91Èȱ¬

Is it just me or did England miss a genuine opportunity to blood some younger seamer talent on this tour. Clearly Harmison no longer warrants a place and picking sidebottom was odd given that swing tends to be harder to come by in the windies.
Any opportunities offered to new squad members in May could be too little, too late with regard to this summer's ashes

A well written and argued blog - and I endorse the view that the England team needs to re-build rather than hope to win the Ashes - perhaps the defeat will moderate expectations and instead of hoping for a win, we can expect an honourable performance against the Aussies. The seeds are there - only a few more things need to be tied down - a good number three and a true strike bowler are the two biggest headaches. The one positive thing in the series was the team looked like a team - sweating blood for the cause. I suspect if you asked Strauss at the beginning of the series if he's rather a win or a forging of a new team spirit, he'd have opted for the latter. Perhaps we should be thinking about the Ashes in Oz in 2010 as a realistic target - but of course, if we beat the Windies in the return, the media will heap expectation on the team that the Ashes are coming home! Ho-hum, c'est la vie!

By the way, why is the Sports Blog Editor not pre-moderated, but the Sports Editor is? Does this suggest something about the respective quality and respect of the two.........

Why has the biggest fault of all in this series been ignored? Strauss's decision not to enforce the follow on in the 3rd Test cost England a certain win, and subsequently the series. The decision to bat for far too long in the same Test was equally indefensible. They were awful decisions to make, with lame reasoning providing scant justification.

So, how can the Strauss / Flower partnership be praised for some inept decision making throughout the series?

England would likely have tied the series at least if they had enforced the follow on, as the Windies would have been a little less defensive in the 4th and especially 5th tests, and people wouldnt be here now trying to achieve the impossible and offer a solution to Englands woes.

Mind you, the biggest farce of all wasnt Strauss's decision making, it was that awful horrendous Review system. I hope we see the back of that, it ruined these games.

A very good Blog again Tom!

I agree with most of your senitments on the blog, Broad will be a very good test bowler and a year or so and a geniune all rounder in a couple of years.

Strauss is doing a very good job as captain. Though maybe his decision making in making declarations can be a bit better, though he probably won't be playing on as flatter track as he has been this series. And his use of the review system was appalling!

I also agree with you abouyt Shah, I have a feeling that Shah's under performance in these tests will lead to the return of Michael Vaughn.

I also think that Jimmy Anderson had a very good series and his performances have been excellent. His bowling yesterday, with Swann, was top notch and hardly gave anything away, considering the amount of runs he went for only a year or so ago shows a huge improvement.

Its just a shame them Aussies have started to motor ominously again!

I think there is actually more cause for encouragement than you suggest. The camp was in dissaray at the start of the series and seems to now be pulling together, although that could also be related to the departure of Flintoff. Jimmy Anderson does not receive the acknowledgement that he deserves for his skill with the reversing ball and should certainly have played in the first test. Harmison now knows that he must produce the goods and get fitter or his England career is over. Bopara has made an important step and as the most talented young batman in the country needs to play so that he can develop. Cooke is capable of big innings if he uses this experience to toughen up mentally and physically. My point is that we could have the basis for a decent young side if the right decisions are made. I was certainly pleased to see that Patel was told in no uncertain terms what was expected of him. the Ashes is not the be all and end all. I would prefer to think of this as the start of some long-term improvement.

@3

With Flintoff injured and Harmison unwell, surely enforcing the follow-on would have let West Indies get some relative easy runs? Just take the singles of the main bowlers and wait for the part-timers to go in (as Harmison and Flintoff would have only had limited participation). We declared leaving ourselves enough time to bowl the West Indies out (the 10th wicket partnership that lasted 36 minutes should have been broken).

We had a couple of chances to force the result (3rd and 5th tests), and had Flintoff been fully fit in the 3rd or playing in the 5th (over Amjad), we surely would have won at least one of those matches.

The reliance on Flintoff is scary though. We could potentially beat the Aussies with him, but will almost certainly lose without him. Not just the balance he brings to the side (because Prior is a great batsmen, while Broad and Swann can bat a bit too), but when you need a wicket, you throw Fred the ball. I think (in English conditions), we need to go 4 seamers + 1 spinner. Freddie, Broad, Anderson and S.Jones for me, with Swann as the spinner. Keep the batting line-up the same (for the Windies) and hope either Shah comes good or Vaughan finds some form for Yorkshire. Then we're in with a shout.

Blaming Strauss for the declarations misses the point that the bowlers still had plenty of time to get all the wickets.

Their collective failure to winkle out the last few despite multiple overs and time being available (36 mins at the last wicket in the 3rd!) was the reason for wins escaping us rather than Strauss. You can blame the pitch rightly to a degree but as said the top teams push through and still win.

