Fully agree.

Am I imagining things or did the ODI series (of 3 or 5 games) used to take place before the test series? I'm sure they used to act as a warm up to the main event of the tests (in our summers anyway), I did passively watch the second half of the Aussie innings when I got up this morning, but I find it hard to get too excited by it.

As for the World Cup I'm sure I'll take an interest in it - once it gets to the Quarter Final stage.

That was certainly the case in our home series - three ODIs before the Test series, although I think they've always been after the Tests down under, and there always used to be a third team involved. The format was everyone plays each other four times and the top two contested a final.

Surely it can't be a coincidence that the team that wins the Ashes always seems to lose the ODI series? The Aussies even managed to lose them after the notorious Ashes whitewash four years ago.

Don't like ODI's, prefer Tests and then 20/20 matches. Great knock by Watson. England need an extra batsmen in the side, too many bits and pieces cricketers.

They had six specialist batsmen in the side for the first ODI - Strauss, Davies, Trott, Pietersen, Bell and Morgan.

Hence they were scratching around for a sixth bowling option in the middle of the Australian innings.

England got done by an outstanding knock from Shane Watson, that was the difference between the two sides IMO.

Haddin looked like he had gloves of steel

Trott, Bell & Pietersen were all reasonable part-time bowlers in county cricket before they established themselves for England. The trouble is that they never get asked to bowl much for England and play so seldom for their counties that they never get any bowling practice. Part-time bowlers need to be given a role regularly, not just asked to suddenly produce the goods when we're desperate.

So let me get this right.

You would prefer a game thats dragged out over 5 days (unless a few of them get rained off) where the run rate could be around 2.5 an over to one thats over in just one day where a run rate of 6 or 7 is about normal?



I don't particularly like any form of cricket but at least a one day game is slightly interesting. It's great when a side need 50 runs from 30 or so balls under flood lights and they really need to push things along a bit.

Test cricket

A 'fascinating tactical battle'??!!!!

Would that be the 'fascinating tactical battle' that involves bowling the other side out twice unless it rains constantly after day 3 and it ends up as a draw?

There's plenty of middle order collapses in Test cricket to make it a good viewing spectacle. Cook's knock in the 5th match was also a joy to watch. Test cricket is not for x-box addicts - it's for the grown ups and the laid back chilled out community.

I much prefer test cricket. One day cricket can be decided by one batsman hanging around and getting a century. You have to earn a win in test cricket.

England havent got the right balance at all and bringing Prior back in has been a masterstroke .....why do we persist with a wicket-keeper at the top of the order,it clearly isnt working and why dont we go in with Strauss and Bell with Prior/Davis/Keiswetter down the order at 7.

The bowling should be bolsterd by the return of Broad,Anderson and Swann and add Bresnan too who is now injured.

Strauss
Bell
Trott
KP
Collingwood (lucky to be in)
Morgan
Prior/Davis/Keiswetter
Bresnan
Broad
Swann
Anderson

Would be scratching for a 5th bowler unless we leave colly out.