Peter Moores wins the Ashes for England

When I seen this story I kind of knew it was going to make a few headlines and lead to differing interpretations depending on how the person reporting it felt personally about Kevin Pietersen. Nearly two years on, I don't think Kevin Pietersen really needed to reopen the Peter Moores saga again.

Not surprisingley the headlines are having a swipe at Pietersen, 'We won the Ashes because of me, by KP' is the sort of thing currently being reported by the likes of Cricinfo, The Daily Telegraph, Independent, etc.

As is usually the case, when you actually read the story you can form an opinion of your own that is not influenced by the headline. And, as is usually the case, as it is in this instance, you find that the headline dosen't really give a true representation of the actual story.

Pietersen is certainly arrogant and full of self belief and self importance, and that comes through clearly in the article. Thats not a criticism of him by the way.

I don't mind that side of Pietersen though, yes it's a pain in the arse when he gets out on 99 attempting to slog the opposing spinner for 6, but it's the self belief that gets him to 99 in the first place - and after all, it's his own batting record that he's tarnishing.

When Pietersen is asked a question he generally gives an answer. People might not like it, but it's better than the usual straight batted, media savy answers we get from most cricketers these days.

When he gives an opinion the media can really go to town on it, as I think they have done in this case. He is clearly happy to take some of the credit for retaining the Ashes, and rightly so as he played his part.

But if people read the article in full he is clearly stating that the success is mainly down to Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower. I'm not totally sure, but he may even be saying that England couldn't have done this under his own captaincy.

Where I think he lets himself down, is having a swipe at Peter Moores and saying that England couldn't have won the Ashes under his leadership. There is no real need for that. Depending on how you want to interpret things, it could be said that Moores played his part in the success by bringing in Andy Flower.

I'd also like to think that his line "I got rid of the captaincy for the good of English cricket" wasn't meant in the context that it comes across in, as that would imply it was all part of a big plan, which it clearly wasn't. I hope this is just a case of Pietersen getting his words a bit tangled.

Pietersen has opened his (some might say, big) mouth again, but if anything his biggest crime is against himself as he is giving the elements of the press that hate him the chance to put the boot into him. All in all though, I think it's just a bit of a fuss about nothing.

England's 2010 Ashes Batting Averages

Just under 12 months ago England came home from South Africa having had a supposed successful series. Paul Collingwood averaged 57.33, Bell 44.71 and Cook 41, the rest are not worth mentioning.

I can remember hearing commentators and reading blogs and newspapers, all were saying that Colly, Bell and Cook had great series with the bat. In my opinion Collingwood had a good, above average series, yes Colly, did I really just write that? And Cook and Bell were average and the rest were crap.

I know we haven't won this current Ashes series, but this year the England batting averages more reflect a winning team, or at least a team in a position of dominance.

Two blokes are currently averaging over a hundred, Cook has an average of 115.4 and Trott 111.25. As well as those two, Pietersen is on 64.80 and Bell 53.50, four men averaging well above their overall averages.

That is where batsmen win series, when they perform above average, not averagely as they did in South Africa. I am aware that KP and Bell could possibly drop below their career averages in Sydney, but no chance for Cook and Trott.

Bringing me nicely onto Trott. He now has a career average of 64 and is ranked 3rd in the world, just behind Sachin Tendulkar who he could swap places with next week.

If someone told me that could happen after his debut at the Oval, as good as that was, I would have expected to see men in white coats approaching that individual. Just for good measure, he also has a career average of 100.83 against Australia.

The facts are that Trott's average will come down over time, that is not meant in a negative way, but I can't see it staying as high as 64. I fully expect to see it come down 10-15 runs over the next 12-18 months, but even then it will still be more than respectable.

The ICC rankings reflect more how a man is playing than his average does. For Trott to be up there alongside, and in with a chance of overtaking Tendulkar and Sangakkara shows just how far he has come.

If ever further proof is needed that the rankings are a more accurate representation of a players form that his average is, then we need look no further than Ricky Ponting. Ponting currently has an average of 53.51, but is unbelievably ranked down in 29th place.

The battle for test top spot

Obviously there has been two major test match results over the last 24 hours, not surprisingly England beat Australia, that game was all over after Day 1 really. But down in South Africa there is a real contest is taking place and with India winning the 2nd test to level the series, it has just got really exciting.

Although India are rightly ranked at No.1, there are some doubters out there. To really put the argument to bed they have to go and win (or not lose) test series in places like South Africa and England.

India showed real character and fighting spirit to beat South Africa after losing the toss and having to bat first against Steyn and Morkel in testing conditions, especially after what happened at Centurion last week.

It was no great surprise to see VVS Laxman take the Man of the Match honours, I wrote on Tuesday that if India win the match it would mainly be down to his outstanding contribution.

These are the sort of results teams need to grind out if they want to be Number 1. The obvious problem India have though, is that Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman can't go on forever. Maybe Dravid could go sooner than the other two, but VVS and Sachin will be impossible to replace.

While India are probably at their peak at the moment. South Africa and England are steadily improving teams with plenty of young talent in them. England's win over Australia might not have been a surprise to a lot of people, but I think the manner of the victories has been.

England have retained the Ashes with plenty to spare, the pool of talent that the selectors currently have was proven by Stuart Broad's injury, he hasn't even been missed. We also have the worlds best player in the dressing room clogging up our batting line up, so there is room for improvement there too.

If England can kick on and build on this success, then there is exciting times ahead, hopefully starting in Sydney next week. It would be a major injustice if Australia win that test and level a series that they have been hammered in. It would also send out a powerful message if England can be ruthless and really put Australia to the sword.

Although I do hope that Australia can become competitive again after Sydney despite currently loving their demise. As a test cricket fan, I think the game is all the better with a strong, competitive Australia.

South Africa also have a relatively young side along with a wealth of experience, it looks to be a very good blend. I get the feeling watching them, that they have got better days ahead as well. They have a strong batting line up and in Steyn and Morkel a decent bowling attack, if they can find some bowlers to complement those two, they really will be a force to be reckoned with.

It will be interesting to see how the 3rd test goes in Cape Town next week, as will the England V India series next summer. At the moment India are top dogs, but with an ageing batting line up and two younger and hungry sides chasing them, it promises to be an exciting battle over the next couple of years for test match supremacy.

Is VVS Laxman currently the world's best batsman?

Earlier today I managed to find time to watch a bit of the South Africa V India test match after surfacing from yet another Ashes late night. My time wasn't wasted as I watched yet another outstanding and potentially match winning performance by the excellent VVS Laxman.

For the second time in less than 3 months Laxman held the Indian innings together at a critical time of both match and series. Neither innings resulted in a century on paper, but surely both are worth far more.

At the start of October, VVS scored 73no batting with the tail against Australia to win the 1st test of the Border-Gavaskar series. It was an outstanding effort, it wasn't just the 73 runs, it was the context of the game in which he scored them as when he came to the crease the game was all but gone.

Today he did a similar job with the tail on his way to 96 and setting South Africa a target of 303 to win the match and series. This was against Steyn and Morkel on a testing wicket, quality bowlers in their prime on a pitch offering them both plenty of assistance. He also knew that if he failed, the match and series was gone.