I see Botham has been having a right whinge at Strauss as well. Probably just upset that his confident 5-0 England win prediction for the Ashes is looking sillier by the day.

So instead of using two and a bit days to bowl them out comfortably the bowlers are at fault for not being able to remove the dogged tailenders who'se sole intent was to block the ball out to preserve the wickets in the final minutes and therefore the bowlers were to blame, and the decision by Strauss was justified.

You're sharing Strauss's illogical logic!!!!

I did state in an earlier blog that I did not see Shah as replacement for Bell at 3, and he has gone and proved me right.
For all those that are suggesting Vaughan please just take one look at his age!
Might as well be as negative as possible with the current situation and just leave Bell there to struggle and average 50 or 60 against the weak teams and 20/30 against the better teams, at least at the end of his career he will average 40 in test cricket which isn't the world's worst return!

Then England have the issue of the all-rounder spot, very brave move batting Prior at 6, it did work this time but would this type of bold move work against Australia, India, Sri-Lanka or South Africa. Freddie is much needed, either that or Ravi finds another 10mph magically from somewhere, which is not going to happen!

Then last but quite painfully most obvious is the bowling attack. Broad has to play it is as simple as that, he is a decent bowler at best, but he needs to play to have the balance of a number 8 batsman, in my eyes after this series Swann has to play as well, and he to is a handy batsman especially at 9. Everyone is talking about Rashid coming into the team, but I think give Swann a season to really prove his worth if he does not, then Rashid has had another year's experience and hopefully an England Lions tour behind him. Perhaps it is unfair to completly discard Monty from the spin bowling but with England's batting line up and hopefully with Freddie at 6 someone who averages 30+ with the ball and about 5 with the bat in tests in my eyes has to be discarded at this present time. Then it comes down to the next two seamers, Amjad was a very bold choice as Darren Pattinson, but these are two bowlers obviously not good enough for Test cricket. I think Mark Davies has to be given a go in the early tests, he constantly takes wickets at first class standard and was top of the bowling averages last year. I personally don't think Anderson is good enough half the time well three quarters of the time. Sidebottom was good but is far too injury prone, perhaps Hoggy should be given one last go, as he has Ashes experience as well. Hamison should be discarded until he shows he can have fire in his belly again. I hope Simon Jones is also fit if he is he has to be picked.

Here is my perfect team for the Ashes:

Strauss (c)
Cook
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Freddie
Prior
Broad
Swann
Jones
Hoggy

A excellent article and I agree with it in some parts and not others.

Strauss batted well but should have declared earlier, I'm not convinced.

Shah nah sorry MV back or need to look elsewehre, same for Bell who I have always had my doubts.

Broad coming on but he needs to step up now, I can't buy his still developing. hes 22 now.

Harminson and Sidebottom thanks boys for the memories here's your P45's

Freddie get back soon.

Prior, will allow for poor wicket keeping for once.

KP, Colly, Cook no problem.

Can we find a bowling attack that can take 20 wickets, I'm nore sure. Rashid needs a go, Monty is losing it and we need variety.

Finally, beware Aussies are coming good and have rebuilt.

A very good article. Didn't see the game as only listened to TMS as no Sky, but if Prior's keeping is not up to standard could he not fill the number 3 spot and put another keeper in at 7 (Ambrose/Foster/Davies?) Then, if we need teams for one off tests again he is still around, or can play as wk if there is an injury.

All this depends of course on whether Freddie is a) fit and b) still good enough to bat at 6, otherwise I think Prior needs to stay behind the stumps and bat at 6, Broad is more than capable at number 7.

I think you are all under the illusion that this England team can do something.
The pitches were ok and I feel that if either side had half decent bowlers then the results would have been different.
Jerome Taylor showed at Sabina Park, which was another very good batting wicket, what could be done if you bowl consistently well on these types of tracks. Unfortunately neither England or the West Indies have bowlers of the calibre of Dale Steyn, Mitchell Johnson, Zaheer Khan or Ishant Sharma. All of whom in the past twelve months have won a number of series' for their respective countries on flat batting tracks!
Jimmy Anderson was the best of the lot and hopefully it won't be a flash in the pan with him, but I can't help feel he is very inconsistent.

This article was a really good read.

In the tests after the shambles at Sabina Park we showed that we having the batting capacity to put runs on the board especially after the summer and the tour to India.

What I can't understand is that people tend to forget Plunkett. Now he is exactly the same as anderson but better with the bat, I mean there were numerous times I saw in the county championship where he got runs batting at 8/9. When we won the ashes in 2005 we had two seamers that used height and bounce Harmison and Flintoff and we used two seamers that swung it in Jones and Hoggard. I think if we were to have Broad Plunkett and Anderson give them the tests in May to gel, all three can bat aswell and have Flintoff and Swann Playing either side of Prior or hopefully foster as his glove work is better than Priors.

