The Punter Pratted: Part 2

Ponting has a peck at Umpire Aleem Dar

Nothing delights an English crowd more than an irate Ricky Ponting, and five years ago, in the fourth test of an Ashes series the Australian Captain lost the plot completely after being run out by substitute fielder Gary Pratt. Launching a foul-mouthed tirade on coach Duncan Fletcher as he walked up the pavilion steps. 


Now, in another fourth test of an Ashes series with Australia on the brink, his head under the baggy green seems less than cool in the temperate Melbourne weather.

Magnanimous in victory, and a spoiled brat when losing, Ponting's attitude towards sportsmanship seems to waver like a pendulum. At Adelaide, when he caught a disputing catch at short mid-wicket off Cook, who was by then well into three figures, he castigated the English opener for not walking when he told him he had caught the ball cleanly. This from the man who has gloved/hit two balls down the leg side so far this series (both caught by Prior and given out), but has walked on neither occasion, as Vic Marks was wont to point out yesterday afternoon.

Ponting, who has been fined 40 percent of his match fee, but escaped without a one-match ban, which might have done him some good considering his recent form with the bat and the way this series is heading.

It is hard to believe every word that comes out of the Punter's mouth, as this video clip, taken from the test match with India at Sydney three years ago shows. Ponting appeals for a catch, having taken the ball at silly mid on, but neither has the ball hit the glove of MS Dhoni, the batsmen, nor has the Australian skipper fairly caught the ball, as replays clearly show he grounds the ball on the floor when he lands.

Not content with this blatant gamesmanship, he takes it to the next level when an Indian journalist brings the catch up in the post-match conference. "If you're actually questioning my integrity in the game," Ponting thunders, "then you shouldn't be standing here," he told a room full of shell-shocked hacks.

Still, as one former Australian player after another condemned Ponting's actions yesterday, his form is probably worrying one of the most prolific test scorers ever, as he has one creditable score in seven innings so far, 51 not out when the game was already over at Brisbane. Since then, 0, 9, 12, 1 and 10.

This would be his 10th straight test match without a century (his last being 209 against Pakistan at Hobart in January), which would be his joint-second worst run in 15 years of test cricket. He was on a similar rut before that innings, having failed in the previous nine to make it to three figures, after his 150 at Cardiff against England. It would also match the ten tests in 2004 when he failed to reach 100 in the calender year, but at least then he averaged 41. 2000-2001 was his worst stretch where he went 11 matches without a ton.

You have to wonder whether stories of dissension with Michael Clarke, despite his woeful batting form, and the man most likely to replace Ponting, on a short term basis at least are really true. Clarke, who has 21 test wickets to his name, has not been given a bowl all series, something that has bemused commentators, when a short spell by the right handed batsman, might give the front line bowlers a half hour of well needed rest, especially in the scorching heat of the earlier games. Is his back a factor, or has he fallen out with Ponting?

But Brad Haddin, behind the stumps, presumably heard a noise, but with neither snicko, or hotspot revealing anything, while instant replays show neither the bat or the ball near the pads, what was the phantom noise that had the keeper excited?

Either way, the Australians find themselves in an absolute mess, devoid of any cutting edge with the ball or the bat. Having lost the magic formula that served him so well in the third test at Perth, Mitchell Johnson has reverted to banging the ball into the ground, which at least resulted in the wickets of Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell.

Without the presence of any swing, Johnson's threat to right handers is nullified, as the natural line of a straight ball across the right hander pitches outside the leg stump, and thus the batsman has no fear of being given out leg before. Johnson is therefore infinitely more dangerous when he can pitch the ball on off stump and get it to straighten into the right hander. Without that

Trott and Prior, who put on an unbeaten 158 this morning, turned England's position from a good one, to an unassailable one. The Aussies will have to now bat for at least two days to save the test match, otherwise the words "England have retained the Ashes" will be ringing around the MSG, words not heard either side of the world since 1986/7.

There are only three things wrong with this Australia Team: They Can't bat, bowl or field.

Selection choices had Jim Maxwell whipped to quite a frenzy during yesterday's lunch interval, and apparently Shane Warne has gone around Adelaide telling everyone who will listen that they should blow up the entire Australian team and start again. Australia is not as young as it once was, as even the newcomers are golden oldies: Xavier Doherty is 28, Harris is 31 and Bollinger is 29.

Although it is amazing that Australians are already ripping their players to shreds even though it is 0-0, and some English fans are already bemoaning the fact that the Aussies aren't even a challenge, the gulf is there for all to see. When people said before the series that this was the most unsettled Australian team for 30 years, they hit the mark with great precision. The board of selectors will have to decide whether they want to gut their bowling attack for the second straight game.

Lets run down the list of players and whether they will be playing in the next test in Perth.

Simon Katich (35): Usually, he would be safe, but his fielding has demonstrated that he should not be playing. He's nursing a serious Achilles injury. If fit, he would be a useful bowler along the lines of Paul Collingwood. At the moment he's a lame duck. Given the dire straits Australia find them in, they cannot be weighed down by a passenger on the team. He's Gone.

Shane Watson (29): Watson should be ok from any cull, but he's not 100% fit either. His bowling has been solid, and at least he has made some relatively good scores (36, 41* and 51 are relatively good scores, unless you are Mike Hussey). Safe.

Ricky Ponting (36): Ponting's test career speaks for itself, and more often than not he'll make a good score. A tad unlucky to nick his first ball, but he will score runs at some point during the series. His 12,300 test runs at an average of 57 is incredible. If only they had six other Ricky's. Safe.

Michael Clarke (29): the Aussie 'vice-captain' will be batting for his place in the team in the second innings. A lower back injury and good England short bowling have combined to give Clarke a miserable series so far. Also behind the scenes grumblings that he and Ponting are not getting along too well. Gone.

Michael Hussey (35): Before the first test, they said his position was under threat. Not so after knocks of 195 and 93. Safe.

Marcus North (31): This depends entirely on how the selectors re-jig the bowling lineup. They might put a premium on bowling and bump up Haddin to 6 and go with five bowlers, including a spinner. If it wasn't for North's ability as a part time spinner, he would be gone, as his batting just is not good enough to warrant a place in the side. Far too hot and cold, he either makes a century, or gets out relatively cheaply. Averages 19 in tests if you take away his centuries. Review.

Brad Haddin (33): He and Hussey have almost single-handedly saved two Australian innings from total disaster. With no other viable option behind the stumps, his place is assured. Safe.

Ryan Harris (31): He's been solid if not spectacular through the England innings, troubling Cook, Trott and Pietersen with some decent short stuff. Safe.

Xavier Doherty (28): Hopelessly out of his depth. Whether they bring back Nathan Hauritz or maybe even bring in the young Steven Smith, Doherty does not belong on the greatest cricketing arena. Sinking not waving. Gone.

Peter Siddle (26): He may have been the pick of the bowling at the Gabba, but Siddle's bowling gameplan has looked far too ordinary, failing to try anything different. All he seemed to do yesterday and the day before was run in and bang it into the pitch, hoping for the English batsmen to get themselves out. Review.

Doug Bollinger (29): Oh dear. One maiden in 27 overs does not read well, and the selectors were probably right in not picking him for the first test. Probably does not possess the stamina needed in 40 degree temperatures, as his bowling speed tailed off towards the end of every spell. Hilfenhaus could do far better. Gone.

I maintain the right to amend these choices at the end of the test.

Ponting watches on as England dominate Day 2

Ricky Ponting can find solace in the fact that his performance as captain was the second most ridiculous thing on Sky Sports 1 through the night, with the latest George Clooney nespresso advert more deserving of that honour. However the mind boggled as Ponting shuffled around the Australian field in a vain attempt to get wickets, and ended up spending far too much of the day staring at the ground. Unsurprisingly the ground gave him no answers.

Even with a heavy offside field, his bowlers strayed far too often onto the pads of Trott and Cook, who took such offerings to be the boundary more often than not. A short leg is a requisite for both batsmen, who love to score through the leg side, but even when Ponting ordered Siddle to bowl at Trott rather than his stumps, he implemented a leg gully, or a short leg at times, but never both at the same time. Bodyline, Ponting style. And when England scored 52 off the first nine overs after lunch, he told his bowlers to pitch everything a good yard outside of off-stump and starve the batsmen of runs. Neither of these tactics worked too well, although Trott edged a chance to

Alastair Cook meanwhile is almost half way to immortality (no, not literally), as he stares down Don Bradman's record of 974 runs in a single Ashes series. As imperious as the left handed opener has performed over his last two innings, that is the record of records, and even Hammond's record of 906 runs by an Englishman in Australia seems a long way away. Cook will resume on 438 runs overall, when he begins Day 3 of the second test in Adelaide, 72 ahead of Australia's first innings score, but with eight wickets in hand.

