World Cup Preview

This winter we have been treated to a spectacular feast of cricket. We had the record smashing Ashes series and a tightly contested series between the top two sides in the world, India and South Africa. Now, we have the World Cup. Whether or not you are a fan of one-day cricket, the World Cup is always a spectacle (whether for good or bad reasons). Despite my insistence that Test Match cricket is all important and nothing else comes close, I will be keenly following proceedings on the subcontinent.

For the first time since 1996 the likely winner of the tournament is not a foregone conclusion. The dominant Australian side of 1999, 2003 and 2007 is no more and has been replaced by mere mortals. India are a force to be reckoned with, especially on home turf. South Africa will always be challengers and could well win it if they can get rid of their 'chokers' tag. Sri Lanka are a very good side these days and possess a strong varied attack which will prove problematic. For the first time since 1992, England are among the contenders for the crown. Andy Flower has constructed a good side who will have a clear plan of attack for the challenges that await. Then there is of course Australia, they are not the force they once were but underestimate them at your peril. Their side is filled with potential match winners and they have the fastest attack in World Cricket, whether or not that will prove useful on the subcontinent remains to be seen.

It is very difficult to see any teams from outside this group lifting the trophy. However, there is one side which I believe with just the right amount of luck and obviously some very good performances has the slightest chance.

Bangladesh. Now be honest, who thought I was talking about Pakistan? West Indies or New Zealand possibly? I would not be surprised by the complete dismissal of Bangladesh's World Cup aspirations. After all, this is the side which has floundered at the bottom of World Cricket for the past decade.

My wild-card prediction has taken a fair amount of thought. Despite appearances, I have not just plucked Bangladesh's name out of a hat and inserted their name into this article. My feeling that they could perform well in this tournament was ignited by their astonishing 4-0 drubbing of New Zealand. Now I know that New Zealand have been playing poorly but it was the remarkable consistency of results which was so eye-catching. Never before had Bangladesh stringed together a run of wins against a high standard of opposition.

The doubters will point to the fact that Bangladesh were in home conditions. My answer to those critics is that it is these conditions which Bangladesh will encounter during the World Cup. Their team is tailor-made for the subcontinent as it packed with spinners and all-rounders. The final indication that Bangladesh could spring a surprise is that they have not one, but two world-class players, Tamim Iqbal and Shakib Al-Hasan. Bangladesh will rely heavily on these two but if they have good tournaments, I am sure Bangladesh will follow suit.

Now don't get me wrong, by no means do I see Bangladesh as favourites. After careful consideration I have awarded that accolade to India. Whilst there are many teams capable of winning the tournament. India are the standout. They have a very powerful batting line-up which includes the likes of Sehwag, Yuvraj and Yusuf Pathan, not to mention Sachin Tendulkar. On their day they have the capacity to tear any bowling attack to shreds, especially in their own conditions.

There are many questions being asked in the lead up to the World Cup. Can Australia continue their World Cup dominance? Will South Africa shake off their 'chokers' status? Can England finally end their World Cup horror story? Well, we are very close to finding out the answers.

England World Cup Preview

England will travel to the subcontinent knowing this is their best shot at glory since 1992. Since they were beaten finalists in that tournament, the unfortunate victims of an Imran Khan inspired Pakistan side, England have seemed hellbent on never reaching that stage of Cricket’s showpiece again. Up until recently, under the Andy Flower regime, England had successfully managed their aim. Before the 2010 World Twenty20, they had been catastrophically bad in every ICC event. From World Cups to Champions Trophies, England have been pitiful for the best part of two decades.

However, this is not the same side which has flopped so remarkably time and time again. Gone are the 1990’s, when even Zimbabwe could lay claim to a higher ranking than England. Gone are the noughties, when England’s one-day side sat firmly in the stone ages as their counterparts moved into a new era. Now is the teenies, the teens or the 2010-19 years. However you want to put it. And now is all that matters. Now, England are an accomplished one-day side, a side with a World title under it’s belt and a side full of skillful cricketers who are capable of beating the best. Perhaps most importantly, they are led by Andy Flower (his importance was certainly underlined during their 3-1 Ashes triumph). Flower was once the world’s best batsmen, he can now lay claim to being the world’s best coach.

Since taking over in the aftermath of the Moores-Pietersen saga in 2009. Flower and his captain, Andrew Strauss have crafted a cohesive unit which has proven itself as a world-class side. Every aspect of the preparation for this World Cup will undoubtedly have been covered by Flower. This dedication to preparation has been seen in both the 2010 World Twenty20 and the 2010/11 Ashes series. When England won the World Twenty20, their tactics were spot on. From the blasters at the top of the order (Kieswetter and Lumb) to the varied bowling attack which had all bases covered (Broad, Sidebottom, Bresnan, Swann and Yardy). That bowling attack will be virtually the same come the start of the World Cup, the only change being Anderson for the retired Ryan Sidebottom.