At number three Shah had his chance so did Bell, I think we should have someone like Key or Sayers in there just to see us through patchy spells as they play moderately and can also be aggressive when needs be. I personally think we shouldn't have collingwood in the test side and keep him fresher for ODI's when he can play like he has done in the test series.

My Personal XI

Strauss (C)
Cook
Sayers
Peitersen
Bell
Flintoff
Foster (WK)
Swann
Broad
Plunkett
Anderson

I disagree entirely with everything Wiggleswanderer says in 3. Classic hindsight punditry in my opinion.

Not enforcing the follow on in the 3rd test was widely accepted because his bowling attack was not fit.

Strauss didn't bat too long - the reason so few run chases are made is because difficult targets are set. If captains declared earlier many more would be made.

The review system needs some fine tuning but the problem has been in interpretation of the procedures, the accuracy of decisions was significantly improved.

With two overly cautious, negative declarations in Antigua and Trinidad probably costing England two test victories, am I alone in thinking that a full time appointment of Flower as coach wouldn't bode well for making the most of future match winning opportunities. And why oh why was a nightwatchman sent in to bat at the ARG when England were effectively 300-1 and needing quick runs.

Time for the following to take a season in county cricket to prove that they deserve to return as better players - Bell, Shah, Panesar & Harmison. Sidebottom needs to get fit and Rashid's not quite ready yet.

Good to see the Windies at last showing some backbone and they, rather than England, stood up at crucial times during the series.

Can't agree with the criticism of Stauss over the declaration. Half and hour earlier would only have won the game if the Windies had still collapsed. As they would be chasing less than 3 an over a focus on winning rather than a draw would have taken over. I think it was the acceptance of the later that got them into trouble. Lets face it, a Captain who declared giving the opposition 70+ overs to score 210 would be crucified.
The real issue is converting winning opportunities. Twice this series England were on the cusp of winning and twice failed to achieve it. Thinking back to our last decent series - Ashes 2005 - that series was decided with the late dismissal of Lee to win second test when it looked as though the combination of he and Warne would see Aussies through. Compare that to the failure to dismiss 10th wicket partnership in third test here. Series and the standing of teams are decided by such things. If Lee had brought the Aussies home the 2005 Ashes would have been a stroll for them. Instead....
So we can't convert winning positions, perhaps because our bowling remains average. Might have taken more wickets than the Windies but I still doubt our capability to take the 15 wickets a match that brings the winning line into sight on a regular enough basis.
Finally, very depressing to watch the Aussies win in South Africa. Not jsut the win but the manner of it. Agressive, smart, brave. how come it takes us years to rebuild while they can do it between back to back series?! Sheffield Shield I expect.

Despite the batting collapse that did for us in Jamaica, there have been a number of matches recently (as I'm sure I do not have to remind anyone) where we have built up a strong 1st innings lead and failed to win. This is down to the most feeble English attack that we have seen for years.

I find it hard to criticise the lads that are in the team (better try some faint praise: Anderson is erratic, but threatening; Broad is young and full of bounce; Swann's come up trumps, etc, etc.) but not one of them is a match winner in the way that Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff have been in previous years (I can't see Flintoff playing injury-free through an ashes summer anymore).

In the absence of top talent at the top of it's game, our team will have to try and win with spirit, guile and determination. I can't see this psychological sea-change happening in time for the summer.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is tired of thinking "only England could lose from here".

The Antigua decisions were influenced by the limited amount of fit bowlers. In Trinidad however Strauss should have declared earlier to give his bowlers more time to take the wickets. Psychologically it took some pressure of WI knowing they only had to hold out for 2 sessions. An extra 20 minutes batting before Lunch might have put more pressure on them. Also the lower target would have meant they didn't put up the shutters quite so soon.

@ #13:

Afternoon Joe,

Having a good day?!?!

Firsty..I personally think the worst mistake was made before the tour started... Dropping Pietersen as captain AND getting rid of Moores.
They may aswell have kept Pietersen as captain!?? I believe that with Kevin as captain the declerations would of come alot earlier!!

And all the peeing about with the team is a farce! Whats happened to Mahmood,Plunkett, Tremlett all these promising youngsters we had? Harmison may aswell stay at Durham now hes not cut out for all the travelling etc. Why pick the likes of Amjad Khan and Pattison in the previous series? There rubbish!!

So what do we do, Bring in Ravi Bopara, Brillian young player. He gets a century and we DROP him!!!!

Nothing makes sense!!

