£100m spent, but what about good management?

Every so often a team goes on a shopping spree that makes supermarket sweep look like a dull affair. Chelsea did it when Abramovich bought the club, Man City did the same when they had an injection of oil cash, and now Spurs have had a remarkably successful summer spending £110.5m. This time, however, whilst Tottenham has always been a relatively wealthy club, the money they have spent has been raised by sale of a talented young player who they have had a significant hand in developing.

Spurs' squad this season is made up of a venerable collection of names. Paulinho, who had a storming Confederations Cup, and Roberto Soldado, who scored 30 goals for Valencia in all competitions last season, were brought earlier in the summer and on both occasions broke the club's transfer record. They also signed winger Nacer Chadli from FC Twente and Etienne Capoue from Toulouse. A handy team of signings, even despite the sale of Steven Caulker to Cardiff which came as a surprise, especially with the value British players currently hold for football clubs.

The spending wasn't to stop there, though. Vlad Chiriches was bought to replace the gap left by Caulker, the club broke their transfer record for a third time to buy Erik Lamela for £30m, and finally on the last Friday of the transfer window, the club purchased Christian Eriksen from Ajax.

Even before the beginning of the season, Spurs were touted as likely competitors for the much sought after fourth position in the Premier League with the prize of Champions league football. After the signing of Eriksen however, many are now starting to consider them as possible title contenders. Some, though, argue that their squad is still one or two players short of the required calibre for a title challenge.

It seems that the squad is the first and foremost consideration in people's minds when they choose their title contenders for that year. And this is, of course, no surprise. But what role does management play in this equation? All these fourth position contenders seem to be one or two high quality players short of a league winning team, but it is possible for a good manager to over achieve.

Another fourth place contender, Liverpool, have a manager with a record of over achieving. Whilst with Swansea, Brendan Rodgers demonstrated that tactics and training routines can get the most out of a team and push them to do much better than most expect. In a much more significant way, Alex Ferguson won the Premier League in 2010-11 with a considerably weaker team compared with rivals Chelsea and Manchester City. Despite the fact that Ferguson had to rely on the likes of John O'Shea, Johnny Evans and Anderson (All good players but most probably would not make the starting line ups of Man City or Chelsea) the unique skills of Alex Ferguson combined with a culture of success meant that they could win the title. It also might be worth mentioning the fact that year after year Arsene Wenger has been criticised for not buying in new players during the transfer window, and whilst they don't always challenge for the title, they consistently seem to earn themselves a place in the Champions League. Surely, Wenger is responsible for this.

These examples make me think that if the management is right at Tottenham, then they could compete for the title. The remaining question, therefore, is whether Andre Villas Boas is up to the task and only time will tell us the answer to that. It is easy to place all the emphasis on the importance of signings and squads during the thrill of the transfer window, but if managers were unimportant, it would be the squad who would get the sack after a poor run of form rather than the manager picking up their P45. I don't think anyone is suggesting that mangers don't mean anything, but by placing so much emphasis on squads and signings, we are perhaps underestimating the importance and potential for managers to achieve the unexpected. 

England make the final - but beating India will be tough

Despite plenty of criticism, Alastair Cook has guided England's one-day side to the ICC Champions Trophy final to take place on Sunday. It is rare that an English team reaches the final of a major sporting event and, so far, England have been very good in this competition, but few would disagree with the bookies' choice of India as the favourites to take away the grand prize. So how can England win this competition?

England's progress through the tournament has been impressive and they have shown that when the conditions suit their game, England probably possess the finest bowling attack in the world, with Jimmy Anderson swinging the ball from leg to off, and vice versa, at will. But, as was all too evident in their game with Sri Lanka, if the ball stops swinging, England quickly run out ideas, even if their batsmen put on what should be a defendable score. With this in mind, England will definitely be hoping the ball moves around at Edgbaston on Sunday, much in the same way as it did against Australia.

