Through thick and Finn

Let’s be honest, this test match Steven Finn bowled an absolute load of dross. The two-in-two with the new ball on Day One aside, he was a bystander as Anderson tore through the Aussies, and when called up to bowl, helped push the game Australia’s way with two horrendously bad momentum swinging horror spells as firstly Agar in the first dig, then Haddin in the second cashed in. After dropping a tricky but makeable catch, the lanky paceman looked bereft of confidence and for all the world like he’s getting the heave-ho for Lord’s next week. The only saving grace was at least that someone else called Finn had an even worse day than he did (too soon?)

But I feel sorry for Finn. Things weren’t made easy for him. First up, the pitch did him no favours. Comfortably England’s quickest speedster (sometimes touching 90mph – at least if you believe the speedgun), Finn turned up at Trent Bridge hoping for a quick, bouncy deck and was faced with a slow, low graveyard. England have obviously decided that preparing pitches for spin and seam will give them the best chance of winning this series, which while it brings Anderson and Swann to the fore, pushes Finn right to the periphery. This obviously played into captain Cook’s mind when waiting until the 29^th over of the second innings to give Finn the ball – by which time the rock hard new ball that Finn would clearly favour had been reduced to putty, hardly giving Finn the best chance to show off his skills. Add to that the noticeable lack of confidence in Finn from Cook (that spell only lasted three uneventful overs), and with his tail down on a slow pitch with a soft ball, it’s no wonder that Finn disappointed.

One area that Finn can’t excuse however is his use of the short ball. While Ashton Agar played what could well be the innings of his life, Finn helped get him on his merry way by feeding him a variety of long hops and other freebies, giving Agar time and room to swing hard and dispatch the ball with ease. As previously said, the pitch was far too slow for Finn’s “natural” game of banging it in short (note – Finn is far better when he bowls back of a length rather than trying to bounce every ball) which meant that he had very little chance of taking the wicket that would have spoiled everyone’s fun, and was only giving Australia vital runs at a crucial time in the game. While it must be tempting as a six foot plenty giant to try and hit the pitch as hard as he can, it clearly was not the way forward, and Finn needs to be a lot quicker to move to a plan B – or indeed go to a plan B at all.

Despite having a poor test match, Steven Finn is undoubtedly a fine bowler, and has the ability to get some of the world’s best batsmen out. He’s quick, he’s tall and he bowls from very tight to the stumps meaning that any test batsmen should be on their guard when facing him. What is a real shame though is that England aren’t really backing him at the moment. They fiddled around with his run-up to make him bowl right over the stumps, and when he started kicking them over, they fiddled around with it again, which has only served to take a touch of pace away from him. They ask him to continually bowl short in the “enforcer” role that isn’t really his natural game, and they provide him with pitches that clearly don’t suit. The captain doesn’t even give him a bowl until his main asset of the  new ball has been softened, giving him next to no chance to succeed - and even if he does start taking wickets, he’s moaned at for not ‘bowling dry’. Finally, it’s clear that England would prefer the runs of a batting-bowler such as Bresnan over Finn’s scratchy defence, even though Finn’s worked so hard at his batting that he even has a test fifty to his name. Finn almost certainly won’t play in the next test given the question marks over his selection coming into Trent Bridge have only got larger, and given likely conditions for the rest of this series, it may be until the Ashes roadshow jumps on a plane in November to Brisbane when he’s considered again. Despite not having a good game here, Steven Finn remains a very good bowler who could easily break all kinds of bowling records for England in test cricket. The only hope is that the odds are a little more in his favour next time.

To walk or not to walk...

"I always walked... as soon as the umpire put his finger up" - Geoffrey Boycott

Last year I wrote something about the spirit of cricket. There'd been a bit of a furore in a county game after Murali Kartik Mankadded Alex Barrow, with half of the cricket community calling Kartik a disgrace, with the rest sticking up for the Surrey twirler, arguing that he was well within his rights to run-out the non-striking batsman. Where the grey area lay was over the much spoken about 'Spirit of Cricket' - the Mankad is allowed in the laws of the game, but strictly forbidden in cricket's all-important code of conduct that attempts to ensure the sport is played in a sportsmanlike fashion. The Spirit of Cricket used to be an understanding between sides that they'd play the game in the 'correct' manner, but was officially written into the Laws of the Game as a preamble in 2000, telling players "cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself". Wise words indeed.

