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.

How wrong was I?

Before the Ashes started, I made some outrageous predictions about how the series would pan out. Let's see how my divination skills have shaped up...

Michael Clarke will, on more than one occasion, save Australia from complete humiliation at the hands of the England bowlers (instead ensuring we only suffer slight humiliation).
This happened only once, when Clarke made his 187 at Old Trafford. Apart from that one innings, Clarke has not fired this series - one significant cause of Australia's batting woes. Is it the back problems?

Indeed, Michael Clarke will make at least two hundreds in the series. He may even make another double ton, if the old back holds out.
Well, this didn't happen. He almost made a double ton, yes, but it was his only hundred in the series. He passed 50 only twice. Despite this, Clarke averaged 47.63 for the series (accounting for his two not-outs), with 381 runs in total. He'd have averaged 27.71 if not for his 187.

Shane Watson, if he remains an opener for the duration of the series, will make a hundred. Maybe even two.
Shane Watson did make a hundred, although for the great majority of the series this looked like it might not happen at all. Remarkably, he actually averaged 41.8 for the series, making 418 runs in total; he would have averaged 26.89 if not for that 176, though. In any case, he made his 176 at no.3, not as an opener. Perhaps we've killed two birds with one stone: the no.3 dilemma and the Shane Watson dilemma.

Chris Rogers will be the second most solid Australian batsman in the series after Michael Clarke. He will certainly make a hundred.
Rogers averaged 40.78 for the series with 367 runs, although he made three scores above fifty - equal only to Steve Smith. I would actually say he was the most solid batsman, since Clarke and Watson, both of whom averaged higher than Rogers, only did so because of one great innings each.

Phil Hughes will manage to stand his ground - just - against the English pace bowlers, but will be tormented by Graham Swann.
Hughes averaged 27.67 for the series. He played four innings: 81*, 0, 1, 1. True, he showed some grit in his 81*, but I stand by my description of him as a "serial dud". The selectors seem to agree with me, since they dropped him after Lord's. And, indeed, two of his three dismissals were by Graeme Swann (both lbw).

Steve Smith will make a hundred. Or two. And will emerge from the series as the new darling of Australian cricket.
Steve Smith did indeed make a hundred. It was truly glorious to watch. But, in fairness, he did not perform as well over the series as I had originally predicted: one hundred, two fifties, at a reasonable average of 38.33. He hasn't emerged as a "darling" as such, but at least is now seen as a long-term Test batsman. The no.5 spot will be his for the foreseeable future.

David Warner, if he gets a bat, will struggle severely to hold his own against the England bowlers. This may be the beginning of the end for David Warner's Test career.
Warner played three Tests, making one score above 50 and averaging 23.00 for the series. Despite this, I very much doubt Warner is going to be dropped any time soon. His 193 on the African tour torpedoed him back into the Test side, and, unless his Test form plateaus from here, he will very likely remain in the side for a long time to come. Which is good, I think...

Jackson Bird will be the scourge of the England batsmen.
In one Test, Bird took a grand total of two wickets for 125 runs. Doesn't exactly set the world alight, that. It's strange, since his first-class figures are so freakishly good. Perhaps he had trouble adjusting to the English conditions? Or perhaps we are seeing a manifestation of the State teams' damaging and self-interested practice of preparing result-oriented pitches, and that Bird is little more than an ordinary bowler whose results are made to look extraordinary by the help of doctored pitches. Or perhaps he just had a poor match. That's my hunch. It happens. After all, that lbw dismissal of Alistair Cook was absolutely sublime. And remember his debut? I still rate him as one of the best bowlers in Australia.

So will Mitchell Starc.
Yeah, that didn't happen. Over three matches, he took 11 wickets for 357 runs (average 32.45). Not terrible, but nothing special. At The Oval all he seemed to do was leak runs, bowl wides and, yes, take the occasional wicket. Like a poor man's Mitchell Johnson.

James Faulkner will not get a bowl. Unless Ryan Harris breaks down.
Faulkner was quite a find in the The Oval. 6 wickets in the match for 98 runs - an average of 16.33. I quite underestimated him. He seems a handy bat, too. Let's see more of him.