James Tredwell has also been extremely impressive, seamlessly filling in for the injured Graeme Swann. His figures have actually been more impressive than England's usual off-spinner. Tredwell has taken 25 wickets in his 13 games since since January 2012 at a cost of 19.40 runs apiece. Swann, on the other hand, has taken 14 wickets in his 15 games during the same period conceding 42.78 runs per wicket. This may cause problems for those with the responsibility of picking the side for Sunday's final, but with the wicket at Edgbaston being reportedly dry, there exists the possibility that both men could start.

Broad, Bresnan and Finn are also worthy of mention for their performances during the tournament, and although I was of the belief that they were bowling too many bouncers, my views have been proven wrong by the number of wickets they have picked up along the way. In addition to the full time bowlers, both Root and Bopara have proved themselves to very handy part timers, more than capable of filling in for the others during the spare overs. But Root and Bopara are not wicket takers and Cook would do well to use them more wisely than perhaps he did against South Africa. With the Proteas at 80-8, Cook took the strike bowlers out of the attack and allowed South Africa to more than double their existing total. Against India, England will have to be more ruthless and pounce upon any opportunity they get to dismiss the sub-continental team for a sub par score.

Despite these strengths, England cannot rely wholly on their bowlers to do the job, especially against a side whose pedigree with the bat is well known. Cook, Bell and Trott have all been criticised for being too slow, having as they do, strike rates around 75. They have also struggled to establish par score for the pitch in the opening overs when batting first. As a result of this, one would fully expect India to put England in to bat should they win the toss, and, for the same reasons, England will probably be just as keen to bowl at the Indians should the coin land in their favour. Despite the pundits' reservations, England's batsmen have done a good enough job so far, and the failure of England to beat Sri Lanka was more likely to do with some uninspired bowling rather than the relatively good score that England posted in their innings. 

Still, accusations of poor tactics and slow run rates have been forthcoming. Some have suggested that the likes of Root, Morgan, Buttler and Bopara are too good to be coming in at the end of an innings to play little more than a smash and bang cameo. But, it is a tactic that has worked quite well, and the focus of a captain cannot be to grant justice to a batsman's abilities if that could compromise the possibility of a team victory. Whatever England decide to do on Sunday, a big score will be needed, either to give the bowlers enough wriggle room to bowl effectively at India or in order to chase what everyone is expecting to be a big Indian total.

India have been by far and away the best team throughout this tournament, especially with the bat. Shikhar Dhawan, the new Indian opener, has scored 332 runs in four matches including two centuries. He will need to be dispatched quickly unless he is to prove as villainous to England's chances as his wonderful moustache suggests. Dhawan's wicket will be key for England, but with the likes of Kohli, Sharma and Dhoni further down the order, there will still be lots of work to do should Dhawan depart early.

Ravi Ashwin will also be a key part of India's game on Sunday, not only can he be a dangerous batsman, his bowling can be tough to get away and score runs from, and his haul of three wickets against Pakistan is not to be scoffed at. Ravi Jadeja has also had a very impressive tournament, taking 10 wickets in his four matches, but just as importantly, bowling a very tight line and earning himself an economy rate of 3.51. I have never been a big admirer of Ishant Sharma, but his bowling in this tournament, especially in the "death overs", has been tight, restricting the number of runs significantly at the most explosive point in the game.

Despite these bowling strengths, the battle for this match will come whilst India are hitting their total. England should have enough to deal with India's bowling attack, and if so, the responsibility will then lie with the Anderson et al to do their job with the most capable batting side in one day cricket. Anderson versus Dhawan will be the contest of the tournament, and I am licking my lips at such a prospect, for these are the reasons we all watch cricket.

England have a tough test ahead, but India will also be aware that England are far from pushovers. We have a great game ahead of us, but will it be the swing of the ball or the swing of the bat that prevails?