It is this bowling unit which is undoubtedly England’s biggest strength. Surely there is no better or more complete attack heading to the World Cup. They have two spinners who spin the ball in opposite directions (making it harder for the batsmen to get used to) and who have different styles. Yardy will look to contain the batsman whilst Swann will play a more attacking role from the other end. This partnership could prove to be the key on the spin-friendly surfaces in the sub-continent

England’s seamers should also do very well. They have Broad who has become one of the worlds best one-day bowlers, he has immaculate control and gets uncomfortable bounce from his tall frame. Tim Bresnan proved himself as a world-class bowler in the recently concluded Ashes series and his skill and nous will be a valuable asset on the slow, unresponsive wickets England will likely encounter. Finally there is James Anderson who has matured into one of the most dangerous bowlers in world cricket. His wicket-taking ability at the start of the innings could prove crucial if England are to be successful in their bid to win their first World Cup.

The batting is more of a worry, as they have proved in the current one-day series against Australia. Their aggressive approach (something which has worked well in the past year) has got them into trouble in the first three games as they have lost too many wickets. England will stick with the same approach which inspires confidence and I’m sure their attacking approach will reap dividends in the batting friendly sub-continent conditions.

The only surprise when the World Cup squad was named was the inclusion of wicket-keeper Matt Prior. Prior has firmly established himself as the Test stopper but has struggled to cement his place in the one-day arena. Steven Davies was the incumbent and had done a decent job at the top of the order. Prior’s bolt from the blue inclusion caught many off guard and Davies will have every right to feel hard done by. Especially so after Prior recorded two ducks in a row upon his comeback.

Prior was included mainly because of the influence he has in the field for England. He has the job of getting everyone going in the field and he does this job remarkably well. His energy epitomises England’s new super energetic fielding unit and this was seen as the main reason Flower wanted him back in the team. It is also thought that Prior’s batting would be well suited to the sub-continent. Whilst that remains to be seen their is no doubting his importance to England’s fielding, both through his geeing up duties and his own personal form behind the stumps, which has improved remarkably the last year or so.

England have selected a squad which covers all bases. Every aspect of their preparation will be intensely scrutinised by Flower and nothing will be left to chance. Perhaps most crucially. England know which eleven players they want to walk out in the first game. Whilst some will write England off before they are even considered, I strongly believe England have a good chance of winning their first World Cup

England Squad: Andrew Strauss (C), Matt Prior, Jonathon Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Bell, Eoin Morgan, Michael Yardy, Tim Bresnan, Graeme Swann, Stuart Broad, James Anderson, Paul Collingwood, James Tredwell, Ajmal Shahzad, Luke Wright

Australia World Cup Preview

Australia will be heading to the subcontinent aiming to win their 4th successive World Cup. They have not lost a game in the previous two editions of the tournament and they are currently leading England 3-0 in their one-day series. All of this should point to another comprehensive World Cup triumph for the mighty Australians. It should, but it doesn’t. For the Australians are mighty no more. It is four years since their previous World Cup triumph and since then they have lost many key players. Most notably Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist, who both starred in the 2007 event. Their current 3-0 series lead against England has been fortunate to say the least, their wins have been solely based on a couple of outstanding individual performances and some implosions from England’s batting unit.

For the first time in recent memory, Australia will not be heading to the World Cup as favourites. Far from it. You could argue that India, South Africa, Sri Lanka and even England have better chances going into the tournament. After Australia’s Ashes embarrassment there has been much speculation about the competence of the selectors, coaching staff and of course, the players. The selection of the World Cup touring party will have laid none of that to rest.

The buzzword hovering over Australia’s squad is risk, and quite rightly so. Australia have selected many players who are currently injured, including captain Ricky Ponting, Mike Hussey, Nathan Hauritz and Shaun Tait. Australia’s selectors will be praying that Ponting and Hussey in particular will recover in time.

Some of the selections the selectors made have been bizarre. Nathan Hauritz was selected as the sole frontline spinner when most other teams have taken at least three. Instead, Australia decided to focus on a speed-based approach. They chose the aging Brett Lee and the injury-prone Shaun Tait to spearhead their attack. This approach has plenty of flaws.

First of all, Lee and Tait are highly unlikely to last an entire World Cup without breaking down, this means that replacements would need to be called up and the squad would almost certainly be disrupted by any injuries that these two man incur.

