All rather concerning, 2005 was won because England genuinely believed they could win, this belief must be quickly drying up. NSW will throw everything at England, including key test players, should England not meet this with the same. If a muddled 16 man england team take another battering this series could be dead, but if the test 11 played and beat a strong NSW side their belief, and the contest will be restored.

"Why did Monty Panesar bowl only three overs?"
Because Fletcher and Flintoff don't want him to have the chance to cement a place for the first test. They want Giles instead. A disgrace, but it's going to happen.

I dont think you can read too much into this defeat. Analysis that sometimes ends up in over analysis kills the team faster than anything else. Cause you panic and try to different stuff when you dont really need to. Just a practice game, they jsut need to make sure they pick themself up next game and thats all there is to it.

I'm strictly a neutral as far as the Ashes go, so my comments might incite the olde faithful of the current holders of the treasured urn.

I couldn't help but chuckle at Freddie Flintoff's post match comments that losing a match doesn't suddenly turn England into a bad side... True, but losing many matches does gradually turn England into an average side, if not a mediocre one.

May be someone needs to point this out to the lads within the England camp. Until this little bubble of "we're not a bad side" is pricked, and a good kicking carried out, it can't get better before it gets worse.

By all means back yourselves England, but there is a fine line between that and flattering yourselves - you will only flatter to deceive!

Re Panesar it looks like Fletcher and Fred have decided that Giles is back in the team. Flintoff's bowling selection was inexplicable. Remember it was only under Strauss that Monty was given his head. The US election is going to look like close run thing compared to this series..

Sometimes I wonder what exactly Duncan Fletcher does or thinks before warm-up games. The way he has handled this one, and the Champions Trophy fiasco reminds me all too precisely of the way Sven-Goran Eriksson approached friendlies for the England soccer team. Players were not given time to settle (far less made to work hard), the unity of the team was never strengthened, and the net result was mediocrity masked by excuses - even against opposition that should have been beaten comfortably. The outcome was that a promising group of players learned to be complacent, lazy and incompetent, and the longterm damage done to English soccer is clear. Similarly, Fletcher has allowed too many players to settle into a comfort zone - and the result is that they underperform, lose the winning habit, and settle for being far less of a threat to the "real" opposition in big games. If England lose the Ashes, which I think is the likely outcome, it will not be because an ageing Australia are that great - it will be because too many England players have been allowed to settle for being second-rate, undisciplined and casual far too consistently. The solution to inconsistency is discipline, hard work, and making it quite clear that underperformance means no place, and ultimately no contract. England should view warm-up games as a chance to intimidate the opposition - instead, we get excuses about jet-lag, pointless selections, and an attempt at squad rotation that simply tells the opposition that England are not serious about winning. Unless these habits change, England will fall back to third or fourth spot in the Test rankings, and will continue to be a laughingstock at the ODI level. If this is the result delivered by Fletcher, then we can only ask why he was allowed to do this for so long.

Discontinuing Panesar, just after 3 overs, was really a stupid decision. He wasn't that expensive either. There was a very good chance that he would have given less than 5 in his full spell and maybe taken a couple of wickets. I think the only answer England have to balance Warne is Monty + Giles. Everyone knows that the Australians have issues with playing spin. But amazingly, over the years, England have never quite understood what spinners can do for them.

DF is really playing mind games with the Aussies now..........apparently three batsmen got out to Taits shortball in OD game chasing 347 runs?? Duh!! Still lets hope that Oz choose Tait for the Test, because then he'll be creamed (once again!) all over the ground.

Still it gave the bowlers a run out, especially Freddie. Apart from that nothing has changed.

Read should play next match and Panesar bowl about 5 - 10 overs (so Oz don't get too much sight of him!!)and Harmy get chance to rattle some helmet grills, but once again GJones drops vital catch!! when Jaques on 21!! Talk about game lost there and then!! Still no doubt DF will still let him have the gloves for the next few games and just let Read swing the bat!!

I'm already losing all faith in Selectors.

On another point for the Andrew Miller, would Mahmoods bowling figures (if classed as a ODI!) be the worst ever? Afterall it was virtually an Australia A team??

Still as England always say it's just a OD game? It means nothing in relation to the Tests, just as no doubt Australia were saying when Bangladesh did the business in 05!!

Look forward to remaining warm-ups to see if Boycott is proved right!!