Cricket's Turn in the Sun

Last summer England took on South Africa in what should have been one of the best contests of the day. Instead the Test matches were an anti climax in terms of the competition they provided. With the cricket team on the back foot, but failing to hit a thing, it was hardly surprising that the public were attracted by the once in a lifetime, British success that was the Olympics. Furthermore, the summer ended on sour note with the resignation of Andrew Strauss. But this year, all being well, it will be cricket's turn to shine and to take centre stage as England face Australia in back to back Ashes series, and a myriad ODIs and T20s.

Worryingly however, a subject has been made of this being Test cricket's final stand especially In a world where cricket is dominated by its largest market, India, a market where Test cricket is very much on the decline. England and Australia are perhaps the only two countries where Tests still have a prestige status, and this year may be the last chance for them to prove this point, especially considering the ICC's unwillingness to introduce the long awaited Test Championship.

The cricketing year is already underway as England complete their ODI series in India. And after an extremely successful Test series which saw England win in India for the first time in 28 years, English fans have every right to be excited about the year to come. It is likely that the battle with Australia will be tighter than last year's South African series, and the added history between the two sides always enlivens the experience.

England should find rejuvenation in the appointment of a new Test captain. Alastair Cook has already begun his tenure with an astonishing 562 runs and a series victory in India. He will have plenty of opportunities to add to his rocketing reputation when he takes his team to New Zealand and then welcomes the Black Caps to England at the beginning of summer. Based on their most recent displays against South Africa, the Kiwis should provide little more than batting practice before the feature presentation of a five match Ashes series. After a bout of limited overs cricket, England will then travel immediately down under and, hopefully, beat back the Aussies for a second time.

It is hoped that this will provide cricket with its chance to excite the British public, and even more importantly, provide Test cricket with its opportunity to show the world that it still has a role to play in the modern game. An exciting Ashes battle may be able to achieve both of those objectives, but it will still take a concerted effort from the ICC and the BCCI to help keep test cricket alive. After a much anticipated ODI and T20 series between India and Pakistan, perhaps it would send a powerful message if that contest were to include a number of Test matches during its next occurrence.

It is certain that cricket will have to compete with the new British obsession of cycling, and the rising prospects of our tennis players, but the draw of an historic feud should propel the sport to the forefront and make it the year of the red, seamed ball.

Cricket faces its biggest test

Test cricket is in danger of vanishing from our stadiums and now the dedication of the ICC for Test cricket has been brought into question.

Unfortunately, fans of Test cricket should get used to this level of commitment as we watch our beloved game buckling under pressure from the more lucrative markets surrounding one day cricket and T20s. The latest wound to be savagely slashed open is the postponement of the Test Championship. The plan was for the top four test nations to compete with one another in a tournament style semi-final and final in London in 2013. Now Haroon Lorgat, ICC Chief Executive, has announced that this possibly life saving spectacle won't take place until at least (and emphasis must be placed on "at least") 2017. The concern is that they won't revisit the idea and that either the idea will dissolve into the annuls of time or that by the time it does happen it will be far too late for Test cricket.

The ICC see the problem as a financial one. ESPN STAR, the broadcasting partners of the ICC, and one of India's primary sports broadcasters, would have a lot to lose were the Test Championship to take place in 2013. The fact is that the broken pencil of world cricket, the pointless Champions Trophy, has always been due to take place in 2013 and ESPN STAR were not willing to take the hit in ratings that would result in replacing one day cricket with Test cricket on Indian screens. Lorgat stated that any such replacement would require financial recompense for the broadcaster, the majority of which would have to come from the domestic cricket boards.

A number of cricket's biggest names and authorities have criticised the ICC for their actions in this. Even before the announcement last week, Andy Flower said that the ICC weren't doing enough to protect the future of Test cricket. The MCC, the conservative voice of the game, said that this decision was a 'setback' for the longer form of the sport and that a balance needs to be found between all forms of cricket. Some of the strongest words however, came from someone whose opinion doesn't always match with mine, South African captain Graeme Smith. He has criticised the ICC for its decision and claims that they do not have cricket's best interests at heart. Strong feelings such as these are rare from sportsman. It would be nice to see a few more cricket players airing their feelings about this decision. Andrew Strauss, who I know struggles to say anything not given to him on a sheet of ECB headed notepaper, should really be joining in with Smith. After all, the demise of Test cricket means the demise of his career as it is the only form of cricket he plays these days.

