Ashes remembered

The Ashes lived upto their promise fantastically - it was not for vain that I waited for two years how Australia would fare against a full-strength English team. And England has won hands down.

All the matches were very hard fought, and Australia ran England to the close in three of the five matches. It could have been easily 2-1 for the Aussies had not Kasprowicz run into a Flintoff bouncer, and could have been 3-1 for the Poms had not rain stifled out a certain English victory in the third Test match. So everything was always intriguingly poised. Yet I feel that England were and came out more superior than the results show.

Australia were without McGrath in two of the matches, two that they lost, and also McGrath probably not at the top of his pace in the third and fifth matches. But then McGrath is not getting younger, and its a worry now for arrogant Australians to find somebody quick quick. "Arrogant" I say here since not long ago Australians used to follow rotation policies in one-dayers, thus implying to other teams that their bench strength was also better than other teams playing elevens. The real trump for Aussies was Warney again , but more importantly not due much to his magic as to the psychological hold that he possesses over England, even though half the players of the English team were playing for the first time against Australia. The only magic that he could really bring into the game was occasional bowls to left-handers outside their off-stump with the ball pitching on the rough and zipping into the batsman almost at right angles, the ones that used to get Strauss out. Rest was all bluff, and pity that the English succumbed to it. And still they won! Whoa!

England's main problems were simply a how-did-he-come-in-the-side Ian Bell and the lack of zip from Harmison ( and Hoggard's slumbering form for much of the series). Bell was simply boring, frustrating, liable to get out any time, very slow and thus liable to break the momentum of all other batsmen (maybe not Hoggard) , and to top it all having no clues to any of the bowlers, least of all to Warne. In fact when he used to get out , I used to be happy mostly since otherwise I feared that he will break the momentum of others. If Butcher and Key were unavailable, maybe Solanki should have been tried instead of Bell or somebody young,raw and exciting from a county side.

To talk of others, Geraint Jones probably was the most abused of all, but his courageous batting was refreshing . Still will have to bat for a lot more time on the field to make up for his certain lapses on the field. Pietersen was too arrogant, and usually paid the price of it, but his batting's brilliant. Hope he remains level-headed and does not go too much the way of becoming a fashion icon( if he wants to, then he better look up Sharapova instead of Kournikova).

England has come out with a lot of positives out of this encounter, I feel. First, the confidence that they have after beating the Aussies will make them feel that they can do anything hereafter. And they can do it, provided they remain level-headed and most of the unit remains reasonably fit, especially Flintoff and Simon Jones. Talking of the latter, he is now maturing fast and in two years time could be the most dangerous bowler in contemporary cricket, provided of course he does not tread on balls and jump on boundary boards ( maybe not keep him standing near boundaries would be an option !!!) Strauss's game will improve much, especially after having coped with Warney against whom he was much at sea yet kept bravely trying to read and defy him. Flintoff continues to be par excellence , and Vaughan may come back into form after a very long time. Trescothick will have to learn keeping level-headed and not go to soft dismissals, and Harmison a little more of Flintoff's zest in everything on the field.

Lastly, if only Geraint Jones would improve his wicket-keeping skills...