For Ponting, yesterday saw his teams' situation go from bad to worse. Ryan Harris looked nothing more than ordinary, Doug Bollinger got bounce but little else, and Siddle, the first test hero, had to resign to bowling at Trott's ribcage in an effort to get him out. Xavier Doherty had a nightmare, even against Kevin Pietersen, who we are all told, has a weakness against lefty spin bowlers. As the spinner, playing in just his second test, was swatted for three straight boundaries through extra cover by the defensive minded Cook, Ponting had little option but to shelve him. Injuries hampered using Shane Watson too much, while Simon Katich is also supposedly crocked, shelving him from bowling, should the skipper have been so inclined. Bizarrely, Katich has 15 test wickets at a decent average of 30. Any reprieve for the bowling attack would have been welcome on a searing hot day.

But fortunately for Trott, Pietersen and Cook, the Aussie bowling temperature never reached above tepid, allowing them to reach 317 by the close of play, with two blots on the copy book, an absolute clanger of a dismissal by Strauss and a mistimed lob through mid-wicket by Trott.

There was also great symmetry as Doherty had a chance to run out Trott in single figures, an incident eerily similar to that involving Katich and Trott a day earlier. Mr Cricket Michael Hussey dropped Trott on 10 in the gulley, a catch similar to the one Pietersen held, dismissing Watson for 51 straight after Lunch on Friday.

Even a repeat of the 2006 Adelaide Test could not dampen English spirits, while Australia laboured in the field, England's bowlers put their feet up, and possibly enjoyed the fact that, as Mark Selvey points out, the Aussies have taken as many wickets in their last 250 overs as England managed in 13 balls the day before.

There was also another record for Trott and Cook, the highest English second-wicket partnership at the Adelaide Oval, with their 173 eclipsing the 169 John Edrich and Keith Fletcher made in 1971.

Early Christmas Presents for England

Anderson is mobbed after dismissing Ricky Ponting

Someone, somewhere, in the back room of an Australian newspaper sports desk, at least one hack will be writing about the death of Australian cricket as we know it. Had this been in England, it would probably have already been written, as the Daily Mirror seems to have stock pieces ready for times of ritual sporting humiliation.

But the end of those Halcyon Days of Australian cricket seems to have its journalist foaming at the mouth, as if they cannot believe a period of complete dominance in test matches has in fact, come to an end. For those English watching the action at midnight, the bevy of gifts they were given, one after another, in such quick succession, that they could have been forgiven for asking to slow them down a bit. It was almost impossible to savour such early wickets raining down on them, as cricket presents popped in their laps before they had fully unwrapped the first one. Christmas had indeed come early for those not enjoying thirty-five degree heat.

Apart from great containing bowling by Graeme Swann and delightful incision by Anderson, the Australian performance was un-characteristically abject, with wickets thrown away carelessly. There was Simon Katich's run-out, where both batsmen failed to look at each other while running between the wickets, Ricky Ponting's dismissal, as his bat clanged against his pad first ball, opening up the blade of the bat, lobbing an easy catch to second slip Swann, Marcus North's waft outside of his off-stump, and Shane Watson getting caught between cutting and driving the ball, hoiking the ball to Pietersen in the gully. Rarely has an English bowling attack had it so good down-under.

But the man in the hot seat, now that the Australian cricket selectors have given Johnson and Hilfenhaus the push, is vice-captain Michael Clarke, who looks out at sea in the middle. Still troubled by back issues, he had issues with the short ball in the first innings, and hung around for six deliveries before obliging Anderson to complete a cataclysmic start for his team. 2-3 was the worst start by an Australian team since 1950, when, on a web Brisbane pitch Jack Moroney, Ian Johnson and Sam Loxton were all dismissed without scoring by Alec Bedser and Trevor Bailey, with the pair eventually getting the Aussies to 32-7, when they declared, leaving England 192 to win. They were bowled all out for 122, with Len Hutton stranded at 62 not out.

England had to settle for 245 all out this time, and it might have been even less, had Hussey's early edge carried to Swann in the slips, or Jimmy Anderson had held on to a hard caught and bowled chance, with 'Mr. Cricket' only on three. Anderson's performance must be all the sweeter for him, given his nightmare of a tour four years ago, and given he was so unlucky early on Day 3 at the Gabba, bowling without reward against Hussey and Haddin.

And after the day's play, it was not just the Aussie press who worked themselves into a lather, as Ponting rounded off a miserable day by barracking Andrew Strauss as he left the field over alleged sledging by Anderson on Brad Haddin. "Get off the pitch," Michael Vaughan told the Australian skipper.

But at Adelaide the English demons are still there. Needing to bat out to draw the game after two big first inning scores four years ago, and sitting comfortably on 69-1, they collapsed to 129 all out, with Shane Warne tearing through the order, and a calamitous run out between Bell and Collingwood. Considering they made 551-6 in their first innings, a loss was a terrible result.

Still, without Hussey and Haddin over the last two matches, the Aussies would be looking extremely foolish. The pair saved another innings, scoring the majority of the runs on Day 1, but the real question is what Katich and Watson were doing in the first over. There was a single there easily if the man at the non-strikers end would have actually glanced at his partner instead of staring at the ball. It was Katich's call, but he never once looked Watson's way. Not even when he eventually set off. This failure in communication was ultimately, both batsmen's fault.

Still, as good as Day 1's performance was, England need to follow it up with a rounded batting display, in order to put a good first innings lead on the board, before attacking the Aussies for a second time.

Get a Draw at the Gabba, and Let the Aussie Press do the Rest

Glenn McGrath famously told journalists prior to the 2005 Ashes series that they would beat England at Lords in the first test, and let the English press do the rest. McGrath ripped through the lineup at Lords, and Michael Vaughan's side came in for some not too gentle ribbing. They went on to win the series after the humiliating defeat, a pretty clear warning if the English were tempted to get too comfortable after a famous draw. But Ricky Ponting's men were the ones getting the roasting, as England recorded only their second draw at the Gabba, having not won at the ground since they last won the Ashes on Australian soil, in 1986/7. Mitchell Johnson, with his pornstar moustache and butterfingers went wicketless, for the first time in his test career. "This is filth from Mitchell Johnson," Nasser Hussain pronounced after Cook walloped him over the covers for four. Perhaps a good shave will do the Australian some good, if he is not dropped first, as he could make way for Doug Bollinger, while Xavier Doherty might be replaced by Ryan Harris.

Yet England must keep any notions of hubris in check. After all, their shortcomings with the ball were clear for all to see, and would have been the talk of the town, if Australia's had not proved itself even more incompetent. After a certain amount of crowing on the Aussies' part, day 5 was especially sweet for England, as records tumbled for Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott.

The broken records went on and on, much to the delight of Jonathan Agnew, who pointed out the burgers appearing on the big screen. First, Alastair Cook, who became just the fourth English player to score a double century in Australia, joining Tip Foster, Wally Hammond (twice) and Paul Collingwood. He also notched the highest score at the Gabba in a test match, passing Don Bradman's 226 against South Africa in 1931.

The innings was also the first time since 1924 that the first three English batsmen had notched centuries since Jack Hobbs, Herbert Sutcliffe and Frank Woooley managed in at Lords against the South Africans.

Meanwhile the partnership between Trott and Cook set even more records. It passed the record for the highest stand at the Gabba, passing the 307 made by Hussey and Haddin two days earlier. The 329 also passed Hobbs and Wilfred Rhodes' record England stand in Australia made in 1912 at Melbourne.

But the records did not stop there, since it was only the second time in test history that there had been two 300 run partnerships in a match, the other being Lahore in 2006 where Mohammed Yousef and Younis Khan and Virender Sehwag and Rahul Dravid had 300 partnerships for Pakistan and India respectively.

It was also the second time that an Englishman had featured in a 300 run partnerships in back-to-back tests, as Trott had put on 332 with Stuart Broad in his last test against Pakistan at Lords. David Gower was the other man to accomplish that feat, the first being at Edgebaston in 1985 (against the Aussies) with Tim Robinson and the second at the Oval with Graham Gooch.

