The Ashes - unofficial review

There will be plenty of reviews written on this series, by journalists, ex players ("has beens") so i thought i would give my thoughts as an average cricket supporter. I think, being a Crystal Palace supporter, that i have quite a balanced approach to watching sport. I dont expect victory every time, i dont throw cushions at the telly or shout abuse at players on either side. I don't demand that England apologies to the fans when we don't win. 

Agnew (who i personally think has come across as a bitter "never was" during the series, says they should be embarassed as the fans he speaks to have spent their life savings coming over. Two points, i expect he has actually mostly spent his time speaking to fairly well off middle age people like me at evening do's with the various tour companies and secondly, if you have spent your life savings coming here then you should really blame your financial advisor not England cricket.

So my thoughts:

- Six months ago there was some hope that England would do well but that had to be caveated. They do have a lot of talented players but they were playing one of the best team in the world (including the best bowling attack and one of the best batsman of all time), on their home turf.

- In the weeks before, more hope was seen. Archer and Wood were considered fit enough to tour, Australia had injury problems and a number of their batting places were in doubt.

- As it happened, only one of their bowling attack played much, Smith was ok but not dominant (and matched by Root). England had 2 of the three top run scorers in the series,  four of Australia's batsmen averaged less than 30 - so how did England lose so easily?

- Well Australia had the three best performers.

-  Starc was amazing throughout the tour, mostly with the ball but also with the bat.

-Head was the only batsman that dominated the bowling and played a number of crucial "bazball" innings. The whole series could have been different if he had knicked off early in Perth (and he did play and miss a number of times). That innings gave him and his team confidence and with England never likely to win the pink ball test the whole series was probably lost in that one session.

- Carey was outstanding with bat and with gloves. Standing up to all the quick bowlers other than Starc overcame one of England's key tactics of trying to avoid Boland and others being able to dominate through just bowling consistently. Ahead of the series, many combined XI had Smith ahead of Carey (partly England bias) but he completely outplayed Smith

- Australia's depth in bowling (other than spin) was showed to be stronger than many expected.

- Most England players had not toured Australia before, and it showed. You cant do anything about that, but many of the current team are likey to be here next time and will understand the pitches, occassion and pressure a lot better.

- England got a lot of the basics wrong. Catches went down, bowiing (other than the amazing first innings at Perth) was generally poor, although Stokes, Tongue and Archer can probably be happy with their contribution. The batting did not score enought runs. Yes everyone will highlight a number of "dumb shots" and the fine line between controlled and uncontrolled aggression was missed on a number of occassions, but there were instances where the pitches and the strength of australia probably pushed them over the edge.

- It did show up how much of an evolving team this is. It needed the more experienced batsmen like Duckett (who at first looked unlucky and then appeared to lose all confidence), Pope (who its easy to say should not have been playing) and Crawley (who as always flattered to deceive) to help Root and Stokes. And it soon became clear that the England attack - had no natural leader as had been evident since Anderson/Broad. They all have talent - Archer in particular, but are still a very inexperienced unit

- Mistakes were obviously made. 

- I dont buy all the talk from Agnew/Vaughan in particular that there were major failings but they did not get things right. I did get very bored listening to the two of them say England should have prepared at the Waca - you never know what happened , did England ask too late or did Australia cricket board not want to let them? Those being interviewed were never going to be able to answer that question during the tour, but there were constant jibes that this reflected a lack of interest in preparing

- The coaching set up seems a bit unbalanced. Talk of not being able to get a fielding coach, having to find a bowling coach last minute, all have implications for an inexperienced team. Whether this was due to ambivalance or lack on budget once again will remain unclear.

So where do England go? i am writing this sitting overlooking Bondi beach. The last time i was here was 2003 ahead of the RWC final. That England team benefited from a much more experienced team - had a "warrior" captain in Johnson (not unlike Stokes) a talisman in Wilkinson (not unlike Root), once in a generation player in Robinson (perhaps Brook) and a coach with a different approach. Woodward took over in 1997 asking to be judged on the 1999 world cup - failed there but was perserved with. He then developed his and the squads ability and experience and was rewarded in 2003. I expect the RFU was full of similar charachters to the current ECB, it will be interesting if they take the same approach and are rewarded. There is certainly the talent there.