Sehwag may have all the shots and Tendulkar all the centuries, but when it comes down to playing the match situation, Laxman surely can't be bettered. Never mind the glory and the headlines, Laxman plays the match winning and match defining innings.

In the past I've heard commentators describe Steve Waugh as the man they would choose to bat for their life. I would without doubt choose VVS and thats why for me he is currently the best batsman in the world.

Phil' the power' Taylor not a happy man!

Anyone thinking that Phil Taylor was a spent force who was just going to roll over and have his belly tickled at this world championships had better think again.

Taylor came out with all guns blazing on and off the oche last night. First, he rather comically held up a placard mocking Ian Poulter over his view that Darts isn't a proper sport.

Then he hammered Per Laursen 4-0 with an average of 102.09, before turing his attentions to attacking the Sky Sports commentators for apparently criticizing him during his 1st round match against Gary Mawson.

I watched that match and heard the commentary and in fairness to them, they were just doing their jobs and calling it as they seen it. I didn't think they were unfair to Taylor, they pointed out the extenuating circumstances and said that it must be affecting Taylor's performance.

Taylor seemed to be a bit over sensitive to me, which given what he's been through lately is understandable. But he isn't - and shouldn't expect to be - exempt from crictism, last night suggested that he thinks he is. Either that, or he didn't actually hear the commentary himself and was just reacting to feedback.

The performance was a return to form for Taylor, but it wasn't vintage stuff with just the one maximum in the 4 sets. He did what he needed to do and is still favourite to win the title at a best price of 9/10 with Betfair, he is as short as 4/6 with some bookmakers.

I think Taylor is too short on current form, although to counter that, the draw is opening up for him with a last 16 match against Peter Wright (another player who will be in awe of the power) to come.

I wouldn't back him at the moment, thats not to say that I don't think he will win it and I wouldn't be stupid enough to write Taylor off. Just that on current form, I don't think it represents great value.

Prior and Dar do ICC's job for them!

There was some justice dished out in Ricky Ponting's direction in the form of Matt Prior's innings following a correct reprieve from the impressive Aleem Dar. The ICC don't seem capable of punishing Ponting, so it was good to see Dar's 'non biased' intervention punish him instead.

The match situation when Prior edged Johnson behind on 1 meant Australia would have been back in with a bit of a sniff, as at the time England were wobbling badly and on he verge of a major collapse.

Aleem Dar has certainly done his job with a lot more skill, accuracy, composure, class and dignity than Ricky Ponting has in Melbourne. In fact I think Dar went well beyond the call of duty and was excellent in all he did.

Ponting should have been suspended for the SCG test in my opinion. He went way too far last night and was a disgrace, even some of his teammates you could see in the background looked embarrassed by his actions.

The fact that Ponting looks set to lose his job as captain, either before or after the Sydney test match is irrelevant. ICC should not be making decisions based on compassion, the decision should have been based on the facts.

Did the ICC show compassion on Ricky's behalf? In my opinion, yes, they did.

Lately, dissent and over the top behaviour in cricket has been getting a bit too frequent for my liking. I believe that ICC have missed a chance to clamp down on dissent and set a high profile precedent with Ricky Ponting. If he is going to argue the toss like that over something he didn't even see, then what might he dispute next?

He's not the only one though. We have seen acts of petulance from Stuart Broad, although watching a profile on his father the other day showed it went on in days gone by too.

There was also the ugly scenes between Australia and India in the 2007-08 series, with all the rubbish with Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds and Matthew Hayden.

I also remember in the Sydney test match of that same series, seeing Ricky Ponting raising the finger on behalf on the umpire and pointing Sourav Ganguly back to the pavilion when he rightly questioned a catch in the slips. It was yet another example of Ponting crossing the line.

It wasn't great in the Australia V West Indies series last year with Sulieman Benn, Mitchell Johnson and Brad Haddin. I though the Aussies got away with that one a bit as well.

I know cricket has a long way to go to catch up with football. But in order to ensure we never go down that road it's time for ICC to really get tough with acts of petulance and blatent dissent.

Manchester United V England

When did Sir Alex Ferguson take over the running of the Aussie cricket team? I must have been out on the day Tim Nielsen got the boot and Ferguson swapped Old Trafford for the Aussie sunshine.

The sight of Ricky Ponting and Peter Siddle, two of the people with not the greatest view of what happened, challenging not just the standing umpire, but also the square leg umpire and the technology for good measure, was more reminiscent of what goes on every week in football, it was disgraceful.

The whole scene was incredible. The bowler didn't appeal, Shane Watson at 1st slip didn't even bother to appeal, just the mouthy Brad Haddin apparently saw something. What, I don't know.

Ponting was out of order, while Aleem Dar conducted himself properly. Dar went well beyond the call of duty in his efforts to explain to Ponting what had happened.

I like Ricky Ponting, he is a top quality batsman who has had a great career. There is a debate over his qualities as a captain, I have always thought that a lot of the criticism he gets is unjust, but I think this incident adds some substance to those calls that question his judgement.

It smacked off desperate actions from desperate men.

No Rain Please, Melbourne

Well, I think it's fair to say that the events of Day 1 at Melbourne have ensured that my last post about Paul Collingwood has become totally irrelevant, although I do believe that there is a problem there that needs addressing post Ashes.

When Sri Lanka arrive in May to play England in our next test series, Ian Bell cannot continue languishing down at Number 6. Also if the selectors are looking to build towards the 2013 Ashes, it might be the right time to give Eoin Morgan an extended run in the side.

Back to Melbourne and I thought that it was a very brave, but in hindsight, obvious decision, to put Australia in. Like myself and most England fans, I think Strauss liked the look of the Aussie batting line up with Steven Smith at No.6. Strauss clearly didn't let the Perth performance influence his decision.

When watching the 1st half hour, I was thinking 'Bloody Hell, we're letting them off the hook here, Strauss could end up looking stupid by the end of play here.'

Thankfully England turned things around with plenty of help from the Aussie openers. I couldn't believe the shots that both of them were playing, I know the Sky Sports commentators talked about Phil Hughes currently being a walking a wicket, but what was Shane Watson playing at?

Also at the start of the series, if anybody had told me that England would be bowling Australia out in Melbourne with a pace trio of Anderson, Tremlett and Bresnan, I would have thought they were mad. How things can change.

A year ago I didn't see Bresnan as part of a 4 man attack, apart from against lesser opposition. Last night he bowled with pace - he was regularly in the high 80's - and accuracy, he looks to have improved out of sight. Picking up on Michael Holding's theory though, I do hope his selection wasn't based on his batting. That would be negative and wrong in my view.

Chris Tremlett looks set to be a part of this side for years now, I can't get over what a top class act he now looks and Jimmy Anderson continues to impress. I can honestly say that over the years I haven't been Anderson's biggest fan, I thought he was just a homer who could only bowl in English style conditions, but he has really looked the part in this series.

I went for a kip just after lunch thinking Australia would be bowled out for around 150 - 175, like Perth, I was of the view that if England could then bat properly and score 350 -375 in our 1st innings, then we would retain the Ashes.

When I got back up at about 6 and seen England at 60 odd for nought, with Australia having been bowled out for 98, I was very pleasantly surprised.