Trott might count himself fortunate to make his century, considering he was dropped by Clark on 34 and 75, but it has been a superb year for the South African born player, whose average in test cricket now stands at 59.95. He has also played two tests against the Australians and has two centuries to his name.

Meanwhile Ponting was left even more red faced as Cook chipped what might have been a catch to the Australian captain. While replays were inconclusive, Aleem Dar gave it not out, probably on the strength of Ponting's reaction, as his body language seemed to suggest the ball fell short. If he had simply held the ball aloft straight away, and said he caught it, Cook would have probably been sent to the pavilion, but instead he mouthed off when Dar did the only thing he could do in that situation, give Cook not out.

All the Australians had declined to show up to their own ground, and it was the English contingent (probably 8,000 strong) that was heard roaring their approval throughout the day, with spirited chorus' of Barmy Army reverberating around a half empty ground on Monday morning. Thirty years of success seems to have turned Australian cricket fans into a pack of glory hunters.

But the question that will remain before the Adelaide test in three days time is whether England's four bowlers can indeed take twenty wickets. Especially when the groundsman has made the following statement about the pitch (see the first para). Broad and Finn need to bowl more incisively, perhaps Anderson will have more luck, and Strauss needs to come up with alternative game plans for Swann if he does not get an early breakthrough, as he has so often in his test career.

Meanwhile, English cricket fans have been having some fun on twitter, with a certain amount of trolling going on, with one person suggesting to a gullible individual that a sticky wicket is 'a way of catching badgers in English forests.'

Despite a Classy Century Strauss' Inefficiencies as Captain Remain

Jardine captained England in the infamous 'Bodyline' tour

Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook may have put on the highest opening partnership by a pair of Englishmen at the Gabba, passing the previous best, held jointly by Douglas Jardine and Herbert Sutcliffe in 1933 and Geoff Pullar and David Shepherd in 1962, but it will not be that easy to forgot England's impotence the day before.

In the same innings, the two passed Sutcliffe and Jack Hobbs as the most prolific England opening partnership in terms of run scoring.

True, Cook and Strauss' stand showed that Hussey and Haddin's similar partnership was no fluke, but after an hour and a half of fine bowling to start off Friday, the captain lost control of his bowlers.

The most exciting part of the afternoon session yesterday was the giant Gatorade bottle that comes on for the drinks break, while at some point, a sizeable portion of the Gabba crowd had the temerity to chant 'boring, boring' as the English attack lacked any imagination. Despite six wickets, Steven Finn resorted to bowling as far outside Mike Hussey's off stump as he could get away with, hoping to frustrate the Australian into making a mistake.

And Strauss could have stepped in and mixed things up when Graeme Swann, ranked 2nd in the world by the ICC, was being carted around by Hussey and Haddin, implementing a change in tactics, field positioning, switching the spinner to a different end, or even giving him a few overs off and trying something different, like an over or two of Pietersen's off-spin, to see if he could catch the Australian's off guard. A very straight long off was especially needed and could have saved a lot of runs the day before yesterday.

It is fitting to mention Jardine, because he, like Strauss, was more of a general than a cricket captain, leading his team by the book rather than relying on his instincts. Unlike Michael Vaughan, Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain, their last three long-term test captains, he does not display cricket nouse on enough occasions. His understanding of the deep undercurrents in the game of cricket just is not as deep as they need to be. These sorts of things just cannot be learned.

Also, Strauss needs to be more hard-nosed when it comes to his two reviews. With only two, you are going to waste them if you use them when you desperately want a wicket rather than, not because you think the umpire has made the wrong decision. Umpire Aleem Dar was right to give Hussey not out when rapped on the pads, having heard two noises. The two noises were created by the ball rapping the front, then the back pad, and not the pad, but had England not wasted their reviews earlier, Hussey would have been given his marching orders upon review.

Still, this team may pull off what only one other England team has done in the last twenty-four years, not lose to Australia in Brisbane (in 1998 the heavens opened with four England wickets left, and the match was drawn).

And despite criticism of Strauss, Ricky Ponting arguably committed more errors, as he aims to create history as the only Australian captain to lose three Ashes series. His lack of a leg slip for most of the English innings freed up the openers, while his fields created huge confusion, especially a 7-2 offside field, which made for one very bemused Ben Hilfenhaus.

Dropped catches by Siddle, Clarke and a clanger from Johnson contributed to make a pretty foul day for Ponting, and behind furrowed brows in the press box, some must be wondering if a bevy of stars over his tenure as captain were more responsible for Australian dominance than Ponting's leadership skills.

Ashes just on Horizon

"Don't forget to pack the urn" reads the projection onto the Big Ben

In a ridiculous over-reaction, Westminster Council is considering suing over a stunt where a picture of Australia captain Ricky Ponting and Michael Clark was projected onto Big Ben in preparation for the upcoming ashes. Described as "friendly banter", those responsible point out that England performed a similar stunt prior to the 2006/07 Ashes in Australia.

This is the first shot across the bows, just before the England team sets off for the Southern Hemisphere, where they would call bullfrogs chuzzwazzers, although apparently the Coriolis Effect does not cause toilet water to drain in a different direction than the Northern Hemisphere.

Andrew Strauss meanwhile talked about the upcoming series, but mentioned that the team was too friendly with their opponents last time they toured Australia as maybe one of the reasons they lost. The reason they lost was they played bloody awful cricket from start to finish. Their batting was haphazard, but barring exceptional circumstances you have to take 20 wickets to win a test match.

In 2006 they did not even get close.

Brisbane (11), Adelaide (10), Perth (15), Melbourne (10), Sydney (10) all offered up humiliating defeats. True, their batting did not give them much opportunities to really get at Australia (they were beaten by an innings in the fourth test, and left the hosts a paltry target of 46 in the fifth, but the Aussies also declared on 602-9 in the first and 527-5 in the third.

Every time their batting or their bowling had a good session they would immediately blow it in the next. Admittedly on a good pitch on the Oval, a stand of 310 between Collingwood and Pietereson was erased when the Aussies matched England's first inning total, then skittled them out for 158.

Still, the tail did not wag as it had a year and a half earlier, while most of the bowlers got shelled. Only Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar finished with half-respectable figures, and that trio, only just. The team that we have may seem more settled, there were a number of injuries and we were without captain Michael Vaughan. Even so, there remain a number of question marks hanging over the team

Just Four Bowlers?
It seems as if we will go into the series with the same 11 that has been fixed for some time: Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Prior, Broad, Swann, Anderson and Finn (Morgan, who played all the summer tests would be dropping out for Bell). While the trio of fast bowlers tore into Pakistan's order with complete ease, bowling on the hard, bouncy Australian pitches is very different from the seam and swing movement you see on the greener pitches and cloudier climates here in England. You have to be tighter and more disciplined with your bowling, and frustrate your opponents more at the Gabba or the SCG.

Geoffrey Boycott in particular has been banging on about this for at least a year.

But if you would bring in another bowler, who would it be? Monty Panesar, cult figure, but sidelined is the second spinner if you were inclined that way, Chris Tremlett is tall and would get plenty of bounce, and took 48 wickets for Surrey in 2010 at an average of 20.19. Tim Bresnan is the all-rounder, and so would bring batting as well as bowling, but not much batting.

The only reason these things are an issue is that England's selectors are worried about our batting. If Cook, Pieterson, Prior and co. were banging in centuries they would be confident with Broad batting at six, and Swann at seven. But they are not. And since the Ashes both Broad and Swann's batting, the latter in particular has slipped considerably. Rather than being seen as all-rounders, which they have the potential to be, they are still primarily bowlers. This is why Stuart Broad's knock of 169 against Pakistan was so encouraging. If he can bat with patience, and stay around for a while, rather than waltzing to the middle, and just throw the bat at the ball, England can be a great side, instead of a merely good one.

Remember when Shaun Pollock and Lance Klusener batted eight and nine for South Africa? It frustrated the heck out of opponents, and it damages team morale when they reach the tail and cannot get them out cheaply. Sri Lanka came to England in 2006 and caused untold woe by building late inning partnerships. At Lords they saved the game with Vaas and Kulasekara hitting 50s, and won the third test at Nottingham, in part due to the tail saving something from the first inning with Chaminda Vaas top scoring with 38, before the entire tail did it again in the second innings, setting England a target of 325 (they were bowled out for 190).

