³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Everything was wrong about the day. I am staggered that they've gone in with only five outright batsmen. They have learnt nothing from Headingley last year. Let's trip back 21 months or so... England bat on the first day against South Africa, get rolled out for a poor score in 50 overs, spend the next two days chasing the leather, and only just avoid an innings defeat with some tailend runs. That year, we played Broad and Flintoff and were a batsman short.

This Test should have been a damage limitation exercise. We should have had six batsmen. Sidebottom should have played with Swann dropping out. The most ridiculous aspect today is that Swann has been retained as Strauss feels he needs a spinner. If so, why not bloomin' well use him? With runs coming quickly, there was ample opportunity to use Swann as an attacking and containing bowler. Instead we had a total lack of imagination. To be a batsman short as we've chosen to retain a bowler who isn't going to get a bowl when his seamers are bowling pretty poorly... it's absurd.

I'd love to talk to Geoff Miller tonight and find out how the selection process for this Test went. You'd have thought they'd have learnt from last year with Pattinson. Instead, it's another Headingley disaster. If we save this match, it will be a miracle.

Very angry about today.

The Ashes thrown away in a session.

Why was Stuart Clark not playing in the first three tests? His relentless accuracy at one end enabled Johnson and especially Siddle to do their stuff at the other.

Clarke and North seemed to carry on tonight where they finished on Monday, so I don't hold out much hope for tomorrow.

England will probably lose this Test Match which sets up a mouthwatering final Test at the Oval.

Although I support England, I also enjoy good cricket whoever plays it. Today, the Aussies showed why they are the number one team in the World - the team to beat. Since the first Test they have been threatening to overwhelm England and today they did just that. In our modern game which is heavily biased towards batsman with special field placing, limited bouncers per over and pitches 'prepared' for batting, it was refreshing to see wickets tumble.

Only the other night, a friend stated that the BEST OF TESTS was behind us meaning that future cricket will never match the quality and excitement of yester year. In my opinion, Test cricket, the purist's game is dying a slow death with the onset of 20-20 and more limited overs games. This is where the money is and the instant gratification of society today. I hope I'm wrong but in say 100 years time Test cricket will only be played by a few countries. Look at teh once dominant and great West Indies as their cricket disintegrates before our very eyes.

Today's game at Headingly reminded us how great and enjoyable Test cricket can be and I pray that England put up the best fight possible and build up some momentum for the final Test at the Oval which will also be Flintoff's swan song.

I agree wholeheartedley with comment 1 and not just in restrospect. Sidebottom is our most accurate, has experience of the conditions at Yorks and gives left arm variety. We should have in fact had 2 new batsmen .. Ramps anyone for a one-off test on his home patch ?

Where do you begin? I've been watching England since 1981 and have tried hard to recall a worse day or a worse performance. Sorry, I can't. One up with two to play. Do we actually want the Ashes back? Lets start from the beginning. Pick your best team. Ok, so you've got a couple of players out injured. Fine, so you pick your next best eleven on form. Nobody likes to lose face and admit they were wrong but a few players are not worth their place at present. Bopara thinks that tons against the Windies are a guarantee to success against the Australians. Wrong, he is woefully out of his depth but might have a future as a number 6. Broad has retained his place for his runs. Wrong, he is a bowler who doesn't look like taking wickets. Send him back to Notts for a few matches and he'll come good again. Headingley is wrapped up in shrouds of mystery. Why? I only play club cricket on feather bed wickets but even we know to pitch it up and keep a line and length. Harmison has been brought back for the wrong wicket. Like Devon Malcolm in the 1990's he can be potent on a fast bouncy track. Headingley will never be fast or bouncy. The England management need to review their arrangements regarding the current captain in the lead up to matches. When Vaughan was skipper batting at number three, pre match interviews were ok up to a point. If your skipper is your main opener, tell the press boys they'll have to wait until close of play. If you've made a few runs, they'll understand. As it is, Strauss will be slaughtered in tomorrows papers. Ridiculous. On todays showing Bell has far from convinced me of his future in the side. Golden rule for any top order batsman: if you don't have to play the ball, don't play the ball! They should all know this by now. A bit of swing and seam does not excuse poor shot selection and a woeful lack of footwork. Four years ago, the unsung star of the England attack was Matthew Hoggard because he gave the Aussie batsmen nothing and would nag away on a line a length all day if asked to. How we needed a bowler today who really understood Headingley. Leave Sidebottom out? What on earth were the selectors thinking of? Also, what justification for including Swann here? Since when has Headingley suddenly become a spinners paradise? On reflection, I think Engalnd have had this lesson coming. They got out of jail in Cardiff and have been strutting around since the Lords win envisaging the open top bus and Trafalgar Square. Of our top six batsmen, I bet the Aussies would only take Strauss. If the boot was on the other foot, I'd take Watson (sensible batsman), Ponting (class), Clarke (class), North (very correct) and Hussey (solid). Bowling wise I'd take all of their bowlers on today's showing. I'd be amazed if they took any of ours. One last point to amuse you all. Matthew Hayden was on the radio today saying that Harmison was dangerous because as a batsman you didn't know were the next ball was going! Sorry Matthew, but the real problem here is that Steve Harmison doesn't know where the next ball is going. That is inexcusable for a frontline international bowler. Ramprakash continues to make runs for Surrey but I wouldn't advocate his recall. Harmison may well be putting the frighteners ona few batsmen on the county circuit but the Ashes is a different ball game. Make no mistake that this will be Rickky Ponting's last tour here as skipper. He intends to return home with the urn - he doesn't need our help as well!