Ryan Harris will break down.
Amazingly, Ryan Harris played four matches in a row ... before promptly breaking down. But at least he had the consideration to wait before the Ashes were finished before contracting a hamstring problem. Averaging 19.58 over four Ashes Tests (including two five-fors), Harris has shown what a class act he really is. Easily one of the best pace bowlers in the world now.

And the end scoreline? England win 3-1.
I was close, I suppose. England did win three matches. Australia had four chances to win one: one will go down as one of the great Ashes Tests in history; one will be remembered for what could have been, if not for the ruddy weather; one will be remembered for a bungled opportunity; and one will be remembered for a brave display of captaincy that unfortunately didn't pay off (#losetowin).

Now just wait for my next round of outlandish predictions for the home Ashes series in Australia.

Steve Smith comes good

I knew this would happen. Darren Lehmann had said at the press conference following the Test at Chester-le-Street that a few of the Australian players would be playing for their careers at The Oval. He didn't name names, but you knew the players whom he was talking about: Usman Khawaja, Shane Watson, Steve Smith. There was pressure on each of these batsmen to prove their worth, prove they deserved their place in the team. Khawaja was dropped before he got his chance. Shane Watson made 176. Yesterday, Steve Smith made 138*.

I knew this would happen. I knew that, faced with the prospect of, yet again, being exiled from the Australian team, Steve Smith would pull his head in and bring out his best game. Steve Smith is a very talented cricketer who shows great promise and has the capacity to go on to do great things for Australia. It was clear from when he made 92 in India, in his first innings back from a two-year exile, that it was not a matter of if, but when he would make his maiden Test century. And now it's come, and in the Ashes to boot. Now let's have more of it, please, Mr Smith.

In some ways it is better that he got his maiden hundred here than at Old Trafford. At Old Trafford, you got the sense that Smith was being babied to his hundred by Michael Clarke, who was letting Smith take it slowly and easily when Australia ought to have been trying to score quickly at that point in their innings. Here, there was no Clarke to hold Smith's hand as he toddled over the line. After Watson went, Smith became the senior partner out in the middle, and maturely and with composure, off his own bat, made his way to a hundred, and beyond.

An open letter to the Australian selectors

My dear selectors,

As I sit down to write this, it is one hour and forty-eight minutes until the beginning of the Fifth Test. I would have been marginally optimistic about our chances at The Oval, but now I'm not. This is why.

Earlier today my ever-diligent Twitter feed informed me that Usman Khawaja and Jackson Bird were to be swapped out of the side for James Faulkner and Mitchell Starc, respectively. I greeted this news with my trademark facepalm of incredulity and exhaustion. It's not that I don't rate the two players selected (in Starc's case re-re-selected); my problem is that, yet again, you feel the need to chop and change the side in a desperate bid to find the "winning combination" that will miraculously reverse Australia's decline and enable us to win Test matches again. As though the solution were that simple. As though it were even a solution at all.

I feel you have been frighted by the way this Ashes series has panned out so far. Admittedly, 3-0 does not look good, but 3-0 disguises the fact that this Ashes series has been a much more closely-fought contest than the scoreline suggests. Just as 1-0 disguised the fact that Trent Bridge could very easily have been Australia's, 3-0 disguises the fact that the tables could easily have been turned: the series could easily have been 3-0 to Australia but for a variety of turns of fortune. Had Haddin and Pattinson been able to push on to snag those last 15 runs at Trent Bridge; had the rain held off on the fifth day of Old Trafford; had Stuart Broad not inexplicably found the form of his life in Australia's second innings at Chester-le-Street: Australia could have been 3 matches up right now.

But it so happens that Australia is not. It so happens that Australia, instead, is 3-0 down on the day of the Fifth Test. Irregardless, Australia have performed better than the unflattering scoreline suggests. In the same way, England have performed worse than 3-0 suggests. Of England's main three batsmen - Cook, Trott and Pieterson - only Pieterson has performed anywhere near his best. With Root, Bairstow and Prior having proven to be lame ducks (other than Root's stellar, yet anomalous, 180), England has largely been dragged across the line by the heroic efforts of Ian Bell, their one success story this series. England have not yet posted an innings total above 400. Australia have. All of Old Trafford and most of Chester-le-Street were dominated by Australia. England have not dominated this series any more than Australia have.