It is not just the ICC who have a responsibility to protect the original game. The domestic cricket boards have to do their part and their part is significant. Because they organise the tour schedules between them, they choose how many Test matches, ODIs and T20s are played in a series. The ECB have perhaps the biggest chance to promote the game in this respect. In their charge they have the world's number one Test side and their participation in a series will be sought after by other boards. However, next summer, when a real opportunity presents itself, the ECB has stabbed Test cricket and its fans squarely between the shoulder blades. South Africa are visiting these fair shores and they currently hold the second spot in the Test rankings, all of which has the makings of a stellar series. But instead of the four Tests that should be played, the ECB have only organised three, the same number as we will be playing against the seriously depleted West Indies a month earlier. I suspect that this is due to the T20 World Championship that is taking place in the months after South Africa have finished playing here and both sides seem to be keen to get some practice in. Justification or not, it frustrates me that Test cricket is being compromised by a frivolous competition that seems to happen every other week.

The real problem facing Test cricket though is its lack of popularity in India and the priorities of the BCCI. Fans in India won't watch Test cricket and therefore it doesn't make any money. The future is even bleaker in that respect as any support Test cricket did get from the Indian public is jeopardised by the fact they have been knocked off the number one spot. On top of that, some of the finest Test players of a generation are close to retirement. Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Khan, will all have to hang up their spikes soon and their ability seems to be the only force
driving the Indian Test side forward. After that, with Indian youth focussing on one day cricket and T20, it is unlikely they will ever produce Test cricketers of that calibre again. It isn't just the next generation who view cricket through these cheap thrill glasses though. Haroon Lorgat himself has professed that the limited overs World Cup is the most significant event in world cricket and not the spectacle of an Ashes series or a series between India and Pakistan, two of the most fraught rivalries in sport.

Test cricket can live in harmony with the other forms of the game but it has to be finely balanced. The game of cricket is Test cricket and the other forms are offshoots and spin offs, it is important that the governing bodies remember that. The future of the game lies in their hands, they have ensure that Test cricket is played and continues to be respected. Ultimately, however, a small group of ageing purists are going to have a hard time overpowering one billion Indian cricket fans who want more crash, bang, wallop and less of the artful subtlety that caused me to fall in love with the game.

India Favours Umpires’ Hawk Eyes Over Technology

The current series between India and England is a feast for any cricket fan. Two of the finest sides in the world and some of the greatest cricketers the game has ever seen. So far we have experienced genuinely exciting English conditions and a bizarrely brilliant double century from controversial batsman, Kevin Pietersen. One thing is preventing this from being as great as this occasion could be though and that is the Indian's poor compromise regarding the Umpire Decision Review System (DRS).

The DRS was certainly controversial when it was first introduced and it did take a little while for the ICC to get the system right. When it was first introduced the use of Hawk-Eye for LBW decisions was limited to the recorded passage of the ball and not the predicted path. This meant that the third umpire had to use an element of judgement in deciding whether the batsman was out or not. This system proved to be a little absurd, even by the standards of the ICC. Eventually it was decided that Hawk-Eye's predictive element would be used and it has so far proved to be successful. There were fears surrounding its introduction, Umpires, for example, were afraid that the DRS would highlight their incompetence, but in actual fact it has demonstrated how talented and deserving of praise the game's enforcers are.