I really can't stand the amount of people who like to be wise after the event. In Antigua Strauss did not enforce the follow on because Flintoff was injured and Harmison was sick, so he did the logical thing and batted again so as to give the bowlers a chance to rest and recover. The only thing he can be criticised for there, was the fact that they sent out the night watchmen on the 4th evening. Even so, it was only because of the rain the following morning that we lost about 10 overs at the Windies on the last evening, had we had those overs im fairly convinced that we would have taken the last wicket. The same can be said of the last match, maybe an extra 15 minutes would have made the difference, but no total would have made the Windies go for it. People are only annoyed because England bowled so well and got them 8 down (hence very close to winning), had England set the Windies 150 and taken only 5 wickets no one would be complaining (and i can't emphasise enough, despite the spinning pitch, how well we did bowl on the last day). England lost the series because of one crazy session in Jamaica where they let themselves down, they reacted brilliantly though and on benign wickets were unlucky not to come back from that first test and win the series. STOP complaining, Strauss has done a brilliant job, we are not as good as everyone wants to believe we are and a captain is only ever as good as his bowlers make him.

If Prior is so woeful with the gloves as many say he is, i think hes ok just had a shocking test as keeper. Why don't we play him as just a batsman at #6 and have a better wicketkeeper at 7? with Flintoff at 8 (long gone have his days of being a quality alrounder) Flintoff possess the bowling ability but his batting ability has long deserted him, put him at 8 as a bowler who can bat a bit.

possible side for windies return tour:

Strauss
Cook
Bopara (i think he has the ability to bat at 3, and given we have tried shah and bell there he warrants a chance)
Pieterson
Collingwood
Prior
Another wicket keeper (Ambrose maybe or Foster)
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson


Benifit of that side is bowling looks better with Flintoff back, he can concentrate on bowling as hes not batting at 6 anymore. And if we need to change it for another bowler/Batsman then you replace either of the two Wicket keepers and play the Genuine batter or bowler.

Just my two thoughts, and just a last point SA play this style aswell Boucher and De Villiers can both keep wicket. and go with 4 bowlers

Re: 6andout - and others who defends the decisions in the the 3rd Test

Its hardly hindsight if its points that are raised at the time. There was split opinion on whether right or wrong decision in the media. The decision based around Harmison being tired and poorly from the sunshine, and flintoff having a bad hip.

Given they had about 20 odd overs remaining that day, they could have been split between Broad, Anderson and Swann without much problem.

By batting again, it only served to use up a further session and a half of the next day too, at which point Harmison was back bowling again, as he could have done first thing if England were fielding, not batting, and Flintoff was still injured as they knew he would be anyway.

The reasons to bat again far outweighed the decisions to field - and the proof is that England contrived not to win a match that was won almost by the halfway point.

As it was England dawdled with the bat and then batted too long for too many runs - another very bad decision

The two big decisions Strauss made were over cautious, Strauss gambled and got it wrong, it lost England the game, and probably the series.

Yet "Strauss could not have looked more comfortable as a Test captain"

just a thought - why cant KP bat at three?

Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Shah / Bopara
Collingwood
Prior
Swann
Flintoff
Broad
Tremlett
Anderson

If Freddies injured id play Mascarenhas - never gets a look in -



check out his first class stats and let me know why its such a bad idea!

I think a number of people on here are pretty deluded that England are a decent side when as much as it pains me to admit it they are at present a very average side. I believe this issue of central contracts is in part responsible for the lack of cutting edge and mental strength. Central contracts were Duncan Fletchers baby but with him no longer deciding when and where players play it seem they are deciding for themselves at the expense of the national side. I think once again England need a strong coach and I dont think Andy Flower is the answer. with regards to short term changes to the side Harrimison has to go for good I would also like to see Rob Key given another go at no.3. Unfortunately we all know what will happen Bell will go back make a few runs and Harmie will be given another go and we will loose the ashes...

"Nearly-men" sums it all up. Dump the lot and bring some enthusiastic real men in.

I think you are well mistaken over the Strauss captaincy Tom. Yes he can bat but his decision making is poor and his authority limited. You should never have as captain someone you would want to have a beer with. The captain needs a ruthlessness and dare I say nastiness to suceed. Look at Vaughan and Hussein natural determined leaders and nobodies chump. Pietersen had that cool arogance, that determination to win but was let down by the clowns behind the scene. At the end of the day Strauss only ever went out there with the intention of holding the fort and drawing the series, the guy nice as he is, is no leader. Ricky Ponting will eat him alive.

For me the test series (bar the 1st test with a new captain) was encouraging. Yes, nearly but not quite in 3 of the test matches, but the Windies played for a draw as soon as theyd taken the lead in the series, and on pitches as flat as these it would be near impossible to get a batsman out who just defended. I think the players can take heart from this and we need to build over the next few months till the ashes. If we have batsmen in form then theres always a chance. If Collingwood, Strauss, Cook and KP are all playing well then it would be a headache for any bowling attack. Anderson and Broad need to take a step up to the next level to be considered great bowlers. Flintoff is a must, and if (a very big if) Simon ones could get fit and playing anything like he was a few years ago, that would be an option with considering for any side.