Secondly, they are both very expensive. The best time to score runs in the subcontinent is at the start when the ball is hard. Teams will be going hard at Australia in the first ten, knowing that they can get off to a roller coaster start thanks to the pace of Lee and Tait. So whilst Australia may well take a few early wickets, they will almost certainly concede early runs which could easily act as a springboard for the opposition to launch from.

Thirdly, whilst this approach might reap dividends on more responsive pitches, such as the ones in South Africa or England. The dead pitches that Australia will encounter in the subcontinent will almost certainly nullify the threat the speedsters provide.

The selection of Hauritz has also been thrown into doubt. When he was originally selected (after being surprisingly ignored by the selectors all summer) there was much debate about whether the impressive Xavier Doherty would have been a better option, or an option alongside Hauritz. Doherty impressed on ODI debut and was considered very unlucky. Well, in the ODI at Hobart, the incredibly unfortunate Hauritz dislocated his shoulder. It is unknown whether he will recover in time for the World Cup and in the meantime Doherty will be looking to impress to stake his claim for a place.

There are also some problems with the batting. None of Australia’s batsmen are in brilliant form, especially those in the middle order, who appear very scratchy. One of the more impressive players, Shaun Marsh, who made a century in Hobart is not even in the squad!

When you look at Australia’s squad. You are not consumed by the fear that accompanied their sides of old. Indeed, ‘old’ is a word quite in-keeping with the current side which is filled with aging players past their best.

I mentioned that Australia’s squad selection was risky. Well, if you are a fan of risk, why not bet on Australia winning their 4th consecutive World Cup? Because that is undoubtedly, a big risk.

Australia Squad: Shane Watson, Brad Haddin (wk), Ricky Ponting (C), Michael Clarke, Mike Hussey, Cameron White, Steve Smith, Mitchell Johnson, Brett Lee, Nathan Hauritz, Shaun Tait, Doug Bollinger, John Hastings, Tim Paine, David Hussey

The World Cup: The Ultimate Challenge?

The Cricket World Cup is fast approaching. Squads are being selected and plans are being made. Those players lucky enough to make the squad will be aiming to showcase their talents on the biggest stage, to launch themselves into the spotlight, or to have just one last hurrah before the ravages of time take their toll. Players will be gearing themselves up for the ultimate challenge.

Wait, wait, wait. Let me read that back. The ‘ultimate’ challenge? I fail to see how a tournament containing the likes of the Netherlands and Canada can possibly be labeled as the ultimate challenge. The big teams will all walk through their group stages. The presence of these teams completely devalues the tournament. Imagine what a farce it would be if Spain were confronted with Botswana, Papa New Guinea and Uzbekistan in the group stages of the football World Cup. Now I know that only the ‘best’ associate countries have been included but they are still miles behind the Test sides and their inclusion means there will be a lot of meaningless games.

In most sports, winning the World Cup is seen as the greatest achievement. This certainly applies to two of the most popular sports in the world, football and rugby. But is this true of cricket? I’m not so sure. As an England supporter, if you offered me an Ashes win or a World Cup triumph, I would take the Ashes victory every time (if guaranteed at least a respectable showing by the English in the World Cup). I think the reason for this is because I see Test cricket as the most important form of the game, I believe anyone who thinks otherwise is not a true cricket lover.

The truth is, winning the World Cup can never be considered the greatest achievement in cricket purely because it is not played in the greatest form. Consider a football World Cup with games played over 30 minutes and you get the picture. Probably wouldn’t mean as much would it? I can tell you why.

The longer a game is played, in any sport, the more likely it is that the better team will come out on top. This is proved by the much more frequent upsets that occur in Twenty20 and ODI’s. Think of the great upsets that have occurred in coloured clothing. Bangladesh beating the almighty Australians in 2005 at Cardiff is the first that comes to my mind. Remember Ireland’s heroic performance in the 2007 World Cup? You probably wouldn’t want to if you were on the wrong end of one of those upsets.

Whilst it is great entertainment when the underdog triumphs against the heavyweight, is it always for the best? I mentioned Ireland’s performance at the 2007 World Cup. Whilst you may remember the games they won and the uplifting scenes that followed. You may not remember the next phase of Ireland’s campaign. Thanks to those aforementioned upsets, Ireland took their place in the Super 8’s at the expense of a ‘bigger’ side. They proceeded to lose all of their games in this phase which skewed the outcome of the final table. Had the more prominent side taken place it would have been far more interesting. Can you honestly say that Ireland deserved to play in the Super 8’s ahead of India? No, didn’t think so. Would this have happened over a longer form of the game? I think I can safely say no, definitely not.