Graeme Swann's (arch felon for being caught drunk driving on the way back from picking up screwdrivers to rescue his cat, who was stuck under his floorboards) knock of 63 at the Oval was crucial for building a huge second innings lead in the deciding match of the series. He scored a respectable 249 runs in eight innings with one not out.

The Batting
The biggest issue with our batting is Kevin Pietersen, but not far behind that is the fact that Ian Bell missed the summer tests, and Alastair Cook's. Cook's test average of 42.78 should not be sniffed at, but still people question his consistency. The well documented problem with his footwork has been solved, at least for now, and he's failed to score a century in just three test series he's played in (2006 v Sri Lanka, 2008 v New Zealand, 2008 at India). He scored 382 runs in last year's Ashes at an average of 38.2 (although there were only two scores you would call decent 50+). In fact, most of this Cook bashing may be totally un-merited, since stats guru Simon Hughes wrote before the last test against Pakistan that Cook and Strauss are one of the most productive opening partnerships for England.

The real problems is Pietersen's state of mind. There is cover around him, as Trott, Collingwood and Bell should all be ready to go, but his form could adequately described as patchy, and he has rarely looked settled at the crease, batting within himself, and at times looking petrified at getting out. Other times he charges in and plays a silly shot long before he has really found himself at the middle. The quandary in August was what England could actually do with Pietersen in such poor form considering the domestic season was closing, and his exile from Hampshire.

 KP is a game-changer, but if he is not in the right mindset to compete, then he has to replaced with the free-hitting Morgan, test match batsmen or not. His 107 not out against Pakistain in the ODI at Southampton ridicules the notion that he cannot play the longer form of the game. If you can score a century at that level you can play test match cricket.

This time around there will be no Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne or Matthew Hayden, but it will still be a tall order to inflict upon Ricky Ponting his third Ashes loss as Australian Captain, and be the first side since Gatting's in 1986-7 to win down under.

Djokovic's Steady Nerve Enough to Top Roger

Beating Roger Federer these days is much like beating Manchester United. Pull it off and you are bound to hit the headlines. Novak Djokovic triumphed against Roger Federer for the first time in a Grand Slam event since the 2008 Australian Open, the Serbs' last Slam Final, and his last Slam win. It may be auspicious for the world number three, or it may mean nothing, as he will have his work cut out against Rafael Nadal, who will be aiming to win his third Grand Slam of 2010, and become only the fourth player in the Open Era to win all four majors, joining Rod Laver, Andre Agassi and of course, Federer.

The match itself defied any master narrative, swinging seemingly decisively one way before shifting straight back. Indeed, when Federer set up two match points in the fifth set, it all looked familiar to regular tennis-watchers, before Djokovic played two gutsy points to get back to deuce.

Back at 5-5 and on Federer's serve, the Serb broke decisively, and then saved a break point of his own while serving for the match. The world number two then saw a succession of forehands sail long, handing Djojovic the fifth set 7-5.

In six previous seasons Federer has not failed to make two Grand Slam finals in a calender year, and prior to this year's French Open, had reached the past eight finals at all four majors, winning four of them, but losing three to Nadal. The match also ended his run of six US Open finals, including five titles before being beaten by Juan Martin Del Potro this time last year.

The match also ended a streak of three consecutive times that Federer had dumped Djokovic out of the US Open. In 2007 Federer beat the Serb in his first Grand Slam final appearance, then in 2008 and 2009 the Swiss triumphed in the Semi-Finals of both years.

For Djokovic the win salvaged something from an immensely frustrating season. Beaten by Tsonga in the Quarter Finals of the Australian Open in a re-match of the 2008 Final, he was then put out of the French by Jurgen Melzter, again in the Quarters, despite holding a two sets to love advantage in the match. Then he was outclassed by Tomas Berdych in the Wimbledon semi-finals, and another Semi-Final defeat to Federer at Flushing Meadows would have compounded the Serb's woes.

The first four sets were topsy-turvy encounters with the 16-time Grand Slam winner taking the first and third sets 7-5, with the Serb picking up the second and fourth 6-1 and 6-2, breaking Federer twice in both sets. Whatever is to blame for Federer's recent performances, at times he seems a shadow of his former self, and on the Arthur Ashe court, where he has so often excelled, he racked up more unforced errors than winners. Where he showed entire matches packed with flair and brilliance, his game flickered into life invarably, and only on the odd point did he display the sort of tennis that has dominated the sport for the past six years.

He would occasionally step in and strike the ball imperiously cross-court for a clear winner, but more often than not his opponent displayed far clearer aggression, hurrying Federer's forehand, and forcing him to either net, or shoot the ball long. The match might have headed away from the Serb after the fourth set, as the cat-and-mouse tennis suited the former world number one by far.

With far less hesitancy Djokovic stepped up the aggression in the fourth, and kept a steady nerve to triumph in a tight fifth set that could very easily have gone either way. The Serb's father, hard to miss with his son's visage emblazoned on his t-shirt, and those in the world number three's camp were sent into raptures by the win. Nadal provide a far sterner test today.

Murray's US Open Dream Turns Into a Nightmare

Dazed and Confused Murray Knocked out by Wawrinka

For every blockbuster where the Brit has pulled one out of the fire, his defeats of Richard Gasquet and Stanislas Wawrinka at Wimbledon being the two most prominent examples, there are those where he has come up short. Last night was one of those times, just like his loss to Fernando Verdasco in Australia in 2009, or Marian Cilic, this time last year at Flushing Meadows.

In what will rank as one of the most bizarre matches Murray has ever participated in, he was ousted by the 20th seed in four sets, a match that lasted three hours and 54 minutes, and finished just after midnight BST.

When Murray does eventually win a Grand Slam, it will be all the sweeter because of days like this. Only Murray will be able to fully assess his own performance, yet his on court eccentricity, and the level to which his play degenerated to was simply astounding, even more so because it was punctuated by the odd point played to perfection.

A public self-destruction from the World Number Four was not what the spectators expected on the Louis Armstrong Stadium, but that was what they got. Along the way Murray lost the crowd, his head, and full control of his body. "I was struggling physically. I tried to find a way to come back, but couldn't do it. I was disappointed that I hadn't been in that position for a long time physically," he said afterwards.

"I don't think it was a terrible performance today, I don't think I did terribly, it was very different playing a guy in the last round to a guy like Wawrinka, who is a much better player. In the third and fourth sets, I was struggling physically and I got frustrated with that.

Maybe I felt that my chance of winning here was slipping away. It happens to everyone."

The gutsy, never say-die attitude that usually characterises Murray's play was wholly absent, replaced by hours of sullen, moping body-language. There was no sprinting around the court, chasing lost-causes by the fourth seed. Instead, after dropping the second set, one he really should have won, since at one point he was serving for the set, he wandered around the court like a shell shock victim, unable to find any rhythm whatsoever against the big-hitting Swiss. At times he stopped moving entirely in the middle of points, opting not to chase balls.

Yesterday looked like an aberration, although every once in a while he seemed to be on the cusp of rediscovering form, only to lose it going for a drop shot, or hitting a ball long. Whatever was wrong with Murray, perhaps a groin strain, it shackled his serve for the last two sets of the match, and he was stuck shooting 80 mph second serves into the middle of the court, easy pickings for a hitter of Wawrinka's calibre.

Unable to take the initiative in any of his points with his serve ineffectual, he was pegged behind the baseline for most of the match, as the Swiss hit the baseline with his forehand and background with great regularity.

All credit should go to Wawrinka, as he executed his game-plan perfectly against his opponent, but it was Murray who lost the match, rather than the Swiss winning it. Wawrinka, who has failed to reach a grand slam quarter-final, merely had to wait for the right time to attack, and pounce. He will face Sam Querrey in the fourth round, after the American knocked out Spaniard Nicolas Almagro in straight-sets yesterday.

Too many people will enjoy penning their biting postmortem's of this match, as if Murray's career is on the down slope, yet he has proved over the past month, especially in Toronto, that he can compete with the best. Whether a Grand Slam comes sooner or later will depend on Murray's attitude, for what was most disappointing yesterday was not that the Scot lost, but the manner in which he lost. When it eventually ended, and Murray made a speedy exit off court, there must have been palpable relief for British tennis fans that such a tortuous experience had at last drawn to a close.