That has not stopped you, the Australian selectors, from frantically cannibalising the Australian lineup after every loss. Rather than holding your nerve and being brave enough to play the same side, or largely the same side, for a whole series, you've descended into a frenzy of ritual slaughter. Ed Cowan, despite having been a regular in the Australian top order for well over a year now, was dropped after one match. His successor, Usman Khawaja, has now been dropped after only three matches. Jackson Bird was dropped after one match for, I suppose, not being as successful as his exceptional figures promised. Whether these changes were for better or for worse, I'm struggling to understand the reasoning. All I see is knee-jerk, reflexive responses to matches that haven't gone the way we wanted them to.

You see, chaps, it is one thing to always play the best performers. It is quite another to keep changing the side when our "best performers" aren't delivering the results we wanted them to. Every player goes through rough patches. You can't expect batsmen to consistently make 40+ runs every innings, or for bowlers to take 4+ wickets every innings (especially when Ryan Harris is taking them all). Moreover, you can't pluck players with little or no international experience from domestic cricket, expect them to immediately perform to form in Test cricket, and then drop them when they don't meet your lofty expectations. Nurturing quality Test cricketers takes time, commitment and, above all, patience. When a player is always aware that he is playing for his spot in the side, he will rarely perform to his best. Apprehension, nerves and doubt will enter his game, and he will play negatively and unnaturally.

So my plea to you is this: pick the XI, and a couple more, whom you want to be Australia's long-term Test players*. Stick with them. Invest in them. Commit to them. Let them develop. Let them know that their place in the side is settled. If they don't immediately perform, stick with them. If they go through rough patches, stick with them. If they don't make a hundred until their 26th Test or even pull their average above 30 until their 23rd Test, stick with them. The selectors of the '80s and '90s did for Steve Waugh, and just look how he turned out.

There is no quick-fix to take Australia back to ascendency. This is a rebuilding process that takes time and long-term investment. We may not see the fruits of our labour for years. But constantly changing the face of the Australian side at this dizzying rate is vain, damaging, and achieves nothing. Put in the hard yards to rebuild Australian cricket and you will be rewarded. I promise.

*An exception can be made for Chris Rogers.

Five things I took out of Old Trafford

Well, well, well. How frustrating was that? The first time in this series that Australia are genuinely on top of a Test match, with victory fully within reach - and the match gets rained out. I don't know if England fans reading this appreciate how incredibly frustrating this is for us Aussies, that the weather (God?) denied us even the opportunity to get back into the series, handing the Ashes to England by default, in a match in which Australia inarguably outplayed England.

But such is life. Here are some things I took out of the Third Test.

Australia's batsmen have finally come good. Four successive top-order batting collapses in the Trent Bridge and Lord's Tests had seen Australia's batsmen derided and disparaged. They were weak. Incompetent. Not Test quality. Easy pickings for the likes of Anderson and Swann. But now the weak, incompetent Pommy-fodder have finally come good. A sterling 187 by Michael Clarke - the highest individual score so far in the series - was complemented by muscular scores of 84, 89, 65 and 66 by Chris Rogers, Steve Smith, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Starc, respectively, to bring Australia's first innings total to a menacing 527. This, dear chaps, is the real Australia. This is what Australia can do when they're on song, and against the likes of Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann no less.

Australia aren't rubbish. Australia out-batted England and out-bowled England in this Test match. This is what Australia are capable of. If Australia play like they did in Old Trafford at Chester-le-Street and The Oval, the scoreline for the series will be 2-2. There is a good chance it would have been 3-2 if not for Day 5 of Old Trafford being washed out. Be under no delusion: Australia, when playing their best, are more than a match for England. Australia aren't rubbish. What Australia are, though, is a relatively young Test side finding their feet, with few players of genuine experience in the international arena. Chris Rogers, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, David Warner, Shane Watson, Phil Hughes, Ed Cowan, Brad Haddin, Michael Clarke - there are no real mugs in this batting pool; they're all good batsmen, just inexperienced. The same goes for the bowlers - Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson, Jackson Bird, James Faulkner, Nathan Lyon: no spot-fillers here (except perhaps Agar, although at 19, he shows promise for the future).