I cant support a new batsman coming in, this series is going to the last test and we need a bowling attack that can win it for us. We have to trust that Flintoff will be fit again, which helps a lot. Either way, we need to be able to deploy Swann,Anderson and Harmison at full tilt.

The wickets that fell today, at least the top order, were mainly the result of shocking shots rather than good seam bowling. If we can manage to explain to our top 6 why the off stump waft isnt so clever, we can still pull this series out of the bag.

The biggest problem we have is Bopara, he simply isnt looking like getting a score against this side, and those early season runs against the Windies are looking more and more like a free gift every week. Shane Warne's observation of him seems sadly accurate.

My team for the Oval: Strauss, Cook, Bell, Denly, Collingwood, Prior, Flintoff, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Onions

Bell - needs discarding - permanently.
Bopara - needs to be told "learn the difference between Twenty20 and test match cricket"
Broad - Folk were calling for you to be dropped, well done lad.
Anderson - Love you Jimmy, but your control needs working on.
Harmison - the Aussies don't know where you are going to put the ball, but neither do you. Out, for ever.

You always feel England are only ever 1 innings away from a collapse, lets be honest, you can look at a teamsheet and get a vibe, and I am sorry but neither Bell nor Bopara have the "mental" attitude, let alone the "technique".

Was it really the right answer to bat first ? Dont think it would have mattered, Bell and Bopara are just not good enough at this level when the pressure is at its keenest, many seeing this match as the fulcrum of the series.

When Pietersen was out and England had to bring in Bell, I commented at the time that England's line-up would look more significantly in danger of batting collapses - although Bopara was probsbly the weakest link. With the loss of Flintoff being replaced by a tailend bowler that became even more of a significant danger - in fact much more so than should have been risked given England's position in the series. This is not hindsight - this was my worry and many others as well before this match

Seems I think the wrong decision to have Harmison rather than Sidebottom for this test. The horses for course approach perhaps should have been used on that one (although this is a bit in retrospect).

Can we get out of this? There is a small chance of saving the test - we have batsmen who can score big innings - they now, all the more so have to do so (there is not the same batting depth now to save poor upper order batting performances)

