Agreed, but first things first ... celebrations.

The Ashes have been won. The series hasn't. England won't take their eye off the ball.

Not a bad 2010 for us against the Aussies, beat them in the T20 final, beat them in the ODI series at home, now retaining the Ashes before the turn of the year.

The kids will never believe that they used to beat us all the time.

Marvellous stuff. I could get used to this.

In 12 months time no-one will give a rats ass what the score was. Point taken though in the respect of professionalism and instilling a fear factor in the Aussie psyche. Shane Warne commented yesterday on how England's mentality has been to win every tour game and not just to treat some as practice matches.

Someone has great taste in the crowd

Why has that Hull fan got a pink pony tail

I disagree. We haven't beaten them by more than 2-1 since 1985. 3-1 would be a good reflection of the way this series has gone; even 2-1 would make it look close and 2-2 would reflect very poorly on our ability to translate performances into results. Every series we've lost to them in the past 20+ years has been by at least a two match margin, except 1997 at home when we won a dead rubber at The Oval to make it 2-3. It's payback time, and I'll be very disappointed with anything less than a win at Sydney. An extra win in this series would also help move us closer to the top of the ICC Rankings before the home series with India this summer.

We weren't happy when we let South Africa tie the series last year and we shouldnt be happy if the Aussies do the same. Its great to have retained that Ashes but it is something of a quirk that retention of the Ashes is such a big deal. Sydney is usually a result wicket so unless the weather is bad we should be going out to win the game.

Same team for Sydney, or does Finn regain his place at the expense of Bresnan? If Bresnan genuinely was a selection solely for the pitch England expected at the MCG, do they revert to the faster, bouncier Finn on a traditionally drier, harder surface?

Sydney has also been a two-spinner pitch in the past, but I can't see England seriously shifting the balance of the side by dropping a batter to include Panesar.

If the bowling attack stays the same, does Morgan come in for Collingwood?

From the limited amount of highlights I saw from Melbourne it appeared Bresnan was at least as fast as the other England bowlers according to the speedgun readings. His porky appearance masks impressive strength and stamina that allows him to bowl long accurate spells without dropping his pace. Given the fact we now need just a draw to win the series I suspect his superior batting and the way he helped stifle the run rate at Melbourne will be enough to keep him in.


Panesar (or Finn) might have replaced Collingwood if we needed a win to square the series, but not now.

I'd keep Collingwood in despite his poor form. Morgan remains inexperienced at Test level and could be undercooked given the itinerary we've had so far. He's the type of batsman who might come in and blast a thrilling century in quick time, but given the selectors' inherant conservatism regarding unforced changes I can't see them discarding Collingwood's vast experience at the climax of such a high profile series.

What I would do is swap Bell & Collingwood in the order (which is what a lot of people advocated before Melbourne) with a view to Morgan possibly replacing Collingwood at 6 during next summer.

Same team for me. I think our mentality should be to try to win the game, but we're more likely to do that by keeping it tight, applying pressure, forcing the aussies to implode.

I wonder if England will have a team full of English players instead of having to recruit South Africans who weren't good enough for their team ???

Obviously hasn't got a clue....