Good blog- but lets have a moment of honest reflection. English cricket has brought itself into disrepute to the detriment of the game and the teams subsequent performances.

Lords was once a beacon of all that is good and wholesome in the game. Now our decision makers are not custodians but base defilers and swindlers who put money before sporting performance. Those who aquiesed in the Stanford scandal would resign if they had any honour.

From a sporting perspective KP and Fred before him should never have been made captain- look at what happened when Botham briefly took the reins- such talented individuals do not carry the burden of leadership well. Their appointments were prompted by the popular clamour- following Vaughn's unfortunate demise the job should have stayed with Strauss, who achieved one of those rare series wins against Pakistan.

In the light of negligence from senior managment and countless off the field distractions it is not surprising that England, who had the better 11 on paper, lost to the Windies.

One can only hope that there will be some sober reflection and a swift realisation that international cricket is not a circus. Australia will beat England unless some first rate strike bowlers can be conjured from somewhere- but at least we can count on Strauss to lead the boys over the top with a bit of spirit.

Rant over.

We should not let unnecessary distractions such as the ineptitude of the umpiring and the furore sorrounding the review system cloud our judgement. Strauss may well turn out to be a good captain given time, but unless he dispenses with the overly-cautious approach, England will continue to slide down the ICC rankings. Whilst there is some promise in the batting department (get Bopara in asap), the bowling is short of pace and bounce. The Australian batsmen will be licking their lips at the prospect of facing such a mediocre attack.

robbo277.. agree with your team broadly, you could say i am living in past with vaughan in there and hoping against hope with jones but here goes:

strauss
cook
vaughan
pietersen
collingwood
prior
flintoff
broad
swann
jones
anderson

for me, shah is too old to be at level he is currently at - still tense and nervous a la ramps except not a no.3 anyway. bell will come again and if he gets off to a flyer while vaughan stutters then i'd go with him. key has technical flaws that limit him and bopara is a 5 or 6 who you couldnt have walking out at 0/1 in ashes..

swann is no world-beater but throws us back to giles days - he can contribute and is mentally tough and panesar is not that much better than him to justify selection.

prior - well only a fool would have no reservations about his glovework but he is in XI as a batsman on merit.. to drop a bowler / batsman just to accommodate another keeper because he is that incompetent would be a very bold statement.

the quicks - broad and flintoff give good balance and would be in most teams. anderson is bowling so much better than the stats and i believe he'll get the reward for the hard overs come the summer. jones is a punt.. totally depends how he starts season but i'm an old romantic.

Re #24:

You could be on the selection board with the idea of Mascharenas, crazy ideas like Amjad and Pattinson.... bet they looked like good ideas as well!

Predicition for the ashes with a fully fit Freddie and Simon Jones 2-1 England

Without them 3-0 Auz

Chances of them both being fit for all five matches very low to zero!

Fully agree with wigglesWanderers. Non enforcement of the follow-on at Antigua lost
the series. My own reading of the team:-

Cook Worth his place
Strauss Good Opener - far too con-
servative as Captain
KP World Class, arrogant (just what
we need) but prone to rushes of
blood
Collingwood Well worth his place - plays above
himself. Superb in field
Prior Ok batting, lousy wicketkeeper
Broad Lot to learn but showing improve-
ment
Swann Worth his place
Anderton Stands out in a very limited
attack
Khan Thanks but no thanks
Panaser Opposition have him worked
out - no variation
Sidebottom Committed but not fit
Harmison Not committed and not fit
(about as much use as
Newcastle United
Flintoff Finished
Vaughan Forget him

I agree with others that this is a good article. I also agree with those contributors who do not place the majority of the "blame" for not winning the series with Strauss, clearly he was hampered by lacking the bowling he needed by a combination of injury / illness and poor selection in my view.

My overall comments would be that we have the following fundamental issues;
1. The balance of the side is not right when Flintoff is not fit, this is made worse by...
2. We do not have ideal keeper / batsman. Prior is fine with the bat but not with the gloves, we need to prioritise to achieve the right balance.
3. We don't have the right balance at the top of the batting order. Strauss and Cook are both good players but they are similar, we need an aggressive player who will take on the bowling early on. As one contributor has suggested one possible soution is to move KP up to number 3, alternatively I would go for Key.
4. We do not have the bowlers who can consistently take wickets on flat pitches, again particularly when Flintoff is not fit. In this series Anderson, Broad and particulrly Swann have all shown encouraging signs but now need to consistently deliver.

For me what we have to learn most from Australia is that when we chose a player, particularly a new one, they must be mentally tough. Sometimes we do get this right, sometimes we do not, note the contrasting fortunes of Shah and Bopora who are not technically much different but mentally miles apart. We must learn from Australia's recent resurgence which I have no doubt is connected to selecting new players who have the right mental strength.

