coach)

enough said everyone can now back to scoring points and refering to previous matches( series) to discuss individual merits and have they got the mentality for it, not for me though.

enjoy!!!

oh i forgot to add on a couple of points. 1, Strauss and flower are doing a better job than has been seen for some time. I just hope that gthey keep all the players busy with individual coaching, i want to see less of players being lost to the national team( we have limited resources, as previously commented on).

2. We look at the money that is in the game over here. Where does it all go? how can Lords charge £85 for a ticket to go and watch Pakistan this year and yet abroad in South Africa, was it 5 pounds to get into the ground. Lords are charging maybe up to 20% of the average mans disposable income for the month, that's before travel, food and beer. Please stop this nonsense. I won't go to Lords anymore, but rather i do that and be sat at home for the rest of the month watching the rubbish that's on TV. Please adminstrators get real and start encouraging people to come and watch the national game more often. bring the prices down. maybe we can all enjoy the rich tappestry of life a bit more instead of sitting at home watching Sky TV. Does no one understand economies of scale. the attitude of more people watching and being involved in the game mean more money for the guys at the top too.

I agree with the comments about the Ashes not being the only cricket tournament that England should be aiming for. I am fed up of the blinkered approach taken by the press on this issue. Every other test series seems to be part of a 'build-up' to the next Ashes series. How stupid is that? That's like saying that every Rugby Union match England plays is a build-up to the next match against Wales. Yes, there is intense rivalry, but it is insulting to every other Test playing nation to have this attitude.

The next important Test series is the next Test series, Bangladesh or not! England are foolish if they treat it as a B-Series. I have no problem with people having a rest, but really the amount of cricket played by England over the winter has been laughable. From November 6th to January 17th (73 days), they played 17 matches (3 half day matches, 8 1 day matches - 2 of which were abandoned without any play, 2 2-day matches, and 4 5-day tests), a total of 30 days actual playing time (plus 3 20/20 bashes).

England's problems stem from lack of preparation, not one real warm-up match between September and the 1st Test. A 2 day smack-around isn't really up to it. It is no wonder that some of the players don't seem to know where the stumps are, nor how to run between the wickets, nor how to build an innings; the only chance they get is when they are playing the Tests.

What do they have in their upcoming tour to Dubai and Bangladesh? 2 20/20 matches against Pakistan, 2 practice 1 day matches followed by three ODIs, then a 3-day match (hooray, but still only 3 days!) followed by 2 Tests. The tour is a total of 5 weeks, so I expect that most of the squad will be tired, tired of sitting around in hotels waiting for the next flight.

Basically there are too many tours, and they are badly organised.

Nice of Ben to reply to the criticism of his article.....

Says it all really.

If you are not in the ODI squad your preparation is even stranger. Bell, who is generally regarded as an improving batsman who had good match winning innings in 2 Tests, is now in the second string England Lions playing 4 matches of Twenty-20 against UAE A and Pakistan A. He'll probably get his best workout against England in the Lions Twenty-20 game. Is this really good management for Test matches?

I'm not a fan of Andy Flower, too much emphasis on his Essex cronies, and, dare I say it, SA bias, and I think it is a real mistake to make Cook captain, buddies though they may be. It will be Cook making the decisions on the field and if his last effort is anything to go by he'll have about 10 other captains advising him if things go wrong. Chaos might ensue. KP was just awful with his field placings and general timid strategy. Now Cook admits he is fairly conservative.

As far as Trott is concerned I am worried about his batting under pressure at 3. If a platform is established then he's OK but if he is asked to come in during the first or second over he might not be able to cope with the new ball. Last year he was protected at Warwickshire by Bell - ironically. I still wonder why Bell was not kept at 3 after his crucial Oval Ashes 72. He did come in at 12-1. Would Trott have coped with that?
It might not be smart to move Bell to 3 again just yet but if Trott fails then I think the management will consider moving Trott down the order to 5 (or 6) where he delivered at the Oval.

Kp is still a worry. For the same reason as Trott. He's never been that good coming in early. KP wants to play attacking shots too soon.

If Bell improves on his scores under 10 then he will make great strides. Despite the hearsay of Bell's pretty 30s, he's only ever had 6 innings of 30s and that includes his 35 at the Wanderers. Compare that to his 21 50s. He's vulnerable when he first comes in. Boycott coach?

I think we are missing Harmison and it was a mistake not to support him as our fast bowler. Poor management again.

It was clear that Prior does not know how to defend. Boycott coach again?