We can still also win the last test. Flintoff back - need him to be back t his best though.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I don't know whether I should be writing a comment here at all, seens it would make the loading time of this page infinite whilst I comment on how woeful England were today.
Firstly, why bat?? When it's clearly obvious minds aren't properly on the job, clearly demonstrated via ball 1. Andy Flower must despair, what does he have to do to convince them to stop wafting away outside off-stump, can't think any of the Aussie batsman would do this. Strauss, who hasn't done so previously enhancing the clear unfocused claim, Cook, who seemed to resist for a while, Bopara, don't even get me started, Collingwood, didn't see the rest of the innings, turned it off at lunch couldn't take anymore.
Didn't see the inept bowling efforts either, so I can't comment, but if they were worth than the batting display, we might as well hand Punter the Ashes now, and save the embarassment of 9, potentially, more days of test cricket.
Strauss clearly wasn't focused on batting, and given many's comments on the fact that he is our best batsman given KP's absence, he shouldn't be captain in my opinion. Firstly, it means as demonstrated this morning he can fully concentrate on batting, but moreover he clearly isn't a good captain. What's the point of keeping Swann in the side, when he isn't used with the Aussies running rampant, the seamers clearly off radar and the overs going to be lost.
Bopara has to go, he can't bat, he can't field, he drops dollies, what can he do??? I'd prefer to play with 10 players honestly. Personally I'd go for Rob Key, but the selectors have chosen Trott, so let's have him in the side please. However he does he can't be worse than Bopara. I tarnish Cook with the same brush on the batting front, he resists, resists outside off-stump, and with wickets tumbling around him, he bats nicely and then. I've never been convinced by Cook anyway, and personally a left-hand, right-hand opening partnership would be quite a good move with the Aussie bowlers finding the radar, perhaps Key and Trott could come in for Cook and Bopara. We finally find out, with the Aussies finding their range this morning who is up to the job, and it appears only Prior is capable, although no-one can say how he would have fared had the innings continued.
Can't speak on any of bowling as I previously stated, I didn't see it. But one comment, what is the selectors obsession with Harmison?? As many have stated the Aussies don't know where it's going, he doesn't know where it's going, so why not pick Sidebottom, or perhaps had the selectors been smart, they would have realised Headlingly is Matthew Hoggard's own patch.
Team for the Oval
Strauss
Key
Trott
Bell (only as cover for KP)
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Swann
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
The Aussies must be laughing all the way to bed tonight, and our only hope is they haven't recovered come tomorrow morning. So might KP, even though it is his team, as he might throw his wicket away, but at least he gets 72 in the process.

This is not the worst morning in living memory, there have been many worse since I started watching cricket.
England are a below average cricket team. What have England always been good at though? Playing many many Tests against the West Indies and New Zealand. This is the only reason any of the bowlers have averages between 30 and 40. And these still represent poor averages. And the same goes for he batsmen, eg Ravi Bopara, accumulating Test centuries against the Windies! Please?!
His failure against above-mediocre opposition (which happens to be the worst Aussie team I have ever seen) is entirely predictable by anyone who knows their cricket. England, apart from SAF in 1998/99 and Aussie 2005, have done NOTHING in my 17 years watching cricket. I repeat, nothing.

Did anyone see an Aussie sneaking away from England's hotel in the early hours, disposing of a lit cigarette?!!!!

Today's play recalls to mind an earlier discussion concerning cricketing snack foods.

The one I'd like to focus on today is... POM-Bears.

Light & insubstantial; crown-related delusions of grandeur - and they crumble delightfully.

One reason for Australia's pre-eminence is that when they have their hands on your throat, they don't let go. The only faint hope is that Strauss and Collingwood bat at their best and play veeerrrryyyy loooooong innings and their are fewer "get-out" shots from the rest.

Hard to know what to say really. Would like to say this was the worst England batting performance I've seen in years, but unfortunately the capitulation in the Windies a few months ago takes that prize. That said, its definately the worst all round performance I've seen since I've been watching test cricket.

Someone posting above me made an excellent point about thee toss - If everybody has had a very disturbed night and an equally disturbed build-up to the match, why not give yourself a bowl? Especially when you're one up in the series.

To be honest, there's not much for me to say that hasn't already been said above, but I'm going to restate the most important points anyway:

1 - Sidebottom would have been the obvious pick (though I accept hindsight is a wonderful thing).

2 - Bopara needs to be dropped. I have stood by him, and would have picked him for this test but this is now one weak dismissal too many. I would not be surprised if he makes a good score in the 2nd innings, as I fear the game will be lost by then and the pressure will be off. This should not stop him getting the axe.

3 - Why is it that whenever things get tricky for our bowlers they resort to bowling back of a length? What is wrong with bowling at the stumps? If you bowl badly either way you'll go for runs, the difference is that if the batsman plays badly then a full ball is far more likely to get him out.

4 - Don't worry, there isn't a numer 4. I've given up. Except for...

5 - Very good blog Mr Fordyce. Summed up the day perfectly. Thanks.

Its obvious that Bopara cant continue at 3. I would drop him down to 6 put Cook at 3 and pick another opener, prob be Key, Denley or Lumb.

Once KP comes back drop Bell and you have the makings of a pretty solid batting line up. Cook is used to opening so if we lose a early wicket we wont sundenley be on the back foot.

Another option further down the line, is possibly Rudolph. I know hes South African but becomes eligible soon and hes certainly a sticker! Could be the perfect no 3. Add this to the fact that Keiswetter is able to be sellected soon and Matt Prior might be looking over his shoulder as hes a much better keeper and I would say better batsman.