Just a note in the defence of Shah. He has been given an 'extended run of 3 games' in which he scored a very fine 50 in one of them (i know he very stupidly ran himself out). His running is poor accepted, but for people to say he looks nervous at the crease are missing the point. Anyone who has watched him play over the years for Middlesex would know that that is how he always looks and he has ALWAYS scored loads of runs. He has also been one of most consistent batsmen in the OD team. How can people already get on his back, he should have got into the team ages ago but was overlooked, now he finally gets in and people just want to get on his back. Leave him for 10 tests (or 60 if you are most Eng players that seem to get away with it) and analyse it then. He probably isn't a natural Test 3 but give him a chance. Its pathetic people getting on at him, just heaps more unnecessary pressure on him.

Hindsight within sport is a wonderful thing. Will an England captain ever get anything right? Apparently, Strauss should definately have enforced the follow on in Antigua and he should definately have declared earlier, twice. The entire reason England lost the series was his fault.

But, playing devils advocate for a moment, imagine this: Strauss enforces the follow on in Antigua. With a half fit attack on a wicket which England had already scored 566 on, West Indies make a much better effort second time around and close out the game for a draw. What was Strauss thinking?
In Trinidad, suppose Strauss had declared 10 overs earlier, leaving West Indies needing 200 off 70 overs. Sarwan hits another century and Chanderpaul finishes not out as the West Indies wrap up the series 2-0. Why did Strauss leave the West Indies such an easy chase on such a flat wicket? This loss is surely all his fault!

Blaming the captain, particularly after 3 centuries in the series is not only naive, but is completely missing the point. Given the same scenarios England faced in this series, would India, South Africa or Australia have still lost 1-0? Would Steyn or Johnson have allowed Powell and Edwards to survive for 36 minutes? The problem England have, particularly without Flintoff in the side is the bowling attack lacks the ruthlessness that the top teams all have; The ability to win games from difficult situations. Until that is rectified, England will continue to struggle.

So, at the end of the series what have the England selectors learned? Not a whole lot. There is still a vacancy sign hanging over the number 3 position, Prior continues to delight and exasperate with his batting and keeping, whilst Broad is still an extremely promising test match bowler. If they didn't know before, this series will only strengthen the belief of how much this England side over relies on Andrew Flintoff.
With the Ashes on the horizon, one can't help but feel that unless England manage to concoct a winning formula from somewhere, they may be staring another 5-0 whitewash full in the face.

I think the team at the momment are lacking the winning mentality. To change this i would go back to vaughan to bat at 3 again. As long as, he has a couple of good knocks for Yorkshire he will be fine for England and the aussies rate him. The other player i would bring back is Simon Jones, what we have missed in the last couple of matches is someone with serious pace and thats what Jones provide as long as he is fit. For us to win the ashes we also need Freddie to be fit and firing and would have rested him and not bring him back for the ODI and get him ready for home test series. If we can get all this correct we have a really good chance of getting the ashes back.

I think we need to remember the shambles that England were in leading up to this series. Strauss took the job on without an official coach to support him. No one expected the Windies to be so tough mentally with their recent history, and good on them. We could learn something from that.
I have not been happy with some of Strauss's captaincy, but believe he is still the best man for the job. I like the way he has weedled out some of the underperformers from a squad selected before he was captain.
To go the whole winter without a win is a complete horror story. Let's hope the ECB get some firm ideas from Strauss and Flower about how to go about changing that if/when they are confirmed as the main men for the job. The signs are that they are not afraid of tough decisions, and that seems to be what is required.

While the England "bowling attack" has at times seemed an oxymoron, the key problems are bowling accuracy and movement. In England, a fit sidebottom and flintoff will provide a more cutting edge. For years I have seen the english bowlers consistently too short of a good length, and this problem persists. If Hoggard were fit then with his accuracy and movement, sidebottom and flintoff and swann, we need to see panesar varying far more his trade. But, we need one accurate fast strike blower to accompany fintoff - and they are rare in England. Dump prior for the best keeper - Ambrose showed potential.

Strauss shows the signs of a true captain - his performances are better when captain, so he should retain the job for years to come if the selectors give him time. He could be the best since Mike Brearley. And if Vaughan starts scoring he has the no3 spot to claim.

What Ian Botham and others seem to have forgotten is that if the team batting last scores enough runs to win, the game stops. There's no point at all in giving yourself enough time to bowl your opponents out if you also give them more than enough time to score the runs.

The challenge for Strauss yesterday was to time the declaration to leave West Indies a small enough score for them to try and risk going for it, but not so small that they could go for it without taking a risk. That, self-appointed hindsight geniuses was not an easy call. As it turned out, there was probably never any chance of them taking any risk at all and, yes, he maybe should have given himself an extra half hour, but to begave as if that was the reason England lost the series is, frankly, infantile.