Steve Smith is rather good. Yes, The Cricket Hooligan loves talking about Steve Smith. The Cricket Hooligan was doe-eyed over Steve Smith before it was cool. The Cricket Hooligan isn't sure why he keeps talking about himself in third person. But seriously, as Russel Jackson says in The Guardian, Steve Smith is developing into a mature Test cricketer, and a genuinely exciting prospect for the future of Australian cricket. Since returning from his two-year exile from Test cricket earlier this year in India, he has continued to impress. Almost making his maiden hundred at Old Trafford, we perhaps saw a glimmer of the old Steve Smith - the one that was dropped after the 2010-11 Ashes - when he got impatient to get his century and lobbed a Swanny delivery high into the air, gifting a comfortable catch to Tim Bresnan. He won't make the same mistake next time - of that you can be assured.

Watson, Watson, Watson. One Australian batsman who didn't share in the fun at Old Trafford was Shane Watson. With an average of 14.6 for this Ashes series so far, even I, the ardent Watsonite that I am*, have to admit that my faith in Shane Watson has been sorely shaken. I thought moving him back to opening the batting would unleash his natural flair. Not so. I thought being released from the burden of vice-captaincy would take a weight off his shoulders and, consequently, free his game, à la Ian Botham. Not so. So where does that leave me, the last Watsonite standing? Give him until the end of this Ashes series, it doesn't matter where in the batting order. If he continues failing to deliver, he must be told he's to be sent back to Sheffield Shield, and won't be accepted back in the Test side until he's genuinely improved his first-class game. A two year exile might do him good; it will come as a shock, but will rightly humble him and focus him. He might return as a reformed cricketer, like Steve Smith.

There needs to be a royal commission into third umpiring. There were so many shockers in this Test that I can't remember them all. The Usman Khawaja decision by the third umpire in Australia's first innings was obviously the big one: just about everyone apart from - tragically - the third umpire seemed to know that was not out, even Kevin Rudd. Needless to say, a lot of people came out of that Test match very much disillusioned with the fallibility of third umpires and even the DRS system as a whole. I'm not suggesting that the third umpire was corrupt or that there is skulduggery afoot in the third umpiring fraternity (England got just as many shockers as Australia), just that this particular third umpire was particularly incompetent. This kind of ineptitude should really not be entertained in such high-profile international fixtures as Ashes series, where a wrong decision could potentially sway the outcome of an entire match. There must be some change in third umpiring.

*Is it because I'm a Queenslander?

Match Report: Trent Bridge

What an amazing Test match. The frills and spills, the ebbs and flows, the heart-in-mouth moments, the triumphant heart-fluttering moments, the relief and the heartbreak. This match had it all. Australia did very well to come within a whisker of claiming a famous victory in this First Test, although I think we had it in us to get over the line; we were very unfortunate not to claim a win in this Test. Here's my match report.

England First Innings
Australia may have lost the toss and, by extension, our preferred opportunity to bat first on the First Day pitch, but it soon became clear that bowling first may, in any case, have been the better option, what with the muggy overhead conditions and all. Indeed, the very first balls of the innings gave elaborate, shapely swing for the likes of James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc. Had Australia batted first, Jimmy Anderson might have wreaked havoc with the new ball and seen Australia off for a total even more measly than 215.

The first innings was undoubtedly owned by Australia. After the new ball quietened down, Peter Siddle came in to flush the English out. With first innings figures of 5/50, he masterfully dispatched Root (30), Pieterson (14), Trott (48), Bell (25) and Prior (1) in succession. At that point England were reeling at 6/180, having suffered what could only be termed a nervous collapse. Siddle had done his job by then, and Starc and Pattinson finished off the England innings mercilessly, leaving England in a precarious position with a total of only 215.

It looked like the bad old days were back. It looked like Australia, having been written off and sneered at in the British press, had rediscovered their cricketing ascendancy. With England reeling and in disarray after that incomprehensible innings, Australia looked much more threatening, much more like the big bad Australia of old that had sent England into 16 years' of Ashes exile, than the Australia they were expecting.

Of course, in the Aussie camp, everyone knew that the onus was on the Australian batsmen to follow through with the positive work done by the bowlers. That's what made us nervous.