Australia are now 16/1 with Bet365 to win this test. The draw is 6/1 and England are 1/6 or 1/7 with most Bookmakers. I don't want to jump the gun, (and I haven't so far during this series) but I feel that the rain is all that can save Australia now.

Paul Collingwood to top score at MCG?

There is 8/1 available on Paul Collingwood to be top England batsman at Melbourne. Any takers? Collingwood has previous when it comes to saving his skin when he is drinking in last chance saloon - or will he save it for Sydney, should he play.

I do believe that there is a slight chance that this could be Colly's last test outing, depending on circumstances. If England lose this test they will probably throw caution to the wind and play 5 bowlers at Sydney, meaning no place for Collingwood.

If the selectors then decide to look forward and invest in youth, that would surely have to rule out a return for Colly, who is nearly 35. Harsh, but that is test cricket.

If there is any takers, Skybet, Totesport, Victor Chandler and William Hill all have him as 8/1, 6th favourite to top score at the MCG. Chandlers also have Eoin Morgan at 8/1, as do Bet365.

It's hard to make a case for Colly on present form. He is averaging 15.50 runs so far in this series and he only managed 28 and 16 in Melbourne four years ago. There is also a chance that he could be demoted down to No.6 in the batting order, although the word in the press is that he will remain at 5.

As we have seen with him before though, he is a street fighter and he seems to produce the goods when his future is in doubt, and I'd say that it has to be in doubt at the moment.

In 2009 he struggled against Australia, he had a decent series away to South Africa, but again had a bad run against Pakistan last summer. If things don't pick up for him over these next two tests, it's hard to make a case for his inclusion in next summers test matches.

Flat Track Bullies?

After previously finding myself questioning the judgement of the Analyst, Simon Hughes on his view that Jonathan Trott is the most consistent No.3 England has ever had, I now find myself agreeing with Hughes on his point that the life of a batsman is a lot easier these days, than in days gone by.

To back up his view, Hughes points to the fact that Jonathan Trott averages 57, Graeme Smith 50, Shivnarine Chanderpaul 49, Kevin Pietersen 48, Michael Clarke 47 and Alastair Cook 46. Comparing that to David Gower 44, Gordon Greenidge 44, Graham Gooch 42, Desmond Haynes 42 and Mark Waugh 41.

Hughes is clearly trying to say that the players on the latter of the two lists were better players than the current bunch and that batting averages these days are distorted.

The names of Viv Richards and Javed Miandad slightly contradict Hughes' view. Richards averaged 50.23 and Miandad 52.57, both played in the same era as the men on the second list, but I think it's fair to say that they were both exceptional talents who would have scored runs in any era.

The same probably couldn't be said about Trott, Smith, Chanderpaul, KP, Clarke, Cook and many others. It also dosen't say much about 5 of England's top 6 who all average below 50.

There is a slight contradiction from Hughes over Trott, who in one Hughes article is England's most consistent No.3 ever, compared to the more recent article where Trott is now a player who only has a decent average because he regularly faces crap bowling on bland pitches.

But on the whole I agree with him. I've had an issue with the lack of balance in modern day wickets for some time now. It is no coincidence that there is hardly any quality fast bowlers around any more.

South Africa have a couple, but how long will Steyn and Morkel be able to keep performing in this current enviroment?

I'm not for a minute saying that Shaun Tait is a top quality fast bowler, but he is of test standard. He is only 27 and already his body can't cope with test cricket. Neither could Shane Bond and the workload finished off Andrew Flintoff in the end.

Despite England getting hammered at Perth, it was refreshing to see a competitive wicket for a change. It was a proper test wicket, there was something in it for the bowlers and the batsmen had to be watchful and play each ball on it's merit. Mike Hussey proved that it could be batted on, if you batted properly.

Unfortunately Perth was probably an exception to the norm. I understand the need for
the so called 'chief executives pitches', but more importantly, there is also a need for top quality, fair, competitive cricket.

Don't Mess with Ian Bell

When I seen this story about Ian Bell, I have to admit it took me by surprise to say the least.

What has happened to this quiet, innocent and unassuming young man? How has he come to be keeping company with cage fighting, doorman Barrington Patterson, a man who has been profiled on Bravo's 'Deadliest Men' programme with Danny Dyer? This story is remarkable.

Coming from Coventry myself, I know only too well of these two characters and their reputations. Quite frankly you don't mess with them. I have had the rather dubious distinction of been chucked out of a nightclub by Barrington, I can assure you that you don't go back to ask why.

Any Aussie sledgers had better beware, don't cross Ian Bell as you might be in for a shock visit if he has a word with one of his new mates. Siddle, when your asleep in your cave, you'd better keep one eye open.

Darts or Golf? Don't ask Poulter

Which is a proper sport? And which isn't?

Maybe Ian Poulter knows the answer.

On the whole I like Poulter, but sometimes I do think he should think a bit more before he opens his mouth, or his blackberry.

His recent Twitter outburst against Phil Taylor coming second in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year award was out of order in my mind, to compare darts to tiddlywinks was wrong.

It's not as if golf is the most physical and enduring pursuit going, to be attempting to look down on darts from the elevated heights of a bunker is a touch rich. If Brian Moore or Joe Calzaghe had made the remarks, maybe they would have had a bit more credability, but not coming from Poulter.

It was remarkable to see Taylor overjoyed at coming second, it must have been the first time ever he celebrated being a runner up.

There has long been a debate about whether darts should be categorized as a sport, as there has been snooker and even Poulter's beloved golf.

Whether they are or not is open to debate. Of course none of them are like boxing or rugby. But for me, they are all sports.

If I won it as a golfer or darts player, I would probably be embarrassed to stand next too Martin Johnson or Lennox Lewis, as maybe Phil Taylor would be too. But Taylor dosen't make the rules.

Poutler has history of making these sorts of stupid remarks. He once said he was the 2nd best golfer in the world, when he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 and hadn't won much of any note.

He seems to be good at standing in a glass house casting stones.

Has the Analyst gone mad?

4. Jonathan Trott: unflappable and reassuring presence, the most consistent England No 3 of all time, but looked a little shaky on the bouncy Perth pitch. - 8/10

Thats the view of Simon Hughes in his Ashes players ratings for the Daily Telegraph.

Don't get me wrong, I like Jonathan Trott, I think he has done a decent - but not world beating - job since he came into the side. We also never hear the debate over England's problem position any more, which is also a credit to Trott's performances.

But to say that Trott is already the most consistent England No.3 of all time is getting just a touch carried away, he has done a decent job and has been our best and most consistent No. 3 for some time, but most consistent ever, I think thats jumping the gun a bit.

Smarten up Strauss

In the wake of England's, Perth hammering it has come as no surprise to me to see Shane Warne criticising the way Andrew Strauss used Graeme Swann at Perth.

I'm never quite sure of Warne's motives. Is he sticking up for the spinners union? Is he just trying to keep himself in the limelight by giving a spicy opinion for his column? Or is he acting as an Australian secret agent and trying to undermine England with some constructive criticism?

Does he see a chance to try and create a crack in the relationship between Strauss and Swann? After all, it is well known that Swann has previous (a long time ago) in being a touch temperamental.

