“We had a whole squad under 30 years of age and there have been some big losses to this side, huge losses, and it always takes time to fill those gaps.”
- Duncan Fletcher

With all due respect, Mr Fletcher, I disagree. For an example of what can be achieved, look at how quickly the new guys in the Australian team have filled the gaps after losing a few men from 2005.

In fact, let’s look at the players that have been lost from both sides from the 5th Test in 2005, which was a draw, when compared with the 1st Test in Brisbane, which Australia won by 277 runs:

Australia: Tait, Katich
England: Vaughan, Trescothick

Now let’s look at the statistics for Vaughan and Trescothick in 2005, and compare it with their replacements in 2006/07.

In 2005, Michael Vaughan made 326 runs at an average of 32.60. His replacement at number 3 was Ian Bell, who made 331 runs at 33.10. So at number 3, England actually gained 5 runs for the series, so you can hardly call it a “huge loss”

In 2005, Marcus Trescothick made 431 runs at an average of 43.10. His replacement at the top of the order was Alastair Cook, who made 276 runs at 27.60. So in Cook, England lost 155 runs. Ok, that is a lot of runs, but this is the only loss of runs from a replacement player that England had from that 5th Test at The Oval.

To say that “there have been some big losses to this side, huge losses” is, well, wrong.

“When you get young guys coming into a side, they’re always inconsistent and that’s what happened. We took about two years to build that Ashes-winning side. This winter was probably a winter too early.”

What hope does England have of ever being the number one Test nation if their coach reckons they can only be competitive once every two or three years?

Rebuilding a side takes time, Duncan, but you actually didn’t have to do much rebuilding between the final Test in 2005 and the first Test in 2006. It wasn’t the young replacements that lost it for you this time, it was the guys like Flintoff, Strauss, Giles, Jones and Hoggard - the experienced ones who just didn’t perform as well as they did in 2005.

I thought it would be interesting to do a statistical comparison of the two sides to see how they will fare against each other, statistically speaking. What I’ve done is add up the batting averages for all 11 players in each side to give a team batting average. I’ve then added up the bowling averages for Australia and England, and this gives us a team bowling average. To the Australian batting averages I added the England team bowling average to give a final total (and vice versa for England). So if a side has a very good, and therefore low, bowling average then they won’t be adding too many runs to the oppositions total team average, so it seems to me like a fair comparison: […]

Who do you think has been the best all-rounder in the series? If you ask anyone, there’s really only one genuine all-rounder in the series, and that’s Freddie Flintoff. However, Shane Warne has actually performed better with both bat and ball. Here are the stats:

It’s interesting to look at Australia’s record playing in England.  In 146 Tests in England between the two countries, Australia has won 46 and England has won 41. In one-day internationals the scores are level at 14 wins each.