The bowling is just shocking...full stop we seem obsessed with banging the ball in back of a length or half trackers and frankly the only time we did pitch the ball up we got some lbws...not rocket science!

With Pietersen injured the England batting line up always looked very vulnerable, if Strauss failed. He has been so dependable in recent times that people have rightly begun to talk of him ranking alongside Gambhir, Sehwag and Smith as one of the best openers in the world.
Today he failed badly, a lot has been made of his difficult morning (before the test started) and hopefully the England managment and Strauss will learn from this - the managment have not got a good track record of learning from their mistakes, when Anderson was injured during the team's football warm up a while back they said they would never play football to warm up again, well............

Bopara and Bell are a very weak 3 and 4, so if the openers fail England are in serious trouble, unfortunately the options are limited, the fact that people still go on about Rob Key is testament to that.

I don't agree with dropping a bowler in favour of a batsment to try and defend a 1-0 lead, that is a ridiculous tactic to take into a test match, and today an extra batsmen in place of one of the bowlers wouldn't have realistically made much of a difference to England's derisory score.
The selectors might have tried to play to the pitch better, so Sidebottom instead of Harmison or Swann. This test has gone already, so to look to the Oval - Ironically, Harmison and Swann should probably both play as that pitch is likely to suit them better.

Australia still are not that good, if England perform they have got the beating of them, I predicted 2-1 England before the series started - I'm sticking with it...

I've been waiting for englands policy of playing 5 batsmen to fail. Cardiff was too flat and Australia bowled poorly at Lords. If Matt Prior is a test number 6, I'll go Hey! Gilchrist didn't even bat 6. I'm not saying he's a bad player, but batting him at 6 put a lot of presure on him. It's a lot different coming in when the score is 60, rather than 250. Australia will go on to win the Ashes 2-1.

total dross of the first order,sack miller now,weak link.

I suppose everythings been said...Henry Blofeld summed it all up for me when he was commenting on Harmless's bowling....magnificently inept..but..lets take a positive outlook chaps. They are only 190 odd for four..a good nights sleep for England..who knows..if we can restrict the Aussies to 300 or below, and then our batsmen start to earn their contract money, then we could be in with a shout....couldn't we??

JovialStelladave - "a good night's sleep for England - who knows?"

If they were animals, they would all be put to sleep !!!

In response to post number 19, Prior was the only one still there at the end, and looked a better top six batsman than any of the other six.... England should put Prior at three and play a different specialist keeper!

Just toss this charred bird in the bin, Marge. We'll see if we can find a better recipe in time for The Oval. (Perhaps instead of turkeys we can have some nice spicy BATS for a change. Yum.)
Cheers from stateside, y'all. It ain't over yet !!

OK, what group of selectors in their right minds would choose an English side with only five specialist batsmen? This sort of strategy was dumped by most teams in the seventies/eighties. The English lower order has been notoriously weak in recent years so they need as strong a top order as possible. This decision is even more illogical when you consider that they were already on top with a one-nil series lead and so could afford to be more defensive in their team selections. Very, very poor. That aside, it was an awful performance which again remind us of why English sides have become such a laughing stock in recent decades.

Strauss and Collingwood to block as if their lives depended on it is a good suggestion for drawing the match. Sadly it would make for a very dull next few days.

One thing - I don't think you can pick on Bopara today; they were all dire except Prior. Strauss got 3 so drop him? Of course not. You look at previous scores to know that. So you look at past scores with Bopara too, which many people do and say he shouldn't play. Fine, but don't use today's innings to add to your argument please. See?

I think our team selection has probably cost us the Ashes.

With Freddie out, Pietersen injured, and Bopara looking totally out of his depth, to go with only 5 front line batters and Prior was an incredible gamble with us being 1-0 up. It's like a footby team leading 1-0 in the last 10 minutes, and taking off a midfielder and replacing them with a striker.

To see Freddie out must've given them a boost, but to also see us have a batting line up like that, must've given a lot of confidence that they could've bowled us out cheaply.

I also don't understand the mentality that we have to bowl short the majority of the time. The Aussies today showed the virtue of bowling line and length.

1-1 going into what will be a flat pitch at the Oval. Series drawn and Ashes lost, thanks to a certain Geoff Miller.