Australia First Innings
We always knew there was a danger of this happening. The opening partnership looked good, before it was scalped barely in its infancy, triggering a top-order collapse that left Australian fans looking on in horror, helpless as Australia went from 0/19 to 4/53 in the space of eleven overs. Michael Clarke, the only batsman we could truly rely on to make a big score, went for a duck off six balls.

Steve Smith, the next Steve Waugh, the comeback kid, the lad who made 92 in India while all around him the Aussie ship was capsizing, surely, would save the Australian innings. Indeed, he made a well-earned, tension-easing half century, but it wasn't good enough. Smith failed to do his duty, and by then we were getting into the tail with only the serial dud, Phil Hughes and the resurrected wicket keeper Brad Haddin left to rely on.

The Australian collapse resumed unabated. After Smith went, Australia standing at 5/108, Haddin, Siddle, Starc and Pattinson followed, making all of five runs between them, leaving Australia seconds from death in the risible position of 9/117. We had squandered this opportunity to stamp our mark on the series by winning the First Test. We would, by our own incompetence, gift England a lead of nearly 100 runs, which would become 600 by the time England's second innings was finished, and we would be humiliated, gutted, thrashed, flogged, mutilated, ravaged and wrecked in our second innings, losing the Test by an innings and 400 runs, which would set the tone for the rest of the series.

But then our saviour arrived. An inoffensive-looking lad of 19 years who seemed, in all honesty, out of his depth, came on at no.11. His being there was just a formality. He would go next ball, or else give the strike to Hughes in order that he would snag a couple more runs before Australia's last wicket inevitably fell.

But he didn't go. Turns out the kid was quite nifty with the bat, scoring a few quick runs for Australia off his own steam. The kid was very enthusiastic; he almost got himself run out, but the DRS saved him. "All right, laddy," the England bowlers said. "Let's see what you make of the short ones." Short ball after short ball England bowled, which Agar neatly pulled, cut and hooked away to the boundary, unfazed.

Who was this kid? He just wouldn't go. England were visibly frustrated, and out of ideas as to how to get rid of this uppity debutant no.11, who showed no signs of weakness as he brought up his fifty, amazingly levelled the scores - to great relief from the Australians - and edged closer and closer, at an alarming pace, to his hundred. At 98 not out, every Australian fan was sitting on the edge of his seat, the tension unbearable: this debutant, nineteen-year old no.11 was about to make a hundred on debut. His heroics had already saved the match for Australia. But, eager to get those final, unattainable two runs, he lobbed one into the air, not sending it quite deep enough.

After punching the air in triumph, every Australian's face suddenly fell as we watched the ball fly into the taunting hands of Graham Swann as though magnetised. Heartbreak. Disbelief. Frustration. It was Mitchell Starc's 99 all over again, except the disappointment was much, much greater. We had cheered on this prodigious debutant no.11, who had seemingly come from nowhere, as he heroically saved the Test for us, this complete nobody showing the kind of confidence and skill that were painfully missing from the top order. We so, so wanted him to get his century, but, in the end, he was as eager as we were, and made his first fatal mistake of the innings.

It wasn't just a good innings, it was a classy and skilful innings. Agar had left the England bowlers completely powerless, and seemingly with no idea what to do as this slip of a boy bashed them to the boundary again and again, clocking up the runs at an alarming rate. It was luck, and Agar's own nerves, more than anything, that finally got the better of the kid. Who knows how far he would have gone if not for that vital, and, as it seemed, uncharacteristic mistake?

So Australia, having come from complete disarray to being undoubtedly in the stronger position, went into England's second innings ready to fully take advantage of their lucky recovery from near-death. If only.

England Second Innings
Didn't that look like we were on top again? 1/11, Root goes for 5. 2/11, dangerous Mr Trott goes for a golden duck. The Australian fans were licking our lips, ready to plough through the England batting order once more. We were slightly disheartened when the next wicket didn't come, though. Danger man Kevin Pieterson had made his half century and was cruising into the sixties before he was neutered by Pattinson. Alastair Cook was, thankfully, soon to follow shortly after making his fifty. A brief blip, nothing to worry about, we assured ourselves; Siddle and Co. would work their magic again to get through this innings quickly - wouldn't they?