I hope they make better use of these two remaining warm-up matches, and I think a lot of Tim's comments are valid, but, to be honest, I'm not worried yet. I know, I know - everyone's worried that we're desperately out of nick and Harmy needs to get his rhythm back and Hoggy needs a bowl desperately and everyone's forgotten which end to hold the bleedin' bat. But, minus Jones and Vaughn (big losses though they are) these are the current holders of the Ashes. And they're playing a virtually identical Aussie team to the one they beat 18 months ago. And this was a one-day match, at which every Australian and his grandmother seems capable of playing at a higher level than anyone else in the world and at which England, for reasons that are ulitmately unfathomable, totally suck. Give 'em a chance to find their feet, start playing with a red ball and lose the first couple of tests before we all write them off. Yes, the Aussies start out favourites, just as they did in 2005. But I'll bet money they're not writing this England team off yet the way some pundits seem to be.

I don't think defeat in this match can really be viewed in the context of the Ashes battle to come. Victory would have been better of course, but the team has hardly had chance to practise properly since arriving in Australia, the 50-over format is not England's strongest suit at present, and several key players, certain starters in Brisbane, were not playing. I'd say Read should get the nod over Jones now for the keeping spot. Yes, Jones did pull off one good catch, but Read may well have taken that too - he's good, you know! What is certain is that he wouldn't have dropped the sitter which, if repeated in Brisbane when Ponting's on 6 early on, could prove to be a major turning point in the battle for the Ashes.

Australia begin the Ashes as clear favourites, but if England's players perform and play to their potential, I think 2-2 is a distinct possibility. Years of watching the England cricket team compel you to be an eternal optimist in defiance of logic and fact!

It looked like they wanted to make an example out of england! What a welcome!
I dont quite agree with you that the defeat is not significant. Instead of getting an easy win... they have put on a lot of pressure on themselves.

Last ahses england won primarily because of bowling... which looks really weak right now. Consider this:
1) flintoff - coming back... hasnt reached top speed yet.
2) harmisson - low on confidence... count on him to start missing home after first test match loss!
3) anderson - again low on confidence... count on hayden and langer to attack him in his first spell... I would pick him as third seamer but his temparament is still questionable!
4) sajid mahmood - bowled himself out of contention for first test... here is a question for flintoff... why would you make him bowl 9 overs!!!
5) hoggard - he is an unknown... hasnt played in a long time... but he has been in amazing rythem in past 2 years... a certainity if he is fit!

Aussie bowling is so strong that it would be tough for england to score 300+ against them consistently... johnson, tait and watson have soem serious pace! mcgrath is bowling beautifully again! brett lee is a bit of hit and miss but he has been hitting more often than missing lately!

I hate bracken... I am just waiting for the day when he bowls to sehwag on a docile pitch in the middle of indian summer...

back to ashes... while all is not lost for england... it nearly is...

they look an extremely average side and I woudl be amazed if they win even a single match against a declining aussie team.

This will end up being the most over hypped one sided ashes in the history...
Wait... I take that back! there has been so many of farce ashes in past 2 decades that its mpossible to choose one...

i think it is absolutely ridiculous the way flintoff handled his bowlers...watching the game i could not think of a reason why monty was only given 3 overs..i hope monty plays ahead of giles as he is a matchwinner...and i hope harmison and mahmod find their rythm becasue they will be extremely effective with pace and bounce...englands batsmen need to worry about aussies pace attack..if tait or johnson play, the the third seamer will be a 95mph man

"A virtual Australia A side" my a@#%!!! Please! Don't kid yourself Tim de Lisle. Jaques & Tait maybe, the rest, you are having a laugh! England copped it big time, pillar to post. Now they just have to front up to an always powerful NSW side & then SA & Shaun Tait again (by the way, your boys didn't seem to like his hostile bowling too much!). Whatever spin you put on it Tim, it isn't the greatest way to kick off the start of an Australian tour. Especially after Mr. Vaughan's big comments about this Australian group looking brittle. That English display was about as robust a team performance as the little urn itself....

Tim

I think you missed the mark with your criticism here. This was only a one day match, so was a chance for some to blow off some cobwebs. Harmison and Hoggard didn't need to play this game - they'll get plenty of bowling in Sydney and Adelaide without blokes trying to pongo a six each ball. Monty could have bowled more overs but again he'll get plenty of bowling in Sydney.

The Australian side was probably only half its "A" side but it was obvious some were up to making a mark, notably Tait and Jaques.

As an Aussie I don't read too much into yesterday - with the possible exception that I think Pietersen will genuinely struggle against the short and quick stuff.

