The Elephant in the Room

Whenever in the summer Shane Warne, or another pundit, questioned Alistair Cook’s captaincy, it was greeted with a standard response – look at his record. At the end of the summer Cook’s captaincy record stood at P16 W9 L1 D6, with England unbeaten in all series under his leadership. Three months later the Ashes have not so much been handed back as surrendered, Australia thumping England to win the first three Tests, not one of them close.

The problem is that when your standard response to a question about a captain’s ability is to point to his record, it highlights the absence of anything else to defend the captain with. No-one needed to point to Nasser Hussain’s, Michael Vaughan’s or Andrew Strauss’ records to defend the quality of their captaincy. The discipline of Hussain’s sides, the creativity of Vaughan’s sides, and the professionalism of Strauss’ sides were self evident. During the summer, very few people were saying Michael Clarke was a bad captain, as the imagination of his field settings and his bowling changes proved otherwise.

Cook’s captaincy identity is only marked by its lack of one. Hussain turned a bunch of lazy, mentally weak players into a tough international unit, demanding discipline from his team. The highlight of his reign, and maybe the greatest achievement by an England captain since I’ve been watching cricket, the back-to-back away series wins in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, were emblematic of his captaincy. In Pakistan, England grimly hung in until they were given an unlikely opportunity to steal the series in the Karachi gloom, which they did. In Sri Lanka, they were thrashed in the first Test. England sides of the past would have folded. Hussain’s England won the next two Tests, Hussain himself grinding out an immensely ugly but utterly vital hundred in the 2^nd Test, his second fifty and first hundred in thirteen Tests. Cook does not have the intense, demanding nature of Hussain, he will never be a captain like Hussain, occasionally scaring his own players, but empowering them with a fight to death.

In 2003, after the World Cup, the England team was beginning to unearth new talent. Bought up in a world of central contracts, the Trescothick, Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison generation did not lead lessons on professionalism from Hussain. They needed a new leader, someone who would set them free. Michael Vaughan was that leader. Rules were relaxed, or had become part of the underlying culture, and England moved from a side that made themselves hard to beat to one that played to win. Vaughan’s captaincy was renowned for his easy going nature, and his immense tactical acumen. Although armed with a better bowling attack than Hussain, Vaughan had an extra ability to motivate these bowlers. Under Hussain they had not wanted to bowl a bad ball; under Vaughan they wanted to bowl good ones. Cook does not have the tactical feel for the game that Vaughan possessed, and instead of appearing relaxed on the field he often appears pensive.

After Vaughan, the next significant captain was Andrew Strauss, in company with coach Andy Flower. Strauss and Flower took the exciting brand of cricket that England had either played or attempted to play under Vaughan, and completely professionalised it. The players were better prepared, more confident, and the largest improvement on Vaughan, significantly better man managed off the field. England went from expecting to win series to knowing exactly how they would. Strauss was never the most creative captain, but always came prepared, and delivered England to number one in the world. Strauss and Cook are closest in terms of personality, but whereas the professionalism of the Strauss era bought together the best aspects of the side, under Cook (and not necessarily his fault) it has become restrictive on the side. Batsman play too defensively, bowlers are picked not on their ability to take wickets but on their ability not to concede runs, and on the field England seem afraid to express themselves.

Cook is not Hussain, he is not Vaughan, and he is not Strauss. But he has yet to find his own definition as captain, his own style of leadership. Until he does, he risks becoming England’s Ricky Ponting – a man destroyed by both his own inability to define his own captain’s reign, and was unable to escape the legacy of the three previous captains (Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh).

Whilst I am fairly down on Cook’s captaincy, I don’t think he should be removed. England have spent too much time investing in him as their captain to jettison him now, and more pertinently, there is no-one in that side who stands out as a better option. Only Stuart Broad seems to have more of the required skills, yet as a bowler his place will always be more open to question, and to injury.

Nor is Cook entirely to blame for the situation they currently find themselves in. The team culture is not entirely of his creation, the team not entirely of his selection and until now results have been good. He cannot be blamed for Jonathan Trott’s depression, three consecutive losses at the toss, the sudden health of Ryan Harris and a resurgent Mitchell Johnson’s form.