We played like a pub team really, with bat and ball. This is one of the most "take-able" Aussie sides I've ever seen in England - but it was men against boys really. Batting - horrible shot selection against disciplined Aussie bowling, pitching it up and getting just enough early swing to make English batsmen uncertain where their off stump was. But even after a horrible drubbing, you'd expect professional, international cricketers to be thinking - Well, the conditions are going to be the same for the Aussie batsmen and, OK, they are unlikely to collapse like 10 muppets, but of we pitch it up too, and exploit the swing, we could maybe knock them over for 225, 250 by lunch on Saturday - and then we're in with a hope of saving the game, and getting back on track at Lords. But instead we totally lost the plot and started bowling short and wide.........

Can't understand why Strauss choose to bat either - I can only guess he thought Prior was not up to an immediate session behind the stumps. Amazing really that in this day of well-rewarded, dedicated Test cricketers, we have *no* cover available on site for the one team member you can't start the game in the field without.......

AGB

It's always quite funny to watch English cricket supporters - you folks are bipolar. One good session and it's the resurgence of English cricket, one bad session and it's sack everyone.

While it was a horrible day for England, the beauty of test cricket is that it gives you the chance to fight back, wrest momentum etc. There's still a bit of life left in this one, though the 2nd day's play is crucial. I can see the pitch and conditions settling down a bit mid-way through the day, so if England can rattle through Australia in the morning session, they may have a chance to bat themselves back into the game by stumps. Conversely though, if Australia bats out the day, the match is probably gone....350 to 400 behind with 3 days to play. Those 3 wickets England pinched in the last session could be crucial - Ponting looked like he was capable of anything the aggressive mood he was in.

What is a worry for England I think is that the Australian bowling attack seems to have found its groove. Alan Border has been saying all series that the Australian bowling attack has been bowling at about 80%, and if they got anywhere near 95% that the England batting line-up wasn't capable enough to handle them. Today may have proved him correct. Bringing Clark back in has worked beautifully I think - what we have lacked so far is someone to tie up an end and build pressure. All 3 other bowlers are more attacking, and tend to serve up a few more scoring opportunities, so the English batting has never stalled. Clark proved a perfect foil for Johnson, allowing him to play in his normal role of vicious short deliveries mixes with inviting pitched-up deliveries. Will make selection for the Oval rather interesting though if they want a spinner in...no real candidates to be dropped from that effort. Siddle probably was the leading candidate to make way, but 5/20 odd seals his spot I'd imagine.

Not sure what to make of the fact that England were all out caught, and 3 of the Australian wickets so far have been LBW. Perhaps simply that there's plenty of assistance for the bowlers, but Australia have had good discipline with their leaves.

Yes, it was a shocker of a day and we've probably blown our chances of winning the Ashes here. But ffs let's keep it in perspective. The worst thing that can happen is we go to The Oval all square with one to play. Woe is me, what a disaster...
This is the first time Australia have ran through us all summer. It's all about how we react and throwing up the white flag isn't the way.
If we can bowl out Australia for 300 or less, we've plenty of time to knuckle down, post 400 and set them a testing 200 to win. Unlikely I admit but that has to be the aim. Crying and saying we're rubbish is simply gutless.

No. 12 says: England, apart from SAF in 1998/99 and Aussie 2005, have done NOTHING in my 17 years watching cricket. I repeat, nothing.
Are you sure? Winning a series in South Africa 2004/05? Or winning back-to-back series in Sri Lanka and Pakistan under Hussein? Beating the West Indies, esp that thriller at Lord's, when they had Ambrose, Walsh and Lara going full tilt?

With both KP and Flintoff (clearly the two most obvious match-winners) out of the side, and with England holding on to a flimsy 1-0 lead, as an observer I would have thought that England’s best chance in this Test would have been to go for a draw (Strauss and one or two bowlers aside, the rest of the team has not given any real indication that it up to shouldering any significant responsibilities). This is the hypothesis that I am going to base the rest of my comments on.

As a layperson I would say (in my simplistic way) that in order to secure a draw, you need to have the requisite batting to keep the opposition bowlers at bay, and in order to secure a win, you need to have the bowlers to secure you 20 wickets. Given England’s position sans Flintoff (after KP’s loss to surgery), it would have made more sense to go for a batsman. Instead, a bowler was brought in, and the side went in with five batsmen. Now, in a Test, I don’t know what ANY side can achieve with five batsmen (and a keeper and Broad - we'll make him an honorary semi-batsman in this case). Obscure stats aside, it is almost always going to be an uphill task.

And uphill it now seems for England. I am NOT suggesting that the team should have gone in in a defensive frame of mind thinking only of a draw. But what I am saying is that you have to be clear in your head before you start as to what your best strategy is going to be, and if your best players are out, you have to factor that into your planning and your expectation in terms of the result.