Murray deals with Lacko, Berdych out

The Brit had all his synapses firing, and playing at about 80% in challenging conditions, he defeated Slovak Lukas Lacko in straight sets. While he was toiling in the New York heat, Tomas Berdych, the man who defeated Murray at Roland Garros, and the next highest seed in his quarter, crashed out to Frenchman Michael Llodra.

It makes Murray's run to the semi finals easier, and he should have no problems with his second round opponent. Dustin Brown, a Jamaican player, is ranked 123. The winner will face either Stanislas Wawrinka or the Argentinian Juan Ignacio Chela, and then probably Sam Querrey or Nicolas Almagro in the fourth round.

American John Isner or Mikhael Youzhny could meet the Brit in the Quarter Finals, but the eye-catcher in that part of the draw, is a potential third round clash between Julien Benneteau and Michael Llodra, both Frenchmen, and current doubles partners. Both pulled off shocks to get to the second round, Llodra defeating seventh seed Berdych, Benneteau 29th seed Radek Stephanek.

Murray meanwhile played precise tennis, moving Lacko around the court with line to line groundstrokes, putting away anything in the mid-court, and generally mixing up his game. Every time the Slovak thought he had Murray measured, the Scot would show him a different shot, or mix it up with different spin. It was good enough to put away an opponent of Lacko's calibre, but it will be completely different if Murray faces Nadal or Federer. Yesterday's match was no real indicator of where his game is.

Men like Llodra, Querrey and Isner rely on their first serves, and Murray typically does better against those sort of opponents because he is such a good returner of the serve.

But against the top three in the world if you don't serve well you lose. If you don't put away mid court balls, you lose. If you don't hit the lines consistently, you lose. Toronto was a sighter for Murray, and will give him belief that he can beat both Nadal and Federer in the same tournament, but then that was a best of three set encounter. Five-setters are very different animals.

I worry about Murray in those situations, because his record in tie-breaks is not good. When he faced Andy Roddick for a place in the 2009 Wimbledon Final, what cost Murray was losing the last two sets in tie-breakers. Last year in Flushing Meadows he was dumped out in the fourth round by Marian Cilic. Hopefully the same will not happen this year.

For those who say the reason Murray has not won a Grand Slam because of the pressure heaped on him by the British media (English really) is utter nonsense. Can anyone point towards an instant where it was obvious he lost because of pressure. We've watched Tim Henman so long, we equate losing with too much pressure. Murray was outclassed in the two Grand Slam finals he has played against Federer. This year at Wimbledon, Nadal was in inspired form, while Berdych blew him away at Roland Garros. You talk about pressure, this is pressure. It is just an excuse built in by the English media to make some sense of national losses.

Murray is now a match for anyone on the tour, but first he needs to get to Friday, semi-final day.

Can you bet against this man? The answer is no

Roger Federer's most controversial statement this week seems to be the fact that he has grown tired with pink and will most probably sport blue in the coming US Open at Flushing Meadows, Queens- New York.

Federer, already on 16 grand slam titles, recently said he would like to reach 20, and would surely love to beat Nadal on the way to another French Open or Wimbledon title. Despite only winning his second title of the season last week at Cincinnati, the World Number Two can take heart, that the other victory was at the Australian Open. Heck Roger, why not shoot for Margeret Court's 24.

Just as Federer failed at overtaking Jimmy Conners and Pete Sampras to stand alone on six US Open titles in 2009, losing to the spirited Argentine, Juan Martin Del Potro, he succumbed to Berdych this year, aiming to equal Sampras' seven Wimbledon titles. This year he will have another chance, and there will be no Argentinian to scare the willies out of him.

He has not faced his foe Nadal since the final of the Madrid Open, the only time the two have met in 2010. If the two meet again at Flushing Meadows it will be in the final, and Federer, who has won five titles here, will feel the favourite.

Nadal has looked jaded, again, as he always seems to do when we reach this stage of the season, possibly a result of his athletic style of tennis, and the wear and tear on his body. Yet even Federer must wonder how his body will cope with a seven match two-week tournament. He visibly wilted against Robin Soderling in Paris, then looked out of it at times against Tomas Berdych at SW19.

Murray lost to Mardy Fish, but will probably not mind too much, considering the American did push Federer to the limit in the Cincinnati finals. The Brit looked angry throughout the encounter, and made a shoot at the tournament organisers after his previous round match, citing the fact that he had played early afternoon in each of his last six matches (including the ones in Toronto).

Wilting in the fierce Cincinnati weather, with the intensity of the sun matched only by Murray's temper, he asked the umpire whether he had seen a net court when he intimated that he had not heard one. When he replied that he hadn't, Murray added "You haven't seen much today have you," which the umpire might not have heard, but the television microphones certainly did. And in case you missed it, Murray has yet to win a Grand Slam, foiled twice in the finals by....Federer.

The Swiss has niggling injury concerns of his own:- was his five set thriller with Alejandro Falla in the first round at Wimbledon the cause or consequence of his back and leg injuries? How much of his thigh injury was responsible for his loss to Lleyton Hewitt in Halle before Wimbledon? When he is seriously pushed in the next two weeks, will his body, and consequently his game crumble?

In his quarter of the draw, are names such as Hewitt (possible third round opponent), Jurgen Meltzer and Juan Carlos Ferrera (fourth round), and a possible quarter final against Chilean Fernando Gonzalez, Croat Maran Cilic or Soderling.

Murray meanwhile will have Berdych, Stanislas Wawrinka, Sam Querrey and Nicholas Almaggro to worry about in his quarter, and will have to run the gauntlet in most of his matches to be in with a chance of ending one of the most extraordinary fallow runs in sporting history.

But for Federer, who won five titles in a row at Flushing Meadows before being beaten last year, will still go in clear favourite.

Murray breaks through mental barrier

It was only a Masters 1000 tournament, but Andy Murray nearly choked up on the mic after beating Roger Federer for the first time in a final. When he wins a Grand Slam expect floods of tears. With the win he joined five others who had beaten both Federer and Nadal in the same tournament, while also being the first player since Andre Agassi to win the Rogers Cup twice in a row.

Ominously enough, Del Potro beat both Nadal and Federer to take the 2009 U.S. Open title, stunning the tennis world this time last year. This may finally be Murray's moment, six years after he captured the Junior title.

Murray may have hit a wall in failing to win a grand slam, but his play has never encountered similar problems. Year on year he gets better, although there has been a general feeling that, when he reaches the big occasions he tightens up and his game suffers. Not this week. Cut loose and free to play his shots on his favourite surface, and not only did he win, but he dropped just one set all week.

The Scot's fear of failure has finally been eclipsed by his desire to win- and the results were devastatingly obvious in Toronto, as Murray blew the competition away with a potent mixture of aggression and precision. Add to this unflappable poise that seemed dented only once all week, in an odd second set against Gael Monfils earlier in the week.

Federer put up stern resistance at the end of the first and second set but Murray recovered after both setbacks, firing two spectacular aces at the end, and saving a break point before the Swiss' forehand cruised long to hand Murray his first title of the year.

Neither Nadal and Federer were at their best, that much was obvious, but the question remains as to whether either will be 100% in time for Flushing Meadows in two weeks time. Federer may still be reeling from the injuries that plagued him at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, while the World Number One, Rafael Nadal seems to have burned himself out again by August. Perhaps they were both conserving energy for the Grand Slam. They will have no chance to rest up as the ATP Tour rolls on to the Cincinnati Masters today.

But there is an added dynamic in Cincinnati as Federer and Nadal are in the same half of the draw for the first time in aeons, with a possible semi-final clash in the offing. The pair have only met four times in a non-final match, with Federer winning a pair of Shangai Masters semi-finals, while Nadal triumphed in the semis of the 2006 French Open and R32 of the 2004 Miami Open.

Nadal-Federer is a thing of the past, Federer-Murray, or perhaps Murray-Federer as we should call it, will be the rivalry to watch. Murray, who has had his doubters, and quite possibly some doubts of his own has sought from day one recognition from one of the greatest players to grace the game of tennis. The 16-time Grand Slam winner was often critical of Murray's negative style, especially after losing to the Brit, but there now seems to be a healthy amount of mutual respect between the two.

Murray has been climbing the man mountain that is Federer, seeming to have conquered it twice, only to be thrown right back down to the base in his two Grand Slam final appearances. As time passes he comes back feistier than ever

Faced with three rain delays in his final match, Murray will hope that the same does not happen at the U.S. Open, as British fans have already seen the elements cost them a grand slam once this decade.

