"It will all be over by Christmas," they said when World War One broke out in August 1914. It wasn't, of course, but the 2006 Ashes series is, after Australia today
won back the urn in the quickest possible time.
So what went wrong? Well, in a sense, it's more a case of what went right for Australia. They were the better team, and this time they performed to the best of their abilities. I always thought that as long as they did that, they would win, given that in 2005 they collectively had an off-series and still only managed to lose to us extremely narrowly.
They have also strengthened their team since 2005. Stuart Clark has come in for Jason Gillespie and on occasions looked Australia's best bowler. Mike Hussey has brought some real steel to the middle-order and become the most difficult player in their side to get out. And Michael Clarke - nicknamed "pup" by the Aussie tabloids - has finally blossomed into a great batting talent.
Nevertheless, England could have made much more of a fight of it had we (a) not suffered injuries to three key players, and (b) not shot ourselves in the foot by daft selectorial decisions. Here's my list of six things that might, just might, have made a difference.
1. The Captaincy. I don't think we missed Michael Vaughan greatly as a batsman, but we did miss his shrewd captaincy. In his absense, the selectors decided to go with the gung-ho approach of Andrew Flintoff, but they should have gone with the more cerebral Andrew Strauss. For one thing, I think the captaincy would have enhanced his form as opposed to inhibiting it in Freddie's case, and for another, I think he would have out-thought Ponting in the way Vaughan did in 2005.
2. Simon Jones. On the first day of the last Ashes tour, in 2002, the Welshman suffered a tour-ending injury while fielding. This time, he didn't even make it on the plane. England have badly missed him on both occasions. At times during 2005, he was our most dangerous bowler, and would surely have thrived in Australian conditions.
3. Marcus Trescothick. Whatever it was that happened to "Banger," it was very sad not only from his personal point of view but from England's. Some cricket-watchers who should have known better actually suggested that his absense would strengthen the team. Balderdash. His 431 runs in the 2005 series made him England's second highest run scorer after KP, and he was sorely missed.
4. Selection. There is much that could be said here, but fundamentally, we failed to recognise that two of the stalwarts of our 2005 triumph, Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles, were woefully out of form. Clearly Panesar should have been in the team from the start, and in retrospect so should Read, even given his batting shortcomings. Duncan Fletcher has much to answer for here.
5. Troy Cooley. Was England's bowling coach during the 2005 series before moving to the same role with Australia this time round. His departure could probably not have been prevented - he is an Aussie after all - but it is clear that without his guidance, our main strike bowler Steve Harmison became a shadow of his former self.
6. The Batting Order. Until Trescothick's breakdown, Paul Collingwood wasn't even in the Test XI. Then, suddenly, he was batting at four, the place normally occupied by the best batsman in the team. Colly did us proud with a double-ton at Adelaide, but Kevin Pietersen is our best player and should have been in the No 4 slot. Instead, he just kept running out of partners.
And that's about it. More offbeat analysis from the excellent
Middle and Off's Ashes Blog.
I must say I'm genuinely torn on this one. The Tories argue that Gordon Brown, or whoever else takes over as Labour leader, should call an immediate general election to give themselves a separate mandate from Tony Blair. Since we appear to live in an increasingly presidential system, there is some force to their argument.