Of course, if the best strategy that they could come up with was five batsmen, a keeper (in goodish nick), a couple of bowlers who have made fair contributions and so forth, then it would appear that the English team management are keen on ensuring that the Oval Test starts on a knife edge - 1-1 with everything to play for - as a sort of positive advertisement to Test cricket.

What more could the average viewer ask for? All glory to the game. Amen.

machinElf
Fairly sums up the English attitude; and the match situation.
Every 3rd poster is cursing the selectors for Sidey's omission. Its a batting blip, so the inference is Sidebottom's inclusion would have inflicted something similar on the Aussies! And not including an extra batsman! Potential miracle makers will never fade into a sunset!
The enigma that a failure always is, no matter what you do you could have done it a little differently. Right or wrong, it oddly enables us to hang on to our sanity.
Reality check is, whatever has transpired couldn't possibly have been fixed at the selection stage. May be its only my view.
It is a blip. This has happened before*. It waited till the 4th Test to come about? All good teams rely on the openers a lot. So far Andrew Strauss has stood up like a rock. There always was a lurking dread his failure could induce a collapse. It did. One could see it coming as England have no solidity at 3 and 4. Sadly England is not exactly spoiled for choices either. Collingwood might have risen to the occasion but trouble has a way of coming like a Tsunami.
Now what? Well the worst mistake would be for England to treat it as 1-1 already. It isn't. Australia has to really work hard to reach that exalted position. It goes without saying England's job is to make it as hard as possible. May be, enroute they find a way to make it impossible. This too has happened before*.

1981 all over again. When I see England's odds at 500:1 I'll be behind Punter in the queue for the bookies.

I disagree about us being rubbish for the last 17 years. We had an excellent spell under Fletcher (Duncan not Keith): series victories away in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Soth Africa. I don't fancy this lot doing that.

Agree with the Bopara comments, let's move him to 6; Bell, no thanks, maybe a recall in a couple of years. If we keep the Aussies under 300 it will be a miracle but I bet we're batting after tea today and will be either 60-0 or 37-4 at stumps.

A catastrophic defeat does at least give us an excuse to press the refresh button.

Terrible day. Strauss has just proved that he is not a team player. It was obvious the ball would swing , it always does there. Jimmy would have loved it. But no , Smarmy Strauss wins the toss and bats. Why ? Because he , himself wanted to bat , him personally. Is this to the benefit of the team ? NO ! Great chance of reclaiming The Ashes , but we are trying to throw it away. Why do we make things so difficult ? This is not a strong Australian side. Fuming...

Three questions then:
1) what do we think Australia's final first innings lead will be
200
2) what will England make second time around
230
3) what changes, if any, should England make for The Oval, assuming they need to win there to win back the Ashes?

Bell in at 3.
Flintoff in.
Bopara out.

Unfortunately, there isn't much on the county circuit to pick from.

Major change has to be England's mental attitude. This is critical and time and time again the Aussies will be mentally stronger.

Tom, 1) It is now gonna be great for batting as the sun will easy the pitch out, the aussies should get a lead of at least 250+, 2)England will struggle again second innings with pressure I feel.....if they do post a second innings lead for the aussies to chase down comparisons to '81 will be made but fool me not this current England side ain't '81 in disguise! 3) If it is 1-1 going into the Oval then its all about winning period, the Oval has always been a batsmens wicket but with some hard work and imagination you can bowl teams out, as the Oval generally provide a bit more pace and bounce. Team Changes......drop Bopara as he cant be a passenger anymore, my personal selection in his place would be Ramprakash, you could tell him that his recall would be a one off just for this Test thus taking any pressure off him, put him in at 3 where he makes millions of runs at his home ground every year, least we forget ironically Ramps record against the aussies is great averageing a shade over 45.00, if Flintoff is still unfit Trott has to be a dead cert to bat at the position above Prior. And finally as an afterthought I'd like to see Rashid given some consideration with the pace and bounce at the Oval it would be a great track for him........look at the end of the day the liklyhood is we are going to have to win the last test to claim the series lets give ourselves the best chance possible rather than freezing like a rabbit in the headlights.

oh, I'm not ruling out a draw just yet at Headingly!

I am flabbergasted at the performance of England's bowlers. After seeing the damage that consistent line and length could do in an exemplary spell by Stuart Clarke, James Anderson seemed to decide - "No, that's not for me, I'll bowl short and wide instead". The first two balls he bowled were rank long hops that got the treatment they deserved. Yet rather than learn any lessons, he persisted in striving for pace at the cost of accuracy, and boy did Ricky ponting punish him.

