5-0. Natural order is restored.

The urn has returned to its rightful home. Equilibrium is restored. All is right in the world again. The Australia that we all knew and loved has awoken from her slumber. Is it not clear now? The last three Ashes series won by England were the freak aberration, not the 16 years' of Australian supremacy. The big, bad Australia that used to terrorise Englishmen for fun is back, back with a vengeance. Lick your wounds, England, for natural order has been restored, and Australians enjoy winning.

Banter aside, though, it has been a privilege, as an Australian, to witness this spectacular Ashes series. We've witnessed some of the best cricket that the Australian cricket team has produced in a very, very long time. The ghosts of collapse to South Africa, whitewash in India, and (relative) trouncing in England are exorcised with the sporting spectacle that has been the 2013-14 Ashes series. Australia had surely hit rock bottom in the 4-0 Indian whitewash, but look now. Surely this will go down as one of the great events in Australian sporting history, to come back from the ashes so quickly and completely (excuse the bad pun)? 

Although I didn't make any predictions like I did before the 2013 series in England (I might have jinxed us), I quite expected England to win this series, even if Australia got a better return this time. As a group of individual players, England were, and arguably still are, the better team, after all. Australia had one genuinely great batsman - Michael Clarke - while England had three - Alastair Cook, Kevin Pieterson and Ian Bell. Australia had two world-class bowlers - Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson - while England had three - Jimmy Anderson, Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann. I fully expected Alastair Cook to come triumphantly out of his run of poor form (remember the last time he came to Australia?), for Pieterson to bully our bowlers to tears, for Bell to continue churning out hundreds for fun, for Swann and Broad to wreak havoc. So I am confounded that it didn't turn out that way, especially so in the case of Cook. Yes, I am honestly surprised that Australia won this series; I'm astonished, pinching myself, that Australia have won it 5-0. I saw England winning the series perhaps 2-1 or 3-2, yet Australia have won every single Test match convincingly. Unlike the last Ashes series in England, the scoreline does not flatter the winning side at all: 5-0 is a profoundly accurate reflection of the dominance Australia have displayed over England in every match and nearly every session of this series.

Just by way of comparison:

Australia have made 10 hundreds to England's 1.

Australia have made a total of over 300 runs in an innings 5 times to England's 2 times.

Australia have bowled England out for under 200 runs 6 times, while England not once.

Quite astounding, if you remember that, immediately before the Gabba Test, Australia's top seven batsmen shared an aggregate average of 38.15 (excluding Bailey) compared to an average of 43.55 for England's top seven, or 42.91 without Trott. Verily, this is an example of an ordinary team doing extraordinary things, and an extraordinary team doing very ordinary things. Throughout this series, Australia have been more than the sum of its parts, while, conversely, England have been far, far less than the sum of its parts.

One thing I think is worth noting is that, going into the England Ashes series, Australia were widely seen to be a ragtag rabble; old timers Chris Rogers and Brad Haddin had been co-opted into the side to provide some much-needed experience in what was a side of inexperienced and largely unproven youngsters who had barely played with each other. In contrast, England were the established, experienced side with a formidable lineup of battle-hardened veterans. Now, on the other end of this six-month back-to-back Ashes odyssey, the tables are turned: Australia look like the established, settled team, while England are the inexperienced rabble. To be sure, this perception might be compounded by the absence of Jonathan Trott and Graeme Swann from the England side in the last four and two Tests, respectively, and by Australia's having played the same XI for five consecutive Tests. But it's true enough, isn't it? This Australian side is now a settled side, at least for the next couple of years. This Australian side has proven that they work extremely well together as a unit and that together they can play a standard of cricket that is greater than the sum of their parts. Conversely, three debutants in the Sydney Test tells me that England will undoubtedly be having a long, hard think about who will play in the England cap from this point forward. Trott may return to the Test team in time, but he won't return to the team he last played with at the Gabba.

As for Australia, what lies ahead? Australia's next challenge is South Africa, the reigning world champions of Test cricket. As much as this whitewash over England has shown this Australian team's mettle and skill, South Africa are a much more formidable opponent than England, and we are playing them on their home turf. There is a reason why South Africa obstinately remain the best Test team in the world - several reasons actually: Dale Steyn, Morne Morkel, Vernon Philander, Graham Smith, Hashim Amla, and AB de Villiers; the uncontested best bowling attack in the world and among the best batsmen in the world. I just can't see Australia coming out on top in South Africa, but then again, I fully expected Australia to lose this Ashes series. It's a three Test series, so I trepidatiously predict that South Africa will win 3-0. I hope to God that I will be proven wrong, though.

Thoughts on the series so far

I'm writing this in the Tea break on the fourth day of the Third Test at the WACA. Australia are two up in the series so far, and England are staring down the gun barrel of a third consecutive loss. The Ashes are as little as one session within reach for Australia. Here are some of my thoughts on the series so far.

Australia's supremacy or England's weakness?

In three consecutive Tests, Australia has set England a lead of over 500 to chase. According to the commentators, that has never happened before, ever. Australia's batsmen have made seven hundreds thus far in the series; England's have made none. Australia have made an innings total above 400 twice (including a 570); England not once.

What's happening? England are being steamrolled much more comprehensively than Australia were in the English summer. I felt dejected during the last Ashes series, but I can only begin to imagine what it must feel like to be an England fan now. There was no question of Australia being better than the 3-0 scoreline for the last Ashes series seemed to suggest, but this is a complete turnaround in fortunes. I expected England to win this series by perhaps a 3-1 or 2-1 margin. Now it seems that a 5-0 whitewash for Australia is by no means off the cards, as Glenn McGrath, for once, will be pleased to know.

