I am an Aussie - but I saw some positives from England.
1. Flintoff showed he won't crumble in Australia, which, given his performances last time, was crucial, and will keep this England team in the series a lot longer than last time they were out here.
2. Giles bowled well especially for a guy who has been out injured for a year, and was more attacking than usual. Good signs for if they want to play him and Monty together at some stage. Probably England's second best bowler behind Freddie
3. Jones' keeping was very tidy, which was a major concern before the series. Now all he has to do is score a few runs.
4. KP showed some intent - one of the best ways to score in Aus is to be aggressive - on day 2's showing, he could do very well in Aussie conditions.

England need to bite the bullet, and drop Harmy for Adelaide. This will have a couple of advantages 1. It will show him his place is not secure - this may make him work harder, as watching the second test might give him some hunger. He looks like he doesn't wanna be there - but drop him, and that will change very, very quickly.
2. They can send him to the academy in Perth, where he can get a bit more centre wicket practice, and get more used to Australian conditions and also a bit of bowling in Perth ahead of the third test.

Hahaha, excuses excuses. England simply arent as good as a bunch of over-the-hill aging Australians, just admit it.

It would be a mistake to assess this match only by the scores. England have, to all intents and purposes, turned up a day late. Australia were handed an opportunity, and grasped it superbly. The England bowling was much improved on the second day. Though he was too tired to make it count, even Harmison regained his rhythm toward the end of his spell. When Flintoff and Harmison were bowling at the end of the Australian innings, there were some reminders of the 2005 attack. Mahmood needs to replace Anderson, who appears not to have the requisite intensity for test cricket. The batting reflected the circumstances. Australia might very well have lost three wickets had they been facing such excellent bowling at the end of a second day in the field chasing 600 runs. I doubt they would have been any better. Both Strauss and Cook looked good- particularly with regard approach and demeanor. Strauss made a tired misjudgement, and Cook received a snorter. Collingwood should not be at no. 4. He has neither the talent nor the technique to play as that position requires. Regardless that England have conceded so much on the Thursday, and will very likely lose this test, Friday's play suggested to me they are capable of giving Australia a contest. So much depends on the performance of their younger players. If Cook, Bell, Panesar, Mahmood and even possibly Joyce can perform to the utmost of their capabilities, then England are again a strong team - otherwise, with Trescothick, Vaughan and Jones absent, too much will depend on too few. Flintoff was magnificent. The way he summoned a smile at the beginning of his final spell and then produced the perfect inswinging yorker to remove Clark showed his calibre both as a player and a leader. McGrath and Ponting have underlined their greatness.

The problem for Flintoff, not only does he have to carry the bowling, he also has to carry the batting. This pressue will (and already has - out for zip!) begin to tell over the summer.

As I write this, England have lost two more wickets. The Big 2 --- Peiterson and Flintoff. Maybe Fletcher had a point when he picked Giles and Jones ahead of Monty and Read.

Strauss and Pieterson are the only two batsmen with a trusted record. We should not count Flintoff to be a great batting talent. He averages around 32 overall and around the same in the last 10 tests. Cook and Bell, well, may go on to become great bastmen. But, it is as likely they fizzle out.

In retrospect, considering the English batting performance, Fletcher seems to have got it correct, at least on paper. Its upto Jones to pay back Fletcher for his faith.

Regarding Tim's continued `rust' theory. Spare the excuse! England lacks talent and gumption.

"Maybe Fletcher had a point when he picked Giles and Jones ahead of Monty and Read."

Surely not. Both omissions were stupid decisions. Though both favoured players have so far done well in their weaker suit (keeping / bowling), we are all out for hardly any, so the stronger suit is obviously not yet strong enough.

Where it really went wrong for England was when Strauss got out. As you said, he almost gifted his wicket away, and if he hadn't then Cook wouldn't have gotten out quickly and neither would Collingwood. I think going in 3 down for 50 must have played on the minds of the remaining English batsmen, and so they were probably too defensive.