One cannot claim it is perfect, Hawk-Eye is not necessarily foolproof and more recently doubts have been raised about the sensitivity of infrared technology. It has been claimed by some experts of the technology that it is perfectly possible for the ball to strike the bat and create enough of an impact for the batsman to feel. However, in these instances, it may not cause enough friction to show up on camera. The old fashioned Snickometer has been touted as a possible solution to this but it is definitely not accurate as it is not isolated to noises made between ball and bat so could include noises made between bat and pad. It also takes around seven minutes to generate the results, too long a pause even in test cricket.

Despite these problems, they are certainly an improvement on the snap judgement of an umpire, however reliable he appears to be. The benefit of hindsight will always surpass the senses of the sharpest human being.

This is why it so odd that the BCCI opposes the DRS. There primary argument for failing to adopt the DRS is that it is not foolproof and so they have opted to remain with the old fashioned judgement of the Umpires, who presumably are also far from foolproof. Umpires are certainly more inaccurate than modern technology so perhaps the BCCI should recommend the removal of their involvement in the game. The BCCI have, however, allowed the DRS system to be used for disputes over catches and have been fiercely arguing for the inclusion of the Snickometer in such instances. Again, this seems a little hypocritical as both the thermal imaging equipment and Snicko are also inaccurate, certainly with regards to Snicko.

This refusal to adopt the system that all other test playing nations have deemed acceptable seems to be irrational and the BCCI really ought to be told to introduce the system in order to improve the consistency of LBW decisions made in test matches. The sad fact, however, is that the BCCI have become too powerful for the ICC to boss around. The IPL and the subsequent advertising revenues from a cricket crazy country of around one billion people, has given the BCCI considerable might. Again cricket is suffering from a weak governing body that has to rule the game and cannot allow national authorities to have too much autonomy, especially when it comes to the international game. When one nation takes a stance it affects the quality of the game for all the others.

England swing bowler James Anderson has said: "I don't understand why if all the other Test-playing nations are using it, India doesn't have to use it if they say they don't want to. We want to play with it as it clearly improves decision-making, I'm all in favour of it - but it's their problem if they're not going to support it."

The DRS is not foolproof, but has done a lot to improve the quality of decision making in the game and it has been introduced sensitively over the course of years. I hope the BCCI's hand will be forced, it is the best thing for the game and for the fans.

The Farce that is FIFA

It is very difficult to quite fathom the rationality behind FIFA's decision to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar respectively. Russia have a severe problem with racism and violence in football and Qatar, well they barely have a football team. The unsuccessful candidates must have felt disgusted as many had demonstrated how deserving they were. Australia, we know, has the ability to host a large scale sporting event due to their successful Olympic games in 2000. Spain and Portugal, the homes to Europe's Champions League and Europa League winners, perhaps deserve it for their recent successes. The missing candidate here is, of course, England who somehow only managed to accrue two votes in the first round of voting, after which they were eliminated. It was seen by the media and the public to have been a complete snub. People queried how this apparently representative organisation could deny football's destiny to return to its rightful home and questions were quickly raised with regards to broken promises and corruption. Prince William was accused of bribing a FIFA official with a wedding invitation and Jack Warner was said to have switched his vote to Russia at the last minute. FIFA blamed the English media, who we know have never been friendly to the organisation and Sepp Blatter. The English are yet to get over this supposed snub, for months they mumbled and grumbled rejecting Blatter and his gang of crooks.

Then, the confirmation that all our suspicions were founded in reality, presidential candidate Mohamed Bin Hammam and the aforementioned Concacaf representative, Jack Warner, were suspended over allegations of corruption. This didn't come as a surprise to many of us, it was, and still is, widely believed that corruption exists deep in FIFA's dark bowls. Then the king pin, proceedings opened against President Sepp Blatter thanks to suggestions from Hammam that he accepted money from Qatar to host the World Cup. The Qatari representative must have decided that if he was going down, he was going to take the emperor of football with him. Perhaps even more surprising than the fact FIFA were acting against Blatter, was the apparent existence of an 'ethics committee'. The planned FIFA presidential election looked in doubt as both the candidates were indicted over allegations of corruption. The English FA leapt upon the opportunity and called for the election to be postponed, if not, they said they would boycott it. Once again, their pleas fell on deaf ears. Blatter stood in an uncontested election and won. Now the FA could face many years of obscurity, dispatched into a pit of insignificance and ineffectiveness.