If one were trying to describe the colossal difference between one-day and Test cricket (which by coincidence I am trying to do). Bangladesh would be the perfect example. Recently, the have become a good one-day side. They have players such as Shakib al-Hasan and Tamim Iqbal who can win them games single-handedly. They recently beat New Zealand (usually considered a strong one-day side) 4-0 on home turf. This was a great victory for Bangladesh but it has been a long time coming. They have had plenty of one-off wins which have suggested improvement (they have beaten every single Test playing nation) but have never quite managed the consistency which is so vital. It looks like that consistency has finally been achieved and I’m sure they will be a force to be reckoned with at a home World Cup.

However, whilst Bangladesh possess the players and the skills to compete in the one-day arena they are still a long way from being able to consistently challenge in Test Matches. They have still only won against a severely depleted West Indies side and Zimbabwe. They have never really looked like winning against any of the other nations. To me this proves why Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game. One player cannot win a game single-handedly in Test Matches, you need contributions throughout the team. It is also a much harder game both mentally and physically. Imagine having to bat for 6 hours in 40 degree heat with men around the bat and the world’s best bowlers doing everything they can to get you out. Then picture having the task of having to go out with the aim of hitting a quick 30 or 40 with a hard ball and the field spread, the bowlers containing rather than hunting. I think I know which I’d rather be doing. It certainly takes a special kind of talent to succeed at Test level, something you can’t learn in ODI’s and something some players just do not seem to have.

Michael Bevan is someone who illustrates this point perfectly. He is one of the all-time great one-day batsmen. An expert finisher who could seemingly win the game from any position. You would think this cool under pressure, talented player would have no trouble succeeding for Australia in the longer form. Wrong, he never looked like the same player in whites and only played 20 Tests for Australia.

The need for a World Test Championship is becoming greater by the day. Whilst the purists and the players (for the most part) agree that Test cricket is the ultimate and must be protected. Many fans see One-day and Twenty20 cricket as the most important forms of the game purely because it is more ‘entertaining’. Perhaps the only thing keeping the droves from supporting Test cricket is the absence of a trophy. If I concocted a cardboard cut-out which definitively proclaimed who the Test World Champions were, would all this shorter format hysteria go out of the window? Worth a try I suppose.

What I do know is that for now, the cricketing world is focused on the World Cup. The ‘ultimate’ challenge, for players who aren’t good enough for the ultimate challenge.

Australia Look to Rebuild

As Australia search through the rubble of their embarrassing Ashes annihilation, they will wonder, what next? Australian cricket has been in decline ever since the crushing 5-0 Ashes whitewash in 2006/07. Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Justin Langer all retired after that series. Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist followed soon after. The fact that they have coped so admirably in the last couple of years is credit to Ponting, who has held the side together in the interim with his sparkling batting performances.

It seems however that now, as Ponting’s powers seem to have deserted him. Australia have finally, and quite understandably, collapsed into free-fall. The new generation of Australian cricketers quite simply have not been good enough to replace their illustrious predecessors. The most obvious struggle has been the quest to replace Shane Warne. Since his retirement, 10 spin candidates have been tested. 10 have been unceremoniously dumped. They have also struggled to find a new attack leader in the absence of Glenn McGrath. Mitchell Johnson looked like taking up the mantle but his star has fallen dramatically in the last year due to an incredible lack of consistency and accuracy. Two things that could never be leveled at McGrath.

Whilst Ponting has held the batting together with the odd bit of help from his supporting cast, they have been incapable of replacing the runs which Hayden, Langer and Gilchrist provided. The loss of Hayden and Langer (one of, if not the best opening partnership in Test history) was especially brutal as they did such a fantastic job of shielding Ponting from the new ball. Recently, as Ponting has come to the crease earlier and earlier, he has failed more and more as his slowing reflexes have struggled to cope with the new ball. This was best demonstrated in this Ashes series when he was constantly exposed to the new ball and England’s bowlers made sure he had a torrid series. Australia could no longer count on their captain to bail them out, and whilst Mike Hussey briefly took up the mantle, it proved too much for him to handle as he failed in the final two Tests. As Australia’s last means of resistance faltered, England surged through the gates to record two emphatic innings victories to rap up the series.

Many pundits have said that the reason Australia lost the series was because they played poorly, it was suggested they had made England look better than they were. In reality, England brutally exposed the weaknesses that Australia have been getting away with in the last two years. In truth, Australia did as well as could be expected with the resources they had available. Throughout the series England’s bowlers made Australia’s batsmen look like fools. They poked outside off stump, showing no patience or willingness to fight for the cause. They were branded as a team of young pretenders, a team brought up on a diet of Twenty20 which left them incapable of stomaching the battle of a Test Match.

