Wasn't it for situations like last night that england picked jones and giles? If they're not weighing in with the runs why don't we just pick our specialist players?

Figures of 8/9 for 50 wouldn't have flattered Glenn McGrath in England's first innings. As Sky frequently showed us, his pitch map was absolutely stunning, and don't forget that he had Ashley Giles put down by Ricky Ponting when the Englishman was on nought. Ask yourself why Andrew Strauss played the shot he did - it may well have been the result of the pressure created by Mcgrath - and since when have lower-order wickets not counted towards a bowler's final figures? And as yourself why Geraint Jones played down the wrong line: batsmen error resulting from good bowling. McGrath is the best seam bowler England have faced in a Test match for a long time, and the majority of their top-order batsmen struggled to play him. McGrath does not bamboozle England's batsmen in the way that Warne and Murali can, but he remains difficult to score off and his ability to consistently bowl in good areas means that he invariably picks up wickets. England's bowlers could learn a thing or two from the great man.

C'mon now Tim - when is the credit ever going to be given? To say McGrath only earnt one of his wickets is painfully misguided. Beating Strauss for pace and bounce to dismiss him playing one of his fav shots, making Cook look his age, trapping KP not offering a shot because he was clueless as to which way the ball was cutting (which was a decision 9/10 umpires would've given) then destroying the tail in clinical fashion...involves no luck whatsoever. I don't think playing the ball rather than the man would've helped - his ability to exploit the cracks allowed him to send down an incredible amount of unplayable balls. He would've steam rolled any batting side the way he bowled today. Give the man the credit he deserves.

Medium pace? McGrath was hitting consistent 130-132 kmph, as fast as he was in 2001 during his so called "peak". Clark was hitting consistent 135kph...even Fintoff spent most of his time below 135. Harmison was falling into the 120s where Hoggard spends all of his day, whilst Anderson's bowling continues to be directed outside of line of the speed gun.

I get the feeling that not even a 5-0 aussie drubbing is going to get a single compliment from yourself for the aussies. You've spoken about a loss for the aussies being the end of an era - a loss for England is going to end an era before it even began.

Ideally Flintoff should be opening the bowling. beacause he is by far the best bowler in england team. It happened in both innings that when he came in as a change bowler, australia was already off to a flier. He is the sort of bowler who can provide the break through and it would be better if he bowls with the new ball to a new batsmen, rather than bowling to a set batsman. He should lead from the front like Imran Khan who was the all rounder and the skipper like Freddie but he used to open the bowling for pakistan as well as batting at no6. Bowling selection was wrong in the sense that both Hoggard and Anderson are the swing bowlers and swing is not the major issue in Australia. Just notice how many balls did Mcgrath manage to swing? Thats where bowler like Stuart Broad would have been more useful because like Mcgrath he is tall and hit the deck sort of bowler and its not easy for the batsman to play him on the front foot. He can find lot of edges of the bat like Mcgrath.

Tim,
I can't quite see how Ponting giving his bowlers (who are supposedly too old and past it) a bit of a breather, and then making England chase a total of around 750-800 to win on a pitch that is breaking up and beginning to crack all over the place constitutes a mistake, exactly? Is it a mistake to make England look more ridiculous and to prolong their misery? Is it a mistake to draw out England's unavoidable loss until closer to the start of the Adelaide test when they will have to front up again, having just lost by a massive margin? Test match cricket isn't a race, or at least it needn't be when one of the sides basically loses the game within the first hour.

Tim Tim Tim! Do i sense some frustration in your voice as your wrote this blog? Recent History will show england will make a comeback in this series. And as an aussie that pleases me, because england are much better than the meek performance 10 players have shown so far this test.

Saying McGrath should be flattered by the figures is a little rich, more over english fans should be disgusted with the batting performance. Pieterson for one deserved to be given out for not offering a shot to a ball he could have defended, had he desired to really take the fight to the aussie bowlers.

Just sounds like sour grapes to me. We all expect more from england, but do give some praise where it is due. This is probably the last test series in australia where we see some of these wonderful players, and they deserve the credit. And as for the non-follow on. Good on the aussies for that choice. However it was a missed chance for gilchrist and clarke to get some much needed runs on the board on a good pitch, against quality bowling. England will lift. And i look forward to the rest of the series. But please Tim, dont be so sour about it!