THis warm up match against NSW has to be the best warm up match a team could ever have. Lee, McGrath and Clark will be playing - how often does a side get to play all 3 top line pace men before the first test?

I have a feeling Collingwood is going to play ahead of Bell, Jones ahead of Read and Giles ahead of Panesar in the first test.

Perhaps the coaching staff needs to appoint Tim as a selection consultant because it seems that Duncan Fletcher is not rising to the challenge of beating the Aussies at home on taylor-made pitches- not to mention a second sting Aussie team. Fact is spinners take wickets downunder... the bouncy pitches have given messrs Warne and MacGill plenty of wickets at first class and international level, so why is it that Monty bowled so few overs? THAT is mind boggling actually as no Australian batsmen (Jacques aside perhaps?) will face up to him in the Test series to get a good look at him. I'm more then bemused, I'm glad that I'm an Australian and I'm glad that Fletcher is in charge...

Tim, you may as well just rename your column 'England's Ashes blog'. This England team isn't THAT interesting, and surely even your own fans are sick of hearing the same old chestnuts time and again. Isn't cricinfo meant to be an international site?

I agree completely with the selection of the English team, seemed not to make much sense to include some players and not others, and giving monty only 3 overs was strange as well. Normally i would not get sucked in to any of these warm-up matches but some things such as Mahmood's unbelievably bad bowling and middle order batting has to be worrying, even if they were only going at half pace. Oh and by the way Tim, this was not an 'Australia A' side. Yes, there was some top talent, namely Tait, Jacques, and Cosgrove, but i dont think any of the others would even make our second XI...

I agree with your comments on unanswered questions. I had hoped to see some sort of statement from the English about their intentions, but saw none. I dont agree with you that the Australian side were a "virtual Australian A side". In fact, only three Australian players there have any real prospect of appearing in national colours.

I was wondering with Monty Panesar whether they are trying to keep him under wraps a bit before the Tests? Either that or maybe they thought that once the PM XI's were dominating that they would try and preserve his confidence and not have him smashed all over the place?

Despite England's resemblance to a touring club (or pub?) side, somehow I have extracted a significant crumb of encouragement from this dire performance. Namely, the fact that Collingwood bowled 10 overs might just suggest that one of two quite interesting strategies is being considered for Brisbane. The first is the 4 bowler line-up, with Giles left out, Bell, Cook and Collingwood in the middle order and Collingwood acting as fifth bowler. The second is the two spinner option, with Giles and Monty both playing, Cook out and Collingwood again helping Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison. It may be a huge case of wishful thinking and I may also be crediting the England management with far too much logic, but if either of these two team selections comes to pass on the 23rd, I will feel quietly confident. The alternative is the Doomsday scenario of Giles in place of Monty and a weak seam option at number 9.

The tour has started and so too as the embarrassment.I regret to say we will see more of these pathetic performancies from this England team,before the summer is over.Flintoff should stop talking and demonstrate ability as a captain,then as a bowler and certainly as a batsman capabable of scoring more than 2 runs.We watch with interest

Some good points - more fundamentally, why was a one day match part of the warm-up for a test series? And why are we playing half the Aussie test team in tomorrow's warm-up game?

So England lost a meaningless limited overs game with the only resemblance to a Test match being that they played in whites. Big Deal.

In 2005 Australia were stuffed by England in the Twenty:20 and by Bangladesh in the Nat West. They then came back and gave England their usual whipping at Lords.

Unless the authorities re-think tours and provide England with a decent number of first class games to acclimatise before an Ashes series rather than social one dayers and 16-a-side nonsenses then England's first real first test will be the real First Test!

Tim,
You haven't quite understood this blog thing have you ? The whole point is the immediacy and instant analysis and 'interaction'. You seem to put up your post and then go on holiday for a few days before putting up a raft of comments people have been sending in. Have a look at the Guardian site ( "comment is free") to see how this is meant to be done. It is better to allow everything through and cull the rubbish later rather than putting up a good piece of analysis to which people will respond, only to see nothing for hours or days !
Other than that, I am getting increasingly worried about Fletcher going back into the familiar Giles territory. Perhaps, not content with a British passport, he wants a Spanish one as well !