To move forward England need to help Cook by giving him someone, from outside of the England setup, to work with and help him improve as a captain. For a side that includes so many back room staff, and a game that necessitates so many specialist coaches, to not have a coach for a captain who has never captained his county before is a rare blind spot in England’s thinking. If Andy Flower and Graham Gooch think they could provide this, their own reputations as captains should make them think again. England should look to a Stephen Fleming style figure, a man who carved a distinctly average side into a hard playing, entertaining, New Zealand despite missing the third most talented cricketer they had produced in forty years, to help Cook, to allow him to bounce ideas off, including ideas that may involve criticism of management or individual players that would do him no favours if expressed in the dressing room. England’s era of holding the Ashes, started by Hussain, achieved by Vaughan and maintained by Strauss is over. Cook now has to create his own history.

3 Reasons to be Hopeful and 3 Reasons to be Fearful

After Australia mauled England in the 1^st Ashes Test, here are three reasons why England can win the series, and three reasons why they can’t:-

India 2012

The last time England looked in such a bad state, and in fact the last time England lost a Test match, was the 1^st Test in India in 2012. England were thumped by nine wickets, and looked like they could neither take twenty Indian wickets, nor score enough runs to place any kind of pressure on the Indian bowlers. The pundits were demanding multiple changes from England, and Indian fans were talking of winning 4-0. England won the next two Tests, and drew the last to win the series 2-1.

England lost the first Test in that series as badly as they have lost this Test. They were able to turn the series around by acknowledging the mistakes they made in the first Test, standing by the right players, and making only one but the right change by including the extra spinner in place of a seamer. They didn’t panic, analysed their errors, and then went 13 matches unbeaten. The manner of the defeat will not cause England to panic, they’ll analyse, and history shows that this management team will make the right decisions to get England back into the series.

Australia’s batsmen are not suddenly world beaters

Going back to the end of the 1^st day, a lot of Australians were not particularly happy with how the series had started. Australia closed 273-8 and ended up 295 all out, with a lot of the problems that had dogged Australian cricket for the previous 24 months once again rising to the surface. They weren’t scoring enough runs, and too many of the batsman were out to shots that didn’t need to be played. Ultimately, Australia had more than enough runs to win the match, and hundreds by David Warner and Michael Clarke in the second innings were hugely encouraging.

Yet, over the last two years, only three Australian batsmen average higher than 40 in Tests, and two of those are now retired – Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting. The averages of the current side for that period are as follows:- Rogers 34.90, Warner 38.30, Watson 30.72, Clarke 74.39, Smith 35.80, Bailey 18.50 and Haddin 32.64. Those are hardly numbers to strike fear into a bowling attack, as was proved in the summer. Rogers and Bailey give the impression of hard workers who perhaps lack the ability. Warner, Watson and Smith all give the impression that a poor shot is just around the corner. England can take 20 wickets in every Test, and that means England have a chance to win every Test.

Australia’s bowlers cannot keep this up

A huge amount, and deservedly so, will be made of Mitchell Johnson’s performance in this match. Those who believe this is a stunning return to form missed the Sri Lanka tour of Australia last winter, where for two Tests Johnson found this kind of form, taking wickets and sending three batsman home injured. But in this Test every Australian bowler hit their best form and played their role perfectly. Johnson was the spearhead, Harris the leader, Siddle hit the top of off stump as the third seamer and Lyon bowled accurately, allowing four batsman to make mistakes against his bowling.

With Johnson, when he has this confidence, he can be nigh on unplayable. The speed gun doesn’t do him justice, as his slingy action means he loses less off the pitch than most. Harris was bowling nearly the same speed, but didn’t hurry the England batsman nearly as much. But the history of Johnson shows that this form could desert him at any moment, when he becomes a bowler that delivers four balls to all four corners of the ground. For Harris, the problems are completely fitness based. No amount of form or confidence will make the cartilage in his knees grow back, and sadly for a hugely talented bowler and by accounts a fantastic bloke, an injury is always around the corner. Siddle and Lyon are good bowlers when they are your 3^rd and 4^th best, but when they are the first two options, as they were in India, they are a lot less threatening.