In the wake of this humbling defeat. Surely the Australian domestic structure must change? Surely they should focus on playing more 4 day cricket and 2 day club cricket? Apparently not, there are plans for reducing the amount of 4 day games in the Australian calender whilst increasing the amount of Twenty20 games. This attitude can even be seen at club level. The club I am currently playing for in Australia is far more interested in Twenty20 cricket than the longer form. From the president to the players, they all want to play more Twenty20 and less 2 day cricket. They see Twenty20 as the future, this attitude may consign Australia’s Test team to the garbage heap. Australian club cricket is the foundation of their national side. All the best young players play grade cricket against men at a high standard. This is where they hone their game, where they become the players they are. So how do you think these ‘Stars of the Future’ will turn out if the clubs are playing less 2 day games and more Twenty20’s? Look at the likes of Phil Hughes and Steve Smith and you will get an idea. For years Australian club cricket has been famed as the reason for their extraordinary success in the Test arena. For some reason they think changing it will return them to their glory days.

Whilst the foundations of Australian cricket are changing for the worse. Changes at the top for the better seem to be non-existent. The selectors, coaches and players have all come under serious criticism and yet none seem to be under any pressure. The selectors maintain they did a good job yet the 3-1 scoreline and poor performances by nearly all the players would suggest otherwise. Tim Nielsen has looked like a water boy when compared to England’s Andy Flower. Whilst England’s coach has meticulously planned every aspect of England’s preparation, Nielsen hardly seems fit to coach a junior club side. He seems to think that the players will do just fine with the minimum effort. Nets and fielding practice. There is seemingly no thought into tactics or plans. Something the England side executed to perfection.

Then we come to the players, at the end of the day it all comes down to them. The selectors and coaches can do their absolute best (which they clearly didn’t) but if the players aren’t good enough then there’s not much they can do. The players that represented Australia throughout this series weren’t good enough. There were a few promising signs but hard work must be done to turn those promising signs into Test wins.

There need to be wholesale changes to this Australian side. Similar to the ones in the aftermath of Australia’s last home Ashes defeat. Changes that brought about a decade of dominance for Australia. Now I’m not saying these changes will have the same effect but it can only get better for Australia so what do they have to lose?

My side for their next Test match in August in Sri Lanka would be thus:

1 P Hughes

2 S Watson

3 U Khawaja

4 C Ferguson

5 M Clarke (C)

6 M Hussey

7 T Paine (VC) (WK)

8 S Smith

9 J Faulkner

10 P Siddle

11 P George

Assuming it would be a 15 man squad. The remaining four players would be; M Henriques, J Hazlewood, S O’Keefe, M Cameron. As you can see, there are wholesale changes in this side. In order for this side to move forward, it needs a new leader. Whilst I do not see Clarke as the ideal choice, in my opinion he is the only choice. I have included Paine as I see him as a potential captain, something Australia are very much lacking. His batting is similar to Haddin’s and his glovework is better so I do not see much of a problem with him replacing Haddin. Steve Smith plays as a spinner. I do not think his bowling is up to standard yet but I don’t think any spinners in Australia are. He is young and he has potential, he must learn on the job and be given some faith. If he concentrates on his bowling, he could become a genuine Test spinner for Australia. The inclusion of George and Faulkner are both choices for the future, they have both had strong domestic seasons and have plenty of potential.

I very much doubt this is the side that will represent Australia in August but I truly believe this is what they need in order to get back to the upper echelons of Test Match cricket. Whether they will or not, that is very much in question.

Feel free to suggest your own views on Australian cricket and a potential XI below.

Ashes Player Ratings

England

Alastair Cook - 10

To put it simply, Cook has been incredible in this series. His 766 runs have come at the amazing average of 127. That’s Bradman-esque with a sprinkling of Mohammad Ashraful thrown in for good measure. He has been the bedrock of England’s batting. In total, he batted for just over 6 days in the series. That means that for nearly a third of the series, Cook was at the crease. Quite simply an incredible achievement and undoubtedly the most deserved rating of 10 that I’ve ever given.

Andrew Strauss - 8

Led with assurance and authority and during the course of the series became only the 4th post-war English captain to return home from Australia with the Ashes. Started off terribly with the bat after falling for a duck from the third ball of the series but recovered well to score 110 in the second innings and went on to have a good series with the bat.

Jonathon Trott - 8

Made batting look easy throughout the series. His unbeaten century at the MCG was the epitome of a calm under pressure innings. Could always be relied upon to sure up the batting after an early wicket. He is essential to England as he is the perfect foil for the more flashy players like Kevin Pietersen. Not usually known for his fielding, he collected two run-outs in the series. Firstly, a direct hit to remove Simon Katich for a diamond duck in Adelaide which set the ball rolling for England’s innings victory and then a classy pick up and throw to remove Phil Hughes after a good start in Melbourne. Possibly underrated as a fielder?