So to Stuart Broad, who refused to walk after a clear edge behind at a crucial point of the first Ashes test. Broad will argue that the umpire didn't give him, but what of the much vaunted Spirit of the game? Broad knew he was out, the fielders knew he was out, but the umpire didn't, and Broad remained. While in the spirit of test cricket Broad should have walked, the laws of the game state that the umpire's decision is final, and as Aleem Dar didn't raise his finger, the batsman is not out.

All of this spirit of cricket stuff is very murky, with players happy to apply it when it suits them, and happy to sneak a fast one when the umpire isn't looking. Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin, as captain and wicket-keeper respectively  took it upon themselves to castigate Broad in their self-appointed roles as guardians of the spirit of cricket, yet both have decidedly shaky records when it comes to respecting the spirit. Clarke even took to Twitter during the last Ashes series to apologise for the exact same 'crime' of not walking when given not out, writing "I want to apologise for not walking off the ground when I hit the ball - emotions got best of me". Would he accept that same apology from Broad at the close of play?

The argument that's been doing the rounds on Twitter is that 'what goes around, comes around' - that these things even themselves up over time. Broad was given not out at a vital time in the test today, but what of Ashton Agar yesterday, who was also given not out stumped controversially before making his remarkable 98? Or of Jonathan Trott, given out by DRS when the umpire's decision was perhaps incorrectly overturned? Is the idea of cricketing karma enough to justify knowingly standing your ground when you know you've hit it?

For me, it all comes down to umpiring. The difference between, for example, Broad's dodgy edge and a fielder claiming a catch when he knows he didn't catch it (step forward Dinesh Ramdin) is that a fielder puts forward an appeal knowing it is not out, whereas Broad simply stood his ground to wait for a decision. It is not the batsman's role to give himself, or anyone out - it is the decision of the umpire, who on this case thought him not out. And with all the spirit of cricket in the world, if the umpire doesn't give you out, you don't have to go anywhere.

The spirit of cricket is a nice thing to have in the rules, it's a very vague statement which probably stops David Warner attacking people with his bat and allows cricket fans to look down their noses at fans of other sports and demonstrate how superior the 'gentleman's game' is. But while the "unique appeal" of cricket is nice on paper, in reality every team on the planet attempts to push the laws as far as they allow, and that's just the way of the modern game. Contrast, of course, Australia's reaction to Clarke's apology in 2010/11 where he was castigated for daring to say sorry for not walking, to the Australian agony and anger at Broad doing the same thing today. Every now and again cricket will throw up these unusual pieces of poor sportsmanship, but is this any different to a footballer scoring when he knows he's offside or a scrum pushing before the balls gone in? If the officials don't find fault with it, there isn't much anyone can do. While I am looking forward to Australia's new role as moral arbiters of the sport, I'm also looking forward to them relinquishing the role when their next batsman refuses to walk. The onus shouldn't be on the players to make the decisions, it should be on the umpires, and spirit or no spirit, that should be the way it stays.

Australian Captaincy - As Easy As ABC

So the old football adage goes when asked who you support - "ABC. Anyone But Chelsea". And as Australia look set to appoint a new captain, the general feeling amongst Aussie fans is ABC. Anyone But Clarke.

The Australian public has massively lost faith in the captain elect over the past year. Off field issues, such as leaving the New Zealand tour to break up with his girlfriend have hardly helped endear him to a public who don't think his priority is scoring runs for Australia. The outpouring of anger when Pup was appointed (albeit temporarily) as captain for the final Ashes test when Ponting was injured just shows what a low opinion the Australian cricketing public have of Clarke, even bordering on a strong dislike.

Clarke has been groomed as "the next Australian captain" for the past few years, slowly being given more responsibility as stand in captain when Ponting's unavailable, and latterly full-time T20 captain as well. Given the very public opposition to Clarke, you'd have thought he'd failed miserably, but when you look at his performances as captain, he's fared pretty well. The selectors feel he has the required skills for the job (hence why he was groomed from a long while back), but will such a public opposition stop him from being appointed?