And why we should be worried:-

England’s batting is in a 2 year slump

England struggled in the summer Ashes, and now in this Test match, to score runs. England seem to either collapse, or when they did score runs, really have to grind them out. In the summer Jonny Bairstow and Joe Root were the objects of criticism, and now, it is Jonathan Trott. But the stats show that it is not one player that is the problem, but all of them. England’s batting averages for batsmen in Tests since the start of 2012 are below, and it doesn’t paint even a picture of adequacy:-

Alistair Cook – 42.78

Kevin Pietersen – 40.25

Joe Root – 39.55

Ian Bell – 38.38

Jonathan Trott – 38.25

Matt Prior – 36.22

Andrew Strauss – 33.19

Nick Compton – 31.93

Jonny Bairstow – 30.22

Michael Carberry – 20.00

James Taylor – 16.00

Samit Patel – 15.57

Eoin Morgan – 13.66

Ravi Bopara – 11.00

That England’s results have been reasonable during this period (Wins at home to Australia, West Indies and New Zealand, and in India; draws in Sri Lanka and New Zealand; defeats at home to South Africa and “away” to Pakistan) owes much to the qualities of James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann, at times supported by Tim Bresnan and others Steven Finn. Other than Joe Root, those averages are unacceptable for those players given their ability and the stage they are at in their careers. Prior’s average is reasonable for a keeper, but across his last eight Tests he averages just 15. But the problem is not one player; it is a collective failing where not even one player is scoring the runs England need.

England have mismanaged their best young players

When England first arrived in Australia, the general train of thought was that England would continue with Joe Root opening, and bring Gary Ballance into the middle order. However, runs in the warm-up games saw Michael Carberry play in the 1^st Test, with Root in the middle order, and Ballance carrying the drinks. Whilst Carberry’s runs meant his selection was deserved, the treatment of Root and the selection of a 33 year-old is emblematic of England’s overly pragmatic approach to selection.

The average age of the side for the first Test was 30.3, and ignoring the 22 year-old Root, 31.2. Eight of the players are 31 or older, and thus it can be argued in the majority of cases, that their best cricket is behind them. Over the next three years the vast majority of England’s Test side is going to get worse.

The three most talented youngsters that England have produced recently are, in order, Steven Finn, Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow. Yet all have been mismanaged by England, and all three have played international cricket, yet are no further on in their development than when they arrived in the England team.

Finn’s treatment is the most frustrating. He made his debut on the tour of Bangladesh, and since then has been in and out of the side, playing 23 of England’s 46 Tests in that period. England have time and time again left Finn out of the side, as despite the fact he takes wickets, he concedes too many runs. This is typical of England’s pragmatism, but ignores a vital truth of Test cricket – it is harder to teach an accurate bowler to take wickets at Test level than to teach a wicket-taker to bowl accurately. Since his debut, only two bowlers have taken more wickets than Finn at a better strike rate – Vernon Philander and Dale Steyn. Steyn, and more aptly, Morne Morkel were both wicket takers who bowled inconsistently at the start of their Test careers. South Africa, and in particular Graeme Smith, backed them and kept picking them. They are the basis for the best bowling attack in world cricket.

Bairstow arrived at international level with a reputation as England’s long term replacement for Prior, but not being quite a good enough batsman to warrant a place as a specialist. Two years later, he’s in exactly the same position, except has had to suffer the trauma of being dropped from the Test side twice, and rather than playing in both the ODI and T20 teams as he would be if managed properly, it sits and watches Jos Buttler make his own case for Test inclusion. Root is the best English produced (i.e. not KP) batsman for a long time, who arrived as a massive talent possibly not ready to open in Tests. A year later England still believe that is the case, yet during that time have jumped Root around the order and never rested him in white ball cricket despite the incredible transformation in his life over the past twelve months. He looks mentally tired, and that was born out in the ODI series against Australia, and possibly this Test series as well.