Kevin Pietersen - 7

Had a good, solid series which was boosted by a double hundred in Adelaide. It seemed like that innings might be just the boost he needed to kick on and get back to his best but despite looking in ominously good touch he failed to capitalise on his starts and will be disappointed he did not score more runs.

Paul Collingwood - 6

Rating would have been lower were it not for some fantastic catches and a couple of well timed wickets with his part-time bowling. Had a poor series with the bat and because of that he announced his retirement during the final Test. His brilliant fielding and incredible professionalism will be sorely missed by England but it was probably the right time to go. Will end his career on a massive high despite his poor personal form.

Ian Bell - 8

Most would say his coming of age series was last winter in South Africa when he scored an impressive century under pressure and helped England save a game with a gritty half-century. This series however, will probably be remembered as his crowning glory. For the first 4 matches he was frustrated by a lack of opportunities as his team-mates made hay and by the lack of support from those very same team-mates when he finally did get a chance to bat. Came into the last Test desperate for his first Ashes ton and for the first time this series, everything clicked into place for Bell. He didn’t have to marshall the tail and he had all the time in the world to bat. He made the most of the opportunity as he scored a sublime 115. Just deserves for a player who has been brilliant all series.

Matt Prior - 8

Flawless behind the stumps and belligerent in front of them. Prior was at his absolute best this series, he was faultless behind the stumps which gave England’s bowlers plenty of confidence. He finished the series just one catch behind Alan Knott’s record, an achievement that would have been richly deserved. He didn't get too many opportunities early on but made it count when he did. He scored a run-a-ball century in the final Test which helped set up England’s third innings win.

Stuart Broad - 5

Only played two games because of injury and despite averaging in the 80s with the ball, bowled very economically and I’m sure he would have had a good series if he had had the chance.

Graeme Swann - 7

May not have got as many wickets as he would have liked but did his job when necessary. Bowled Australia out on the final day in Adelaide to make sure of England’s innings win. When he wasn’t taking wickets he was doing a sterling job by tying down one end which allowed Strauss to attack from the other. Swann might have liked to have played a more prominent role but he has certainly enhanced his reputation during the series.

James Anderson - 9

Best bowler of the series by a mile. Hardly bowled a bad spell, consistently swung the ball in all conditions and showed excellent control. Has now shown he can take wickets in all conditions and England will now be looking to him to lead their attack in their quest to become the best side in the world. Judging by this series, he is certainly up to the challenge.

Steven Finn - 6

Took wickets but proved consistently expensive, showing no signs of the control which his mentor Angus Fraser was famous for. Went at 5 an over in Perth which ultimately cost him his place but there is definitely the makings of a good cricketer there. Will still be considered a vital member of England’s pace unit.

Chris Tremlett - 8

Came into the side in Perth and excelled. His 8 wickets there were well deserved and he continued in that vein for the rest of the series. His steep bounce constantly unsettled the Australian batsmen and he has shown that he has all the qualities necessary to succeed at Test level.

Tim Bresnan - 8

Came into the side in Melbourne and showed just why the England management value him so highly. He offered control which strangled the Australian batsmen into playing poor shots. Also found appreciable movement and seems to have mastered reverse swing. Will be a major player for England in the forthcoming years.

Australia

Shane Watson - 6

Made plenty of solid starts and was probably Australia’s most consistent batsman. Unfortunately, Watson could not convert even one of his starts into a hundred, he was also involved in 3 run-outs during the series. All of which were his fault. His medium pace was handy for Australia but he never offered a true wicket-taking threat. Watson will consider this series as one which could have been so much better.

Simon Katich - 5

Only played 2 Tests before an achilles injury ruled him out. Was cruelly run out for a diamond duck in Adelaide but apart from this he was very stubborn at the crease. England found him difficult to dismiss, his grit and determination would have been a valuable asset in the other 3 Tests.

Phil Hughes - 4

Hughes came into the side as the replacement for Katich. In the 2009 Ashes series he was dropped after two games as the England bowlers exposed his weakness against the short ball. This time they exposed his tendency to flash outside the off-stump as he consistently gave the slips catching practice. There were plenty of promising moments but Hughes will have to start turning these moments into long innings.

Ricky Ponting - 2

By anyone’s standards Ricky Ponting had a bad series. By his own, it was abysmal. His only score of not was an unbeaten fifty in dead circumstances at the Gabba. In his remaining innings he looked unsure of himself and never looked like scoring runs. His captaincy was far from convincing as he constantly moved fields trying to make something happen, this unsettled the bowlers as they tried to find their rhythm. His spat with the umpires at the MCG was a sad incident which showed how far Ponting has fallen from his previous greatness. Will struggle to reclaim his place in the side after Khawaja’s promising debut.