So what do Harmison and Onions do after seeing the batsmen take full advantage? They decide that short is best as well! Unbelievable. To see your first ball, banged in short, pulled for 6 - and then bowl an identical delivery next ball which gets pulled for 4 is criminal at this level - especially when defending a total of 102. Graham Onions hang your head in shame.

The bowling was at best technically incompetent, at worst downright stupid. How players we know are capable of great bowling can be so inconsistent is beyond me. I'm sure they will get better today, but that will make it all the more infuriating that they persisted in being so awful yesterday.

We are a bit weak in the batting line-up, have had a problem with No 3 position.
Clearly not ideal with all the last-minute problems for the captain to open.
I think we should bring in another opener and let Strauss take the number 3 role.
We also seem to have our problems with the bowling line-up, with Anderson appearing to struggle with an injury, compounded with the loss of Flintoff.
We need a "Flintoff" in the team for the correct balance in batting and bowling.
Don't we miss him when he is out!
Prior even when injured is proving himself to be good value to the team. Well done!

Two points. First, can someone tell me why a cricket team warms up by playing football? Given the obvious injury risk, why not jog round the pitch although I also don't see what benefit that brings if you're going to bat. Secondly, what have England persisted with Bopara in the key number 3 position, instead of moving him to 5 or 6, when he clearly hasn't looked remotely up to it in 3 previous tests?

So the poor little petals got woke up at 5 in the morning, give me a break.

I can imagine it being pretty grim watching that performance live. I feel for anyone who had tickets for one days play and had been counting down the days all summer.

The most positive thought i have is...we are still ahead in The Ashes, and if we lose this test we are still able to win them in the final test. Sadly Bopara has lost the plot and looks like he needs to go back to county cricket as he did after losing the plot in Sri Lanka. Our numbers 3 & 4 should be enforcers, cold aggressive innings builders, not boyish stroke-makers without the experience or nouse to make an impact on the character of the team. Whatever happened to sticking new players in at 5 and 6 and then promoting them once their time had come?

One final thing; Giles Clarke should spend more time considering how he has lowered the moral standing of English cricket and less time telling the supporters [who have to pay £40 a month to see their team on tv and £60 plus for a live ticket] what they should and shouldnt say and do of a day at the game. He is a disgrace and probably the least pleasant man to have stuck his nose into British sport since Colin Moynihan.

Three questions then:
1) what do we think Australia's final first innings lead will be
2) what will England make second time around
3) what changes, if any, should England make for The Oval, assuming they need to win there to win back the Ashes?

1) 298
2) 350
3) Dump Bell for Key, drop Bopara to 6.

I think the Aussies will get to 200 - 250 ahead.

We will get to 300 maybe though I can't see anyone other than Strauss and maybe Prior making a score over 50. Perhaps if the sun comes out and one of their bowlers gets injured.

For the Oval it's damage limitation with Bopara dropping to 6 and Bell at 3. Neither should be in the first team for South Africa though Bopara may endure and be given the type of run Bell was indulged. Harmison should play at the Oval if Flintoff's unfit (as he patently is) as he can hurry them a bit.

From this position only something flukey like a couple of Aussie injuries will see us home. Or maybe Onions will get 2 in 2 balls again - would be nice but very unlikely.

I think yesterday has show what we all feared, that England, especially without a fit Pietersen, are not a strong batting unit but had got away with it thanks to Australia's poor bowling. Yesterday, with Clark putting it in the right place, England were found out.

a)Australia to lead by 230.
b)England to get ??? (basically impossible to predict, but less than 300).
c)Out: Bopara, Bell, Harmison.
In : Trott, Moore, Flintoff.

First off this is not one of the worst days in English cricket in living memoery. That honour goes to our 50 odd in the Windies, 1/2 the score on a batters pitch against worse (than Aus) opposition and then failing to win any of the other games despite having chances too.

Why did fans, selectors and team members think that that team (after eeking out a home win) would then suddenly walk all over the Aus? It was never going to happen, the only shock is that it's taken so long!

My thoughts about why are
1 - The Aus thought they'd win easily without really trying
2 - Bad selection, because of the above they though they could pension off some of the older guys early (Clark, Watson), the new guys though thought they were as good as the old, had their arrogance without the skill and were caught short
3 - Ponting is almost as bad a captain as strauss, he had a lot of say in selection, got just about every call wrong he made doing it, let england off the hook in Cardif with some crazy field placings and bowling decisions and becuase they were so close to winning thought they'd walk the next one with no changes, and overconfidance became their downfall, and that overconfidance started with ponting.