Murray receives a bye in the first round of the Cincinnati Masters, and will play the winner of Jeremy Chardy and Florian Mayer. His quarter of the draw contains Mikhael Youzhny, Fernando Verdasco, Jurgen Meltzer, Mardy Fish and Richard Gasquet. The U.S. Open starts August 30.

U.S. Open Could be Greatest Ever

August and Flushing Meadows Simmering Pot Ready to Boil Over

RARELY have so many tennis players approached a Men's Grand Slam with something to prove. As far as spectacles go, this year's Wimbledon was a dazzling success, but in terms of hype the U.S Open might top it. We have a world number one attempting to win his third grand slam in a row, the deposed champion whose run of five titles came to an end last year, and a clustre of new talent and old veterans vying for titles.

The Rogers Cup in Toronto, Canada will start on Monday, while the Cincinnati Masters played the following week. Then after a week off, the best in the world will converge on Queens, New York.

ROGER FEDERER (five times champion)

Its hard to write off a player who has won 16 of the last 29 grand slam tournaments,

though some people will do it in the next month. As if defeat to Tomas Berdych was not bad enough, he slipped down to number three on the ATP tour rankings. It must have galled to perform so limply on his first attempt to equal Sampras' seven Wimbledon titles, but Roger will still have that fire. The question remains however, how extensive are his back and leg injuries? Will he be 100% in a month?

He doesn't have much to prove, but it will feel that way, as he steps out onto the court, if he makes it that is.

Federer might want to gain as many points as possible in the next two weeks, but he needs to go into the Grand Slam fully fit and fresh. Yet if he arrives at Flushing Meadows as the number 3 seed behind Novak Djokovic, we could have a Federer-Nadal semi-final. They have only met once in a Grand Slam outside of the final, with Nadal beating Federer in the 2005 French Open semi-final.

RAFAEL NADAL (never reached the final)

His record at the U.S. Open is comparably bad if you look at what he has done at other tournaments, considering he has made just two-semis in the past seven years.

Beaten in 2009 by Del Potro, he looked less than 100%, while in 2008 it was apparent in his defeat to Murray he had burnt himself out during the summer.

Considering what Nadal has achieved in the last three months, it would seem he too has nothing to prove,but if he were to triumph, it would complete his collection of Grand Slams, meaning that when January rolls around, he would have the chance to do something Federer has never done-hold all four titles at the same time. He would join Rod Laver, Andre Aggasi and Federer as the fourth player in the Open Era to win all four Slams. Now that he has eight, 16 does not seem so far away. See you in 2012 Roger?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC

Doesn't that Australian Open win in 2008 seem like an awfully long time ago? To be fair to the Serb, who was brushed aside by Berdych at Wimbledon, and squandered a sizeable lead against Jurgen Meltzer at the French, he has been there or thereabouts in the Slams for a few years. He

Last year the world number two was angry at talk of Murray as a favourite for the Australian Open. The split between coach Todd Martin earlier this year has resolved issues with his serve, and there have been a few instances of the Serb retiring from matches due to 'illness.' Considering his game, it is all about what mental state he is in.

ANDY MURRAY (2008 finalist)

John McEnroe said before Wimbledon that he thought the Brit's best chance of winning a slam was the U.S. Open, because there would be less pressure, while the hard court would suit his game. It is also a place he feels comfortable at, having won the 2004 Junior U.S. Open title. Since Federer is so immense in Grand Slam finals, Murray would have a better chance of beating the Swiss, if he faced him before the final. However, if the rankings stay the same, Murray could play Djokovic in the semis, with the possibility of facing the winner of a Federer-Nadal match in the final, where he to triumph.

JUAN MARTIN DEL POTRO (2009 winner)

What a body blow 2010 must be for the Argentinian. Just as he broke into the top four, he succumbed to a wrist injury, and has been unable to compete at the French, or Wimbledon. He'll watch from the sidelines as others compete for his vacant crown.

LLEYTON HEWITT (2001 winner)

Having surgery on both his left and right hips might have taken its toll on the Aussie. He might have beaten Federer at Halle, snapping a 15 game losing streak against the Swiss, but it remains to be seen if Hewitt can challenge for a Slams. In the end victory was easy for Djokovic over the former winner in the fourth round of Wimbledon, as the two time Grand Slam winner had lost too much pace on the baseline. Retirement beckons?

ANDY RODDICK (2003 winner)

He won in Miami by beating Almaggro, Nadal, Berdych on the way to the title. However his defeat to the world number 82 Lu Yen-Hsun was an episode in overindulgence. Relegated from the show-courts, the American threw a hissie-fit, and basically threw the match. He actually lost two of three tiebreaks, unheard of for Roddick, with the Chinese Taipei player taking the fifth set 9-7. Life in the old dog yet (although he is younger than Federer)?

TOMAS BERDYCH (flavour of the month)

Did you hear? Bird is the word. Watch McEnroe commentate on Berdych and see how many times he shoehorns the name Ivan Lendl in there. Its a lot. Beating Federer twice in a year, how many people have done that? The 24-year-old is starting to show the sort of form those in the know expected years earlier. Outclassed by Nadal in the final on Centre Court, Berdych could find himself a regular at the pointy end of future grand slam events.

Honourable mentions

Marian Cilic: the Croat should be a feature in the quarter-finals

John Isner: picked as a potential upset at Wimbledon, the American will be hoping for no more marathon matches

Robin Soderling: the world number five did beat Federer in the French, but remains on the fringe of the top four.

Inception (3 1/2 out of 5)

Who knew Leonardo Di Caprio's career could change so rapidly. Gone are the days of mushy films like Titanic, and in are the box-office action hits such as Inception.

While I hate Gangs of New York (a total mess of a film no matter what anybody else says) and the Aviator; Departed and Shutter Island have entrenched Caprio in the edgy action, semi-thriller genre.

Boy has he got the part down, playing a slightly troubled protagonist. His characteristic look where he squints and peers out of the corner of his eyes while leaving his mouth half-open is used again throughout the film, and his whole sub-plot, and troubled past is a real. While it does give structure to the film that Nolan could not do without, the less we hear about his dead wife the better.

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent film, if not twenty minutes too long. The basic premise is pulled off beautifully, and I love the concept of a dream within a dream having several distinct levels.

The plot involves Di Caprio's character, Cobb, contracted to plant an idea in someone (Cilian Murphy's) head without him knowing it. He puts together a team who have to prepare and pull this off, by overcoming obstacles on their way deeper and deeper into Murphy's mind (Murphy worked with Nolan on Batman Begins, playing the Scarecrow).

However there are some hitches to the film.

Ellen Page is basically in the film to look pretty, look puzzled and ask what the hell is going on every five minutes, acting as your basic fish out of water character, which probably seemed like a good idea, but Page, star of Juno, looks awfully out of place. Maybe that was the point I'm not sure.

In a later scene where Eames, played by Tom Hardy has to repel a load of death commandos, you get bored after about a minute, as the Commando/Rambo style action, and killing of endless swat-team members rolls on for twenty minutes.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt pulls off his role as Cobb's deputy pretty well, although he looks far too much like Christian Bale in Equilibrium, suited with his hair slicked back.

Michael Caine has a ridiculous cameo, but the ending leaves you satisfied enough, and although it is worth a watch, the critical reception the film has received borders on the ludicrous.

The Wait for a Red Bull 1-2 Goes on...and on...and on

The British GP- Sunday

You have to feel a little sorry for Christian Horner, having seen his driver win a fantastic victory in today's British Grand Prix, and all anyone wanted to talk about was Mark Webber's tongue in cheek comment over the team radio. 'Not bad for your number 2 driver,' the Australian said after taking the chequered flag. Quite.

This sorry saga really questions who is making the decisions in the Red Bull garage, or even perhaps out of it. Horner initally had very little to say when challenged by Eddie Jordan, who rightly pointed out that Webber felt as if he was being undermined (at least partially) by his own team.

They must have known that removing an upgrade from Webber's car, so they could replace the one Sebastian Vettel had broken in practice would be seen as preferential treatment. And indeed it was. Justifying it by pointing to the marginal gap in the points scores is tenuous at best. Meanwhile McLaren pulled off an unlikely 2-4 finish, while Red Bull squandered another front row of the grid lockout.

