The strength of the Australian domestic competition is such that Australia could field at least one other side with high level Test match capability, eg in batting order:

Rogers
DiVenuto
Maher
Love
Lehmann
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
Tait
Gillespie
MacGill
Bichel 12th

You are right in suggesting that limp management is the cause of England's current situation. Poor preparation and planning have contributed very significantly to the current state of play in this series. The assumption that one series (extremely close) heralded an automatic change in the guard is the same error that Australia made in the mid/late eighties when the Windies ruled.

Any member of any team performs better when set challenges and given encouragement. This is not pandering to fragile egos but rather simple and effective management tools- Management by values; Management by example; Management by objectives.

England has missed strong management and a srong domestic competition and compounded that with poor strategic thinking and lack of team-building. These are simple concepts that good coaching can address.

"Be prepared for more cricketers who can hit a perfect cover drive under no pressure at all, but who fall apart on the first day of series and blame ‘nerves’".

I could not agree more!

I found your post to be a mis-mash of ideas. I think England lost because they went with a defensive idea, nothing more nothing less. They went for a draw and Australia went for a win. How many first-class matches does Ricky Ponting plays in comparison to Flintoff, if that's your rationale for England not playing well.

Thats a good point you make about the number of first class games current test players play these days. Which brings me to Mike Hussey. He is the go-to man these days coz being 31, hes played first class cricket in Australia and England right through the year and has definitly been through different batting/fielding situations in real matches and brings about a maturity to the situation. So, is bringing a player who is 30+ with heaps of experience a bad thing?

Maybe I'm biased but that strikes me as being more of an English problem than an Australian. It's so hard to get into the Aussie side that most players spend years in first class cricket and most of them play county as well as state cricket. Hussey is the most obvious recent example but there are plenty of others. For all that I worry about the age of our side it has the wonderful effect of putting intense pressure on up and coming cricketers and that in turn makes them eager to play as much cricket as possible. Clarke's innings in Adelaide was an example of the positive effect of this. Although it was his least impressive century in terms of shot-making, he showed a new found responsibility that had been forced upon him by his year out of the side. He will be a better player for it. More Englishman should come to Australia in their off-season.

Much has been made of England's batting collapse, but what about this (my pet theory): England's bowling is so woeful, and their batters know it. They knew from the start of Day 5 their bowlers couldn't defend any total whatsoever, let alone bowl Australia out. That would have a pretty hefty effect on their confidence. Bowlers thrive off a good performance by their batters, batters on a good performance by their bowlers. The focus on England's batting collapse masks the real problem... what the hell are they going to do about their attack?

The point Gideon makes of management introducing 'benchmarking' and 'KPIs' etc and having a vested interest in upholding these measures holds true in most industries nowadays. Management has become an idustry in its own right and along the way has invented its own language and culture to perpetuate the myth that it is actually adding value to the organisation within which it operates. It is no wonder that those who actually do the work are left confused.

I am amazed no-one noticed Pieterson tweek his hammy just before he went out. Considering his hitherto dominance of Warne that must have had more to do with the failed stroke than ineptitude or stupidity. His average of 67 aint bad for a guy being bagged in most places.

But if nothing prepares cricketers for circket like other cricket, then they should be ever more prepared for the heat of pressure situations, because of the weight of Test and ODI cricket that is played now. Nothing prepares players for Tests more than other Tests. It was just a giant collective lapse of concentration of will that has led England to this mess, not a lack of cricket experience.

Agree with you, Gideon. My thoughts immediately went to the subcontinental cricketers of late (with a few exceptions) - they are the best examples of 'too much international cricket without proper first class experience'. And it tells in their performances. Wonder if any of the boards or for that matter, the ICC, care... sigh!

I agree - it's obvious that Australia put great creedence into mental preperation as well, ok sometimes you guys get miffed about it and call it sledging, but according to the commentary provided by Athers et al on Sky - it was all very humorous, for example when Jones (G) came out to bat warney obviously referring to the article Jones' father had had published in the previous weekends Brisbane Courier Mail said something along the lines of "...sure you don't want daddy to bat for you mate..." - this is funny witty and clever - a far cry from "How's your wife and my kids?" So mental toughness is a huge part of the daily routine and practice for a modern professional cricketer...lets hope we don't get stuck in the biomechanics of it all...where would our game be without the greats - Lara, Sachin, Gilchrist, KP, Freddie - natural talent, innovation and freedom of expression.