He also knows that comments made by someone of his stature will be taken on board within the English ranks, despite denials to the contrary.

Of some of the other Telegraph columnists, I agree with Michael Vaughan's view that it's time to swap Collingwood and Bell around. Vaughan thinks Collingwood should go out and play some shots, I tend to agree with that, except for his chasing of wide outswingers.

Look at the series Mike Hussey has had, his career was all but over and as a result of this he seems to have gone out and played his shots in a more positive, nothing-to-lose, frame of mind. Maybe Colly needs to adopt that approach. He is getting out to nothing shots at the moment.

Sir Geoffrey was less diplomatic as usual. He said England went down without a fight, I half agree with that opinion. I thought the bowlers tried gamely, but as I wrote previously, I was very disappointed with the way our batting surrendered at the end of day 3, I did think it was a very weak effort.

Shane Who?

It's amazing how quick things and opinions can change in the world of cricket and sport in general.

One week ago half of Australia was clamouring for the return of Shane Warne. Unbelievably they wanted Warne to walk back into the Australia side and take over as captain nearly four years since he last played test cricket.

How could any sane minded person really have considered this as a viable option? It's total madness.

But where has all that talk gone now? Apparently now everything is ok. They don't need Warne after all.

There was a similar over reaction in England back in 2009 after we got demolished at Headingley by Australia to level the series 1-1. England were gone, we had no chance of winning at the Oval.

It was time to panic and come up with all kinds of mad theories to save English cricket. The whole team needed booting out and replacing, we were crap, clueless, sack the selectors and even the PM, etc

We needed Trescothick to come back from retirement. We needed Ramprakash, yes, Mark Ramprakash, the man who failed how many times for England to come back. If we didn't recall one or both of these we had no chance.

Why not Graeme Hick and Ian Botham as well? I'm sure Sky wouldn't miss him for 5 days, what, just the 5 days?

Ranulph Fiennes, Winston Churchill, Eddie Edwards, we needed them all. Just like Australia needed Warne, Bradman and Harold Holt back for Perth.

Now what will happen after this latest thrashing? Will there be calls for the head of Strauss? That Andy Flower's useless too, bring back Duncan Fletcher, he knows how to beat Australia!

I do believe in spite of the Australian victory, that their selectors got a bit lucky in this test match. Yes they were right to ignore the Warne recall, but they took a big risk playing Steven Smith at No.6 in such a big game.

I'm not even convinced that they totally knew what the gamble was they were taking themselves, I think a lot of it was change for ther sake of change. The Smith experiment certainly didn't work.

After all that they didn't even need him. I don't suppose they were banking on the helping hand they got from England's batsmen. Will they stick with the winning formula, or will they pick a team suited for Melbourne.

They had a similar problem after winning at Headingley in 2009 and got it badly wrong for the Oval test match, will they learn this time?

Will they bring back a specialist spinner for Melbourne? I'm sure that England like the look of Smith as their No.6 batsman and front line spin bowler.

Selectors get plenty of stick, some justified and some not. I am guilty of giving them stick myself, but I think on the whole they get more right than wrong. What they don't do, thankfully, is get carried away with mass hysteria after one defeat.

Confused and Pissed Off

Not sure how I feel about this one. It was always fairly inevitable that Australia would hit back at some stage and it has come as no real surprise to me, on this blog I have regularly urged caution about writing the Aussies off.

So what has really happened in Perth? Have England been crap? Or have Australia been excellent?

Mitchell Johnson produced a magnificent spell of bowling and Mike Hussey continued on his one man mission to hold the Aussie batting together. There is an argument that England have just been hit by a world class batsman and a bowler who when he clicks is a world beater on his day.

I wouldn't argue too much with both those opinions.

But are those two performances really enough to put Australia in the position they now find themselves in? I don't think they are.

For me, Australia needed a good bit of help in getting themselves from 69/5 to being over 300 runs ahead with only England's tail left to bat. Unfortunately England provided that help.

Our intensity dropped off with the ball late on Day 1 allowing Australia's tail to get nearly 200 runs, it's unusual for the bowlers as I believe they are the more reliable department of the England team. Then we were blown away by Mitchell Johnson and punished by Mike Hussey, before finally surendering meekly with the bat at the end of Day 3. The standard of bowling on show from Australia this morning dosen't justify England ending the day on 81/5.

There was always going to be a levelling off in both sides performances, England have been overperforming, while Australia underperforming. But I had hoped it wouldn't happen in quite the spectacular way it has.

Even after throwing away the great position we got ourselves in on Day 1, we still had a slim chance of putting it right in the 4th innings. What followed with the bat is what really disappointed me the most.

It was like the England of old. I know it sounds harsh, but I thought it was a spineless batting performance, we'll be lucky to pass our poor 1st innings score. The pace bowlers flogged themselves and yet again have been let down by the batsmen.

My main reservations before the start of this series was our batting. I don't (and never have) believed it is as good as we are continually told it is by the likes of Geoff Miller and the Sky commentators, all anyone needs to do is look in the record books. It's there for all too see.

Despite all this, I still believe we can retain the Ashes. Australia aren't that good, and England aren't this bad. There will probably be a real contest now over the remaining two tests and the Ashes will probably be decided over a couple of key sessions or individual performances.

England have shown before they have the character to bounce back. They will now need to show this character if they don't want to throw away the best chance on an English victory down under in a generation.

My Worst Fears

It was with great trepidation that I turned on my tele this morning at about 7.30, I thought 'will England have made a mess of this and be 6 or 7 down?' or 'will we be in total control?'

Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to see Australia batting again. I couldn't believe it, I thought 'bloody England, here we go again'.

I then seen Mitchell Johnson's devastating spell of bowling. Thank God he dosen't bowl like that every week, as he would be the best bowler in the world by a mile if he did.

Nevertheless England should not have had a 1st innings deficit of 81, a mixture of some bad bowling and bad batting is clearly to blame for that, no matter how well Johnson did, it dosen't excuse England losing 10 for 109.

I also thought it was a shame that Ian Bell didn't get the chance to play a proper innings as he looked in great touch again, his shot to get out was clearly brought about by the match situation.

Bell's form is in total contrast to Collingwood's, who yet again showed he has a serious technical deficiency with the swinging ball. I'm sure Collingwood has taken more catches than he has scored test runs this year!

I'm not going to write us off in this test just yet, although we need to make sure Australia don't get any more than 350 runs ahead, even then that might be too much as this pitch is offering a bit to the bowlers.

Sadly, I'm dreading turning on my tele even more on Saturday morning.

Amir Khan proves his class

Yesterday I watched a rerun of Saturdays fight between Amir Khan and Marcos Maidana from Las Vegas and have to say it was as good a fight as I have watched for a long time.

Gradually I have found myself warming more towards Khan after initially not having any interest in him. I know all boxers are a bit gobby, they need to be confident otherwise they shouldn't get in the ring, but I found Khan to be worse than most.

Khan fought Michael Gomez at Birmingham's NIA in 2008. An old school mate was on the undercard and a few of us went over to watch him. Such was my dislike of Khan, I left before his fight and crossed the road to the bars of Broad Street preferring to go for a couple of pints rather than watch him fight in another non event.