Fernando Alonso meanwhile seems to be learning. Two weeks after blasting the stewards over dallying over handing Lewis Hamilton his penalty, the Spaniard kept quiet over being given a drive-through penalty for overtaking Robert Kubica by going off the racing line. He should have known better, and given him the place back.

Saturday England-Bangladesh

England's performance was nearly as comical as Five's coverage of said event. What they do not seem to realise is that you can't project excitement onto a cricket match, however much you shout during commentary. At one point Strauss marched down the pitch and swatted the ball through the covers for four, where Mark Nicholas shouted 'what a ripper!' I get the feeling that Nicholas has a sheet of descriptive phrases, and picks which to utter, producing a programme of highlights with clichéd phrases spliced onto them. I expect he lost said sheet when he came up with the immortal words 'that is VERY good,' when Simon Jones bowled Michael Clarke in the 2005 Ashes.

And I have not even mentioned England's batting performance against Bangladesh, a team they had never previously lost to. Ever. True, Ian Bell was relegated to 11th in the lineup after a nasty foot injury, and hobbled on in the last over, but the only player who batted sensibly was Jonathan Trott, eventually edging to the keeper with 6 needed in 4 balls. And they only got it close because Trott and Stuart Broad had a go in the last 6 overs.

Maradona left with egg on his face

You get the feeling reading yesterday's (Saturday) sports sections that there are two types of people: those who watch football and understand it, and those who believe what the newspapers tell them (and even their own newspapers).

Into the second category falls Richard Williams at least for today, whose singularly uninformed piece in Saturday's Guardian was totally refuted by last night's match. And this is not just me taking the high road, as two weeks ago I made it clear that although Argentina were winning, there were not doing so with any coherent tactical plan.

Williams said the 'circus surrounding the Argentina coach masks his clever man-management' and that he was 'dominating the World Cup'. The 'method to his apparent madness has become apparent [sic] over the past three weeks "What Maradona did first when he took over," an Argentinian journalist said this week, "was to nominate the key man in his side. That was Mascherano. He actually said, "The Team will be Mascherano and 10 others." And when he selected the squad of 23 to go to South Africa, he divided it very clearly into two: there would be the 11 players of the side, plus 12 supporters.'

Given this apparent inflexibility to the Argentinian side, no wonder Maradona was shackled by his own rigid tactics. There can be no Plan B, and frankly to base a team of Argentina's calibre around Mascherano sounds laughable to me. As a United supporter, I have seen him have amazing games, dominating the midfield, and not allowing opposing players the time or space to fashion attacking chances, but in this World Cup the Liverpool player looked detached from both attack and defense, hopelessly stuck in the middle as Khedira, Schweinsteiger, Muller and Podolski tied him up in knots.

Bastian Scheweinsteiger will get the plaudits for his effort yesterday, but it was Stuttgart's Sami Khedira in the first half who was the stand out player for me.

'Basically just get the ball to Messi or Tevez or Higuan and watch them do something amazing and score,' is not coaching. Gabriel Heinze was having a shocker, and would have been Argentina's worst player, if their other fullback Nicholas Ottamendi. Could he have been substituted at half time and replaced by an older, wiser player, who would hopefully have plenty of experience, and could display a clear head in what was a fiery contest? Javier Zanetti anyone?

Higuain scored 29 goals for Real Madrid this season, but he looked woeful, getting caught offside most of the times the ball was played up to him, while Angel Di Maria's distribution was worse than Nani's before the Portuguese's recent renaissance. Could Diego Milito not have been put on in place of Higuain at half time, pushing Carlos Tevez wide? Tevez and Messi for all their skill, were far too easily muscled off the ball by the German defense, and every time looked up to the referee for amends. Physicality is part of the game whether they like it or not.

Maxi Rodriguez and Di Maria were passengers in the Argentina team when they did not have the ball, and it was oh-so-easy every time Jerome Boateng had the ball, to pass it infield to either Khedira or Schweinsteiger, who then would have the space and awareness to pick out a surging Ozil or Muller.

Despite four straight wins in the competition last night was conclusive proof that Maradona does not understand football enough, and that frankly he does not deserve the position he has inherited as an international coach. If it were a charity or exhibition match, the flair and talent of Messi and co. would shine through, but in these sorts of matches, the team with the most mettle usually win through. And that certainly was not a passive Argentinian side. It could have been 6-0 by the end.

True, the early goal was a perfect start for Germany, since it meant that the South American team had to push up to find an equaliser, allowing Germany to counter-attack, which they did with the same precision that had dumped England out last week. But Diego did nothing to nullify the German strengths, as if they did not matter, as if by seeing a few great darting runs by Messi they would retreat into their shells and not dare attack for fear of conceding. It was an incredibly naive tactical set-up.

The only dampener for Sebastien Loew's Germany was the yellow card of Thomas Muller, ridiculously given for a deliberate handball when his arms were at his sides. As the smoke clears, it will be abundantly clear to everyone that Maradona's coaching ability is worth less than the ridiculous suit he wore pitch-side.

Props go to Arne Freidrich for his 'Klinsmann' celebration after Germany's third goal.

Murray Outclassed by Sensational Nadal

Hopefully the Daily Mirror will be blacklisted by Andy Murray, as today's front page lays into the 'Scot' for not beating Rafael Nadal yesterday. You have to wonder whether they even watched the tennis at all yesterday. For those who did will have observed that at times Nadal did his best impression of Grigori Rasputin as he just did not lay down and die when he should have.

Murray threw everything he had at the Spaniard, although admittedly not his best tennis, but the world number one responded in kind every time the Brit raised the level of his game. In such inspired form, even playing out of his skin Murray might still have lost the semi-final yesterday.

Just as he had been outclassed by Federer in two grand slam finals previously, he was outmatched as some of the tennis Nadal played yesterday was irresistible, crushing ground strokes with such menace and ferocity, unwilling to give up on any point, able to return the ball from any angle.

As well as the Spaniard played, Murray hung in with him for the three sets, and had the Spaniard faltered at any of the vital junctures in the match, he might have had a sniff, but every time the luck rolled with the seven-time grand slam winner. Every time, whether it was a ball hitting the net cord and dropping on the right side, or seeing almost every forehand land on Murray's baseline.

There were times when Murray might have been smarter with his game, for instance, he went back to the drop shot late in the game when it had been established conclusively that the tactic did not work against the pacey Spaniard. Mark Petchey also made an excellent point that Murray had condensed the court with his ground strokes, and that he had not really stretched the court enough to trouble Nadal. Nor was his touch assured in the mid-court. Forehand after forehand found the net rather than the court from that range, much to his disgust.

At times his backhand looked dangerous, sometimes skidding under Nadal's racket, and a he hit a few forehand winners, but to emerge victorious he would have had to keep that level up for hours, something he was unable to do.

Perhaps he was also a little tentative, but every time he was more aggressive on points he either saw his ground strokes sail past the baseline or into the net. Without complete control of his ground strokes, Murray would never reach Nadal's standards.

All sports are about margins, but in tennis these margins are very small. Had Murray taken a set point in the second set tie-break, or held his nerve in the third set when he found himself a break up, he would have given himself a chance, but this was not Murray's time, nor will it be Berdych's if he finds the Spaniard replicating Friday's performance on Sunday. Nadal only broke the Murray serve once, but the real story was how he stepped up his game to a new level every time the match required it. This is why he is the world number one. The English media would be wise to reflect on this every time some two-bit hack writes something they have very little understanding of.

Murray has beaten Nadal before in a grand slam, and he might do so again, but to do so you have to catch Rafa on a bad day, or play almost flawless tennis. And he does not have many bad days, unless his knees are creaking.

Some of his points were played with some precision that there was nothing Murray could do to survive on centre court. Only marginal improvement is needed in his game if he is to become a grand slam winner. What he really needs is a big slice of luck.

Julian Finney Getty Images

PMQs: Queen of the Harpies Edition (30/06/10)

Speaker John Bercow is apparently a 'stupid sanctimonious dwarf', well at least according to Health Minister Simon Burns.

Whereas Brown would shrivel up like a porcupine, let his chin wobble and splutter 'no mr. speaker, no,' before bumbling through a response, Cameron seems unfazed by the Harman's attacks.

Last week Simon Hoggart put it best when he ridiculed Harman's line delivery in last weeks' budget response. He said of her performance:

Remember Eric Morecambe's funniest gag, as the police car rushes by with siren wailing? She would have said, 'Um, well, I have to inform the house that, frankly, sales of ice-cream will be unable to reach their full potential given the rate of travel manifested by the hon member,' and wondered why nobody laughed.