By the way, why does England never have a 3rd man? A drive by Hayden just minutes ago would have gone straight down his throat, and Langer would have been more restricted in the 1st innings.

a big thumbs down to CA

what they have tried to do to the supportes of English cricket is downright disgraceful !
the one sied nature of the whole event is pathetic
from the tonk a pom for every 4 hit by Australia, without a converse for the English boundaries, to the groupings of Fanatics and other Australian supporters, but the Barmy army are split up, to the disgraceful tea time rubbish over the PA

This is pathetic !

I hope the person who described Langer as a bunny realises the fact that at the end of the third day his two innings combined are more than England's entire first innings score. I find it hard to pinpoint what is letting England down more, their batting or their bowling? They can't bowl a team out before the team has scored over 600 runs, and only two of their batsmen managed to make more that 20 runs. This lack of batting can't be put down to a pitch that has degraded over the course of the test because Australia has come out in their second innings and performed just as well as they did in the first.

I think England should stick to what they are good at - creating colonies that can play cricket.

So why did Ricky Ponting not enforce the Follow-On? My opinion is that the game is changing due to commercial interests. Why should he enforce the follow on, when it would surely result in a four day game, think of all the advertising, and loss of spectator revenue. I can't think of any other rational proposition. To bad again, just flies in the face of most cricket wisdom. For example, he is now in a very uncertain situation, does he have to get 652, 670 or whatever how long does he need to get them out. This uncertainly does not exist if he enforces the Follow-on as after he bowled them out, he would no exactly how many runs he needs to get - (assuming they hauled back the margin in the first place).

Experience plays an important role in another way: the experience of we who "only" sit and watch is crucial as well. For instance, my experience watching England's previous Test series left me unsurprised that England's best batsman then has been their only pride with the willow so far. And, of course, my experience watching that very same previous Test series made my decision on selecting England's best bowler (by far) to the final XI for this one a no-brainer.... Sorry, what was that?... Yes, that's what I said: with all my experience, my choice was a no-brainer.

I was quietly confident about England doing well prior to the 2005 series, despite being a Pom living in Australia and taking such abuse for so many years! (A natural response is to keep your head down.) I have coached cricket in UK & Australian schools and the system and set up is chalk and cheese (but that's another story). I enjoyed winning a few bets last year, but well before this series started I was cringing at the damage that would be inflicted on England's young team by an Aussie team who have pride in spades, history to address and a huge point to make.

England needed to win the toss and score 450+ to even be competitive at Brisbane. They didn't and on a belter the Aussies were always going to pile it on. Decisions have not gone England's way (Hussey not given LBW early, Ponting not given caught behind off Freddie, KP's bad decision today and Flintoff caught off a no ball). When things go against you, they go against you. But that happens when the game is also going against you (the Aussies took some bad decisions in the 2005 series - remember those Martyn and Katich LBWs?). Even if all those umpiring decisions had gone different ways England would still be under the pump.

Aussies are very strong and have an iron will in this series. Last year hurt them badly. I'm not tipping against 5-0 white wash from here on in. Their determination and all round strength and depth will out over 5 test playing days. At least the England side could (... could) get stronger as a result, and the squad could be playing together for the next 7-10 years possibly (they're all under 30 - some are under 25). Lick your wounds guys, learn, show some fight and pride. [Harmison's lack of heart here I think hurts most English supporters and this disappoints greatly.]

Tip your hat to an Aussie team that has swept all (bar India 2001 and England 2005 - both very close away series defeats) before them for over 10 years. It's not as if you are playing Macedonia in a Euro CUpl qualifier - you are playing against perhaps the best team there has ever been ... which makes 2005 even more remarkable.

Giles is pretty innocuous so they should play monty and see what he can do.
Jones scored 19. His batting at international level is pretty much the same as Read's. Why would Fletcher sacrifice a considerable amount of catches for a slightly better batter?