England can argue that their selection policy based on experience and the retention of players has served them very well since the appointment of Andy Flower. But that ignores an inconvenient truth for this management team – they benefitted from Duncan Fletcher introducing these players, and Peter Moores sticking by them, allowing them to become the players Flower inherited. Fletcher picked Cook, Broad, Anderson and Swann at 20, Bell and Prior at 22, Tremlett at 23 and Pietersen at 24. Andy Flower has done a huge amount right as England coach, but talent identification has been his main/only failing, and now it is biting back at England.

Australia have form and belief on their side

Going into this series a lot of English fans were bemused by Australia’s confidence entering the series. But the Aussies had a lot of reason to be confident. The tour of England helped rid Australia of a few players, some forever and some for now, and those players left have produced great form for their state sides. During a two day period, five of Australia top seven made 80+ in the Sheffield Shield, and of the two that didn’t, Shane Watson was injured and George Bailey was busy getting himself up to number 3 in the ODI world batting rankings.

With the bowlers, Mitchell Johnson was bowling fast, Peter Siddle was bowling well and Ryan Harris was bowling. Nathan Lyon looked solid and Jimmy Faulkner was showing off his all-round skills in India. Most pleasingly for Australia, should they suffer injury a number of their fringe players have shown form as well, with runs for Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, Chris Hartley (the best pure keeper in Australia), Alex Doolan, Matthew Wade and Shaun Marsh. Their quite remarkable legion of potential Test quick bowlers continues to swell, with Chadd Sayers continuing his rise and Ben Cutting bowling himself back into contention after a spell on the sidelines – even Xavier Doherty is taking wickets.

The Aussies are confident, and anyone who saw the beasting Chris Tremlett and James Anderson took, both from the bowlers and the abuse they copped from the Aussie fielders, in particular George Bailey at short leg (for Anderson to cry foul about that was hypocritical, as he is known about the world as someone who particularly enjoys telling batsman what he thinks of them.), will have seen their body language and the confidence in them. They are not hoping to win, they are expecting to. For Anderson to cry foul about that was hypocritical, as he is known about the world as someone who particularly enjoys telling batsman what he thinks of them.

1st Ashes Test - How They'll Line-Up

With the first Test coming up soon, and more markedly, the announcement of the Australian Test squad, here’s how I think the teams will line up in Brisbane on the 21^st.

England

England are fairly settled, with nine certain starters for the 1^st Test barring injury or an incredible loss of form – Alistair Cook, Joe Root, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Matt Prior, Graeme Swann, Stuart Broad and James Anderson. Of those nine, only Root has never toured Australia before, so there is strong experience of Australian conditions. The holes in the England line-up are the fourth bowler, and the sixth batsman.

Starting with the fourth bowler, it was billed as a straight shootout between Chris Tremlett, Boyd Rankin and Steven Finn, with Tim Bresnan to come into the mix later in the series. Rankin was probably the slight favourite before the first tour match, mainly due to novelty, but his bounce hurried the Australians in the one day series at home. It looked like a good battle with three England quicks vying for a position.

Then, the first tour game happened, and by all accounts, all three bowlers were extremely poor (the general impression of the Aussie journalists was that the best English seamer they saw that day was Tymal Mills in the nets), with all three playing to old weaknesses. Tremlett looked like he didn’t have the heart for the battle, Rankin looked extremely nervous and Finn would bowl a loose ball every over. To say there were no winners would be unfair, as the bowler who really won was Tim Bresnan. Tremlett, only due to his performances two years ago, is now the likely starter, but all three still have hope.

The sixth batsman is proving slightly more tricky than anticipated. Cook’s sore back gave an opportunity to Michael Carberry, and Gary Ballance and Ben Stokes were also given a game. The best outcome for England was a cautious 30 from Carberry, a hundred from Ballance and a spritely 50 from Stokes. What they got was 70 from Carberry, and failures from both Stokes and Ballance, who was dismissed first ball.