As an Englishman, I'm really suffering now. And I would rather Ponting had enforced the follow-on. We probably would still have lost by an innings. But as it is, he has given Australia the chance to humiliate England in an almost unprecendented way. If Australia continue to take England's attack apart, they can set a demoralised and exhausted England 900-odd to win (ha!) in the last 4 sessions, and with England playing for survival and Warne bowling on a 5th day pitch, they can probably achieve a victory by a staggering 700+ runs. That really hurts.

also, getting Strauss out was no fluke, Mcgrath knew exactly what he was doing as he claimed here in the guardian "Compare England's performance with that of Glenn McGrath. In last week's Mail on Sunday he outlined how he aimed to deal with Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook. "Straussy is a confident bloke with a decent game-plan, but he likes to get on with things," said McGrath. "He will try to relieve the pressure with shots like the big pull off a length. But I've seen him get out like that." As for Cook: "I asked for some TV footage [from the Pakistan series] and they didn't ever bowl round the wicket to him. There's something for us to work on there.""

He's an absolute genius and at 37 comfortably out-bowled all of the English pacemen combined. Hard for some to accept, i guess.

What a way to take the credit away from Mcgrath? whether the author likes or not, he is the one who anhilates the best batsmen like Sachins and Lars world over, these English batters are nothing. You can mark my word for the current series.

First of all, I must admit that I am an Australian fan. But I am afraid Tim, your points have no substance. I like the fact you look back to last year's Ashes series... and point out the first innings score of the Australian's. The only problem I have with that point is the difference in demeanor of the two teams. Just look at the expression of the players. Day 1, Lord's, 2005. Harmison looked like Brett Lee, storming in, bowling fast and short. Look at him now, he's struggling to find any kind of line, let alone a good length. And personally, I reckon he looks like he ready to pack his bags and go home. How many times did you see him in the outfield without any kind of smile on his face? Or with his hands on his hips? Just look at his expression after the Paul Collingwood overthrow yesterday, I reckon that sums it up perfectly.

Am I saying that Australia have won this Ashes series? Certainly not. But to say that Australia looked "efficient" on Day #3 is an understatement. I think you are totally bias to the England cause and don't give respect where respect is due Tim. When you have Glenn McGrath and Stuart Clark consistently hitting their line and lengths and the England bowlers are spraying it on different lines and lengths for a period of days, I don't simply call that "efficient." I call that carrying out a pre-determined plan to perfection and acheiving the appropriate results. And in that regard, I feel that you fail to give Australia the respect they deserve. And you make the point that the English batsmen need to be more aggressive... did you not see the ball seaming off of the cracks yesterday? Pieterson was left clueless time after time trying to figure out what the ball was doing, how do you expect him to play aggressively? It boils down the fact that the Australian's are simply outplaying England and I reckon the Australian's have a burning hunger to win the Urn back in front of their home crowds.

I totally agree with Ponting's decision to demoralize England by going back out and batting. He is showing them how serious Australia is about winning the Urn back. They don't just want to win, they want to bury England. He knows he was under fire for losing last year, but he is committed to burying that series in the past by this year's performance.

It's death by a thousand cuts (mostly to the cover boundary.) Ponting is going for max humiliation, as he wanted to do at Edgbaston in 2005 by inserting England sans McGrath. This seems more sinister; no Vaughan, S. Jones and Tresco, and no Monty. And Jones for Read never sat well with me; not to mention thrusting the captaincy back at Freddie after Strauss had done admirably well. (And I'm no great follower of the man, but where the hell is Jon Lewis???) So I fear it's a slow disintegration, for which the England management and coaching staff (not Steve Waugh this time) must bear the brunt of the criticism that will most surely come unless England mount the Great Escape second time round.