Viewed completely differently by the Australian public are Mike Hussey and Brad Haddin. Hads and Huss seem the sort of bloke who the average Aussie cricket fan could relate to, and down a few tinnies with. Clarke seems happier to chase a celebrity lifestyle in his surfer pad, hence why he is seen as aloof and dislikeable by fans who respect those who respect them. Haddin and Hussey, like Clarke, have played in a lot of international games, so have the required level of experience. And like Clarke, they too have their individual pros and cons. Haddin, for example, may soon be replaced by Tim Paine (who could yet captain Australia after the current choice hangs up his baggy green), whereas Hussey may be a bit too intense a captain given his penchant for 8 hour net sessions.

All three have their positive points, as well as their weaknesses. And in my view, all three would make pretty good captains for Australia. They would all be strong leaders, which is what Australian cricket needs as they look set for an overhaul and rebirth, and the new captain may yet have to deal with a certain R. Ponting, who could slip back in as "one of the lads". While Aussie fans may be hoping for Anyone But Clarke, they're probably going to be disappointed, as Cricket Australia wouldn't want to waste the years of training Clarke for captaincy. And while they may be upset now, it would only take a few wins and some runs for Clarke for the Pup love-in to start again. Stability is what Australian cricket needs right now, and while the fans may not like it, the best man for the job is the man they want least of all.


Note - I have never, ever used the term anyone but Chelsea. As a Chelsea season-ticket holder it sickens me whenever people use it. Just wanted to clear that up.

End of an Era

I've spoken many times about Ricky Ponting's imminent demise as Australian captain. While I was often banging on about how I thought he would go, and how he'd cling on to grim death until there was no other option, part of me wouldn't accept that Ricky would no longer be Australia's captain.

As I've literally not known a situation in my cricketing life where Ricky Ponting hasn't been Australian captain, it's become part of the institution. While everything has to come to an end eventually, and Ponting's ever increasing age dictated that it would be sooner rather than later, I still sort of expected him to just keep carrying on. But carry on no longer, and while he may play on as a batsman, it will be difficult to see Ricky, the eternal captain, playing as "one of the boys" under a Clarke, Haddin or Hussey.

It'll be very odd to see somebody else leading Australia onto the field the next time they play, and whether Ponting is one of the boys following the new captain on or if he's sitting in the hospitality box remains to be seen. But the end of Ponting's captaincy brings with it the end of an era - the final close to the all-conquering Australian side of the late 90s through to the middle of the 00s.

Farewell Ricky. It may sound odd to say, but I'll miss you.

Australia's End of an Era

A World Cup is the culmination of four years of preparation for all countries. The fulcrum of ODI cricket, plans are cleverly set, players given experience, and chances taken. All of that work for two months of cricket, which can end in a flash.

Australia are the number one ODI team in the world. In the years since the World Cup's last edition (which, incidentally, they won. And the two before that) they've crushed all before them, and were expected to do so again this time around.

Australian teams are expected to win World Cups. Anything less than this is regarded as failure. An indifferent 3rd position in the groups, followed by a fairly toothless defeat in the quarter finals is not what these 15 men were flown out to achieve.

After the horrendous flogging the selectors received in the wake of the Ashes, Australian test cricket is likely to get a vast makeover in the coming months. And this ODI side, who had been single handedly maintaining the honour of Australian cricket in the wake of the decline of the test outfit, have been shown to not be the all-conquering megaside that they'd been touted as being.

Shaun Tait can't bowl two balls in the same spot, and can't bowl more than two overs in a row without needing a sit down and a nap. Mitchell Johnson's radar is more wonky than Heather Mills playing Twister. Steve Smith is neither an international batsman or a bowler, yet he is told to be both. Jason Krejza (who admittedly is Australia's seventh choice spinner) hasn't looked like he should have been anywhere near a World Cup. And Ricky Ponting's ever-increasing strops this World Cup hardly inspire confidence that he should be a leader of these men.

Whenever cricket teams fail abjectly, fingers are pointed, and heads roll. While Australia do actually have a pretty good ODI side, they just haven't performed anywhere near the level required at this World Cup, and given the apocalyptic feel around Australian cricket at the moment, we could be seeing an end of an era.