I thought he talked himself up too much when he was younger, I always got the impression he wasn't as good as he thought he was and I am happy to admit disliking him over this. Yes, he won an Olympic Silver, a good achievement, but lets not forget our old friend Audley won a Gold.

Khan used to talk the talk but he was only really beating Frank Warren's hand picked journeymen victims, all throughout this he kept telling the world how great he already was, when he wasn't, he had fought no one of any real note.

Since his defeat to Breidis Prescott later in 2008, I have to admit I have been really impressed with Khan. He fought the hand picked Oisin Fagan to get himself back to winning ways and since then has stepped up in class and fought and beat some top quality opponents.

All this hard work culminated in Vegas on Saturday, where Khan proved himself a real fighter, an entertainer and to have a massive heart. At times in that fight Khan went places I didn't think he was capable and showed that he dosen't have the so called 'glass chin'.

He did the lot, we all know he can box and move and we all know he can entertain, but I didn't expect to see him stand and exchange with Maidana in the way he did. Khan took some punishment and hung in there and still came back at his opponent.

Any doubts over Khan's credentials as a world class performer were banished on Saturday, I now believe him to be the real thing and a true champion.

No Pudding in Centurion

I am well aware that the Ashes isn't the only series currently going on in the world of cricket and will be keeping an eye on the contest between the teams regarded as the best two sides in the world.

Obviously conditions at Centurion on day 1 suited bowling, but even so, India would have expected to do a touch better than the 136/9 they currently find themselves struggling on.

It is often said you can't win a test on the first day, but you can certainly ensure you won't win it, and that looks like what India have already achieved.

It was also a fairly safe bet that the South Africans were never going to prepare the sorts of pudding of a wicket that Sehwag and his pals are used to batting on for two days at a time in India.

With Steyn and Morkel bowling in testing conditions it was never going to be easy, they will give India's batting a proper examination over the next 3 weeks. Conditions will no doubt be easier to bat in later in this series though, we will then see if this India batting line up is as good on the road as it is on their own lifeless flat tracks.

No Stupid Shots Please, England

England would appear to have put themselves within one decent batting display of retaining the Ashes, despite my cautious approach to this series, that is where I believe we are now.

Equally, if we bat like a bunch of idiots (and lets be honest, pre Ashes we have plenty of form for that) then we let the Aussies back into the test and maybe the series.

So far this series I have reserved judgement on what a good 1st innings score is until both sides have batted, I'm not yet convinced that Australia are as under par as some commentators have suggested, so I am anxiously awaiting England's reply.

At the start of the day I'm sure Strauss would have taken the current scorecard, but after having Australia at 69/5 he must have expected to be chasing a lesser score than he currently is. I thought that England slightly lost their way late on in the day and let Australia off the hook a bit.

In getting up to 268 the Aussies showed that they might be out of form, but they still have plenty of fight left in them. I can think of many a side who would have capitulated at 69/5 or 137/6. It just proves that England can take nothing for granted.

I also thought it was a brave decision from Strauss to put the Aussies in after winning the toss, it would have been easy for him to go with the general consensus and bat first.

Another decision that England got right was the inclusion of Chris Tremlett, he looked totally at ease and like he belongs in test cricket. I don't want to sound like I'm getting carried away by one days bowling, but I believe Tremlett will be hard to dislodge from the England team now and when Stuart Broad returns, Steven Finn's place will look vulnerable.

Thats no criticism of Finn, I believe he has done well and is a great prospect for the future, but at the moment Tremlett looks the more complete bowler. What a great position the selectors are in for fast bowlers at the moment.

So come on England, 4 to 5 sessions of batting and we can dare to dream.

Don't Mention the Urn

All I keep hearing at the moment is "Aussies in disarray," or "England only need to win in Perth to retain Ashes," etc, etc. The media has gone into a frenzy and appear to be of the view that England only have to turn up in Perth to retain the Ashes.

So far in this series I've been very cautious not to jump on this wave of expectancy and at the moment I have no intention of changing that view.

Why? A number of reasons. First, I don't expect Australia to be as bad as they were in Adelaide. Second, England have had a fair bit disruption to contend with, with Stuart Broad's injury and Jimmy Anderson returning home to be at the birth of his daughter, which has to be said isn't the best preparation.

Also I only need to look back 12 months for another good reason why. In the 2nd test in Durban, England played magnificently and defeated South Africa by an innings and 98 runs, we scored a massive 574/9 in our 1st innings on the way to victory.

Then with a series victory in our hands we contrived to throw away a great opening. In the 3rd test England had the South Africans on the ropes at 127/5 in their 1st innings, in the end England needed Graham Onions to fend off 11 balls just to save the test match.

In our 1st innings our batting collapsed to 133/5 and only 76 from Matt Prior batting with the tail got us up to a respectable, but below par 273. As I remember most of the top order reverted back to type and got themselves out with stupid rash shots.

A year on and lets hope England have learnt from those mistakes and will now prove that they are a more ruthless outfit.

In contrast to this series though, South Africa were a totally different proposition to what this current Australia side are. They were almost certainly a far better team than the Aussies and they were also in the middle of a decent spell of cricket. On top of that the England team is a lot stronger than 12 months ago.

I am though pleased to hear that Andy Flower has banned talk of retaining the Ashes here in Perth. I've been impressed by the way he has gone out of his way to try and make sure complaceny or over confidence dosen't set in.

England need to treat this as just another cricket match, they also need to be ruthless in the way previous Australian sides have been to us.

Not being ruthless enough is something I believe England have been guilty of in the recent past. In the ODI series against Australia last summer England had a massive chance to put down a marker and give Ricky Ponting's team a good thrashing. At 3-0 up, England had the chance to put Australia to the sword, instead they took their foot off the throat and let Australia fight back to respectable 3-2 scoreline.

I can't help thinking that if the boot was on the other foot, that at 3-0 up, Australia would have smelt blood and handed out a good 5-0 hiding. At worst it would have been 4-1, with England winning a dead rubber 5th game.

I hope and expect England to bring Chris Tremlett in, I think picking Bresnan would send out a negative vibe. It would look like we are playing safe .

Hopefully we can play with the same intensity that we have over the last test and a half, as I think if we don't Australia could surprise us. They are hurting and I will be amazed if they don't throw everyting at England on the first morning, but if England are up to the same level as Adelaide I think the Aussies will have another struggle on their hands.

Magnificent John Higgins

I believe I have just watched the greatest win in the snooker career of John Higgins. The comeback tonight wasn't just from 7-2 and 9-5 (requiring a snooker) down, it was his own personal comeback from the self inflicted nightmare of the last 8 months.

I've rightly given Higgins some stick on this blog for his good fortune in only receiving a 6 month ban for bringing the game into disrepute, when the consequences could have been far worse for him.

I am also prepared to give credit where due and tonight the way John Higgins fought back to beat Mark Williams in the 12bet.com UK Championship final was just unbelievable. It showed what a true champion Higgins is.

At 9-8 down the great Steve Davis described Higgins as the most complete player to ever pick up a cue, saying that only he could have come back from where he did to win this match. Complements don't come much better than that.

A good day for the Bears?