I am not english or australian but i'm an english supporter not that i care much for them but i'm basically anti-australian because i cant't stand the aussies' arrogance and crude on field sledging but reading this piece has left me stunned. I have never met a more self deluded nation, not even we indians are this bad, when de lisle suggests that mc grath was lucky to get most of those wickets, does he not realize that in almost any match, most wickets don't fall to outstanding deliveries but to careless mistakes or mistakes made under pressure, sustained pressure? This is what happened with england, to write it off as mc grath getting lucky is bull. I'm not saying England can't turn things around but they are NOT GOING TO WIN THIS SERIES. If the do and prove me wrong i'll be the happiest non-englishmen on the planet. I'm still counting how many days half the aussie team aged over 35 like mc grath, warne, martyn, gilchrist etc. have before they retire and are a weakened unit. Till then though i'll take anyway that australia lose, even if all the matches in which they dominate are washed out by rain, i'd be happy. I am not english or australian but i'm an english supporter not that i care much for them but i'm basically anti-australian because i cant't stand the aussies' arrogance and crude on field sledging but reading this piece has left me stunned. I have never met a more self deluded nation, not even we indians are this bad, when de lisle suggests that mc grath was lucky to get most of those wickets, does he not realize that in almost any match, most wickets don't fall to outstanding deliveries but to careless mistakes or mistakes made under pressure, sustained pressure? This is what happened with england, to write it off as mc grath getting lucky is bull. I'm not saying England can't turn things around but they are NOT GOING TO WIN THIS SERIES. If the do and prove me wrong i'll be the happiest non-englishmen on the planet. I'm still counting how many days half the aussie team aged over 35 like mc grath, warne, martyn, gilchrist etc. have before they retire and are a weakened unit. Till then though i'll take anyway that australia lose, even if all the matches in which they dominate are washed out by rain, i'd be happy.

I guess Punter wanted to get another ton in this test. Man! This guy is in the form of his life!

Tim, i dont think Punter the Captain made a mistake to not enforce the follow-on.. i think he is giving the bowlers a rest after a pretty decent perfomance.. and really, u kinda have to think what is worse for eng.. the way they played throughout the day yesterday when Aus batted again, they were mere passengers in the match.. I agree Flintoff should be giving Harmy as many chances as he can to bowl, hurt the Aussies, and find abit of form and confidence by taking 2nd innings wickets.. Flintoff the captained made more mistakes Re: that, compared with Ponting and his decision to bat again.. Yesterdays field placings by Flintoff gave Harmy very few slips and many boundry riders in a situaton where runs dont matter at all!! haha.. Aus already have enough runs..i mean all Eng can take out of their 2nd innings bowling effort is the satisfaction of 2nd innings wickets for their bowlers, and as yet.. they have none.. surely that has to be more demoralising then being asked to follow-on? there is still plenty of time to declare and to win for Aus...

This lop-sidedness is killing the game. Ricky Ponting may have taken the decision of not enforcing the follow-on to take out whatever steam is left in the England side, but it hurts the game in the long-run. What's the fun in watching a game with a foregone conclusion? Sports are all about competitive spirit. You take that out of the equation and you might as well be watching a Troy Cooley lecture on the aerodynamics of swing bowling. What could be the motivation for Aussie players? Pile on the records? What else? This domination gap is so big it's not even funny.

A little question for Tim ... is your favourite movie "The Life of Brian"? You know, "Always look on the bright side of life" ...

At the end of day one you talked up England's chances (at least of a draw) as long as Strauss and KP put in good innings.

At the end of day two, you were looking to the 2nd test and saying that we could have known all along that Aus would probably win in Brisbane, but just wait for the next one when young legs will rule.

And now, after further rank humiliation for England, chiefly thanks to Aus's oldest pair of bowling legs, suddenly McGrath's figures flatter him and (reading between the lines) he really only deserved about 1-100.

Well two points:

First, on the subject of KP's dismissal, you must remember that Hawkeye doesn't record what would have happened, just the programmers' (educated) guess as to what might have happened. However, Hawkeye has been known to get it horribly wrong, eg, predicting that a ball which actually hit the stumps was going to miss. Another educated guess was that of the Cricinfo scorer, who wrote the following:

It looked out before the appeal had even reached the "zat" stage and Billy Bowden agreed. Hawkeye says it was missing off stump ... certainly didn't look like it.

Second, age is hardly the huge issue the media (and Tim) has been making of it. World class athletes are still known perform at the highest level in their mid-late 30's, and most of Aus's geriatrics keep themselves very fit ... Langer boxes, Hayden surfs ... even McGrath hasn't (to my knowledge) ever succumbed to the types of injuries normally associated with fast bowlers - bad backs, torn leg/groin muscles, stress fractures. His problems have either been bad luck (that ball!) or bone-spurs (now removed). In fact, the only Aus so far to succumb to injury has been their youngest player!

If England is waiting for a turnaround in fortunes based on youth and fitness, rather than admitting their obvious technical (and mental?) weaknesses and trying to do something about them, then they'll still be waiting on the flight back to London.

