why we lost the ashes...

just been perusing mother beeb and wept a few tears for the state of english cricket. i've heard many say we lose on account of bad luck (vaughan, trescothick and now giles all absent) and some say it's the selectors fault (panesar's excellent display in perth does add weight to this theory) but this Y campigner has a different view (not that you're surprised).

for the neanderthals amongst you here is a quick up-date on how the players are choosen.

a team consists of 11 players who all have a skill in one of the main categories of play; batting, bowling and fielding. normarily a team consists of 5 batters, 5 bowlers and an all-rounder (flintoff). it is to be expected that the bowlers excell in bowling out the opposition and for the batsmen to get more runs than anyone else. the figures for the first two test match's suggest england are amongst those unaware of this.

collingwood (eng) is our highest hitter with an average of 109 runs but would only rank third on the auzzie list. strauss (eng) is apperantly a batsman though his average of 17 runs places him below all but three auzzie's - below their bowlers clark (auz) and warne (auz). not only have we batted poorly we haven't bowled like ashes winners. our best bowlers have been hoggard (eng) 10, flintoff (eng) 7 and giles (eng) 3 - the hero of 2005 harmison (eng) only managed 1! this is compared to clark (auz) 11, mcgrath (auz) 9 and warne (auz) 9.

injuries can weaken a side, dodgy selections can put a side at a disadvantage but if those choosen to play do not turn up and perform then the urn will not stay on these shores.