This has led to a lot of unnecessary failing about Joe Root’s position as opener. To pick Carberry to open and move Root down to six, as has been mooted today, would at best be short-termism and at worst do considerable damage to Root’s confidence. England bought into Root as an opener during the summer, and for me that’s an investment they have to maintain. Carberry is a nice bloke, and after his health problems and consistent runs at county level it’s extremely nice to see him in the England squad, but he doesn’t look like he’s got a glittering international career ahead of him. Root however might have, and there’s no reason to play around with his confidence.

Stokes’ form over the past two years with the bat suggests that batting him at six would be a push, and given Prior’s summer, they are unlikely to fancy pushing the keeper up to six to accommodate Stokes all-round skills (yet, Stokes has a long international career ahead of him). The pick for England is Ballance, who has looked a cut above for Yorkshire this year. One good ball in the first tour match doesn’t chance this, and England should be prepared to back him.

Team – Cook, Root, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Ballance, Prior, Broad, Swann, Tremlett (Bresnan when fit), Anderson

Australia

Australia have a different problem. Whilst England have an obvious 9 and have to find two, Australia have an obvious 13 but removing two becomes extremely difficult, because a huge amount depends on the balance of their side and their bowling attack. The 13 are Chris Rogers, Dave Warner, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke, Steve Smith, George Bailey, Brad Haddin, Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Ryan Harris, James Faulkner, Nathan Lyon and Fawad Ahmed.

There are 7 certain starters there for me – Rogers, Warner, Watson (if fit, he damaged a hamstring in the final ODI in India), Clarke, Haddin, Siddle and Harris (if fit, because let’s face it injury is inevitable with this man). Warner may have been under pressure after the Ashes series, but three big one day hundreds, and the manner in which he is striking the ball, along with the lack of a feasible replacement, mean he’ll be there in Brisbane.

With the rest, let’s start with England’s favourite Australian, Mitchell Johnson. For England fans, he is a figure of fun, a source of bad balls and an excellent Barmy Army song. For the Sri Lankan batsman earlier this year, he was a source of pain, both figuratively and for in some cases literally. He took wickets, broke bones, and was generally the terror he can be. When he is off, he is simply death to the fielding side as boundaries flow. When he is on, very few players have an answer, as was seen in one terrifying spell in Perth in 2010/11.

With no Pattinson, Starc or Bird, Johnson’s selection seems a must for Australia. But if he is picked, can they go with a four man attack. If Watson is unfit, Johnson as part of a four man attack seems a gamble too far if he doesn’t come off. The solution to this is obvious – pick James Faulkner. Faulkner reminds me a lot of Stuart Broad when he came through. He’s far from the finished article, but he has a certain hardness, a battle readiness, that marked Broad out from his arrival. Neither looked technically ready for Test cricket, but they clearly had a mental quality well beyond their years and an ability to create a spell or a boundary blast from nothing. Faulkner looks a match-winner and the Aussies would be well advised to pick him as part of a five man bowling attack which negates the risk of a Johnson off-day.

This brings us to the spinner, and again it’s not an easy choice. Straight off the bat, anyone who doesn’t think Fawad should be representing Australia, reserve your judgement until watching this. Lyon offers control but no great wicket threat. Fawad offers a real threat, but also plenty of four balls. If the Aussies go with a four man attack, I’d expect to see Lyon play. With a five man attack, Fawad becomes a more attractive option. If the Aussies go with a five man bowling attack, Lyon may start the series but I’d expect Fawad to end it.

That leaves two batsmen for one spot, Steve Smith and George Bailey. Bailey splits the Australian cricket public like no other cricketer, not even Johnson. To his supporters, of which I am one, he is a superb leader, a player with the mental capacity to succeed at Test cricket and deserving of his ODI form which sees him the best Australian one-day player since Michael Bevan. To his detractors, he’s a technically weak, over-confident and over-rated player who doesn’t deserve a spot in their ODI and t20 sides and certainly doesn’t deserve the captaincy. Two of his most ardent critics are two of the biggest names/ (mouths) in Australian cricket, in Shane Warne and Ian Chappell, whose opinion carries a lot of sway with the Aussie public.