White, Haddin, Ponting, Lee and the Husseys are all on the wrong side of 30, and could be put out to pasture. While I'm not advocating a vast and rapid change, the fact that Ferguson, Paine, Marsh and Khawaja are all ready to fill the batting breach (plus a whole host of young fast bowlers) mean that rapid wholesale change can be eased by the fact that ready made replacements are knocking on the door.

The all conquering Australian side who won three successive World Cups have gone, their reign of terror very much a thing of the past. The four year World Cup cycle has also finished, but a new one starts straight away. Whether this Australian team gets a fresh cycle remains to be seen.

What Aussies Think

If you haven't noticed my blatant name-dropping and showing-off, I'm in Sydney. Actual Sydney, in Australia. Where the 5th Ashes test is, tomorrow.

If you're sitting there in England, I know the burning question on your lips is what do the Australians think of all of this? (If you're Australian, you probably know what the Australians think. And if you're from somewhere else in the world, you may or may not be bothered). So partly to continue showing off, and also to help give a total insight of the Ashes, here's an English perspective of the Aussie perspective of the Ashes. This is from what I've read in papers and overheard on trains. So pretty accurate.


Australians hate Michael Clarke

Australia's newest test captain has only an 8% approval rating, and is hated for a variety of reasons. From his wannabe celebrity status, to his breakup with the nation's sweetheart* Lara Bingle (*Note - in no way the nation's sweetheart), Pup is being ridiculed, disliked, vilified and generally "bagged" (I learned a new word) in the Aussie press. My humble view on it? If he was making runs, none of this would be happening.


Australians love Brad Haddin

The man who would / could / should be captain. But would he be so highly touted if he wasn't making runs???


Australians respect English players

Jonathan Trott is viewed as a latter-day South African-English Bradman; Strauss and Flower as some sort of dream team sent from above to lead successful cricket teams. Graeme Swann is seen both as a great off-spinner, and as a comedian (fair assessment). His latest Ashes Diary (you know, the one where he does the impressions of Richie Benaud and Tony Grieg) has been repeated many times on every news channel.


Australians think Kevin Pietersen is a dick

His "I resigned for the greater good, so praise me" quote has been added to the general public perception of the big ego (remember FIGJAM?), and while he's respected as a great player, he's still seen as a dick.


Ricky Ponting will be remembered for his three Ashes losses

While his vast achievements as both a batsman and captain have been recognised and celebrated, there is a general understanding that any captain that loses 3 (or at least isn't able to pick up the urn in 3) Ashes series will always be remembered for those defeats.


Usman Khawaja is the new golden boy

All of those marketing-speak phrases like "poster boy for a new generation"; "trail-blazer for many Australian communities" and such have been used for Uzzy. And a lot is expected of his batting.


Selectors don't know what they're doing

Picking Bollinger (universally popular) for Adelaide = bad move. Picking Doherty = bad move. Not picking Hauritz = bad move. 4 quicks at Melbourne = bad move. Steve Smith = bad move. Original 17 man squad = bad move. Michael Beer = bad move. Clarke as captain = bad move. Not much support for Hildrith and the boys.

Day Two At Perth

Background: England rolled Australia for 268 on day 1, and looked to get a lead.

How did it start: Strauss and Cook looking nice and well set.

Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: A slight wobble when batting (although this was steadied). Worrying lack of form for Ponting though.

Where did it all go right for Australia?: Johnson's six wickets, and steady batting giving them a 200 lead after 2 days.

Where did it all go wrong for England?: Collapsing.

Where did it all go right for England?: Strauss and Cook started well. Bell appears to have some steel about him and batted well.

Who won each session?: Morning - Australia. Afternoon - Australia. Evening - Evens (but in the context of the game, Australia).

Who won the day?: Straya.


Who's winning the game?: Australia

Crumb of comfort?: Once a batsman gets in, there are runs on offer. England may need this knowledge second time up.

Shot of the day: Steve Finn turning Johnson off his hips for one. Controlled.

Ball of the day: Johnson to Trott / Pietersen / Collingwood / Tremlett.

Celebration of the day: Haddin's motions to the crowd. Close second to Finn's "shush" to someone.

Man of the day: Mitchell Johnson. England finally seeing him at his best.

And finally... Ashes Oddity: Steve Finn outscoring Kevin Pietersen, with a strike rate of 100. Doesn't happen very often!

