Bill Frindall's stats machine is about to explode - Watch the beard Bill...

The number 158 has for centuries, I imagine, been crying out for recognition. And now on the 1st of December it has achieved the notoriety it wanted.



Kevin Pietersen's bogey number.



Without a professional statistician on my right hand, I'm guessing that this has to be one of the highest figures a test batsman has been dismissed on 3 times - but then again I suppose it's a better accolade than Michael Atherton's record number of ducks in a career isn't it?

AIDS is a problem endemic in Africa and increasingly across the globe. This is a quick message to ask anyone who reads this blog, to go and have a look at:

Join RED

You don't have to buy anything, you don't have to do anything, but please go and read and maybe make a difference.

Let's party like it's 1986...

Well, didn't they do well??

There are many out there who wouldn't have staked a penny on Paul Collingwood being England's top run scorer at this stage of the proceedings. Me included.

In Australia, if you have all the talent in the world and lack the application you'll score as freely as Damien Martin. On the other hand if, like Collingwood and lesser-so Bell, you apply yourself in the heat and ferocity of an Ashes battle you will be rewarded handsomely. Andrew miller from Cricinfo said something similar in his match analysis:

"England's perpetual understudy has risen above the doubters to become the linchpin of their batting, no less, and yet still it seems he doesn't quite fit. Today's nuggetty knock of 98 not out was typical of the man." Cricinfo 2006

The only problem is that runs are great and big scores win individual awards, but can Collingwood score his runs at a rate whereby England will have a fighting chance of winning a test and retaining the Ashes? We shall wait and see.

Friday is UBERCATCH day...

I just love bit where Tony wets himself....'Oooooooooooooow'.....Nurse...

Care to nominate a vid? E-mail the Ashes blog on theashesblog@gmail.com

Monty ready for a 'Pane-starring' role...

I have it on fairly good information that after the Brisbane fiasco (otherwise known as 'Back to the mediocre days of the mid-90's again'), Monty will be playing in Adelaide.

This is a decision which should both delight and dismay in equal measure.

Delight?

That Monty is FINALLY going to get the chance to show the Australians that England finally have a spinner who can be mentioned in the same breath as Messrs Warne and McGill.

After a superb summer spent dismissing some of the world's elite batsmen, Monty is now presented with the ultimate challenge to both his technique and his temperament. I for one am sure that he'll come out of the experience with his disarming smile intact and clutching a 'turban-full' of wickets.

Dismay?

The decision to play Giles instead of Monty in the first Ashes test in Brisbane proved one thing above all else - that England had come to Australia not to win the Ashes again, but merely to retain them at all costs.

It is impossible to deny the fact that Giles is a sturdy lower order batsman. However, unless the old guard has changed, do we not pick bowlers because of their bowling attributes?

Fletcher has selection policy whereby bowlers with batting credentials tend to find greater favour. In reality however, this doesn't work in practice. Steve Harmison, although perfectly capable of biffing a brisk 20 does so on thankless few occasions. Matthew Hoggard for all his coal face grit and determination, is blessed with as little 'talent' as one could possibly imagine. Even when he does choose to stick around, he fails to inflict scorers with a dose of RSI.

In the Brisbane test England's five bowlers amalgamated only 74 runs and on that basis it must be said that Monty should have been hugely annoyed to have missed out on his first Ashes test based on the Mantra that his batting wasn't up to scratch.

Some months ago, Big Keith lauded young Mudhsuden as 'the best finger spinner in the world', he is then promptly whisked off to Australia only to find himself warming benches and making tea. In test cricket, Monty's bowling average is 10 runs per wicket better than Giles, and his strike rate is 2 overs better per wicket.

Putting this into context, had Monty taken 3 wickets in the first test, england would have had 30 runs and 6 overs to play with. This is a commodity that, should a match prove to be as tight as Trent Bridge or Edgbaston, would prove to be priceless. the difference between winning and losing - Without question.

Duncan, please stop the anachronistic, defensive selection policy and listen to the hearts of the millions of Britains who suprisingly know a thing or two about the game.

In other news...

Just a quick note on the news that Mr Yousuf has broken the world record for runs and centuries by a test player in a year.

This magnificent achievent is only eclipsed by the fact that he must now be ranked high in the echelons of follically magnificent cricketers including W.G. Grace, David Boon, Merv Hughes and Goochie.

But in all seriousness, his achievements in cricket as a whole has been phenomenal. Averaging over 55 in over 75 tests is the sign of a supreme player who has rarely found a blip or a dip in form in all the years he has played the game.

I think Brian Lara summed up the feelings of many when commenting on Yousuf's achievements said:

'It's excellent and slightly unbelievable what he has achieved. Nine hundreds in a year and that many runs is just magnificent. He is a very committed player and an excellent role model, not just for Pakistan but for young cricketers everywhere. He's had an amazing year, though the last 600 runs that he has scored I haven't really enjoyed.....'

The question is... Has Yousuf established himself to the extent that he is now due for consideration for All-time XI status?

Taking the Michael

Whoever thought that Michael Vaughan would make anything other than an ignominious return to the England set up should be shot and told to make friends with a certain S. Hussain.

In making a seven ball duck for the England Academy in Perth, Vaughan was dismissed by one of the most average bowlers in the whole of Australia, Christian Moir.

No one expected the former England captain to make a monstrous score, but I think for the good of the test side, a patient 20 would have calmed the grey matter.

Disregarding the fact that Moir might have bowled the ball of his life, Vaughan's problem in Perth underlines much about the whole England tour to Australia.