For me, Bailey could bring a lot to the Australian side. They lack leadership, and he’s regarded as the best captain in Australia. Smith would be extremely unlucky to lose his place, as he carries a lot of the characteristics that make Bailey an attractive choice. He’s regarded as mentally strong, if potentially technically weak, and a strong presence in the dressing room and on the training field. In his last match for Australia, he scored an extremely impressive maiden Test hundred. The easy option for Australia is to avoid the choice between Smith and Bailey, pick both, and play four bowlers. But if they want to win this series, five bowlers is the way to hurt England. I’d go for Bailey, but a little part of me would be hoping Watson isn’t fit for the first Test.

There are other players Australia could call on. Eight fast bowlers are under CA’s control, the ones not mentioned being Ben Hilfenhaus, Josh Hazelwood, Chadd Sayers, Clint McKay and Nathan Coulter-Nile. On those, Sayers could be the best bet for when Ryan Harris needs resting. A late developer, Sayers swings the ball late at a decent pace, and would have the added advantage of the notoriously studious England not being able to find much footage of him. McKay and Hilfenhaus would bring consistency; Hazelwood and Coulter-Nile pace and bounce.

As for batsmen, Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja will continue to be mentioned, whilst Shaun Marsh would be a very strong candidate for the number three slot should Watson not be fit for the 1^st Test. Alex Doolan seems to be the upcoming young batsman, another highly rated Tasmanian youngster, who is another potential number three. The big problem for Australia is if an opener loses fitness or form. Ed Cowan’s time has surely passed, and most of the other opening options are converted number threes, such as Doolan. Hughes could make an unexpected return as opener if Warner fails to fire.

Team – Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Bailey, Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson, Siddle, Harris, Lyon. That’s my side, bit I expect Australia to pick Smith over Faulkner.

Post-Ashes Thoughts

Five thoughts on the Ashes after England won 3-0

1.       This series was about Australia more than England

History will record England won this series 3-0, but this fails to reflect the closeness between the teams. Australia could have won the 1^st Test, should have won the 4^th, and would have won the 3^rd without the intervention of the weather. Ultimately England won the series by a significant distance not because they were the better side (which they were, but not by that margin), but that they played the most important moments better than Australia.

But the overriding themes of this series were all Australian. The sacking/resignation of Micky Arthur before the series, the Warner punch, Agar’s debut, Ryan Harris’ comeback, leg before Watson, batting order shuffles and dodgy radio interviews, Australia dominated the headlines, if not the cricket. Having seen four previous home Ashes series, never before have Australia quite so much been the story, and provided so many moments for the cricket media, whether these being the brilliance of a swashbuckling teenager or the idiocy of a drunken moron, wasted reviews or the best bowler of the series.

2.       England need to up the ante

England deserve great credit for what they do, because for a side with very few great players, they win a lot of games. Their top order batsmen wear down the pace bowlers (although not in this series) and then their middle order milk the spinners. The pace bowlers work the new ball, and then bowl tightly with the old ball, whilst Swann spins his web. It’s not particularly entertaining, its real grinding cricket, but it gets the results, and it was too good for Australia.

The problem is Australia are no longer the standard bearers for Test cricket. Grinding teams down works very well when your opposition are worse than you, but as perfectly demonstrated by South Africa last summer, it doesn’t work when the opposition are better. South Africa’s batsmen simply played out the new ball, knocked the seamer around in the middle order, and blunted Swann. Their bowlers were simply too explosive for England, with the four seamers finding wickets on a regular basis.

For England to beat South Africa, they cannot try to grind them down. The only times South Africa have looked under pressure whilst winning away in both England and Australia have been when first Kevin Pietersen and Michael Clarke took the attack to their bowling, whilst their batting was hustled by the sheer guts and energy of Peter Siddle. To beat the South Africans, England must be able to take the attack to their bowlers, and the batsmen in particular must be prepared to risk dismissal to get the rewards for scoring quickly.