But the wickets didn't fall fast enough. 4/131 - 5/174 - 6/218. Even as Bairstow and Prior added useful runs to England's total, Bell looked immovable. His partnership with Stuart Broad had us biting our fingernails again, willing Siddle or Pattinson or Starc or Agar or someone to make a breakthrough soon.

And it looked like we had. Anyone watching would have known we had. Stuart Broad knew we had as he followed the ball in horror as it left the edge of his bat and flew neatly into Michael Clarke's hands at first slip. So clear-cut was that dismissal that Clarke didn't even bother appealing, at first. But Aleem Dar, inexplicably, didn't budge, not even as the Aussies crowded around him screaming at him to raise his bloody finger. Broad, cleverly arranging his face to make it look as though he hadn't a clue what the Aussies were appealing for, walked over to his partner and, amazingly, stayed put. He didn't walk. He didn't even have the grace to acknowledge that he was out but that he was choosing to stand his ground - rather, he was dishonestly pretending he didn't know what had happened. With no reviews remaining to right this wrong, Australia were left utterly helpless.

Play returned with the Australians fuming. Robbed of the wicket they dearly needed, they stalked off the field at the end of the third day in bad blood. Returning the next day, they pointedly declined to clap Broad when he brought up his fifty - a tainted fifty. His eventual dismissal brought a savage pleasure to every Australian fan watching, although in fairness, this time Broad walked off without waiting for the umpire's decision, showing perhaps that he regretted what he had done the previous day.

Soon after Bell brought up his hundred, a genuinely good innings that had put England back into a dominant position. Thankfully for the Australians, England's innings were wrapped up quickly, with Bell going for 109, Swann for 9, Finn for 2 and Anderson for 0.

The Australians were feeling very fortunate that England's lower order could not bat as strongly as Australia's, as Australia were left with a total of 310 to chase. Certainly not unreachable, but, knowing Australia's batting lineup, any more may have simply been too much.

Australia Second Innings
What Australia really needed was a good opening partnership. Then, the middle order - the likes of Clarke and Smith - would not be under as much pressure. Not least, it would mean we would have a buffer against a middle-order collapse.

And, indeed, the opening partnership looked good. Shane Watson, declining to attempt to dominate the bowlers as he tried to in his first innings, played it safe, played calmly, and steadily clocked up the runs. Chris Rogers looked safe, a veteran of English conditions he, frustrating the bowlers with his adroit batwork. As Watson and Rogers brought the opening partnership closer to the 100 runs mark, Australians' breathing began to ease as Australia edged into safe waters.

Together Watson and Rogers made 84 runs before Watson was unluckily dismissed LBW on 46. Cowan came to the crease, on a pair, every Australian watcher sending him the same message: please, please don't cock it up. He looked precarious, making the same wild swipe at a wide ball that saw him dismissed for a duck in the first innings, but, luckily, the ball didn't find the edge this time. Getting himself off the pair, and taking three boundaries, he almost looked set to continue Watson's good work. Almost. Dismissed for 14, he left Australian fans glumly wondering why he was even in the side in the first place.

Then the collapse started. At first it didn't seem like a traditional collapse, rather a slow-motion, tortuous execution as the drip-drip of falling wickets allowed Australia fleeting glimmers of hope before the next wicket fell and we became disheartened again. By the time Michael Clarke's wicket fell, it seemed England had grown tired of playing the psychopath serial killer who plays with his food before he eats it. The wickets of Clarke and Steve Smith fell one after another, and Phil Hughes went for a duck two overs after Smith, Australia standing on 6/164.

With Haddin and Agar at the crease at the end of day four, Australia allowed ourselves some hope. There was over a hundred runs to go, but yet we still had four wickets in hand. And our in-form batsmen were by no means finished; Haddin had proven himself over his Test career to be a solid, competent batsman, and hadn't Agar performed magnificent heroics with the bat in Australia's first innings? Still yet, Starc, Siddle and Pattinson could all bat. This match was by no means finished yet.

Agar declined to play in the same attacking way he did in his first innings, being very defensive and careful. Perhaps it was to his detriment as he went cheaply, having contributed only 14 runs off 71 balls. Starc, who showed in Perth against South Africa this summer that he could hold his own against quality pace attacks, went for 1. Siddle went for 11 soon after.