Oh! Cmon Tim. Did you say the same thing when Flintoff took his 4 for infinity? Maybe the Mc balls which got the wickets were not stunners but it is the planning that goes behind it.

The most common trick is to bowl 4 consecutive full balls and then bowl a short one with a deep square leg. The short ball per se is a long hop and a bad ball, but when viewed in the context of the previous 4 balls constitutes great planning.

And I am sure a bowler does not get 6 for 50 by fluke. Yeah 4 for infinity could be fluke, but not 6 for 50.

And I am really happy Bell stood tall admist the English batting ruins. He is class.

If we cannot bat for five sessions for the draw then we are lacking in something. Not hindsight, but the first thing we need to be able to do is bowl sides out and the decision to leave Monty Panesar out because of his restricted batting abilities was clearly defensive, tentative and wrong headed. Let's hope that we learn from this mistake even after Ashley's prolific batting performance - NOT.

Mahmood in for Anderson or Panesar for Anderson? Or Mahmood and Panesar for Giles and Anderson?
Or Mahmood and Panesar for HARMISON and Anderson? These are all difficult selection problems. I guess with the parallel with the first test last year, there weren't wholescale changes for Edgbaston. England just have to play better and put a bit of pressure that Aussies experienced last year and couldn't handle. Flintoff lacks Vaughan's ruthlessness, which seemed to be the key to last year's victory. Stick it up em as Boycott would say. Let's not forget the pressure Australia could be under which is why they're so desperate to bury England in the first test (hence Ponting's decision to bat again). If England lose the series it would be disappointing but not devastating. But if Australia fail to regain the ashes it would be unthinkable, certainly as many of their players will not be in England in 2009. A little bit of pressure from England that can put doubts in the Aussies' minds, memories of 2005, pressure from the fans and the press, it can all change. But it would seem that we can't do it with the ball. England have to win the toss and bat at Adelaide. Otherwise, it really could be all over.

Perhaps you didn't see McGrath hitting the cracks over and over again with the ball going every which way. I do not see how you can say that they played the man not the ball, unless you mean they couldn't figure out where the ball was going to go!

rev

Yes, I have to agree that England really missed a trick by trudging around the field with no purpose. It was an opportunity to sieze back some momentum, instead they were dreadful (as I elaborate on ashesinsomniac.blogspot.com)

England's major bother at this gruesome start to the tour would hardly be their batting half. No's 1 to 6 are doing a decent enough job, its the bowling department thats lacking the sting. Steve Harmison looks out of place and needs someone to get the 'fear of failure' out of him. If England lose trust in him then it will dent their confidence even further. He should be rightly supported by his team-mates during his slump.

And yet again, England start a tour with their backs on the wall. Why do they play better cricket only when their pride is at stake? Hope they go 0-2 down in the first two matches and emerge 3-2 at the end ;) That seems highly improbable if the prodigious McGrath keeps bowling the way he is.

England are surely missing the services of Vaughan, Tresco and Panesar to name the least. With the first two out with injury (physical & psychological, respectively), they can at least salvage something by getting Panesar in place of Giles. Well, whats wrong if he cant bat and field? Giles's 20 odd runs cant change the course of the game, but Monty's 4 wickets can surely do.

As far as the English batting woes, its just a matter of time when Pieterson, Strauss and Flintoff fire guns (hopefully in the second innings). Bell has already shown some character.

About Ponting making 'mistakes', I'm not sure if not enforcing the follow-on was such a big one. Agreed there's a chance for England to capitalize on that decision, but its really slim. Besides, Ponting & Co. know when to pull the panic trigger.

"Glenn McGrath was greatly flattered by his figures: a gift from Strauss, a joint gift from Pietersen and Billy Bowden, a push down the wrong line by Jones, a couple of tail-enders … the only major wicket conjured by McGrath himself was that of Cook."

Tim, would you have said the same... had McGrath been playing for Engurland?

"A push down the wrong line by Jones" -- you are making it sound as if Jones is a Bradman.

That's how most batsmen get caught behind, pushing down the wrong line. In Jones' case, he should have been pushed out of the squad a long time back.

McGrath takes wickets, and that wins you Test matches.

I'm not sure why all the fuss about Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow-on. By batting again, and racking up 180-odd easily, he has shown the English that it wasn't the pitch's fault, after all. It is just that Australia's batting and bowling is much stronger than Englands. Once his bowlers have had a nice rest, they can come in and do it all again. Nothing better than starting a series by really rubbing their noses in it.