3.       Australia are slowly healing

Australia have now lost seven or their last nine Tests, several of them by large margins, despite only ten months ago being one victory against South Africa away from being the Test number one team in the world. Yet they may be in a better position than they were on that day.

Even if the Aussies had won that Test, their ranking was heavily based on performances in 2010, and based around pillars that were bound to disappear. Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey could not go on forever, Michael Clarke could not keen pounding double hundreds forever, and the decline was inevitable. Now that it has happened, and happened in such jarring fashion, it dampens the expectations on a team that is good but lacks both knowhow and the confidence to win Tests such as the one at Durham.

Towards the end of the series in England, Australia were beginning to bring things together. Hopefully, both for Australia and the cricket public, Ryan Harris will finally have an injury free run and show the world how good he is. Shane Watson may finally have found a home at three, Chris Rogers was an inspired, if short term, pick, Steve Smith has shown he now has the ability to match his Test ready temperament, and the young trio of Starc, Pattinson and Faulkner have shown they can get Test batsmen out. Free from the pressure of being in the race for being the best side in the world, the Aussies will have room to grow in time for the 2015 series.

4.       At last a signature series for Ian Bell

Before this series, Ian Bell was one of England’s more divisive players. To his fans, he was a player of rarely seen beauty who had made runs in some of England’s biggest wins, and to his critics, his technique hid a player incapable of making runs under pressure. It’s a failing Bell has admitted to in the past, and for him, this series buried that hatchet.

He made significantly more runs than anyone else at a significantly better average, made more hundreds than his teammates put together, and only one less than the Australians. It is arguable that of his twenty Test centuries, the three he scored this series are his best three. All were under pressure, all three came in low totals, and England won all three Tests.

In truth, three innings made Bell, all in 2009. One was his torturous 28 in the first innings of the first Test against West Indies, made batting at three, which saw him dropped from the Test side. Bell that he was forced to evaluate his career at that point, and realised that if he wanted to be remembered as a significant Test player, he needed to make pressure runs. The second innings was Jonathan Trott’s debut hundred, removing the need for Bell to bat three. The third was a gritty 76 to save the 3^rd Test in South Africa, against Steyn in full flow.

Since then, Bell has looked a different player. At home in the middle order (he averages 51 at 5 and 60 at 6), he’s scored runs more consistently and more heavily, and ultimately this summer, he can say without doubt that he won England the series.

5.       Darren Lehmann doesn’t get a free ride for his first series

The decision to sack Micky Arthur before the Ashes was a brutal but necessary move for Australia. If, as reported in Australia, that the confusion over Arthur’s role was the main factor in the poor relationship between Michael Clarke and Shane Watson, and that he had neither the skill to manufacture peace between the two or the mental toughness to drop one, then he had to go. Darren Lehmann was essentially given a free series to assess his players, and has been praised for bringing the fun back to the Australian setup. But in terms of the cricket, Lehmann has been found well short.

Firstly, Lehmann has been incorrectly praised for the selections of both Chris Rogers and Brad Haddin. They were Arthur’s picks, which Lehmann benefitted from. He does deserve credit for keeping Steve Smith on tour and then playing him, but this should be negated by the horrible decision that was the selection of Ashton Agar. Agar may well one day be a Test bowler, and his 98 was glorious to watch, but it shouldn’t hide the fact this was a selection error of Darren Pattinson proportions. Agar was patently not ready to bowl tightly at Test level, and the strong performances of Nathan Lyon, a man treated poorly by Australia for the crime of not being as good as Shane Warne, highlighted this glaring error.

Lehmann seems to be trying to bring a blokey element back to the Aussie side. But this isn’t a good club side; it’s an international side up against the very best in the world. Keeping Shane Watson happy may be an achievement but it’s no good to be his mate when he needs an answer to why he keeps getting pinned lbw. Making Peter Siddle laugh is no help when trying to find a plan to get Ian Bell out. Bringing drinks on dressed in your whites doesn’t help your left handers play Graeme Swann. Giving a matey interview to an Aussie radio station mid series doesn’t correct Mitchell Starc’s action. When England arrive in Australia they will know everything about every single possible player the Aussies will pick. Does Lehmann have it within himself to prepare the Australians well enough in return?