Ironicly beacuse of the Aus weaknesses England failed to heed the warning signs from the Windes and Cardif and after a decent game in the 3rd test thought they were better (despite the fact that if 1 2/3 days were added the Aus could have easily drew, pehaps even won the 3rd test) than they were, however with 2 games left the Aus finally got their selection right after waking up and realising they were sleepwalking to a series loss, came back fighting and now it's england looking stupid!

As for the rest of this match, England will have to bat at least 5-6 sessions the 2nd time around, getting approx 600, but even that might not be enough if they don't get Aus out before tea (preferably before lunch) for less than another 100-150 runs. England must however take 20 wickets and bat well just to prove to themselves they can do it and give us some hope for the final test. From what I remember though, matches at the oval are normally draws, meaning if the Aus win (which all the non-deluded/miricale money is on) they'll retain the Ashes 1-1, which while better than the spanking we got last time around, will hardly have been a good performance!

How can ANYONE have thought that giving a fast-ish bowler a fitness test on the morning of a Test match was sensible?

With a potential five days' hard slog, pounding in again and again, if Flintoff wasn't fit the night before, he should have been dropped.

(As it turns out, all England's players might get a lie-in on Sunday; I wonder how tempted Australia were to declare at 0-0/after a single ball, making England follow-on.)

The selectors should STOP picking a group of players and thinking that that makes a team - it doesn't! (In those circumstances, coaches and tacticians are all important, and prima donna players must be shown short shrift; not likely to happen under the current hierarchy.)

Pick the best England-eligible openers from the First Class game, and so on for the remainder of the eleven; playing for England should be the reward for county success, not a consolation for not being good enough to play for your putative employers.

Central contracts are invidious to fostering success.

49 wrote
(As it turns out, all England's players might get a lie-in on Sunday; I wonder how tempted Australia were to declare at 0-0/after a single ball, making England follow-on.)

What?
If they did declare at 0-0 then Australia would simply have been 102 runs behind on first innings. The team batting first cannot follow on.
Come on, keep up

Appalling! Disgraceful! Rubbish!

Yes, we've heard it all before - and unless our selectors start visiting planet Earth more often, we're going to hear it again and again.

Surely one of them would have noticed before the fourth test that Bopara - looking sublime against a poor west Indian attack - has struggled against bowlers who put the ball in the right place. He may well turn out to be an international No3, but he is nowhere near it yet.

How many more times has Bell got to fail before it's acknowledged that (talented as he may be) his temperament is suspect when faced by the very best?

How many times has Harmison got to spray the ball all over the place (too short and too wide) for the selectors to forget his golden years (now sadly a long time ago) and bid him farewell?

What on earth is Stuart Broad doing at No7?

Yesterday morning, Strauss should have been saying to his team: "At this moment in time, we have the Ashes in our grasp - let us fight to keep hold of them."

What he shouldn't have had to say was: "The ball is swinging like it often does in England (where we live boys). Don't get out on the drive - don't get out playing away from your body - these English conditions mustn't get US out"

Pity..........he might have got through to a few of them!

Its Has been a poor cricket by both teams throughout the series.
With time for cricket so short now in the year I think this will be the last time we have a five test series. With 2 games being such an abortion I can understand this. Ashes is now down to 3 matches it no longer has any aura about it. Its just another test series now.

#50, etienne123

Although poorly worded/expressed, my point was that Australia might have been tempted to force England to continue (with their calamatous batting) and presume that the tourists' team could overhaul two England innings in one go (i.e. in the fourth innings of the match); hence, my stipulation that Australia would have to declare their innings at 0-0.

I knew what I meant, but given that there is a specific definition of "follow on", my use of the term was inexact.

Well, after hoping for his game on golf on the last day at Edgbaston Botham will get plenty of time on Monday/Tuesday !!!!!!!!!!!! England to be all out mid afternoon on Sunday for 170.

As for the Oval, Australia to bat England out of the game.

Well, 170 and mid afternoon seemed respectable when I pennned the last comment at 58-2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

117 all out by 12.30.

Now that Australia has again demonstrated its overwhelming superiority in all facets of the game, can we consider again the possibility of the Ashes physically being transported to Australia where they belong(once Australia wraps up the fifth test with a victory)?