Hmmm, McGrath flattered? He exposes a flaw in Strauss's technique to the short ball, follows up with a gem to Cook, confuses Pieterson (I have no sympathy for batsmen who don't use the bat) after applying pressure for an hour, deceives Jones and cleans up the tail with military precision.

Not to much flattery there just skill. And remember this is on a pitch that produced 600 runs in the first dig - a true belter as the Aussies proved (and are proving) in the second innings.

I have to agree with the rest though. And like to add the other scary part is one S Warne has 0 in the wickets column - that will not last long.

most of your comments are fair enough, though i disagree about mcgraths "gifts" . seems to me
history is full of accurate bowlers getting bagfulls
on flawed pitches, cheers for the metonome
ozzie ozzie ozzie, eehahh!!

Tim,
I think the sad irony is that the Ashes have been hyped up to such a point that anything after was going to be a let-down. I can't understand the life of me why people said this was going to be close - The English Side looks the worst since Andy Caddick claimed he was going to "Bore Australia Out". Not enforcing the declaration is not a "weird" desicion, but a cooly calculated one. England's bowlers are what let them down, not their batsmen - to make them bowl another 90 overs and conceed 400 runs equates to torture. The bowling attack of England is pathetic - Giles isn't even a county Player, Anderson likewise should be back playing school-cricket. That Leaves Harmison and Flintoff - Harmison maybe good in his home place, but here he is a bundle of nerves. That leaves Flintoff, to his credit he is a fine all-rounder - but to bowl twice, go out for a duck in the first innings and hit with impunity in the second.... and not to mention the captaincy - I can't see him not breaking down before the Third Test. Ponting decision to send England again - has not only ensured that England will lose all confidence, lose the first test - but the second test also. I think this is the WORST english bowling line-up I have ever ever seen - I cannot see how they are going to bowl out Australia twice.

My only advice to England is to drop Harmison, Giles and Anderson and bring in Panesar, Mahmood and ....... or to save face, they should follow the barmy army home (who seem to be whinging as much as england that the bowl won't swing).

Tim, atleast give australia some credit when its due. You just cannot hack the fact that "Dads Army" is annihilating your beloved Poms.I also find it ridiculous that you critisize Pontings captaincy when his decision to follow on is fully justified as all he was doing was de-moralising england and giving his bowlers a rest, which is crucial considering this jam packed itinery. As for mcgrath, how can you say he didnt bowl well when england took 2.5 times as many overs to bowl australia out? mcgrath bowled with class and you tim, lack this

For heaven's sake get over it Tim. If a guy takes 6 for 50 including 3 top-order scalps he bowled well - just accept it. The fact that the guy has done it consistently throughout his career ought to give you an idea that yes, he actually is good. Or would you say that he is flattered by his 500+ test wickets? Your piece smells faintly of sour grapes...

there have already been more comments about k p being given out lbw than there were about all the dodgy lbw's given in the 2005 ashes. is it just because australia got this one? Flintoff getting out off a no-ball was the same as him getting langer off one last year.

"Ponting the batsman has done so well, with strong support, that Ponting the captain can make as many mistakes as he likes." Monday morning i will walk into work and hear nothing but negatives about the way the Australians have played this match. Bad umpiring decisions, greedy Australian captains, unfair pitch conditions, not enough time to acclimatise to Australian pitches before the first match, a ball that doesn't reverse swing. Why not throw in: boundaries that are so far away KP can't hit the ball for 6; different sight-screens that confuse the seam position as the bowler releases the ball; player dehydration caused by dry cucumber in the lunchbreak sandwiches and salads; smaller bottles of gatorade with the lids done up too tightly. We have a term over here to describe English people who just can't handle things as they are - 'Whinging Poms'. This is a TEST match, not an exhibition game for the benefit of the sponsors.

Harmisson has technical flaws in his bowling action. He is unbalanced. A few overs in a match won't help.

Last year at Lord, England lost because they did'nt hold onto their catches. The bowling was still good. Now, the bowling is at fault. Apart from Flintoff, the other bowler should be replaced for the 2nd test.