And three thoughts on the women’s Ashes, which England won 12-4

1.       The format was a huge success, but are the double headers?

The women’s series, for the first time, was decided across all three formats instead of just a one off Test. The idea was two-fold, firstly hoping to encourage positive cricket in the Test match, and secondly to create a greater buzz around the series as it would now last for three weeks as opposed to one. Whilst the Test match remained dull due to the points gained for a win (6) being too high, it did allow greater media attention for the women’s Ashes, as people were interested in the new format, and a longer series gave greater scope for televised matches with something really riding on them.

However, the previous established orthodoxy of playing the women’s t20’s before the men’s games needs looking at. The success of t20 cricket is built on the very sound principle that the entire game should take less than three hours, meaning people don’t lose an entire day watching. Playing two t20’s back to back defeats this purpose. Whilst in the past it’s been used to raise the profile of the women’s game, England and Australia both can feel as if they are beyond that, and can attract significant crowds on their own merits, as proved by the first t20 at Chelmsford last Tuesday, which saw virtually full capacity for a standalone game.

2.       Heather Knight comes of age

Whilst 12-4 looks a very comfortable winning margin, England were in all sorts of trouble during the Test match, 113-6 replying to Australia’s 331-6 declared, still needing 68 to avoid the follow on halfway through the second day. They were dug out of this hole by 22 year-old Heather Knight (helped by the stunningly obdurate Laura Marsh), who scored a virtually chanceless 157 to avoid the follow on and the get England nearly level, and thus ensure the draw. She backed this up during the 2^nd and 3^rd ODI’s, making a punchy 31 followed by 69 in a match winning partnership with Sarah Taylor, and despite a poor t20 series which ended with a badly torn hamstring, she was rightly named player of the series.

The short term benefit for England is that after a disappointing World Cup where they desperately lacked a third heavy run scorer after Charlotte Edwards and Taylor, they seem to have filled both this role and that of Edwards’ opening partner, a long term weakness. But the long term benefits for Knight may well be far greater. The big question for the women’s side is who will replace Charlotte Edwards as captain when she retires, and unlike when Edwards herself became captain, there is no obvious successor. If Edwards retires as expected in 2017, Vice-captain Jenny Gunn will be 31, and the other two obvious candidates both have considerable drawbacks: Holly Colvin is in and out of the side, and Sarah Taylor’s workload is already significant due to both her dual role and the extra attention her talent brings. Already considered to be a player who does and says the right things, Knight may well have jumped the queue to be Edwards’ successor.

3.       Average is not good enough for Australia

Although Australia entered the series as both t20 and ODI World Champions, this gave the false impression that there was some distance between the two sides. England have now won 10 of their last 12 t20’s against Australia (one of those defeats was the World t20 final by 4 runs), and had England won the group match between the two sides in the ODI World Cup this year instead of falling 2 runs short, it would have been them facing the West Indies in the final. The sides were already close, and the loss of Lisa Sthalekar probably made England favourites.

However, given the Aussies only needed to draw the series, were the better side in the Test and then won the first ODI, they had plenty enough talent and all the momentum. A lot will be made in Australia of the sudden loss of form of golden girl Ellyse Perry, but the reasons for Australia’s demise are a lot more subtle than that. Instead of a number of players struggling, Australia’s biggest problem has been the number of average performances from players on the tour. Only Sarah Coyte and maybe Erin Osborne can say they have definitely enhanced their reputation on this tour, whilst a number of players have stood still. Whilst Meg Lanning and Jess Cameron made five fifties between them, these are players that the Aussies need to score hundreds. The rest of the batting was characterised by wasted starts and slow contributions, and the bowling whilst serviceable often lacked a cutting edge. The Aussies need bigger and better to regain the Ashes down under.