2009 in a minute

Jermain Defoe, New York in winter, The Corridor, Kaos, Florence + The Machine, Brussels, Tottenham 1 Chelsea 0, Six Nations, The Ashes, The Hangover, Boston, The Killers at Hyde Park, England 5 Croatia 1, Stuart Broad 5-37, Mumford and Sons, my Topman coat, Barbados, hanging out with the cast of Skins, Jesters, American Eagle, Alicante, Oasis at Wembley, early morning gym sessions, Gavin and Stacey, Ziggy, meeting Matthew Hoggard, Chicken Pizza Hot 2 U, The Plymouth Herald, Luka Modric, The Rose Bowl, Fifa 10, Eoin Morgan, Joanna Page, the tied cricket match at The Common, my 21st, Vodka Club, Frank Turner, The Business, Tottenham 9 Wigan 1, that night in Reflex with Chris Checkley, Twitter, FHM magazine, 4 Coventry Road, witty anecdotes, Purple Rain, sensationalism, everyone who played a part.

That was my 2009. What’s next?

Tabloid sensationalism and the dumbing down of culture

Analyse and discuss to what extent tabloid journalism is ‘sensationalist’ in news coverage and whether it is responsible for ‘dumbing down’ culture.

Tabloid journalism has long been considered in popular culture as a medium for sensationalist reporting. But what is sensationalism in this context? And to what extent is tabloid journalism perpetuating this ideal? Sensationalism can be defined as a manner of being loud or attention grabbing. Essentially, it is to make a sensation out of something and, in the case of news coverage, to give a story more of an appeal and to make it more eye catching for the audience. Tabloid newspapers are often accused of carrying sensationalist stories or headlines - it is one of the defining stereotypes of this brand of publication. And with tabloid papers receiving daily nation-wide coverage, there remains a lingering fear that national culture is becoming ‘dumbed down’ as a result.

Perhaps tabloid journalism requires proper definition in order for it to be fully understood in this instance. Extremely popular in the UK, tabloid newspapers are synonymous with ‘junk food news’ - stories that tend to exaggerate and emphasise sensational stories, often regarding crime, and articles depicting the personal lives of celebrities, sports stars and those in the public eye. At the other end of the spectrum are broadsheet newspapers who tend to look down on the tabloid for the ‘down-market’ nature of their reporting. There is an element of sleaze when it comes to tabloid reporting - so much so that in order to avoid the potential stigma associated with smaller format papers, broadsheets (a typically larger scale size of paper) that released smaller versions of their papers labelled them as ‘compact’ to ensure that their reputation as purveyors of high standard journalism remained.

It seems there is certainly a down-market connotation when it comes to tabloid journalism. Referred to in certain circles as the ‘gutter press’, tabloid allegations about the drug use or sexual practise of certain people is always likely to be a touch defamatory. And in many cases, defamation charges brought against the papers have been successful, resulting in large cash windfalls for the aggrieved. Perhaps this is why many view tabloid reporting as sensationalist. The act of naming and shaming celebrities is hardly one of the defining principles of journalism and, whilst it can be argued that tabloids do more than simply that, it is with this brush that many newspapers are tainted.

But is sensationalism all that bad? Writer Mitchell Stephens puts forward the case that sensationalism opens the door to a new audience. In his book, The History of News, he states that sensationalism is aimed towards the lower class, as they have less need to understand heavy news stories, concerning politics, for example. Through this method the audience is encouraged to take more of an interested in the news and become further enlightened. A common ideal is that tabloid papers appeal to the lower class and that the more news-heavy broadsheet papers appeal to a higher social class. Using this theory it is easy to assume sensationalism is a tool used by tabloid writers in order to speak to their audience better and in order to convey a more interesting message.

If sensational stories pull in a greater audience then what is the problem with it? Tabloid editors will argue that the increased circulation that comes as a result outweighs the accusations that it just isn’t proper journalism. But at what cost does the increase in audience come? Is mass culture becoming dumbed down as a result?

The Metro newspaper, a free London daily, published the views of their audience on the subject of sensationalism and others areas such as celebrity culture trust in tabloids. The responses painted a vivid picture as to public opinion:

(on the subject of sensationalism)

- ‘I think they are overly sensationalistic, and are increasingly focusing on mundane trivial issues, and sensationalising every event.'

- 'I think they are overly sensationalist and very manipulative of the public opinion'

- ‘They forget how much influence they have over the public - at times they are guilty of spreading irrational fears over us e.g. the MMR virus, because of them we could have a measles epidemic - this style of reporting (in all newspapers) was irrational and irresponsible.’