Usman Khawaja - 6

Only played one game but he showed enough class to provide rays of hope for the future of Australian cricket. Will surely be given a run at No.3 as Australia try to build a side for the future.

Michael Clarke - 3

Australia’s vice-captain had a series to forget. He was found out by England’s bowlers in this series, constantly probing outside the off-stump to deliveries he could have left alone. In his first Test as captain at Sydney he was incapable of turning round Australia’s fortunes as they were pummeled by an innings. He battled hard in the second innings and you could see the immense frustration when he departed for 41. Will keep his place in the side and may well continue as captain but will have to improve his personal form.

Mike Hussey - 8

The only reason Australia did not lose 5-0. Hussey saved Australia in Brisbane, he dragged them to a respectable total in Perth. In Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney he could do nothing to stop the England juggernaut. In the first three Tests he was invincible and was challenging Cook for the man of the series award. In the last two Tests his steam ran out as the weight of carrying Australia on his back proved too much for him to handle. The only Australian batsman to come out of this series with credibility.

Marcus North - 2

Under immense pressure coming into the series, he could not produce an innings of note and looked all at sea against England’s rampant bowling attack. Gave more to the side as a bowler than a batsman as his part-time off-spin proved useful but was jettisoned after the second Test. Surely his Test career is now finished.

Steve Smith - 4

Came into the side in Perth to bat at No.6 and get through a few overs of leg-spin. Seemed incapable of doing either of these roles. His technique is not good enough to succeed at Test level, not yet anyway. Seems unsure of his role, is he a batsman, bowler or all-rounder? It is something both Smith and the selectors need to figure out soon otherwise Smith obvious talent could be wasted.

Brad Haddin - 6

Started the series well by combining with Mike Hussey to save Australia in Brisbane. After this it all went downhill. He fell to a series of ill-judged flashes outside off-stump and his keeping was far from immaculate. Might find his place under threat from the impressive Tim Paine sooner rather than later.

Mitchell Johnson - 6

Only gets a 6 because he won the Perth Test for Australia single-handedly. Either side of this game he was at his woeful worst. His bowling was at times dangerous but more often than not it closely resembled a blind machine-gunner. His batting was similarly inconsistent. He scored two fifties but also recorded ducks. Needs to become reliable or he could find himself booted out of the side as part of a selectorial shake-up.

Peter Siddle - 7

Picked up 6 wickets in Brisbane including a birthday hat-trick. Also got 6 in Melbourne. He bowled whole-heartedly and cannot be blamed for not trying. He was the only Australian bowler who played every Test and was always the man Ricky Ponting turned to when he needed a wicket or just some control. His batting was also an added bonus for Australia as he added some gutsy lower order runs. Ended the series averaging more than Ponting and Clarke. Although that doesn’t say too much.

Ben Hilfenhaus - 4

Steady but ineffective, that is how I would describe Hilfenhaus’s series. He was regularly compared to a bowling machine, probably not in the complimentary sense. Looks like he will need to expand his repertoire if he is to continue playing Test cricket.

Ryan Harris - 5

Bowled well in Perth to take 6 wickets in the second innings and was Australia’s best bowler in the mauling at Adelaide. Was fairly unthreatening in Melbourne when he fractured his ankle to add another injury to his worryingly long list. If his injury woes do not improve I see it hard to imagine him having much of a Test career which is a big loss to Australia.

Doug Bollinger - 1

Was called up in Adelaide but was far from being fit enough. Lacked pace and looked completely unthreatening. He is a very good bowler but needs to regain form and fitness before he is recalled. Australia missed his variation throughout the series.

Xavier Doherty - 1

Replaced the unfortunate Nathan Hauritz for the first two Tests and could not have been less impressive. Offered next to no control and just bowled flatter and flatter. His Test career looks to have come to a premature end.

Michael Beer - 4

After doing his 12th man duties in Perth and Melbourne he was finally called into the side in Sydney. Despite not taking that many wickets he did offer a degree of control and was unlucky to have not taken more wickets. Should be given a run in the side as Australia look to build a new-look side.

Feel free to comment on my ratings and suggest your own.

England March Boldly Into Golden Era

England have done it! Not only have they come to Australia and retained the Ashes, an achievement in itself, but they have also gone on to win the series 3-1. England came into this Test knowing that Australia could have leveled the series at 2-2 with a win, this would have been one of the great injustices in cricket history. Ultimately, Australia never even came close to leveling the series. England produced another dominant performance which ensured that the series was won. The 3-1 score line is emphatic but in my opinion still does not do justice to England’s dominance. It is surely the most emphatic 3-1 in Test history and must be ranked as one of Australia’s most embarrassing series defeats in Tests, not just Ashes encounters. Conversely, it will long be remembered as one of England’s most glorious victories.