But do the FA really want to be part of this exclusive club? It seems to many that their governance of the game is doing far more harm than good. After all, FIFA is run by a business man who imposes business ethics upon the organisation, a mantra of 'money at all costs'.

FIFA's dogged determination to create revenue within football is arguably one of the reasons it has fallen in to such disrepute. The Bavaria beer flash mob incident during the 2010 World Cup is a perfect example of the lengths FIFA will go to appease the sponsors. On this occasion, 36 women were detained for wearing orange shirts during a game between the Netherlands and Denmark. Apparently FIFA consider themselves above the UN Charter of Human Rights and arrested the women for displaying the Dutch beer manufacturer's logo on their shirts. The logo, which was positioned at the bottom right hand of the seam, was a total of a mere two inches in length. Sadly for those football fans, Bavaria Beer had not paid FIFA any sponsorship revenue and so they were arrested. Further to that farcical episode, South African locals, who this World Cup was alleged to be supporting, were banned from selling food or drink outside the stadiums in order to maximise the profits of the official sponsors such as Coca-Cola.

Well, some have said, football needs money to support grassroots projects, help maintain standards within the game and nurture the next batch of talented young individuals. Any football fan would find it difficult to disagree with such claims. However, the majority of grassroots projects are run by domestic football associations and what little money FIFA do invest in the future is arguably not enough. It is an organisation worth over $1 billion and yet seems to do little promoting the sport in Africa and South America, certainly not enough to warrant such an apparent esteemed reputation. Football has proved to be an extremely positive tool for educational development in Africa, where some of the world's foremost football playing nations reside, but alas, the continent has no money and so is hardly worth FIFA's time. What little money that does go to African football, passes into the hands of corrupt officials such as Amos Adamu. Nigeria's FIFA executive committee member asked for £500,000 to build four football pitches in his home country which were never built. On this occasion FIFA did act and banned Adamu from any activity within football for three years. This is a common problem across Africa and most of the time it is not dealt with and so the officials get away with it. A number of FIFA officials have come out anonymously in the past few weeks attempting to blow the whistle on this abhorrent behaviour.

The idea that FIFA is a corrupt organisation was furthered by Jack Warner's recent leaky e-mail that claimed Qatar had bough their right to host the 2022 world cup. Well, again, this came as a shock to very few people but as it is so obvious, it seems strange that no one seems to be doing anything about it. The English and Scottish FA's decision to abstain from the election was, in my mind, a brave and commendable move. The problem according to many, including officials at Transparency International, is lack of accountability. Ways of tackling this include simple measures such as those introduced following the recent British expenses scandal. Football officials at all levels should have to publish their expenditure reports which would highlight occasions when a development officer is claiming £500,000 for new pitches and spending only a quarter of it, as has been reported in Africa. If such a move were made, perhaps FIFA's ethics committee would be able to act not only with the use of hard evidence but the support of football associations. Ultimately though, FIFA is not a democratic organisation and as a result the fans, who keep the game alive, have no say in how football is governed. If they did, Qatar would most certainly not be hosting a World Cup in 40 degree heat, with no beer and few native fans.

Is it time that the FA considered alternative options for the governance of football? The Spanish are also alleged to be frustrated with the organisation and a combined effort on behalf of the Spanish and English FAs would surely contain some clout due to the value La Liga and the Premier League has to FIFA. A complete self imposed exile from football's governing body may not sound like a probable solution but it might be desirable. After all, it is run by a questionable businessman, not someone tied to the game by a glittering career and as a result, who has helped corruption flourish within its corridors. It most probably would not be a permanent solution but, just as Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket did in the 1970s when he decided to break cricket away from the ICC, it may send some serious messages to those at the top about the current state of the sport.