In fact, when England declared, given the pitch we'd had, most people probably expected the reply to peter out at about 150 for 3. Anyone who thinks that some excellent bowling by Anderson and Swann in particular that enabled England to exceed all expectations should be used as stick with which to beat the captain is, as I said, a self-appointed genius of hindsight. But nothing more.

One blogger said it would have been silly for Strauss to declare leaving 70 overs to score 200 runs or so. Why ? England had to win the match to draw the series and if they were going to lose the series it didn't matter if they lost it 1 - 0 or 2 - 0.

I'm not sure what Strauss did to deserve such praise from you? So the the team looked like they were sweating blood to win matches? Hardly an endorsement of a galvanised dressing room as it wasn't exactly fractious and disaffected under Pietersen.

It probably had more to do with the fact they were losing to a team they thought they should be able to dominate but had the temerity to win the first test match.

They strived to bowl out the WI in spite of Strauss's ultra cautious and lame declaring policy.

So he scored three of the seventeen centuries scored between the two very average sides? The pitches were incredibly batsmen friendly and the bowling even more so (with the notably admiral Edwards the exception).

England,and especially Strauss,need to be more decisive and positive so they can dictate matters rather than react to situations once they go awry. If you can't declare with any confidence against the WIndies when are you gpoing to?

Looking for the killer instinct in an Englishman is like looking for... well, you get the idea. The Aussies have it. We don't.

okay fair enough england played well below par, and didnt deserve to win imo, but what alot of people forget they played on 4 extremely flat pitches whereby it was always going to be a draw from the outset, bar the first test they played decent, but another big problem is the continued reliance on flintoff, we cant keep expecting him to produce wonders and monty really starting to cheese me off, whats with all the appeals it not right he needs to start bowling again get some overs then see, the batting doesnt seem like the problem this time, the number 3 slot can be debated but im not really sure who i would want to put there but the bowling is the biggest problem imo they need to sort it out and fairly quickly...they could try simon jones?? who knows but overall i think the series was okay but congrats to the west indies on winning the series!!

Re: Your request for predictions, Tom.

If the weather is good, then I'll side with Ben Dirs: 3-1 to Australia.

If the summer is not a good one, then I predict 2-0 or 3-0 to Australia, as they will be able to win tests in 4 days or less.
England will need 5 days to win a test.

Robbo277 (#3) has it dead right.

Andrew Strauss was faced with a West Indian side that lost its last wicket some 15 overs from the end of a long, hot day, when he had:

Harmison vomiting,

Flintoff injured and sick,

Swann feeling his elbow injury badly

Had the West Indians been all out 5 overs later, with only a short new ball stint in the evening and a night to recover for his attack, he might have taken a chance on it. Had he known that he'd have 5 overs and then a night's rest and a second go with a new ball, he would certainly have enforced the follow-on. As it was, he had just two fit potential new ball bowlers, both of whom had had a lot of overs and who would have needed to continue for another hour. The attack was on its knees and with Chris Gayle opening, the probable consequence would have been a Sehwag-like counterattack and a potentially dangerous 4th innings on an uncertain pitch.

To say that he made a mistake not enforcing the follow-on is to be willfully obtuse. You do NOT expose your bowlers to the best part of 3 days in the field when only two of them are fit and the one that you hope will bowl most overs is struggling badly with a long-term injury!

Lumpystevens (#42) you make a declaration that gives you some option to win. You do not make one that hands the match to the opposition on a platter. Chasing 200 in 70 overs the West Indies would have won by 7 or 8 wickets soon after tea because the pressure on them would have been a big, fat, round ZERO.

Strauss' declaration was near perfect, especially bearing in mind that he avoided losing 2 overs between innings by declaring at lunch. Where he may have missed a trick was not bowling the overs faster so that they got in more by the 6pm cut-off.

Re: Lumpystevens (#41) Note the use of the word 'apparently'. I didn't seriously suggest that Strauss cost the series, it was a reference to the people who appear too quick to suggest where England and Strauss went wrong, using hindsight to say what should have been done without seriously considering whether alternative decisions would have been any more favourable.
I don't believe not enforcing the follow-on, or the timing of declarations cost England the series. Overall, Strauss got most of the key decisions right over the course of the series, but his hand was largely tied by flat pitches and a bowling unit that often lacked penetration.

As for yesterday's declaration, I can't imagine anyone thought England had any chance of bowling the West Indies out whether it was in 50, 60 or 70 overs. If West Indies had finished, as you suggested at 150-3 no one would even have mentioned the declaration.

Perhaps before you use the word 'infantile' again, you should perhaps learn to read, and understand the context.

One thing that strikes me as peculiar is the apparently universal theory that it doesn't matter at all if you lose a series 1-0 or 2-0. If test cricket is to have any meaning, every match should have a value. I don't know whether the test match table gives any value for margin of victory, but it should. Otherwise, cricket might as well follow the lead of American sports such as baseball where the series immediately stops if one team gets an insurmountable lead. It's not fair to the paying public to have games that have no meaning.