Cameron's defence to the 1m job losses in the public sector was that 2m private sector jobs would be created in the lifetime of the Parliament, which would be at a higher rate than that under the Blair-Brown boom years.

And her line of questioning seemed to follow the pattern of 'You're making rather a mess of cleaning up the mess we created.' Again, she attacked the Lib Dems, and when Clegg deputises for Cameron for the first time we will really see some sparks fly.

'Peaceniks to peacepods and bankrupted the country in the process' was Cameron's mocking put-down of Harman, who spent £2.4m doing up her own department, hardly essential spending in a time of belt-tightening is it?

'You can always tell when he doesn't want to answer a question, because he asks a question,' well Labour ministers were masters of doing that. Ministers invented a whole reem of tactics when faced with a question they did not want to answer. Peter Mandleson's response to a grilling by Jeremy Paxman is still my favourite. Lord Mandleson cries hysterically, 'Calm down Jeremy, calm down!' Again and again until he stops. Or even this one by Yvette Cooper on the 10p tax u-turn.

Prime Minister's Questions has almost nothing to do with reasoned political debate, rather it is the Leader of the Oppositions' chance to give the Prime Minister a black eye or two. All Harman does is screech at Cameron, taking the same line of questioning, and then chucking in a few one-liners that her interns have probably written up for her.

Surprising that she did not touch on Ken Clarke's shakeup of the prisons system, but Labour will probably have less to disagree with Cameron about than his own backbenchers will.

Berdych displays nerves of steel

In Sergio Leone's classic Spaghetti Western, Tuco tells his assailant, 'I like big...men like you. When they fall they make more noise,' and Roger Federer's loss at Wimbledon certainly made a deafening thump to those who heard it.

There is no schadenfreude to all of this, as Federer is too much of a champion for that. This was simply a beautiful piece of theatre, a grand spectacle played out on the greatest stage.

He holds himself like a champion, and behaves with dignity and grace both on and off the court. The only thing anyone could hold against him is that horrible cream jacket he wears to the trophy presentations. This year, for the first time since 2002, the cream jacket will go unused, and a Wimbledon Men's final will be played without the presence of the Swiss.

The match's script pretty much wrote itself, and as I jotted my notes down on anything I could find, last Friday's copy of the Guardian's film& music pullout section as it happens, I could tell that something special was in the works on Centre Court.

But this should not be about the six-time Wimbledon winner. It should be about the Czech Tomas Berdych, who showed that last month's defeat of Andy Murray in the French Open fourth round was no fluke.

The crowd were appreciative of his play, but there is a special place in the hearts of the faithful for Federer, and right until the end, some still hoped that he could pull off a miracle. The Number One seed dodged one match point, but not a second. He has shown time and time again that in the big points he can pull out an amazing passing shot or a piece of magic, but not today.

His life is not a Disney movie, at least not yet. He tried to rev himself up at least thrice, showing uncharacteristic emotion by yelling 'come on' at the top of his voice, but the A game was not there. He had scraped through (barely) against Alejandro Falla in the first round, making hard work of Ilija Bozoljak, before dispatching Arnaud Clement and Jurgen Meltzer with the minimum of fuss, but Berdych was another proposition entirely.

Dazzled by Berdych's early performance, all John McEnroe could talk about was Czech Ivan Lendl, the eight-time Grand Slam winner, who won his first slam at the age of 24, and is the only player in the last thirty years to win multiple Grand Slams after winning his first after the age of 22. Berdych, now 24, who equalled his best performance at a major today (he had never reached the semis before the French Open last month), will be hoping to buck that trend. Today proved he has the weapons, and perhaps the temperament too.

Meanwhile Federer's first serve came and went throughout the match, and he committed some very un-Federer-like forehands, either shooting way long, or hitting the net, but the most disappointing part of his game was the backhand. In the third set (where the Czech broke Federer twice), the defending Champion's first serve percentage was around 61, but he ended up winning just 43 percent of his second serve points. Some of the credit has to go to Berdych, who kept the Swiss honest, and found the lines with surprising regularity. The former Champion was given very little time, and was manoeuvred around the court just as he would normally do to an opponent.

This is to take nothing away from the Czech, who produced the performance of his life, beating Federer 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-4. His 130+ mph serves provided constant problems for his opponent, while his scorching forehand seemed to earn him points at every critical juncture in the match.

After saving one match point, Federer had a break point of his own, and it would have been an incredible twist of irony if the Swiss could have saved a match point and gone on to win, as this was what Berdych had done to Federer in this years' Miami Masters.

Afterwards he said of his victory, 'To play on this stadium, against a player as great as Roger and to be standing here as the winner is absolutely amazing. This was the toughest match of my career to close out, It's a big step forward and I'm so happy.'

The victory sets up an intriguing semi-final with Novak Djokovic on Friday. Back in 2004, Berdych was moved to tears when he beat Federer at Athens in the 2004 Olympic Games. This time there was only a broad grin.

Photo: Alastair Grant: AP

Why Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall 'aint that great

Book review, why not? I have read a book, therefore I can do a review of it. Rather than talk about the book in any great depth, I will spend 600 words slipping in casual references to other books, just to show how intelligent and learned I am compared to your feeble wits. This is how I understand book reviews to be accomplished.

My problem with Wolf Hall is this: it is just lazy, lazy fiction. That is what historical fiction is. 'Well I can't be bothered/don't have the talent to think up a decent plot,' the author says, 'So I'll just nick one from history, complete with characters settings etc. etc. I'll flesh it out with my own style, stick in a few apt metaphors, like the ending of The Great Gatsby, where the light over the water signifies hope, or some shit.'

At times it reads like the Secret Diaries of Adrian Mole. 'Got up, brushed teeth, visited King, read some highly illegal Lutheran works, was made Chancellor of the Exchequer. Saw Joanne, she is fit. Reminds me of her sister. Oh yeah, I remember, her dead sister was my wife.' I kid you not. The present tense narration just comes off as a mess, while ambiguities are hailed as genius plot devices.

The author must have thought herself the height of cunning while writing the plot. Where is the tension? Why should I give a damn. Is this what wins the Man Booker Prize nowadays? Now we have to mention Hilary Mantel, in the same sentence as Salmon Rushdie, Iris Murdoch, William Golding and Kingsley Amis. And it was given the prize because, according to The Times, 'It is not like much else in contemporary British fiction.' Sigh.

Mantel told the Wall Street Journal she spent five years researching and writing the novel, which if true, is laughable. Basically reading any of the dozen or so works criticising G.E. Elton's work on the 16th century would do the job. About ten minutes will do the job.

Let us talk about the political machinations of the court. Yes. Them. Again, the problem is lack of depth. It is a pretty long book, but at times Mantel just gives you fragments of a 16th century newsletter interposed in her prose. The court seems to consist of a couple of servants, Anne Boleyn, her ladies-in-waiting, her uncle, her father, her brother, her uncle, and the King's brother-in-law.

Yes, the Byzantine nature of the Henrician court really keeps the reader on edge. I am sort of told, or expected to believe that anyone in a position of power has the Sword of Damocles dangling above them, and one slip could mean they are skewered. Cromwell is not really that much of a likeable character, so the only way we feel into the book if we are scared for Cromwell, if we fear the King might give him the chop. But we do not, and therefore, in short order, the book flops. The King meanwhile, King Henry VIII that is, sounds from Cromwell's description of him, much the same as John Rohl's portrait of Kaiser Wilhelm II, taken by flights of fancy, and never able to settle. Perhaps that is just me.

Some of the comments about the book just make my mind boggle. The Observer said the following, 'It is that supple movement between laughter and horror that makes this rich pageant of Tudor life her most mundane and bewitching novel.' Perhaps this statement makes sense, or maybe its' author was still suffering from brain freeze after reading WH.

I get the feeling scanning over some of the reviews that some of the critics have simply not enjoyed the book, but have fawned over it anyway, just so they do not get caught out as everyone else hails it as a masterpiece. I suppose these are the sort of people that pass for literary critics nowadays. I imagine they annoy their editors by asking dumb questions such as: Are Iain Banks and Iain M. Banks brothers or father and son?

Also Mantel looks a bit crazy. Can I hold that against her?

And the lame duck ending sucks. Read away masochists, read away!