Ponting's decision not to enforce the follow-on is baffling. It is one that the English ought to grab with both hands. Before then, the English were clearly staring into the barrel, and the writing was clearly on the wall. Of course, it is not going to be easy for the English to bat through a bunch of sessions. With the pitch cracking up more, McGrath hitting his spot, Clark grabbing wickets and Shane Warne lurking, saving the test is only a glim possibility for the English. But it is a chance. It is a chance that the English could not have otherwise expected to have. Now all they require is basically a crease-occupying mind frame. If they can successfully curb that instinct to attack and see off over after over, Ponting could be made to pay for his strange decision to prolong a game that the Aussies had already bagged in three days. Needless to say, such a feat from the English is easier said than done.

For Ponting to justify his decision on the basis that his senior bowlers need a rest is pointless. If anything, it is ridiculous and arrogant to make decisions on age and workload criteria. Now would be a classic time for Ponting to pay. If only the English could save this test...If only it could rain...

A push down the wrong line by hayden, a gift from langer and a tailender, with only Hussey's wicket conjured by Flintoff. That could easliy have been written in an Australian orientated newspaper or blog but it wont be beacause for the mostpart Australians recognise a champion. Other balls Flintoff bowled put doubts and pressure on the Australian batsmen just like McGrath did to the english. As a journalist writing for a well respected cricket authority in Wisden you should sjow credit where it is due and show more integrity in your choice of words. Boringly biased writing is no way to generate meaningful discussion amongst cricket lovers the world over, not just the english and australians. Please grow up and a more serious note this is the first test and i am an australian but this series is far from over. Not by a long shot

its sad that u have to try to take something away from the uassies performance pretty much everytime.. mcgrath was awesome and yet u still have to pretty much say that his 6 wickets were crap.. and u allways do it was well as i have noticedin your other articles.. so it might be a good idea to try to cut back from the crap and jsut say it evenly

In regards to Tim's comments that Glen Mcgraths figures flatter him, that is rediculous. All Glen did is what he has always done for over a decade. Put the ball in the right place and the wicket has come. Just look at the pervious 500 odd he has taken. The strauss wicket has a two card trick that Andrew Stauss fell for. It was clear to all sectators that Lee and Mike Hussey were in place for the trap so why did Andrew not notice it is the question i think has to be asked. Aussies on top, Poms looking for excuses that are not there. The balance is restored.

Ponting has proved once again that he is a better batsman than a good captain.His decision to bat again instead of putting england to follow-on reflects his inexperienced and insecure approach towards the test cricket as compared with his predecessor Waugh's aggressive approach ( Rememeber 2001 Indian tour's Calcutta's Test)

Flintoff was flattered by his figures as well. Langer and S.Clark both got out to him because they were hitting out. What's your point?

Spoken like a true englishman. Even though what you say is true, they werent playing in the toughest conditions in the world, in front of one of the most vocal crowds in the world. Keep dreaming Tim

Err Tim, every English person has been saying McGrath is past it and their batsmen should attack him yet Strauss does exactly that and they talk about a 'stupid shot' and 'gifting his wicket'. Face it - England batted as well as Clark and McGrath let them bat. Bit hard to attack a bowler when you can barely lay bat on them for all the movement. They were both able to hit the cracks 3 out of 6 deliveries yet England's bowlers were lucky if they managed it once in 50 balls. In the first innings Clark didn't bowl one ball on the leg side of middle stump. Saying he is just tidy medium pace and it's a worry he was able to take wickets is laughable. He's faster than Hoggard, and took 20 wickets at 19 in his debut earlier this year. Basically a fast medium version of McGrath really and could even lower his average in this series.

You seem to find it tough to give credit where it's due to any Aussie player at all that isn't through gritted teeth.

What a disappointment.... The hope of a close fought series here in Australia, and we get this garbage. Australia have perhaps been helped by a few umpiring decisions, but lets be honest. England look like they will be lucky to escape his series with less than a 5- 0 drubbing. McGrath’s prediction may be right! I hope England has some fight in them, but the signs look bad.

Strauss seems determined to hook anything short, and his technique has been found wanting. Collingwood seems to be putting up a second innings fight, but he is way short of the quality needed in a number 4. Pieterson looks shellshocked. He needs the top order to fire a bit, (and not to be looking down a 600 run deficit) before he becomes dangerous.

The bowling looks worse with only Freddy looking a danger. Harmison looks like he is mentally gone already.

I was there on day 2, and you could sense the gulf between these teams is immense. Yay!!! Another summer of Australia destroying everybody in sight. Oh for the days when test cricket was actually testing. This is like men playing an under 13s team. It is almost unfair.

I’m an Australian. I can only imagine what the pain must be like for visiting fans….