At least I think it is. When I seen the article saying that Warwickshire announced a 12 month post tax profit of £500,000 I thought thats good in the current financial climate.

On closer inspection they actually made a loss of £2.2 Million after disasterous crowds for the test match with Pakistan and the two T20's between Australia and Pakistan. So to balance the books they have sold some land for £2 Million and deferred a £700,000 tax bill.

As a Warwickshire fan I'm a bit concerned at the need to sell land to balance the books, but not overly worried. Afterall, there are people at the club who know the finances far better than I ever will.

They are projecting a profit of around £200,000 next year when they start repayments for the ground improvements. But what if they have a disaster with next years India test match like they did the Pakistan one, could they find themselves struggling?

Looking in from the outside, the bears look like a well run club to me. I hope it's not misguided faith, they don't strike me as an administration that would remortgage the pavilion and all the crown jewels in a reckless gamble.

The struggling counties are all fairly well known and Warwickshire's name never crops up on that list. Lets hope they stay off it, and for the benefit of English cricket the other counties get their finances sorted out as well.

It is also good to see Chris Woakes in the ODI squads for both the 50 over series and the T20's against Australia. It would appear that Stuart Broad's injury has opened the door for Woakes.

Woakes has made steady progress in the Warwickshire side now for a couple of years, it seems clear that Geoff Miller and the selectors have him earmarked as a future England player. He also has the added advantage for modern day bowlers in his ability with the bat.

It's probably too late for Woakes to get in the world cup squad, I'd say - barring injuries - the selectors already have that sown up. The only other way now would be to put in the kind of performances that make it impossible for him to be dropped.

Doug the Rug, Mugged

I bet Doug Bollinger was well impressed to find out he's carrying the can for Australia's bowling disaster in Adelaide. The last two weeks have been a bit of a roller coaster for him. First he wasn't good enough, then he was good enough and now he's not good enough again.

I know that Xavier Doherty has gone as well, but he was really more of an experiment that didn't work out. Obviously a lot more was expected from Doug.

I kind of got the feeling that things didn't look great for Bollinger when I watched an interview with Ricky Ponting in the middle of the 2nd test, during it he thanked him for creating the footmarks for Graeme Swann to bowl into ahead of their 2nd innings, it wasn't exactly high praise for Doug.

We also have Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus back in the reckoning after been sent to the naughty corner in Adelaide, they look likely to make up a four man pace attack with Australia's selectors desperately looking for the formula to take 20 wickets.

This is the kind of selection madness we used to get from the English during our heydays of the 1990's. In one minute, then out the next, with another recall a couple of games later.

With the enforced change of Simon Katich, I thought the Aussie's might not want to make too many changes of choice, but obviously I'm wrong. With 3 tests left they are not being cautious and leaving it to the last minute to play their final hand.

They would appear to be well and truely going for it by leaving out Marcus North and not replacing him with a specialist batsman. I suppose one thing they can't be accused of doing, is not acting quickly enough.

The biggest surprise of all (or snub of all depending on whether or not your name is Nathan Hauritz) is the selection of Garry 'Gary' Beers from INXS. Where did this one come from? Never mind Warne, Australia have really gone for a legendary superstar with this selection.

What has Nathan Hauritz done thats so bad?

Ashes Madness

This Ashes series has truely gone crazy over the last couple of weeks. The whole series seems to have now got as exciting off the field, as it is on it.

I'm currently struggling to decide what is the madest thing I've heard or read. We've had the crazy car park antics of the two Ians, the bring back Warne campaign, Michael Clarke's twitter apology and the sight of Alastair Cook with a current Ashes average of 225.

In fact unbelievably there are four England batsmen currently averaging over 100, compared to Australia's one. Yes, there is one, Mike Hussey at 133.33. For good measure, they also have four bowlers averaging over 100.

The Chappell/Botham feud was reported to have rared up again in the Adelaide Oval car park with both men apparently grabing each other by their lapels. It must have been an extraordinary sight.

It sounds quite funny in a way. They are two fierce competitors and are the sort of guys you would want beside you in the trenches. After more than 30 years it's hard to see any kind of reconciliation now and there would be absolutely no chance of either man backing down.

Had to laugh when I read it. Cricket is great for these types of feuds, Boycott and Fletcher had a famous falling out and had to work together on Test Match Special 12 months ago, and with both Chappell and Botham working in the media, their paths are likely to continue to cross.

Speaking of Ian Chappell, I wonder what he would have said about Michael Clarke's twitter apology for not walking. I bet the air was as blue as it could get, I'd have paid to watch/hear that. I wonder if Chappell will be backing him as the next captain after this?

I think the biggest laugh of the lot has to be the bring back Shane Warne campaign. If I were an Aussie, I would be embarrassed at the talk of bringing the great man back. Is this how desperate they have now become?

They are only 1-0 down in the series. People are quick to forget that if Hussey had held that catch early on Day 2, this could have been a very different test match. Talk about panicking.

I can't believe that Warne hasn't totally ruled it out either, he surely can't be considering it. Despite me being a pom, I am a massive Warne fan and believe it would be mad for him to come back and end up looking stupid for not being up to the job. I also hope he dosen't come back in case he is up to the job.

I really can't take this one seriously though.

An Innings and 71 Runs

Ok, so my reluctance to believe that England were a nailed on certainty for victory after Day 3 proved to be a bit on the cautious side, nevertheless, this is Australia and my scars are still a long way from healed.

If I was a neutral watching, I would have said that England looked a certainty from as far back as Day 2. But in my case, when it's my own team or country, I can sometimes be reluctant to jump the gun.

Anyway, the win is now in the bag and what a thrashing it was. To hear Ricky Ponting say "we were out-batted, bowled and fielded in this entire game," in describing his team, sums up the one sidedness of this whole test.

I was very surprised with how meekly the Aussies capitulated in the end. To lose the 6 wickets with more than an hour to go before lunch was a pretty poor effort, especially with the prospect of rain coming later in the day.

The manner of defeat was alarming with no real fight at all, it sounds like Ian Chappell showed more backbone in the Adelaide Oval car park than the team did out in the middle. Mike Hussey's wicket started the rot, it was a very poor shot from the man Australia would have been relying on to do the bulk of their batting.

I can only imagine the flak that Ricky Ponting must now be getting. I have already heard reports about people calling for Shane Warne to come out of retirement. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I am actually of the opinion that this Aussie team isn't as bad as it is being made out to be. Yes, one or two changes needs to be made. But apart from that it is just simply out of form, whereas England are in top form. With the two sides performances being so different, the gulf in class is currently being a bit exaggerated.

I got the feeling watching Ryan Harris that if he got some support he could be a real handful. If Australia had the Michell Johnson of 2 years ago against South Africa, suddenly Australia would have a more than handy attack again.

Speaking of Ryan Harris, I don't blame him for reviewing his LBW decison. I wouldn't care whether I was a number 8,9,10 or even 11, I'd still have wasted a review on myself even if I knew I was out, if I had been on a King Pair!

From England's point of view, according to the press this morning, apparently this was the perfect test performance. I just hope this means we haven't peaked yet.

Don't think it's the end of the world losing Stuart Broad either, I believe Chris Tremlett has a big part to play in this series and he will not make England any weaker. It will only become a problem if we lose any more fast men.

