SECOND TEST, DAY FIVE

E-mail this Article

Print this Article

Subscribe to RSS Feed

A familiar England collapse on day five.

1647 How the hell did that happen?

I've left a good 14 hours or so since the result filtered into my groggy brain to reflect on England's defeat, as if I'd done it any earlier it may well have descended into a suicide note.

Make no mistake, England lost this match rather than Australia winning it. No matter how much Fletcher and Flintoff try to insist that Warne and Lee bowled brilliantly, this was a collapse of 90s proportions by England.

All throughout the leadership days of Atherton, Stewart and some of Hussain's we were wearily used to this - thousands of us left scratching out heads wondering 'how on earth did we lose that?' Incidentally, any criticism for the current side from Atherton et al - now pundits, and largely Ashes-less wonders - will be extremely difficult to take for the current side.

Are those days back again? Are we destined for another decade of depressing inevitability? Given the talent of the side, logic suggests not, but it is hard to be anything other than crushingly pessimistic about England's chances after that debacle.

The Ashes are gone, undoubtedly. If a 2-0 win didn't finish the side off, then the demoralising nature of this defeat will leave them shell-shocked in the coming week as they head west to Perth. England's team psychologist will earn his money and then some.Nick Miller

0800: Can England bounce back from this humiliating defeat? Common sense and history suggests not. Only one team has ever come back from 2-0 to win a five-match series, and even though England need only a drawn series, there's just no possible way they can bounce back from this impossibly limp showing.
For a result on the final day, England had to play dreadfully and Australia had to be spectacular.
Both duly happened, and there's a week before the next Test for the recrimanations and post-mortem.
Public enem,y number one remains Ashley Giles, who has been woefully ineffective with the ball, and here threw away a perfect chance to make a useful 20 or 30 which would have saved the game.
But there are other question marks. England were three overs away from saving this match, and if they'd just been a bit busier with the bat the game would have been safe.
Even another 20 runs in the morning session would have saved this Test. However well the Aussies bowled, 50 runs a session is surely not to much too ask.
As it was, 168 should have provided a far tougher task for Australia than it did as all the England bowlers failed to find any of the control of their counterparts i nthe Baggy Green.
Just thank God Australia didn't pick Mike Hussey in the last Ashes series so that we at least got 18 months with the urn. DT

0300: After a disastrous morning session, England's whole Ashes series is in jeopardy.
In a return to the bad old days, England's batsmen have looked like rabbits in the headlights against the genius of Warne.
We - like so many others - were righting him off in the first innings, but he's come back, admittedly with a little help from some woeful batting and one of the biggest umpiring blunders you'll ever see.
It was tough on Strauss, who had looked the most secure of all the batsmen, however little that actually means.
But the real reason England are in so much trouble is the run-rate. They've scored just 30 runs, which means they've taken no time out of the game. England will need to bat through to tea to have any chance of survival, and if the run-rate's as low again, then even that would not be enough. Thirty overs, 80-odd runs, and England will start to feel a little more secure. But they could be skittled in an hour, in which case an Australian victory would be a mere formality, and this Ashes series will be over as a contest.
Perhaps Ashley Giles can justify his selection as a specialist number-eight with a nice unbeaten 50... Dave Tickner