Here are some stats which outline just how dominant England have been: It is the first time England have won 3 matches by an innings in a series, and the first time Australia have lost 3 by an innings. The 9 centuries scored by England is a new English Ashes record. The 644 scored by England in this game is their highest ever score in Australia. England had previously scored only one total over 600 in Australia, they scored 2 in this series. It is the first time Australia have conceded a total of 500 four times in a series. For the first time since 1950, Australia’s 1, 2, 3 and 4 did not make a century.

These are damning statistics for Australia. If you dug even deeper I’m sure it would only get worse. This is probably one of the worst Australian sides since 1970/71 when World Series Cricket tore their team apart. They have certainly not done justice to the great teams that have preceded them. Australia now have a lot of work to do to get back to where they were but now is not the time to talk about Australia’s failings. Now is the time to celebrate England’s triumph.

Many people (mostly begrudging Australians) have suggested that England’s victory is because of Australia’s awfulness rather than England’s brilliance. These people could not be more wrong. Admittedly, Australia have been bad but this has been because England have been so good. They have made Australia look much worse than they actually are. Throughout the series England have racked up massive totals and then proceeded to rip through Australia’s feeble batting resistance on the very same pitch, in the very same conditions. They have found swing and seam where Australia have found nothing, something that has led some to believe that England have had the better of the conditions, they haven’t. They have just been far better at utilising the conditions presented to them. Something all great sides do.

Before this series started I suggested that Australia would win the series. Primarily because of two main English weaknesses. I had predicted that because of Alastair Cook’s weaknesses at the top of the order and James Anderson’s struggles in overseas conditions with the Kookaburra ball, England would be too weak in key positions. At the climax of the series, with the urn safely in the bag. Alastair Cook and James Anderson have probably been the best two players in this series. Cook has plundered his way to 766 runs and a batting average of 127 (the best ever by an Englishman on a tour of Australia) whilst James Anderson has finished as the leading wicket-taker in the series and has consistently looked like a truly world-class bowler. Whilst this is mildly embarrassing for me, I am more than happy to admit my misjudgment and bask in the glory of Cook and Anderson’s achievements.

So where to next for England? The team of 2005 certainly didn’t know and they proceeded to lose all their form and struggled horribly for the next 2 years whilst Australia went on a 16 game winning streak. I certainly don’t see that happening this time around. This England side are a determined group and their ultimate aim is to become the No.1 side in the world.

This is an aim that is very achievable, especially after their brilliant performance in this series. India and South Africa are very closely matched, as proved by their 1-1 draw in South Africa. But they both have weaknesses. India have an aging batting line-up which may struggle to cope with losses of key players in the coming years. They also have a seam attack which is very inconsistent and can be toothless at times. South Africa have a strong opening partnership in Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel but they do not have much depth, an injury to either of these two would seriously hurt them. They also lack a world-class spinner which can at times dent their wicket taking ability.

England on the other hand have no obvious weaknesses. Their batting is strong and they have shown in this series that they are capable of racking up big runs. They have a world-class spinner in Graeme Swann - currently the best spinner in the world - and finally, and in my opinion most importantly, they have a strong, varied, skillful bowling attack. There is no other side in the world which can boast of such a complete line-up. You have the swing of James Anderson and Ajmal Shahzad, the height and bounce of Broad, Finn and Tremlett and to cap it all off there is the impressive Tim Bresnan who can swing the ball, gets a bit of bounce and is a very clever bowler. England have such an embarrassment of riches that they can simply rotate their seamers as and when they choose. They can pick an attack for certain conditions, as they did in Perth and Melbourne, with the selections of Tremlett and Bresnan. This depth could well be the key to any future success. This strength in depth was on show with Tremlett’s stellar performances after coming in due to Broad’s injury. Because of this ability to rotate, they will be able to cope with the demanding International schedule, something that is destroying fast bowlers the world over.

This England unit has the added bonus of youth. It will be together for quite a long time yet. Many of the batsmen are coming into their prime whilst all of the bowlers will be around for at least another 5 years. The likes of Broad and Finn should have at least 10 more years at the top. Unlike the Australians, England also have an in-form, ready made replacement in Alastair Cook for captain Andrew Strauss when the times comes for him to relinquish his role.

It seems England are well set to become a very good, if not great side. So as Australia’s golden era is well and truly over, England may just be at the start of theirs.