Day One at Perth

Background: A topsy-turvy draw in Brisbane was followed by a caning in Adelaide, laving England 1-0 up, and able to retain the Ashes this test.

How did it start: With some anthems, and some changes to the teams. Australia swapped in Hughes, Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Smith for Katich, Doherty, Bollinger and North, and England replaced the injured Broad with Tremlett.

Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: Lost all their wickets. Again.

Where did it all go right for Australia?: The tail wagged, giving their score a degree of acceptability.

Where did it all go wrong for England?: Allowing the tail to wag, adding precious runs at the end of the innings.

Where did it all go right for England?: Yet again started off superbly, and put Australia under the hammer from the get go.

Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon - Even Stevens (but England still ahead in the game). Evening - Sort of Australia, but mostly England.

Who won the day?: Even though the 2nd and 3rd sessions weren't as clear cut, the damage was done, and it was easily England's day.

Crumb of comfort?: Australia's lower order are in form. And England are yet to bat on a pitch which was doing a bit.

Shot of the day: Hilfy creaming one through mid off.

Ball of the day: Anderson's to Harris.

Celebration of the day: Anderson giving Haddin some when he bowled Harris. How every wicket should be celebrated.

Catch of the day: While Swann's one-handed reach was a great effort, Collingwood's absolute blinder wins both catch of the day, and catch of the decade.

Man of the day: As well as Anderson bowled, Tremlett gets the nod for a great comeback performance after 3 years in the international wilderness. Honourable mentions to Hussey, Haddin and Johnson, who got some of the initiative back.

And finally... Ashes Oddity: Collingwood's catch. The likes of which will never be seen again...

Day Three At Adelaide

Background: England had taken the lead after day 2, with only two wickets down. Dominant.

How did it start: Pietersen and Cook still going strong at the start of play.

Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: That it didn't rain for the first 4 hours of play

Where did it all go right for Australia?: That it did rain for the last 2 hours of play

Where did it all go wrong for England?: Cook and Collingwood got out. And they weren't able to progress the game in the evening sesh, possibly leading to a race against time?

Where did it all go right for England?: Pietersen made his second double hundred, and his first time past 3 figures in 17 tests. Plus loads more runs. And a rather handy lead developing.

Who won each session?: Morning - England. Afternoon - England. Evening - The weather (first time England haven't won a session this test).

Who won the day?: Again, England.

Crumb of comfort?: More rain forecasted, weather the only way Australia can save this game.

Shot of the day: KP's lofted six off XD.

Ball of the day: Harris getting Cook off the inside edge, part of the day's best over as well.

Man of the day: Today was all about Kevin Pietersen. Which is just the way he likes it.

And finally... Ashes Oddity: Brad Haddin spilling pasta sauce down himself during lunch, and having an obvious stain on his shirt throughout the afternoon session!

What We've Learned From Brisbane

What have we learned?: That England can bat. When it suits them. Australia's bowling attack isn't up to much. And the pitch at the Gabba was a dog.

What have Australia learned about their team?: That the bowling attack isn't good enough. Doherty is not a test standard spinner, and Mitchell Johnson had a shocker.

Where do Australia go from here?: Probably dropping Johnson and Doherty, and going for a four man pace attack (with Watson), and North / Clarke / Katich to add spin.

Is this a good idea?: Not really. Despite having one of the worst tests ever, Mitchell Johnson is Australia's best bowler (even if he didn't show it at the Gabba). He will come good.


What have England learned about their team?: That they made the right selection.

Where do England go from here?: No need to go anywhere. Team is settled, no need to disrupt it.

Is this a good idea?: Yes. If it ain't broke...

Who won each day?:
Day 1 - Australia.
Day 2 - Draw.
Day 3 - Australia.
Day 4 - England
Day 5 - England


Was the result fair?: Yes. The slow death of the pitch meant that a result was never really going to happen. And both teams had spells where they dominated, before being clawed back, so a draw was fair.

Man of the match: Alastair Cook - gritty in the first innings, expansive and brilliant second up.


Honourable mentions: Peter Siddle for 6 and a hattrick. Mike Hussey for an equally good 195. Props to Haddin. Strauss and Trott for handy tons. Steve Finn for plugging away to take 6. And don't forget Ian Bell's plucky 76 on Day 1.