Surely there will come a day of reckoning when the ICC will realise that they killing the goose that lays the golden egg and scale back the International calendar?
Agree that players need to play more than just International cricket for their own development as well as helping younger players coming through.
The ICC Tournament being scheduled in October was an absolute scandal. England should have been in Australia playing 4 or 5 State games while the Australians should have been been at home playing Pura Cup or even grade cricket in preparation.

This is all true - and all very sad too, however, i think Englands malaise is as much in approach as in execution. I cant help wondering what articles we would be writing if the match had ended in stalemate - the opposite of this one on Collingwood's defiance and Hoggy's appliance. The real malaise is, i think, in the fact that cricketers are so cosseted by performance specialists that their cricket brains have gone lazy - Harmy clearly treats his career as a retirement and little more [until he is found out] conversely, its clear in the progress of Bell that he is looking after his own game.

Gideon,

I really have to agree with your analysis. Playing a lot of first class games brings in a lot of maturity. I use Australia and Pakistan to illustrate the two ends of the spectrum. It is very rare that a Australia picks a 20 yr old kid with very little experience. This shows in their performance. At any situation, they could be down, but never out. On the other end of the spectrum is Pakistan. They literally pick babies (Hasan raza, Afridi) and they were famous for their collapses. Of course, there are exceptions. Tendulkar!

Good stuff, Gideon.

The biggest 'test' in a test match is reading the match situation, and varying your game to suit, exactly as you describe SA doing.

I despair at all this 'play your natural game', 'bat for a session and re-assess' dogma from fletcher and the lads. Fine on the first sunny morning of a game, but to seal a result? Success in any sport doesn't just 'happen' to anybody. You have to know exactly what you need to do, and how to do it. And you have to know what you won't do because it might cock it all up eg sweeping warne before you've had a look at him. The aussies in contrast knew exactly what was needed at all stages of the game.

Every time they play for a draw, england seem to be placing too much importance on the great escape of the oval 05 which was, let's face it, bloody lucky. What KP did that day won't work in every game. Do you just forget about batsmen in your line ups whose 'natural' games don't suit the situation?

I'm still dealing with a lot of anger about that result...

I understand that the modern circumstances don't allow test cricketers to study the art of strategic retreat.
I could be wrong but I don't know if the average spactator really like to watch that art being practised. That is why the one-day game took off. Now we have the 20-20 game. It was established because one-day games were perceived as boring!
The dogged defense - while admired by the purists - turns the johnny-come-lately's (such as myself) in droves.

Here, Here Gideon. I also think the shortened tours with Test matches packed in next to each other don't help. Longer tours with more first class games would go along way.

Your analysis of the modern game seems to me spot-on, and a yard or so quicker than that of any other current writer. I wonder whether the genie can ever be got back in the bottle, though (or indeed the butter in the parrot!). It is difficult to imagine, say three or four years down the line, the cricket establishment either conceding their approaches were wrong, or knowing how to remedy the fact.

I was ready, after the first innings, to admire Collingwood for all the reasons many have put forward. Then, in the second innings, another side of his character seemed to appear - unwillingness to take the attack to the bowlers (we've seen, in ODIs, how good he can be at this), unwillingness to shield the tail, and an undue concern for the red-ink score by the end. This is very harsh. It might, of course, be that Collingwood was batting strictly to instructions, and that the current England policy is not for experienced batsmen to farm the strike. The criticism then moves from Collingwood to Fletcher. That man's pleas that Panesar's omission was a committee decision taken by Flintoff, Strauss and, er, Jones sounds disingenuous to me. History may see Adelaide 06 as a defining moment in Fletcher's career: the beginning of its swift demise.