- 'Don’t trust tabloids at all and broadsheets are getting worse. Cannot believe a word that is written in most papers as it's all spun for sensationalism. Papers are actually creating stories rather than reporting them.’

These rather scathing replies are indicative of the opinion that tabloid papers are too heavily focused on selling papers rather than providing good, hard news. Public distrust of newspapers is generally bad enough but the sensationalistic ideals being promoted in tabloid papers appears to be both influencing one set of readers and appalling another. When it came to the subject of dumbing down culture, the audience replies were just as critical:

- 'I'm annoyed by what I see as the increasing 'dumbed-down-ness' of newspapers, their using of slang and inappropriate language, and their sensationalist stories to gain attention.’

- 'British media falsely shapes the mindsets of the masses in way that often reflects fiction and their own political agenda opposed to actual fact. This often hinders rather than develops society as a whole.'

- ‘I'm appalled at the drivel the national tabloids spout on topics such as immigration and asylum, it amounts to thinly-veiled racism. They take glee in forming (bigoted) opinion amongst their readership and the masses whilst claiming to merely "reflect public opinion". They should stick to Page 3 and celebrity gossip and leave serious issues to the broadsheets!'

- ‘Getting my "grumpy young man" hat on, newspaper journalism is losing it's way ALMOST as badly as broadcast media. Too many column inches squandered on dumbed-down rubbish, sensationalised reporting with no factual context and the media continuing to indulge in openly narcissistic self-hype.’

So there appears to be a clear common perception that the majority of tabloid newspapers, with The Sun usually coming in for the heaviest criticism, are there simply to make newsworthy stories appear more glamorous. In essence, tabloid papers publish ‘vacuous’ news - stories that lack proper intelligence or any kind of real, investigative journalistic skill. And when tabloids do attempt to cover a issue actually deemed newsworthy, there is a definitive slant towards the sensational. When broadsheet and tabloid news stories are compared head to head, it is obvious there is a more sensationalist style of reporting in the tabloids.

In analysing stories published in both The Sun and The Times on November 21st 2009, both regarding a video released by two British hostages taken prisoner by Somalian pirates, there are unmistakable differences in the coverage between both publications. In examining the language used in the tabloid paper, it is clear that the writer is attempting to engender a sensationalist style.

In the opening paragraph of The Sun’s article, words such as ‘distraught’ and ‘hostage’ are used alongside the actual fee demanded by the captors for the couple’s safe return. The Times’ opening sentences are simple by contrast with no emotive language used and a calm statement of the bare facts. As the stories continue, The Sun dials up the emotion by employing phrases such as ‘harrowing footage’, ‘bounty’ and ‘…machine guns trained at their heads and rocket launchers.’ When put next to the broadsheet effort, The Sun’s use of language is clearly designed to have a big impact. The Times makes no attempt to scare the reader by describing the kidnappers pointing guns at the British couple’s heads as the tabloid story did. Whilst it could be argued that such facts are necessary for the story to be told, a read of The Times’ article shows that you don’t have to go for sensationalism in order to convey the facts.

Another interesting example of tabloid reporting in it’s sensationalist entirety is The Sun’s coverage of the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy. 96 people were crushed to death as overcrowded stands and police mismanagement of the crowd caused a mass stampede and one of the greatest footballing tragedies ever seen. It was commonly assumed that the failure of the police forces to properly control the crowd was the main reason for the incident and many of the national dailies ran with that as it’s angle. But The Sun, headed by the maverick Kelvin MacKenzie as editor, chose to follow up on unsubstantiated allegations that Liverpool F.C. fans were responsible for the disaster and that they had displayed appalling and grotesque behaviour during the unfolding of the tragedy.

Under the imposing headline ‘The Truth’, The Sun ran the full extent of the allegations, stating that a selection of drunken Liverpool fans violently attacked rescue workers as they tried to rescue people and that police officers and other helpers were attacked and even urinated upon. Whether the allegation were valid or not, The Sun came under intense criticism from both the city of Liverpool and the country as a whole. To this day, The Sun’s relationship with the people of Liverpool is at an all time low.

Respected journalist Roy Greenslade made light of the incident and highlighted the eccentric nature of MacKenzie the editor in an informative blog posting for The Guardian.

“The decision to publish unattributed allegations as if they were fact was made by the editor, Kelvin MacKenzie. He ignored the remonstrations of several members of staff, including the reporter who had written the story, Harry Arnold. They pointed out that there was no supporting proof of the police's claims.

