Swing woe, sweet nothing

How has the Ashes gone so wrong for England?
It all goes back to the Champions Trophy. England used it as a practice and fitness session for all their injured players - Andrew Flintoff, Ashley Giles, James Anderson. There didn't seem any thought of winning the trophy. Compare that with Australia's approach. They were there to win. Sure, they had half an eye on the Ashes but the best preparation for any series is to play good cricket. England went off the rails even before they got to Australia.

Going by their selection for the first two Tests, were England too preoccupied with the 2005 Ashes?
Sure, they were thinking back to 2005 as well but their biggest problem was their lack of a plan B. England were successful in 2005 because of swing bowling but what other plans did they have in a country where it doesn't swing all that often? In Australia you need to be able to fiddle wickets, put thoughts into batsmen's minds and get imaginative with your field placings. Take the Melbourne Test, for instance. From 5 for 84 there's no way that Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symonds - two struggling batsmen - should each make 150. England have all these plans when the ball swings and no imagination when it doesn't.

Was Flintoff's captaincy to blame or was the team's strategy flawed?
I thought at the time that Flintoff was the right choice, and he did a fair job up to Melbourne, but England undoubtedly missed Michael Vaughan's adaptability. We've heard a hell of a lot about these wonderful plans pinned up in their dressing room - well, they're no bloody good in the dressing room. Sure, you'll have an outline but the best players aren't stupid. They adjust to your plans, then you as a captain adjust to their adjustments. It's a battle; that's why captaincy is so interesting. From what I've seen here from England their plan is: "We have a plan, those are the field placings." And they've been exactly the same in the fourth Test as in the first. If you aren't a couple of overs ahead in this game, you're way behind.

What have you made of Monty Panesar and would it have made a difference if he'd played from the start?
It's not so much the difference he might have made as a player, it's the difference in mentality he'd have brought to the rest of the team. There must have been some England players at Brisbane who walked out thinking "we've picked the wrong team". If you think you've got the best possible team, it gives you confidence and it gives you faith. I think Monty would have made a playing difference as well but whether it would have been major is purely conjecture. All the same it would have helped if he'd been deployed correctly. He was used in Perth as an attacking bowler and got eight wickets; he was used at Melbourne as a negative bowler and got none. I rest my case. He bowled to field placings for Giles but Giles hasn't been playing. Once again it lacks common sense. He'd had success bowling one way, so why change?

How would you rate England's prospects for the 2009 Ashes?
They've got the nucleus of a good side but, if they are taking the approach that 2009 will be better because Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne aren't there, they've still got a problem. A big problem in world cricket at the moment is that all the sides look at Australia and think: "We can't beat them, they are too good but, when Warne and McGrath go, they'll come back to the field and then we'll beat them." You've got to take the approach that these guys have set the standard and we've got to get up to that standard and maybe even go past it.

Even so is it inevitable that Australia will be more beatable from next season?
Sure, you don't lose two players like that and become a better team. Australia will come back to the field a bit but the field is not that strong. They could easily stay at No.1. It's not the same as what happened in 1983-84, when Rod Marsh, Dennis Lillee and Greg Chappell retired. Australia were in the doldrums for two or three years after that; this time they are better prepared. They've got Stuart Clark established to do a similar job to McGrath whereas there was nobody worthy of Lillee. The only area in which they'll struggle is a replacement for Warne. But back then West Indies were already off and running on their reign of domination. This time I don't see anyone on the horizon. I don't see England as a dominant team. They might win the occasional series against Australia but they aren't going to dominate for 10 years.

This seems the end of an era. How do you sum it up?
It's been an era of unbelievable success for Australia, spearheaded by two champion bowlers. But to be this dominant for this long - particularly at home - I just think it's ridiculous. It's a tribute to the Australian team but it's also an indictment of the rest of the world. I'd like to hope there won't be another era as successful as this. I don't think it's good for cricket.