Also couldn't understand all the moaning about Strauss' declaration. What did people want him to do? Declare earlier and let Australia go well past our total and force us to bat last on a 5th day wicket? Some people are never satisfied.

Apart from the obvious massive margin of victory, my highlight of this test was the innings of Kevin Pietersen. I've said on this blog many times that the key to England winning or retaining the Ashes was our batting. With Kevin Pietersen back at his best our batting should now be far more secure than it has been prior to this series.

Pietersen now seems to have plenty of support from those around him and another solid batting display from them all in the 1st innings at Perth next week could be enough to keep the urn.

US PGA compared to FIFA

Maybe the PGA tour just employs the same voting process as FIFA! says Lee Westwood on his Twitter account. Westwood would appear to be just a touch pissed off with the US PGA for naming Rickie Fowler as their rookie of the year for 2010.

I'm glad Westwood has gone public on this, it makes a change for someone to speak out and say what everyone is thinking, rather than this endless diplomacy we keep getting these days. I just hope Westwood stands by his remarks.

Is Westwood right to think that the fact McIlroy has opted out of next seasons US tour has got something do with this decision? Surely he has a point.

I can see McIlroy's point of view, that he dosen't regard himself as a rookie. But the facts are that the PGA did, as they had him on the ballot paper. It's typical Rory though, he's just so laid back.

On the course, it was great to see Westwood win the Nedbank Golf Challenge yesterday at Sun City and keep his position as the worlds Number 1 golfer. We all know what he wants and needs to do in 2011.

It was also another brilliant weekend for the understated Graeme McDowell. The manner in which he beat Tiger Woods in the head-to-head play off was good enough, but the way he forced the play-off was out of this world.

When Woods put his iron shot to within 3 feet on the 18th for a certain birdie it meant McDowell needed to produce something special. Most golfers would probably wilt under that pressure from Woods, but McDowell didn't with his 20 footer to force the play-off.

McDowell has had an unbelievable year and has hardly got any recognition for it. He's won a major and it was hardly noticed over here, he got more publicity for the way he held his nerve to clinch the Ryder Cup.

He is 2nd favourite at 4/1 with Bet365 to be BBC Sports Personality of the Year. He probably won't win it though, as there is a strong campaign going to get AP McCoy the title this time.

I do think it would be fitting for McDowell to win it and he will definately be getting my vote.

I can't get carried away, just yet!

It was great to sit up late last night and watch Kevin Pietersen, first, get his long awaited century, then, like buses, get another one. He dominated the Aussie bowling, at times he almost treated it with contempt. It was great to watch.

What about Alastair Cook hey, he only lasted 37 minutes and scored just the 12 runs. What a disgrace, the return of the Cook of old:)

Anyway, I've been doing the rounds of the blogosphere today and I've been struck by just how confident the England bloggers are, and how equally negative the Aussie ones are.

I don't know whether it's the fact that I've been scarred by the last 25 years, but I can't get ahead of myself just yet. Yes, the Aussies have been outplayed by England for the last 5 days of test match cricket, but it is still 0-0 in the score book.

I just hope the Aussies don't get saved by the weather and then go into the 3rd test still all square, England have got to be ruthless if, or when they get the chance and make sure they put Australia away.

You don't need to look too much further back than Cardiff 2009 to see how costly not finishing the job can be. As daft as it sounds, it could still cost Australia this current Ashes.

I watched the KP interview this morning and he also pointed out how the series score is still 0-0, I was pleased to see he wasn't getting carried away.

I thought it was an example of just how Andy Flower has stamped his authority on this squad, there would seem to be little or no chance of complacency being allowed to set in under this regime.

England are 8/11 with Bet365 and the Draw is 6/5 with William Hill, Australia's odds aren't worth mentioning.

Sepp Blatter falls off stage

Unfortunately he didn't break his neck though.

After last weeks 'fair and transparent voting for the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 world cups', I thought it was only fair that I aired one of the greatest moments in FIFA's recent shameful history on my blog.

Just to clarify my position. I'm not pissed off with the fact that Russia were awarded the 2018 world cup, I'm not a little Englander who thinks we should have got the world cup as ours was (apparently) the best bid.

Russia deserved the 2018 world cup, they were due their turn and they've rightly got it.

What I'm pissed off about is the way the vote was fixed to eliminate England in the 1st round, how could we really have come last in that process? I'm also disgusted at the way Australia were treated (not their bowlers though) in the bidding for the 2022 world cup. The whole process stank and should never be allowed to happen again.

Interesting line in today's Sunday Times, I see they are claiming that certain FIFA executive members sold their votes for $1.5 Million. Never!

Enjoy,

England in Command

As in the 1st test, I have waited til both sides have batted too judge what is a decent 1st innings effort. It's already obvious that Australia fell short, even with England's 1st innings far from over.

In fairness, I think Australia did well to get to where they did from the position of 2 runs for 3 wickets. A lot of other sides would have crumbled for a lot less.

It was good to see Alastair Cook back up his magnificent 1st test performance with another century. I was a bit surprised to hear him say afterwards that he's not doing anything different to what he ever does.

I'm afraid you are Alastair, you're not chucking your wicket away with sloppy lazy shots.

Also good to see Kevin Pietersen getting some runs again. Surely the last thing Australia would want to see at the moment is KP back in top form. What a place and time for KP to get back to scoring centuries, should he see it through.

Had to laugh at the sight of Shane Watson chucking his 78MPH pies down at Pietersen, there is a mismatch of Haye V Harrison proportions between an in form Pietersen and Shane Watson's bowling.

It is amazing though that Watson is Australia's most economical bowler (just 2.21). He also bowled just one less over than spinner Xavier Doherty yesterday, thought there was a massive reluctance to use the spinner from Ponting.

The Aussie bowling is currently in disarray, none of the replacements have worked as yet. Can understand why they got shot of Mitchell Johnson, but think that Ben Hilfenhaus has been harshly treated.

Day 3 should be interesting, even in the unlikely event of a batting collapse, England should have a lead of at least 150. But in reality it should be a lot more than that. I am also eagerly awaiting the end of the day to see who Ricky Ponting (assuming he's on the field) walks off having a go at this time.

"Don't Bother" says Andy Anson

And I'd have to agree with him. I thought that Andy Anson made some very interesting points in his media briefing this morning, none more so than his view that it isn't worth bothering to bid again for a world cup while this current regime and process is still in place.

I liked the fact that Anson totally dismissed the view from FIFA that our media was to blame for our public humiliation. To me that was just a convenient excuse for the FIFA executives to use to defend their disgusting, two-faced actions.

He also said "Russia did a lot of last-minute lobbying and votes appeared to switch at the last minute - we know some switched in the early hours of the morning."

I couldn't help thinking that he was insinuating that some kind of dodgy underhand dealings had gone on in the early hours of Thursday morning.

It seems clear to me that there was tactical voting. There was stories doing the rounds early in the week that members might switch votes to Holland and Belgium for the 1st round of voting just to get rid of England, it now looks clear that that happened.

To lose is one thing, to be deliberately stitched up is another. Australia were also clearly a victim of this as well.