Once again (and especially when it comes to conceding anything positive towards Australia) Tony Grieg...er...sorry, Tim De Lisle, that is, has gotten it wrong again.

McGrath's ability to hit the same awkward line and length outside off is what gets him his wickets. Always has, always will - and will continue to do so in this series. This metronomic efficiency chokes all manner of players into frustration and forces them into delivering up the so called "gifts" from opposition batsmen you suggest in your article (although I use that last word rather loosely, considering the clap-trap contained throughout it)

Suggesting that McGrath was given some sort of charity by the English rabble-masquerading-as-a-cricket-squad, once again belies your true ignorance and idiotic blind one-eyed focus.

Of course, one thing that you did say that was correct was that the series isn't yet over. I heartily agree. I would also add for your benefit (and for the legion of mindless pommie zombies who appear to lap up your nonsense): one fortunate ashes series victory does not make a champion team - nearly 2 decades of utter domination (in both forms of the game), however, may just do so.

Oh, and next time, if you're going to spread that brand of manure Timmy, you might want to consider bringing a bag of lime to sprinkle over the top of it to cover up the stench.

I challenge you to post this reply.

A few thoughts. Stuart Clark may well be an unepected star of this series. He ought be given the new ball with McGrath. He has looked a more formidable proposition than Brett Lee.
A return by Michael Vaughan could prove to be the defining moment of this series. For all his obvious qualities as a leader, Flintoff's batting has clearly suffered from the captaincy. Saturday showed the one of the problems associated with flintof as captain. He had a dreadful day: a duck, a dropped catch, and overthrows, and the team's morale clearly suffered from his evident depondency. I suspect the England team would be an altogether more cohesive and focussed group if Vaughan were to return as captain.

When he decided to bat again, I think Ponting had in mind the following:

1. Rest his bowlers; make England field again to tire them out both physically & psychologically; give Warne the use of a 4th- & 5th-day pitch (& depriving Giles of it).

2. The psychological domination is intended to extend to the next Test - a mere 3 days away. This should give England the minimum possible time to recover in both contexts. Strategic thinking is long-term and needs to be applied to the series and not merely within the period of a single test.

3. If England wins the toss in the next Test and bat, the psychological scars would still be fresh (3 days old). If Australia wins the toss and bat, they will be looking to post a big score and impose feelings of helplessness in the England fielders before their chance at the crease.

I wonder if Flintoff should be one of the opening bowlers (with Harmison); play 2 spinners (Giles & Monty); replace Anderson with Sajid; & get Read in.

As for declarations & enforcing of follow-ons, it's the captain's prerogative and he should only consider the state of the game & strategy and NOT entertainment value only. His job is to win Tests and Test series and not cater to the broadcasters at the expense of the former.

Perhaps, Strauss should be captain too (with Flintoff as vice-captain in an under-study role).

Tim's take on McGrath's performance is uncalled for!

Tim - I've supported your bias up until now because I enjoy your articles. But you have surely entered the realm of the utterly delusional with this piece. Your assignment is entitled "Ashes Buzz", and therefore implies at least some degree of neutrality.

Your rubbishing of Glenn McGrath and Australia more generally is insipid and pathetic - perhaps you should give credit where credit's due and laud the Australians for a phenomenal performance.

The overwhelming issue for England is this:

Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six
Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six
Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six
Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six
Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six

Until that sinks in, England have no chance. Put him at seven - he, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar are good enough to dismiss Australia.

One more time:

Flintoff is not good enough to bat at six

How about you focus your next piece on something like Strauss' failure against the short ball, Harmison's (or Anderson's, take your pick) dead career, England's repeated illegal rotation of bowlers before and after spells, or *gasp* Flintoff's poor captaincy? How can Ricky Ponting continually be critisised with the record that he has (best winning % in Aussie captain history), when Flintoff, who's already drawn a series against an extremely weak Sri Lanka, is obviously struggling to get any from his team mates? He was clueless in choosing bowlers, setting fields and not once generated any sort of pressure on any of the australian batsmen. Then was dismissed playing a very immature shot to back up his quack in the first dig. While your researching it, why not just check out FLintoff's record as well - bowling average over 30?? Batting average under 35?? Can anyone say over rated? Yet you will attempt to drag down players who have achieved 50x more than Flintoff because they are simply lucky?