This was frustrating. We had blown it again. We had deluded ourselves into thinking the Australian side had any chance in an Ashes series in England, and were about to find out the hard way how wrong we were. Pattinson would go for something measly like 2 or 3 like his fellow tail-enders, and Australia would lose comfortably and anti-climactically by around 80 runs.

But he didn't. Haddin and Pattinson stuck in there, putting runs on the board quite quickly. Cynical resignation turned to a faint glimmer of hope. A faint glimmer turned to a genuine belief that these two could make it. When Anderson, the scourge of the Australian batting order, limped off the field, having seemingly injured himself fielding, genuine belief turned to slightly astonished confidence as we thanked our luck and were ready to see Haddin and Pattinson gobble up these last few runs or so with England's most dangerous bowler out of the picture. Australia looked set to bury the ghost of Edgbaston 2005, comparisons with which were irresistible.

 But he came back on. Bugger. Haddin and Pattinson brought Australia tentatively to fifteen runs to win before the appeal came. It was a desperate, unconvinced, pleading appeal more than anything. Aleem Dar gave it not out, as they expected, but with Australia fifteen runs to victory, why not review it? Alastair Cook threw his protocol to the wind in the hope that hotspot might show some tickle of an edge.

And it did. An inside edge on Haddin's bat that carried to Matt Prior. The viewers watching at home already knew: there was no other explanation for that noise. The England team squealed and punched the air in disbelief at their luck: they had won the First Test - off an overturned decision by DRS. England win by 15 runs.

Summary
What Australia really needed to do in the First Test, to stamp their mark on this series, was not only to win it, but to come in, guns blazing, and utterly overwhelm England, leaving them reeling, dazed and confused about what had just transpired. Australia showed signs of doing this early on in the match with the ball, having dismissed England for a paltry 215, but failed to follow through with the bat. If it weren't for a young nineteen-year old debutant, Australia would have been utterly decimated in this First Test, and may not have recovered to make any impact on the rest of the series.

Australia did well to lose by such a small margin, but Jimmy Anderson won the day with his ten wicket haul. Australia will struggle against him. It is tempting to presume Michael Clarke, Shane Watson, Steve Smith, Chris Rogers will not be as quiet in future Tests as they were in this one, but with Jimmy Anderson, "the magician", spearheading England's attack, it might be a presumption too far. Perhaps the Australian batsman actually did well to hold Jimmy off as they did, and even more comprehensive devastation is ahead?

My tips for the next Test at Lord's: Cowan out, Khawaja in. Starc out, Bird in. Keep Agar at #8.

NOTE: Future match reports probably will not be in this format. This post went on for far longer than I had anticipated.

On Stuart Broad, walking and the DRS

I didn't actually see the Stuart Broad not-out howler last night. I expect I was asleep. But when I woke up and hopped onto Twitter this morning to see how the cricket went, just about every cricket tweeter I follow was going on about this controversial decision of Aleem Dar to give Stuart Broad not out after edging one right into Clarkey's hands. Not only this, but there was heated discussion about Stuart Broad's decision not to walk when Dar gave him not out.

I had my reservations about making a judgment when I read all this, having not actually seen what happened. I tend to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt on walking until the following question is answered: did the batsman actually see the catch? Did he watch the ball into the fielder's hands? Simply put, did the batsman know he was out? I immediately set to finding a video of the incident to have these questions answered.

It was quite stunning. A thicker edge I cannot remember witnessing. A more regulation catch there never was. Only Broad's being clean bowled would have been a more straightforward dismissal. The Aussies shouldn't even have needed to appeal the catch. Yet, he was given not out. You couldn't make it up.

More to the point, Broad's eyes never left the ball: he watched it right off the bat into Clarke's hands. That, for me, finally satisfied me of Broad's guilt. No one can say he didn't know he was out. He should have walked.

Yes, I am one of those "sanctimonious idiots", as Twitter's legsidelizzy calls us, who think a man should walk if he knows he's out. I don't accept the argument that the players should "let the umpires umpire" irregardless of whether they make a decision that is clearly wrong. The umpire isn't the only person on the field who is able to know whether a batsman is out or not - umpires are only human, after all. A batsman who knows he's out, but is given not out by the umpire, has a duty to correct the wrong decision. He has a duty to walk. Not to do so is blatant cheating, plain and simple.