I see that they have now rightly waded into the argument, with their bid member Ron Walker claiming that "There has been some contamination of the voting system in Fifa in the last 12 months."

The Aussie bid got just one vote, that is just an outrage. Anson picked up on this when he pointed out that England, Australia and USA (3 of the strongest bids) managed just 6 votes between them in the opening round of voting.

The Aussie betrayal is the most staggering one of all though. If we are going to work on the theory that FIFA wanted to take the game to new parts of the globe, then why not Australia?

They have never hosted the tournament before and their bid was far stronger than that of Qatars. So why only the 1 vote? It is an absolute disgrace, we think we were badly treated in England, so how must Australia feel?

I actually do hope we now take our ball home with us. It might look childish but I believe we should now keep our distance from FIFA and show them little respect, as they did us.

No more welcoming them with open arms, no more meaningless friendly matches, no more visits to Downing Street and no more fraternizing with David Beckham.

We should give Blatter and co the cold shoulder.

Was Sepp's legacy already decided?

The fall out from England's failed world cup bid is already in full flow and fingers are already being pointed in all kinds of directions with FIFA, the FA, Panorama and even Vlaiamir Putin all coming in for stick.

One thing I do believe though, is that never again should we be putting people like our future King (and I'm not a Royalist), our PM (or a massive fan of Cameron) and footballing icons like David Beckham, Bobby Charlton, etc, in the embarrassing position of having to pander to a bunch of shady characters like this lot.

How humiliating must it have been for Prince Willaim and David Beckham to have to sit through the results knowing that practically no one within FIFA took an ounce of notice of them. The FIFA executives just lapped up their attention and then laughed in their faces.

Quite where it went wrong, who knows. Did Putin not turn up ahead of the vote because he already knew the result and that he didn't need too? Did FIFA want to teach the English a lesson? Or was it simply that FIFA wanted to take football to new corners of the globe?

Some people are blaming the BBC and their Panorama programme, I don't buy that one myself. I also believe that all these people claiming that the BBC should have waited til a couple of days after the vote before screening the programme are deluded.

Did the FIFA executives not notice Andrew Jennings jumping out of bushes asking them questions over the last 18 months? FIFA knew that the programme had been made, so what difference did it make when it was shown? None in my view.

Congratulations to Russia, I do believe that they are worthy winners for 2018, I really haven't got a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the manner in which the voting was carried out and a massive problem with the hosting of the 2022 competition in Qatar.

Apparently England only got 2 votes in the first ballot, with one of them coming from Geoff Thompson. Holland and Belgium got 4, nothing out of the ordinary there. What happened next was strange though, the Holland and Belgium bid only picked up 2 votes in the second ballot.

Why? It seems very strange that they lost 2 votes after the first round of voting. It is something which doesn't seem to have been picked up by the mass ranks of the media, but it smells of an England stitch up to me.

Common sense tells you that a bidding nation(s) should gain votes going through the process, as one nation drops out, their votes would be spread around the remaining bidders.

That is unless you have already decided to conduct the vote to deliberately eliminate a bidding nation at the first hurdle.

If FIFA had already decided that they wanted to take the world cup to new horizons in Russia and Qatar, then they could have done us all a favour and told us about it a few years earlier, preferably before we started the bidding process.

Another theory doing the rounds that could have some credence, is the fact that two oil and gas rich nations with bottomless bits of money to throw at their respective campaigns have won.

But why wouldn't two clean countries with all that money win a clean FIFA vote fair and square?

The Qatar one in particular is laughable. They were probably the worst bid of the 2 world cups and yet won the most easily. It totally stinks and I notice Barack Obama hasn't been slow in letting it be known, at least he had the sense not to bother to turn up.

I hope this dosen't come across as sour grapes, as it certainly isn't. But while this current FIFA regime is still in place I don't believe that England should even consider bidding to host any future world cup. Just what would be the point?

Sri Lanka won the toss and elected to field

Theres a line I didn't expect to read on Cricinfo when I checked to see what the score was on Day 1 of the 3rd test, it's almost as rare as seeing a Paul Collingwood century or Gile$ Clar£e turning down a large cheque for the long term benefit of cricket in England.

On further inspection, it wasn't a major surprise to find that it was damp, overcast conditions in Pallekele, with plenty of rain in the air.

So far this series has been typical of Sri Lankan conditions with bat dominating ball too much again, with 2 draws from 2 tests so far.

There was also 2 draws from 2 tests in the Pakistan V South Africa series, 2 draws in the 3 match India V New Zealand series and the 1st Ashes test was also a batsman dominated draw.

I've banged on about the shortage of decent out-and-out fast bowlers on this blog before and will do so again. It's no coincidence that there is none around and that so many of them have had to retire through injury lately.

These pitches are only going to make the situation worse. If ever any further proof were needed about just how one sided these pitches are, just look at the Gabba last weekend.

Alastair Cook beat a Don Bradman batting record there, need I say more!

Can England get the 2018 World Cup?

Well according to the bookmakers, England are now remarkably the favourites in the betting again. We were out to 3rd favourite on Monday after the now infamous Panorama programme, but are now back at around even money (with Bet365) favourites.

I think that the positive publicity created by the appearance of David Cameron, Prince William and David Beckham seems to have sparked a new wave of optimism, resulting in a surge of punters wishing to back England to win the right to host the 2018 World Cup (probably our best chance of qualifying for it as well).

I must admit it did give me a bit more optimism when I seen the clip of the three of them sitting around the table, surely no other bidding nation could roll out a more prestigious line up than this (Cameron excepted). It also makes a change to see Prince William, President of the FA finally get involved, I had wondered what he did to justify his role before this week.

Good on the Prince though, I'm sure he could have found an excuse to get out of it, had he wished too. Also fair play to David Cameron, not my favourite person, but he has put in a decent shift. While if David Beckham can help pull this one off, to add to his help in getting the 2012 Olympics, then surely he must be in with a chance of getting a Knighthood in the new years honours list. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

As always with FIFA though, there is a nasty smell in the air around the way in which they conduct themselves in these situations. The whole process seems a bit suspicious, as does the way in which they act in general. How many of the English bid party are really comfortable with having to kowtow to what appears to be a less than scrupulous group of people?

I certainly wouldn't find it easy to have to try and charm some of these characters in the way we are expecting our future King too.

I also won't be too bothered if we don't get the World Cup as a result of the Sunday Times investigation, or Pamorama. If FIFA don't like being exposed as a bunch of crooks, then tough. If they want too take their ball home as a result of this, then they can piss off and do so - and stick their World Cup.

A couple of weeks in Spain and Portugal in 2018 probably won't go amiss. I also wouldn't be too disappointed at going to see Red Square either, although you won't get me flying there with Aeroflot Airlines.

The real dodgy scenario result for FIFA would be if Spain and Portugal get 2018 and Qatar 2022, after the alledged vote fixing controversy that would really make FIFA look bad. Would they let this happen? Surprise me!

The key to clinching the deal would be if we can get the Jack Warner endorsement, apparently worth 3 votes. Would an invite to the royal wedding be enough to get Jack on side? Just think, Warner could then sell his invite on the black market in the same way as he is alledged to have done so with his world cup ticket allocation.

Everyone's a winner!