There is barely a single topic of yours that hasn't been designed to purely get up the nose of the Australians. I realise that you only have a month or so left of talking about what happened in 2005 and sticking it up the Aussies, but all you are doing is dragging discussions that would be better suited to a Barmy Army forum onto Cricinfo. It's this type of bias journalism that is setting your country's credibility up for a massive fall - just what happened after England won the rugby world cup. It only took them 1 year before they returned to the laughing stocks that they once were, and are not likely to recover this century. The cricket team is in danger of doing exactly the same if you continue to pump their tires no matter how poor their performances are. You aren't even asking your players what the excuses are - you already have them ready made for them.

First of all, I'm neither english nor Australian, but i do agree with the others ,tim, that the faint whiff of underripe grapes permeates this blog. belittling the performance of a flash in the pan bowler is one thing, but Mc Grath has been doing just this sort of thing for a decade.If , as you claim, he is lucky to get those wickets then it means the batsmen who get out to him are really crap .better to say the batsmen were good, but just bested by a peerless bowler.
And another thing, ponting had better hope that his bowlers take the final few wickets, or he will look foolish. what utter tosh to claim your bowlers needed a rest!! they are supposed to be able to bowl all day if necessary! thats their job. if england had batted through the day, would he have asked for a break for the bowlers the next day? for goodness sake, they only bowled for 60 overs. is he saying therefore, that if in another innings the england batsmen face 120-130 overs that his bowlers will die of exhaustion?
I hope he feels lucky.

Yes, while not wishing to add more of the same, Tim's comments are a tad rich. Especially considering that the entire England team was flattered by the 2005 result and the litany of howlingly awful decisions suffered by the Australians in that series. The English reaction to the KP dismissal is particularly bemusing - every commentator I heard gave it out before the umpire's finger rose - but oh, the injustice! Somewhere else on cricinfo I noted that it was claimed that (the far from infallible) hawkeye showed that it was missing by 6 centimeters - must be a different hawkeye in England from that on show here because in the latter the distance was about half the thickness of a single stump. Does wishful thinking magnify distance or is it imperial centimeters? To return to reality (from England) in 2005 England played above themselves & Australia below, in the current test this has been reversed. Let us hope for the sake of an interesting series and fragile English egos that the trend does not continue.

well I don't want to be too harshed or biased for any body and for any team..but I think England can take couple of positives out of this game..one of them is the fightback by English batsman..cook looked in good shape..Collingwood showed he can fight hard for his runs..Pieterson showed if he is in flow then he can bring Aussies in trouble..Bell also looked composed in first inning..and we knw tht Strauss is better player than wht scorecard showed..the only thing is they hv to be mentally tough and as TIm said they hv to play the balls rather than man...their bowling well, thts the main concerned for me since if u want to defeat Aussies then u got to bowl them out twice..which Eng did so cleanically in 2005...
but I wud say one more thing after watching first day bowling performance..and that is, England bowlers were not putting balls in right area consistently..but when they did Aussies openers were not so convincing..there were edges flying here and there and hu knws if couple of them wud hv gone straight to fielders it wud hv been different story..the worrying part is Pontings batting..he is playing like GOD..and England has to do somethng for him..and that is easiest early in his inning when he is falling over playing drives..since once he is set he hardly gives any chance...As far as team composition is concerned..I wud give harmison one more chance..and tht's the test of his character..one change can be Anderson..I feel sorry for him but...it has to be..probably panesar can be a good option..since before we go to Melborn and Sydney we can hv a look how he cope up with the pressure..since there where spinners really come in to play..and in WACA it wud be more likely to go with all pace attack..
any way whtever happens I don't want that Ashes gets decided in Waca itself..as a cricket lover I wud prefer if it goes to last day of sydney and then huever wins does't matter..but my heart want tht it shud be England..

First of all, you are implying that Mcgrath is a a rubbish bowler. He is not just a medium pacer, he is metronomic, he gets a lot of bounce, his seam positioning is perfect so the ball moves of the pitch, he is one of the best bowlers in the world. Brian lara, Sachin Tendulkar have not been able to get the better of guys like Pollock and Mcgrath. Are they also sunk? should they quit the game because if they can't even handle rubbish medium pacers like Mcgrath they must be rubbish themselves right? Sometimes I wonder whether you know anything about the game or not. Tidy medium pace? you make the man sound like Paul Collingwood. How can you expect a team to not struggle against a guy who has taken 500+ test wickets at 20 odd and an economy of less than 3?