England's capitulation on day 5 is a source of embarrassment to me.Their ultra defensive approach contributed coupled with some inept batting cotributed significantly to their humilating defeat.Having said that,I am notdownplaying the quality bowling of Brett Lee and Shane Warne in particular.For all itents and purposes I think that the Ashes series is over for England.I do believe that The Fat Lady has just entered the stage with a microphone in her hand.

One contrast you can see is with a player like Michael Hussey. He set the record for most runs scored in domestic cricket before playing for Australia. Look how he is going. Stuart Clark is another example. Actually a lot of the Australians have a lot of match intelligence - although it can go missing sometimes (Ashes 2005).

England's capitulation on Day 5is a source of embarrassment to me.Their ultra defensive approach coupled with some inept battingcontributed significantly to their humilating and embarassing defeat.Having said that,I am not downplaying the quality bowling of Bret Lee and Shane Warne in particular.For all intents and purposesI think that the Ashes series is over for England.I do believe that The Fat Lady has just entered the stage with a microphone in her hand.

At the end of the day the best way to play cricket in any circumstances is to play you natural game. Trying to do something that as you said you haven't done that many times before, well the chances are increased that you are going to fail.

I think Pontings example in last years Ashes when Australia held on for the draw was a prime example of still playing your natural game he still managed to score 150+ and save the test match. A bad ball is still a bad ball in any circumstances and should be dealt with not patted back down the pitch.

I do feel people have been a little bit harsh on Pieterson because I think he walked out their with the intent to score runs, it failed this time but it didn't in the 5th Test last year.

I think "the Difference between Retreat and Surrender" article is very perceptive. Players and teams perhaps are now being over analysed with too many deliberations. It should be remembered that the players are the ones playing the game and so should not have their natural instincts and flair diminished through over coaching that threatens the expression of their talents.
While the players should take responsibility for their form and performance too much emphasis is placed on calling a loss a failure. At the elite end of sport there is very little differences between the players' abilities. They can all play at a high standard. However for every winner there is a loser and most time the margin is small. Losing does not mean a team or player has less ability than when it/he was winning and vise versa. Its just the way matches go (games are usually won or lost on momentum swings, a bit of luck, or an error at a crucial time). There is a fine line between having a great or poor run of form. Take Ricky Ponting for example. A while ago he was having a period of low scores and asked about his form. He said that he couldn't say if he was out of form or not because he "kept getting out too soon" and was not able to assess himself adequately. But "he was hitting them well in the nets!".
Being able to play "in the zone" consistently when the pressure is on sorts the great players from the good ones. Australia seem to have several of these (Ponting, Warne, McGrath) while England at present cannot really boast any with the same proven record. Over a period of time the best usually win most of the time. Take Roger Federer as another example. His is superior at tennis to everyone at present and probably will only be beaten if he has an off day. England did well last year but overall the Aussie's would be regarded as having a superior team of individuals. History and statistics will probably confirm this assessment even though any impartial "expert" can already see for themselves. There is always a chance that England will win as the variety of circumstances present themselves. They have this capacity. But more likely than not Australia will come out on top in this series.
Probably the biggest tell tale in the differences between the teams is the apparent mindset. Again Ponting was interviewed towards the end of the 3rd day's play of the Adelaide match and asked about his thoughts with Australia still 250 runs or so behind and 5 wickets down. He said he thought his team could still win if they stuck at it and things went to plan - and he meant it. He and his side had not given up hope of pushing on for a win if the opportunity presented. He did not talk about trying to save the match as his preference. Given a similar circumstance I dare say this self belief would not carrying through from the English side.
Looking from afar I am not convinced Andrew Flintoff is the right choice to captain his team. Potentially one of the all time great English players, but as a leader I am not so sure.
Jon Muir, Kingswood, NSW.

"This won’t change, by the way. Economic forces militate against it. Be prepared for more cricketers who can hit a perfect cover drive under no pressure at all, but who fall apart on the first day of series and blame ‘nerves’."

Does this mean we will see an entire generation of Jack Fingletons???

The English winning the ashes was good for cricket. Swiss and Irish who knew no cricket wanted to talk about it in Europe. But it was obvious after 20 minutes of test one this series that this was a 4 nill or better series to Australia. Is that good or bad for cricket?