Who has the all-important Ashes Momentum?: The way England fought their way back in Days 4 and 5 was massive, and could really play a part in Aussie mindset throughout the series. Advantage England.


Enjoy the 1st Ashes Test? Relive it with the Short Midwicket!

Ashes Daily Blogs

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5


Podcasts

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5

Day Three At Brisbane

Background: Game massively in the balance. A few early wickets for England get them right into the game, but a handy partnership for Hussey and Haddin (with useful runs with the tail) could see Australia get a bit of a lead.

How did it start: With Haddin and Hussey in all sorts of trouble to an English attack looking incredibly dangerous

Where did it all go wrong for Australia?: They didn't get many runs at the end. But a very minor black mark.

Where did it all go right for Australia?: Everywhere else. A 300 run partnership between Haddin and Hussey; hundreds for them both, England made to toil in the field, and a 240 run lead.

Where did it all go wrong for England?: Didn't get the wickets their early bowling deserved. Got frustrated late as Australia ploughed on.

Where did it all go right for England?: Finn took a 6 for. Albeit the worst six-fer since Broad took one at Headingley last year.

Who won each session?: All three - Australia. But England did eventually take a few wickets in the evening.

Who won the day?: I'm going to stick my neck out and say Australia.

Crumb of comfort?: Mike Hussey can't be that lucky again. And the bowlers can't be that unlucky again.

Shot of the day: Who knows? They all blended into one.

Ball of the day: Any of Anderson's opening spell. I'll plump for the one that went through Hussey and somehow missed the edge and the stumps.

Man of the day: Both Hussey and Haddin.

And finally... Ashes Oddity: My Sky packed in.

The Wisden Five

Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year have been published. An annual honour of the highest degree; being named as one of the Wisden Five is the pinnacle of a cricketer's career, and is awarded to those who have made the biggest impact on the previous English cricketing summer. This year, Graeme Swann, Stuart Broad, Matt Prior, Graham Onions and Michael Clarke have been chosen. Clarke and Swann aside, it's difficult to argue for their inclusion.

Over the English summer, England played the West Indies, the World T20, and the Ashes against Australia (as well as ODIs against both of the touring nations). Graham Onions made his international debut against the West Indies. Yes, he took five wickets on debut (a fine achievement), but this was against a very disinterested West Indian side, who were upset that they were not still playing in the IPL. Onions did not feature in the ODI series, or the World T20, or indeed the opening Ashes test. When he did come in, for tests 2, 3 and 4, Onions bowled well (when the ball was swinging), but you couldn't argue that his bowling won any games for England. His Australian counterparts Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson all outbowled him, and would have been better candidates for inclusion in the list.

Stuart Broad did take an Ashes winning 5 for at the Oval, and should be applauded. But we shouldn't forget the first four tests, where he looked as threatening to batsmen as a bumble-bee; it could sting you but it probably won't, and is easily swatted away. His inability to bowl remotely dangerous balls made him very much the scapegoat of the England attack, and there were large calls for him to be dropped ahead of the 5th test. Arguably, his batting outperformed his bowling, but a Wisden Cricketer of the Year should not be made due to batting exploits at number 8. Again, the fifth test aside, Broad was outbowled by Hilfenhaus and Siddle. But Broad did make the impact of winning England the Ashes, so my argument against him is basically me being very awkward.

The inclusion of Matt Prior is an interesting one. It can't be denied that Prior's keeping has improved, but the words "polishing" and "turd" do come to mind. If we are to judge Prior as a specialist number 6, he was outscored by Marcus North, and if we are to judge him as a wicket keeper - batsman, he was outplayed by Brad Haddin. Prior didn't even make the World T20 squad; and was rubbish in the one dayers, so he clearly didn't make that much of an impact on the English summer.

The announcement of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year are always going to create debate, seen most clearly when Claire Taylor was on the list last year. It's hard to argue with Swann (who was England's best player over 2009), and Clarke, who Strauss aside was the player of the Ashes. However, while England did defy the odds to win, Prior and Onions were only supplementary players to the victory, and statistically, there should have been more Australians on the list than Englishmen. However, Wisden's rules state that a player cannot win the award twice, meaning it would have been impossible for Strauss, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison and Collingwood to be on the list. And Onions, Broad and Prior were the only players left. Well, they weren't going to pick Ravi Bopara.