I agree with you, RodStark (#50).

I also agree with the declarations that Strauss made.

In the last test, in an attempt to win, he made what should have been a losing declaration.
That the result fell between losing and winning is, I think, evidence of his good judgement.

....And how great is it to have a captain making centuries again?

I blame Strauss for England's defeat in this series. It was foolish to bat first in Trinidad after winning the toss with the knowledge that taking 20 wickets will need maximum time. England should have sent West Indies into bat first.

Also Strauss declaration time was an error that cost England the series.

Strauss lacked strategy when strategy was needed to create the pressure that almost resulted in victories in Trinidad and Antigua.

England needs to play more aggressive cricket to be a force in World cricket.

On the otherhand Chris Gayle is the best captain West Indies had since Clive Lloyd. Gayle is a strategist which is helping the team stick together like glue even when they are still sub-par. Gayle has a winning mind and that goes a long way to creating success and selling success to a determined team.

The concern is that for all Prior's brilliance with the bat, would he get in the side as a specialist batsman? I think the answer is a simple no. His atrocious wicket-keeping - let's be honest here - sets the tone when the team is fielding. It's not just the embarassing number of byes, but the catches that go down such as the Chanderpaul mistake.

England are struggling with getting teams out - not the batting - and I think thought needs to be given as to how we achieve that. The first step has to be a keeper who can keep! Either Ambrose or Foster is a must make replacement.

Much as I like Ian Bell, I think Shah deserves a little longer even if he does resemble a rabbit caught in the headlights of a fast approaching Hummer. This is mostly because I don't see anyone battering the door down from county cricket the way KP was in 2005.

2 areas concern me : #3 position and the timidity of Strauss's declarations. The answer to both lies in the immediate reinstatement of Rob Key to the number 3 slot where he has scored good runs against Australia before. Rob is also one of the most creative and attacking captains in the country and I am sure would not have allowed Jimmy Anderson to go in as night watchman and therefore hold up progress and more importantly would have declared 30 mins before lunch in the last test (as I would have done as an experienced captain) to give my bowlers 2 goes with the new ball and really throw down the gauntlet. Rob can give Strauss some genuine captaincy advice based on many years experience.
No-one in the media seems to have identified who is behind the timid declarations that Strauss made twice in the series - indeed it is a feature of England's lack of ambition over the last few years.

England treat Ashes as a 3rd division team would treat FA cup. The odd chance of glory.

That's because the English team isn't good enough to challenge other test playing countries, they wait for their one shot at winning something significant. One the one occasion that they did win the Ashes after decades, it followed big song and dance - as a Div 3 team would.

Not only it demeans the series' they play against other test playing countries, it also takes the emphasis shamelessly away from their poor performances. And it's not just the players who have a vested interest in deflecting critique, it's all the pundits (this blog owner, agnew et al, former players who haven't won a jot) who partake in this.

The worst part of all is, Australia doesn't treat this as that big a deal. To them SA, India and even Sri Lanka are more formidable propositions. It does however become bigger as Ashes come near for 2 reasons: because it's the next series anyway and because they make a lot of money out of hyping the series, which the Aussies have never known to put above much else.

You just lost to the West Indies - accept it! You have a below average team, and even if you win the ashes, it will just be one series.

The problem, as we all know really, is that our bowling attack is without bite. We don't have any frontline pacemen or a dangerous spinner. And it's not a new problem- look at the top wicket takers for all the other nations. Every single one - apart from bangladesh and zimbabwe - have at least one bowler who's taken at least 400 wickets. In the whole history of the game, EASILY our top man is Botham, with 383 - miles ahead of willis on 325. Why is this? Why can our bowlers only sustain themselves for a few seasons before they break down, or have a catastrophic loss of form? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd be really interested in any answers anyone can suggest. Right now I can see the selectors' dilemma - I can't think of anyone obvious to bring in to the team, to be honest.

I feel England can match the Aussies in the spin department (or perhaps may edge it if Rashid has a good early summer). Why not prepare turning pitches.

The Aussies have the greater depth in pace bowling so lets nullify that threat and play two out of Panesar, Swann and Rashid. They never expected the Spanish inquisition!

Any idea why Chris Tremlett didn't make the tour? He's a dangerous bowler and was playing consistently when he got a run in the team. Perhaps it's his injury record. I certainly think he's a bigger threat than Harmison or Khan. With his height he could pose the Aussies problems. Harmison's halcyon days unfortunately seem to be well behind him.

Of the rest, Charlie Shreck's consistently taken wickets over the past 2 seasons, and done well with the Lions. He must be knocking at the door. Surprising that Khan got an opportunity before he did.