It's the spirit of the game. It's sportsmanship. It's cricket. No, the batsman is not obliged to walk strictly under the rules of the game - he is entitled to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision, and if the umpire gives him not out, he's entitled to stay put under the rules of the game. That still doesn't make it right. This is the gentlemen's game we play. "Cricket" is, or at least once was, synonymous with integrity and fair play. Every time a batsman refuses to walk he compromises the spirit of the game.

And let's not have any of this "we all know an Aussie would have done the same thing" stuff. The argument that it's okay not to walk if you're playing against Australia because everyone knows, obviously, that Aussies never walk, is pathetic, and a pleading excuse at best. I don't think the people who make this plea get it: Stuart Broad refused to walk off a blatant catch. Broad's defenders don't have a moral high ground to stand on; they are defending the indefensible. England are now as much tainted by the stain of non-walking as Australia is.

Of course, this whole incident wouldn't be as much a controversy if Australia had not already used up (wasted) all their reviews. Clarke would have promptly asked for the decision to be reviewed, the DRS would have shown a straightforward edge and catch at first slip, and Broad would have been sent on his merry way with no more questions asked. But Clarke had wasted Australia's last review on a complete non-starter, a review for an LBW off a ball of Pattinson's that was clearly going down leg side.

This incident should really bring home the need to reform the way DRS works. Giving the reviews to the captains encourages the teams to waste their reviews like this, on iffy LBW chances that might (but probably won't) go their way if reviewed, leaving them high and dry when a real howler goes against them. This was the original object of introducing the DRS - to get rid of howlers.

Mark Taylor often mentions his idea which would improve the DRS: to take the decision to review completely out of the hands of the players and to let the third umpire intervene unilaterally, as many times as he wants during the match, if he thinks a decision is wrong. This would get rid of dodgy, time-wasting reviews and let the DRS resume its proper function - that of getting rid of howlers. There's nothing controversial about this; this arrangement is already in place to allow the third umpire to check for no-balls at any time. This would, as they say, let the players get on with playing and the umpires with umpiring.

Spoke too soon...

Re my previous post... it seems I spoke too soon. Who would have thought, having bowled England all out for 232 and 213, New Zealand would go on to lose the Test by 170 runs on the third day...? That was quite a - shall we say spectacular - collapse from the Kiwis. I don't think I've ever seen a more tortuous second innings. By the sixth wicket down I was just pleading for the Poms to put New Zealand out of their misery, having had everything to gain just to be bowled all out for a scrawny 68.

From an Australian perspective, the lessons are clear: fear Stuart Broad and James Anderson, master the moving ball, and don't cock it up. One silver lining, though, is that England failed to make big scores against the New Zealand seamers. We'll have to wait for the next Test at Headingley to see how the England batsmen perform again against the New Zealand bowlers, but the vulnerability the England batsmen showed in this Test should hearten the Australian bowlers.

Thanks, Kiwis

What was supposed to be a warm-up two-Test New Zealand tour has, for England, dampened their confidence ahead of the Ashes. For Australia, it's raised ours. After coming out of a comfortable series win in India, England were expected to roll New Zealand out of the way in two series against the other antipodeans, before triumphing in the Ashes over an embarassed Australia - the glittering ruby atop the trophy of England's cricketing glories. But the underdog Kiwis, like the feisty Jack Russel, have put up a laudable fight, nearly prevailing over England at home, and now frustrating their hopes again at Lord's.

New Zealand have bowled splendidly so far in the First Test at Lord's, revealing the England team's soft spots ahead of the Ashes. A victory in this Test is certainly not off the table. This supporter of the "worst Australian team since 1877" should be heartened to see England being tripped up - indeed, softened up - by the Kiwis, as should all Australian fans. Especially as the Australian Ashes squad is nowhere near as bad as everyone, not least the English, is making it out to be. We have a squadron of skilled pace bowlers, albeit some of them inexperienced in international cricket, who have the capacity to wreak havoc in English conditions. If England's performance in this Test against New Zealand is any indicator, we should have few problems taking wickets. Defending our own will need to be our focus.