It's hard to process what's taken place. Have Australia rediscovered the old mojo? Mitchell Johnson has certainly been the X-factor for Australia this series, but Australia's success can't be put down solely to Mitch. I feel that it partly has to do with England being weaker this series. It's not only that Trott has been missing from the England batting lineup for the second and third Tests, it's also that England have been poor and mentally weak in all departments of the game. Many England wickets have been self-induced - complete gifts for Australia. England's fielding has been poor, and their bowling hasn't been up to their usual standard. Australia have been good enough to exploit that weakness, making England spend excessive time in the field watching the Ashes slip away from them run by run.

I was wrong about David Warner

Boy, was I wrong about David Warner. After India, I had him down as inexorably on the fast track out of the Test team, to be consigned in perpetuity to a flashy yet quaint and supremely unmemorable career in the Big Bash. He was dropped from the Test side in the last Ashes series in England before being flown back in after making 193 against South Africa A. I've got to admit, I had written him off. I didn't think he was suited to Test cricket. I used to get very anxious every time he came to the crease. I thought he was a liability, and that it would, ultimately, be a good thing if he were to be permanently dropped to make way for a proper opener.

But this Ashes series, he's gone and proven me very wrong. His batting figures thus far this series are: 49, 124, 29, 83*, 60, 112. Something has obviously changed. Has his girl made an honest man of him? Is his commitment to become the next Mr Cricket paying off? Whatever it is, it's working. To be sure, the way he lost his wicket in the last of his innings was incredibly reckless and unprofessional, but he has an average for 91.40 for the series so far, the highest average of both the Australian and England sides. He now has a career average of 43.21. Fair play to the man, he has completely changed my mind about him through the sheer brilliance of his performance. Not many people can do that. I can now say definitively that I see Warner as being essential to the future of Australian cricket. Like Steve Smith, I think Warner is another exciting young prospect for Australia. At 27 years of age, Warner has a long career ahead of him; he can only get better from here, and I can see him maturing into a very talented, quality opener for Australia. We talk about the glory days of Australia being over - but if those glory days are ever to return, surely David Warner will be there in the thick of it.

Shane Watson haters gonna hate

I've written about this before. Shane Watson is the man who divides Australian cricket. He's like vegemite - you either love him or you hate him. The hatred of some of those who hate him borders on pathological. To their minds, there is no debate about it: he must be dropped and kept away from the Test team with a twenty-foot barge pole. To them, Shane Watson can do nothing right. Every success he makes is tainted or diminished in some way. Every failure is justification for dropping him. Therefore, it was no surprise to me when I read the reaction of one anti-Watsonite on Twitter when Watson got his hundred in this Test: "Kill me." There you have it: these people actually want Watson to fail. They would rather Australia's total have been one hundred runs less than for those runs to have been made by Shane Watson. Others were saying his hundred doesn't count because he was batting as if it were an ODI rather than a Test match. It's quite honestly pathetic, unsporting and unpatriotic. Where's the Aussie spirit of a fair-go? Quite clearly absent in these mean-spirited individuals. Why not recognise Watson for the genuine, albeit inconsistent, talent that he is? They can't, because their disdain for Watson is not rational, but emotional.

Why I'm not watching the India v Australia series

They should be at home!

Well, actually, it's mostly because it's only being shown on FOX Sports, and the television in my bedroom doesn't get pay-tv, meaning I'd have to move to my sitting room. And also because it's exam knuckle-down time for university students in Australia at the moment.

But that's beside the point.

If it were a Test series, I'd be all over it. You wouldn't be able to move me from that sitting room for anything other than food - not for sleep, not for work, not for study. Even if it were an ODI series at any other time of the year, I'd still at least be paying more attention than I am now.

But my boycott of the India v Australia ODI series is, in part, my silent protest about scheduling idiocy in Cricket Australia. Why, why, why, when Australia has a home Ashes series imminently approaching, are Australia gallivanting around India playing ODI's and T20's?

I realise that much of the squad won't be appearing in the baggy green come the 21st of November, but players like Watson, Hughes, Haddin, Johnson, Faulkner and McKay, even Bailey, should not be in India now. They should be home playing Sheffield Shield, preparing to face Cook, Trott, Pieterson, Bell, Anderson, Swann and Broad at the Gabba.

I realise that the Sheffield Shield doesn't begin until the end of this month. But that's not how it should be either. Our Test players, whether they're in India now or not, will get only 2-3 matches of first-class cricket to prepare for the Ashes. Not good enough.

Instead of putting the Ryobi Cup at the beginning of the cricket season in a whirlwind month-long contest (I presume to get it out of the way as quickly as possible), the time taken up by the Ryobi Cup should be allocated to Sheffield Shield rounds, and all Test players and prospective Test players should be playing in them.

The Sheffield Shield should run uninterrupted from October (if not from September) up to Christmas. The extra rounds before the Test series start should allow both the Test players to get into form and the younger up-and-coming guys to put their names forward for Test selection later in the Summer. Success against Glenn Maxwell and Scott Boland does not prove a player's mettle (no offence to Scott Boland); success against Michael Clarke and Ryan Harris does.

The Big Bash League can go in a month-long contest over January, to rake in the school-holiday revenues (that's the whole point of the BBL, right?). The Ryobi Cup can be spread over February and March, or else run concurrently with the BBL over January and finish sometime in February or March.