Could't agree more! I immediately assumed that monty had been injured to only bowl 3 overs. It's not as if he went for a sackful either and was brought off to spare his blushes. (Saj Mahmood anyone) I believe Cook was unnecessary for this one one as the shorter form is not right for him at this stage in his development (and i am a big fan!) First test needs to be about :- Tresco,Strauss,Cook,Pieterson,Collingwood/Bell,Flintoff,Read,Giles,Hoggard,Panesar,Harmison/Anderson Lets see something like this take the field in the next match before they go messing around to much. Lastly Panesar Batting 11 is nothing short of a travesty and in recent months even our number 8s have made little to no impact in tests.(ie Liam Plunkett/Mahmood AGAIN! and showing Giles being missed) so a jump to 9 or 10 seems obvious as he has natural timing and also patience!

People seem to have missed the key point that Jones dropped the man who then made a rapid century punishing all the bowlers. Dropped catches by keepers lose matches. England were very lucky to win the Ashes despite Jones as keeper.

I agree with most of your comments. However, why is Trescothick a certainty? He is totally out of form all summer, has a personal issue and has never succeeded in Australia? I would drop him before I drop Bell or Collingwood. Cook can always open with Strauss.

Read and Bell

As Tim pointed out, where is Bell? He is by among the top English batsmen in technique and temperament. He might not be a matchwinner in ODIs , but nobody can question his place as a test player.

Persisting with Geraint Jones is indeed the dumbest thing England can do. His ineptitude befind the stumps with gloves is beaten only by his performance before the stump with a bat.

"People seem to have missed the key point that Jones dropped the man who then made a rapid century punishing all the bowlers."

No they haven't. But people do seem to miss the key point that there have been at least three significant misses by Read since his recall. Why this astonishing blind-spot? Read *is* the more natural keeper, but he's not flawless as anyone who has actually watched him play for Notts will know. More worryingly, he seems a slightly fragile character who allows pressure to adversely affect his (genuine) skill. *That* - even more than the issue of late order runs - is the reason why the keeper debate isn't clear-cut.

I don't think much must be read in to the defeat. England did lose but then they are just about getting adjusted to the conditions and it must be remembered that "The Ashes" is a 5 day scenario (longer version) and not a 1 day scenario and history tends to suggest that England have played the longer version of the game better than the shorter version. The game against New South Wales assumes a great amount of significance particularly for Flintoff, Harmisson and Pietersen who in my opinion would be the players to watch out for. England do have a chance of retaining the Ashes but must get into their act very quickly.

Despite Fletcher's obvious achievements at test level, I've never been wholly convinced by him. To my way of thinking he has 3 major weaknesses:
1. One day cricket: excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe England are now comfortably the worst one day side in the world and are palpably treading water. Nice one Dunc!
2. Warm up games. The trouncing by the President's XI was all too predictable. Warm up games should be used to the fullest extent - walloping the opposition and laying down a marker for the test series. Fletcher seems to treat them as an irrelevance which sends out all the wrong signals, not least to the paying customer. Harmison desperately needs to play to try and discover some rhythm before it's too late. On the evidence of India he couldn't bowl a club side out at the moment. Plus he needs to keep his mind occupied, otherwise he'll be blubbing about being away from home well before Brisbane.
3. Favouritism. This is Fletcher's real Achilles heel. I too am suspicious that Giles is being eased back in and Monty eased out. And the fact that the wicket-keeping position is still in doubt at this stage is scandalous. Geraint Jones is quite simply the worst international wicket keeper I've ever seen and should never have got anywhere near the test team in the first place. But he's popular in the dressing room and Fletcher likes him. So that's all right then!

I hope I'm wrong but I can't see anything other than a hammering, possibly even a whitewash at the hands of Australia this winter.

I personally beleive we shouldn't read to much into this match. one day cricket is so not England's thing. the next two warm matches are very vital.
Chris Read should be given the chance to start in the 1st test match, and monty over giles.
Now for the other seamer,Mahmmod should get selected ahead of Jimmy and Plunkett, even though Mahmood has been horribly expensive he should play in the 1st test match because his economy in test cricket is much better and he's got that extra pace.

I think all that this game has really done is provide more competiton for Australia's 3rd seam position. It's now up to Clark (just took 6 wickets for NSW) Johnson (accurate and quick-although not as quick as most people seem to think) Tait (express, and surprisingly economical in that game) and Watson (quickish, but not nearly as good as he thinks he is- all those repetitive bouncers could get hammered by Geoff Boycott's mum!). There's also Bracken, but he's been nothing special in previous test outings.

Geraint Jones may have dropped Phil Jaques when he was 20-odd John H. Chambers, but when I watched there were plenty of other blokes lining up to belt the rubbish that was being bowled yesterday.