Withdrawal from may not be likely to happen within the next few years, but something does need to change at the much maligned organisation to save football from a deep and catastrophic crisis. To see some democracy introduced would surely be a positive step and would provide an opportunity for the fans' vital voices to be heard. The first step however, is to remove the dark lord himself and ensure that Sepp Blatter never has any influence over our beloved game ever again, that would begin a move towards creating a better FIFA and a better game.

Shabba at the Gabba

The first test match of the Ashes has drawn, quite literally, to a close and whilst it may not have been the greatest test in history, it was certainly a roller coaster ride and entertaining. England's ability to crawl back from what looked to be certain defeat is a feat that should be remembered for years to come. The number of records broken by the Alastair Cook and his partner, Jonathan Trott, is truly remarkable. Most runs by a batsman in Brisbane surpassing even the great Don Bradman, highest partnership for England in Australia, the first time since 1924 that the top three batsmen have all scored centuries and the list goes on.

Amongst all the records though, it has to be acknowledged that England very nearly lost that test match and if it wasn't for the inspiration of Cook and some pretty lacklustre Australian bowling, the press would be singing a very different tune.

The first day was a real eye-opener for the England batting side. Posting a score of merely 260 proved to not be good enough and would have been a cause for real concern. Peter Siddle's hat-trick demonstrated how vulnerable England could be and the only small consolation was that Ian Bell, who has been injured of late, looked in very fine form. Later in the test it would become obvious that the other Australian bowlers far from hat-trick takers, and even Siddle had difficulty later in the game.

Day two very much belonged to Australia and Mike Hussey in particular. We also saw the worrying sight of Graeme Swann failing to live up to his name as the number two bowler in the world. His failure to threaten the batsmen could be attributed to the condition of the pitch which is true, it most certainly wasn't a spinners pitch in those early stages. However, we have seen Swann use flight as an incredibly powerful weapon in the past, something he didn't do on the second day and instead we were forced to watch him bowl a lot of very short balls which were deservedly smacked away for four by Ricky Ponting.

Day three was very much a similar story. Mike Hussey and Brad Haddin broke the record for the biggest partnership ever at the Gabba, a record that was to stand for a mere two days. The lasting impression was that England would have to bowl a lot better (even though they were unlucky at times) to win the series and that Australia, despite all that has been said, haven't burnt out yet. The final wickets did eventually fall and Steven Finn, who I still think will grow into one of England's finest bowlers, looked in good form.

Days four and five was when we really saw what England can do and what Australia can't. The achievements of the English top three were formidable and set the standard for this series. The success of Cook can also be seen as extra special due to his recent poor form. England went on to pull the game back into their control, and whilst they weren't ever going to win, they stripped the Australians of what very easily could have been their victory.

A few things have become clear in this test match, primarily that it is not going to be easy for England to win this series. Our bowlers have got to adapt to the conditions of Australian pitches, none of the bowlers, English or Australian were good enough, especially in the closing stages when the pitch was falling apart and had plenty of cracks to take advantage of. I pray that the pitches in the coming tests are a little more lively, mainly for entertainment but also because the England bowlers will most probably take advantage of them. The Australian bowlers have not looked threatening enough to trouble the English batsmen, even on a bowlers wicket. Sadly Adelaide is renowned for being flat and in favour of the batsmen. Perhaps there will be more in it for the spinners and we sill see the return of stellar Swann.

I am also becoming increasingly impressed with Australia's opening pair, particularly Shane Watson, who proved that he has talent with both bat and ball in this test, was the pick of the bowlers on the first day before Peter Siddle took off. England will have a lot of work to do to get him and Katich out, but I don't think it is a challenge too far for the likes of Anderson and Broad.

England have the momentum now and have edged their noses in front, leading us into to what should be another great series... if the pitches are as lively as I hope.