England arrived in Australia and had a warm up that would struggle to raise the heart rate of my nan, and in the first test in Brisbane that lack of preparation manifested itself in a good old hiding by the ageing Aussie boys.

It is time that the England management, including Flintoff who must share a large portion of the blame for the Brisbane capitulation, had a serious re-think about future tours and our preparation for them.

I fear that it is too late to rescue this antipodean escapade, but cricketers with central contracts should be playing MUCH better than this.

Oh my god, what the F*&% was that?

In writing my sensible blog, I was chomping at the bit to call Jimmy Anderson and his England cohorts a bunch of pie-chucking, egocentric, jumped up, pathetic group of piss-artists.

I didn't. Because I actually want people to take me moderately seriously and empathise with the things that I say. So I have decided to write an alternate blog, which expresses my deepest fears and cynicysms about the England team and it's current woeful standing in world cricket.

First of all (cue rant), what the HELL is James Anderson doing playing Test Match Cricket?

I'm a Lancashire supporter born and bred, but that kid has as much chance of forging an excellent career as I do of getting into Britney Spear's pants....

OK that's a bad example, but I'm sure that you can see what I mean. Bowling like a drain not only proves you to be a shit international cricketer, it also saps the morale of the rest of the team.

Just imagine if you were one of the England team (that wasn't Harmison...), waiting for James Anderson to deliver the ball? You know for a fact that it is unlikely to be a dot, rarely a quick single to deep mid-on, and more likely going to be whizzing past your face or any other bodily extremity faster than the poor lad can launch it down the track.

After a hundred runs or so, you'd probably be thinking about your genealogy, and hoping that you had some Bangladeshi blood in you.

James Anderson should not play cricket at all. He looks like an idiot and bowls like a village cricket opener that once had a trial for Nottingham under 3's and has lived off the back of it ever since.

Enough Jimmy bashing for the moment - the chances are that opportunities are going to be plentiful over the course of the winter.

My second concern was the leadership of Andrew 'the man with 1,000 names' Flintoff. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate that he is a strong and significant character in the England dressing room but is he a man qualified enough to lead this country's cricket team into battle?

Err no.

Michael Vaughan strikes you as the sort of person who lines an 'alien' toilet seat with tissue paper to make sure that his botty doesn't get too cold, and when he goes to bed he reads the Daily Telegraph cover to cover has a final sip of Ovaltine and slips off to sleep - no doubt dreaming of cars with enormous wheels and the Tellytubbies.

Young Andrew on the other hand, seems to be a chap more intent on breaking David Boon's 'Tinnies' record than understanding what actually goes on on a cricket pitch. His cricketing nouse seems to extend to the number of balls in an over, and how long the boundaries are.

In Australia's first innings we saw him mix and match the bowling attack, never finding a duo capable of forming a partnership. His field placings were naive, and the decision to bowl Bell and Pietersen smacked of desperation.

The Brisbane pitch was akin to Cuban virgin's thigh and so the choice to bring in Anderson and Giles, seems in hindsight, suicidal. Mahmood and Panesar, whilst not guaranteed, would have at least provided those moments of inspiration on which cricket hangs. We saw against Pakistan that both bowlers, can at least rattle the best in the world and I, for one am still flumoxxed that at least one of the two didn't play.

I think it's best that we forget that Brisbane ever happened, move on to Adelaide for the 4 match series against the Aussies, and thank Ricky and his men that they didn't enforce the follow-on, because I might now have been writing this had we fallen to our biggest ever loss...

Parallels of '05?

So that was that.

A complete capitulation by the English in Brisbane was eerie in its parallels to the 1st test at Lords, back in 2005.

1) The Aussies totally outplayed us,

2) Kevin Pietersen destroyed the Aussie bowling attack (for a short period of time at least),

3) Everyone, including us Poms, were convinced that Australia would win the Ashes.

The only small problem the English have got currently, is that by-and-large, we were utterly spineless in Brisbane.

At Lords, England showed a true fighting spirit. With the bowlers peppering the top order with venemous short deliveries, and a few batsmen showing that they could deal with the best Australia had to offer, the nation could see that even in defeat there was much to build on.

In Brisbane, there were a multitude of problems ranging from the fact that Freddie Flintoff is a man you secretly would love to be your best man at your wedding and not captain of the country, through to the fact that Australia played like a pub team in England's second innings and we still only managed to score just over 300.

Very few of these problems presented themselves with obvious solutions.

In this instance, the toss was obviously a major player in the game, but considering the profligacy of both England's bowling and batting in the first innings, I have a nagging suspicion that the result would have been fairly similar had Ricky Ponting's little George W. Bush eyes not been the one's to light up with glee after the coin had hit the floor.

The inclusion of Anderson and Giles in the starting XI smacked of inconsistent selection policies. Both Mahmood and Panesar would have been rightly frustrated to find themselves sitting on their behinds for the duration of the Test.

Their achievements over the past summer have been far in excess of those of Anderson and Giles. As bowling threats go, we know in our hearts that they are twice as likely to strike fear into the Aussie batsmen as the buffet bowling of Anderson and the laborious geriatric spin of Giles provided.

Moving on to Adelaide, England must forget about the debacle of Brisbane and start afresh. Andrew Flintoff needs to motivate his troops and prove to them that he is more than just a comic book superman.

The whole team must truly believe that they can go toe-to-toe with the Australian veterans, because at the moment if it came to a dust up between the two, i'd go for experience over age. Wouldn't you?