This blog is a joke!

Instead of discussing evenly the performances in the PMXI game, all you can do Tim is whinge and whine about the failures of the English team and their selectors against what you claimed was an Australian A team. Why not show some balance and discuss the form of Jacques, Tait, Marsh and Voges. For all the ducking and diving about one day form versus test match standards, the English team as they stand now are not capable of meeting the Australians on Australian soil.

Provide some balance in your posts, open them up to genuine debate, and reflect upon the fact that this is a series between two teams who each have to play better than the other in the conditions they are both experiencing, then I might take your blog more seriously.

England invariably gets caned in the opening tour match. It's a tradtion. Last time - from memory - they were humbled by the Chairman's XI @ Lilac Hill in Perth. That was the natch wher Harmison bowled more wides than legal deliveries, or so it seemed.

England's fans are a doom-mongering lot. One hiccup against an experimental XI and you're relegating the side back to something that would struggle to knock over Zimbabwe.

The way I see it, the big losses are Vaughan and Jones. Vaughan has a great record and attitude against us, while Jones was the difference with the ball last time.

Hoggard, Harmison and Flintoff, when fully fit and firing, represent an excellent seam attack. Trescothick, Strauss, Cook, Pieterson and perhaps Bell make up a top order that compares well with most test sides.

Do you guys play Collingwood as a second all rounder and go with one spinner, or play both spinners. My thinking would be as the Aussies selectors are thinking: two spinners in Adelaide and Sydney, but otherwise not.

Why did Panesar get just three overs at Manuka? To 'hide' him, or spare him the horror of being smashed by second-stringers? All the evidence suggests he is a better, more attacking option that Giles, for whom to bowl closer to the stumps than a metre outside leg is akin to flying to the moon unassisted.

England will find some form before Brisbane, but hopefullyt not too much! I'll be taking in some of SA vs England @ Adelaide Oval (I'm a member) and looking for Taity and Dan the Man to get amongst them and for Boof to show he still has what it takes and for Cossie to make it hard for the selectors to keep ignoring him.

Well the first days play in Sydney seems to be a rerun of Canberra. Jaques another thumping ton and England looking shaky. This match then another in South Australia against another tough State side, never think of these sides in terms of County sides, for they straddle the divide between County level and Test level. Just how many warm up games do the English require before they go,'Righto then! Were ready.' four, five, six? In this age of the endless summer and millionaire professionals who play all year round, the excuses look pretty feeble after awhile.

Australia A side !?!?! Tim! Not sure whether this comment was an attmept to boost the credibility of the opposition or a pure lack of knowledge, which is unlikely. The PM's 11 would struggle to qualify for Australia's 'D' side let alone our 'A' side. Dont overreact to England's unspirited practice match, but also dont overestimate the opposing X1 after defeat! Tait and Jacques the only exceptions. Less bias please!!

That last post and a couple of others have taken issue with my statement that the PM's XI was a virtual Australian A side. Well, let's have a look. Jaques, Cosgrove, Birt, Marsh, Dorey, Tait and Hilfenhaus were all picked for the A squad for the recent Top end series. White has played one-day internationals, Voges is a former captain of the Academy side, which leaves only Paine and Ritchard as wild cards. Seems close enough.

The misunderstanding is a familiar one - assuming bias where there isn't any. We all have our one-eyed moments, but this was just a description. Another post, from Rowdy, wonders why I wrote about England's performance in the match rather than the PM's XI. The answer is: because England are playing in the Ashes, and the PM's XI aren't.

"Geraint Jones is quite simply the worst international wicket keeper I've ever seen and should never have got anywhere near the test team in the first place."

Utter, utter nonsense. Kamran Akmal last summer; Wayne Phillips; Parthiv Patel... Or are you just admitting that you don't watch much cricket? Either way, with a comment of such hyperbole you've just forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

i do think the england batting has strength in depth, much more so than the bowling (we're still missing simon jones much more than we're missing michael vaughan). However, i'm still at odds with the captaincy choice (Flintoff over Bell), Trescothick should be rested with Cook opening at Brisbane, and I think the whole wicket-keeping question has been poorly handled. Reid has every right to expect the same degree of latitude from the management that Geraint Jones has enjoyed but this has not been the case.

touche Tim, nice repost. It's probably irrelevant to discuss who'd really be Australia's second eleven, as you rightly point out they don't matter. As to critics of your blog I'd ask why can't the owner of a blog conduct it the way they see fit?