The result was an immediate boycott of the Sun by the people of Merseyside. Several newsagents in Liverpool refused to stock the paper and thousands of readers cancelled their orders. That boycott continues to this day, despite MacKenzie having departed and despite subsequent editors having offered apologies. On 7 July 2004, The Sun admitted committing "the most terrible mistake in its history". It has made hardly any difference. Sun sales on Merseyside remain very low.

One of his (MacKenzie’s) prejudices was certainly a deep dislike of Liverpool, believing it to be largely populated by law-breaking, work-shy, socialist scroungers descended from the Irish (another prejudice). So the Hillsborough allegations confirmed what he always suspected about Liverpudlians. It fitted his own preconception perfectly.

The late 1980s were something of a "wild west" period for the tabloids, led by the Sun, and were the reason for the creation of the Press Complaints Commission and the drawing up of a code of ethics.”

Interestingly, Greenslade lays the creation of the Press Complaints Commission at the feet of tabloid newspapers. With the PCC being a vehicle for disgruntled readers to voice their concerns and complaints about published material that may be offensive or insensitive, it comes as no surprise that tabloid papers are held most liable to it’s rules and regulations.

MacKenzie’s insistence that the story be published is a clear result of his own prejudice and his determination to get a circulation boosting story out there. The fact that no other paper followed the same angle is satisfactory evidence that MacKenzie was acting out against the best wishes of both his staff and the evidence in front of him. It is this cavalier, brash attitude that many categorise tabloid reporters and editors in and why sensationalism remains a massive part of tabloid news coverage.

Whilst it is difficult to argue against the fact that tabloids are inherently sensationalist, there remains the issue as to whether how much this is responsible for dumbing down culture. The issue could be viewed as to the definition of whether tabloid journalism popularises or trivialises important news issues such as politics and world affairs. The example used earlier in this paper regarding differences in language of two articles covering the British couple being held hostage by Somalian pirates is a clear indication that whilst tabloid papers are prepared to tackle the hard news stories, there remains the ideal that they are perhaps ‘playing with the truth’ in a limited way. However, it is all well and good for broadsheet journalists to be believing in upmarket reporting and high standards; it means precious little in terms of circulation if the opposition are getting better audience figures.

One must consider the volume of readership for both types of paper: a study by the National Readership Survey found that between October 2008 and September 2009, there was a significantly higher number of readers for tabloid papers than there was for broadsheets. If tabloid papers are enjoying a greater spread of the readership population then it is logical to assume that they are conveying their message to a greater number than broadsheets are. Therefore, tabloid journalism has a direct affect on the opinions and beliefs of the public. Since public belief is central to the idea of culture, it can be deduced that there is a strong link between newspapers and mass culture. Also, the greater audience numbers for tabloid papers mean that when they do cover the more serious news stories, they are still being read by a vast number of people. Therefore, it would seem that tabloids are popularising hard news rather than trivialising it.

Perhaps the issue is best crystallised when analysing content in both forms of newspaper. In 2004, Peter Cole, a Journalism professor, wrote a piece in The Independent regarding the ‘skewed priorities’ of both tabloids and broadsheets.

“The saga continues. As with the war in Iraq a year ago, the Daily Mirror labels each day. In the Mirror calendar, today is "Becks sex scandal day 14". There are two universes out there, the one peopled by factions trying to drive the coalition out of Iraq and win the battle for power in the mess that would be left behind, the other occupied by the sleazy, the chancers, the manipulators, the fantasisers and the footballer. To those of us, the overwhelming majority, who have never been to Iraq, the White House or Number 10, and have never played football for Real Madrid, topped the pops or retained Max Clifford, it seems like serious unreal versus ludicrous unreal. One is serious because people get killed; one is ludicrous because its central character, the footballer, says it is.

Is it a simple either/or, a question of which sort of newspaper gives more emphasis to which story? During this past week, on my rough count, the Mirror and Sun have given about five times as much space to Becks as they have to Iraq, typically five pages a day of sleaze to a little under one page of Iraq chaos. The quality newspapers have given about six times as much space to Iraq as they have to Becks, typically three pages a day (tabloid or equivalent) of Iraq to half a page of Becks. And of course the content has been qualitatively different in the case of the Becks story, with alleged lovers kissing and telling in the red-tops while the so-called quality papers restricted themselves to such anodyne items as Posh and Becks consulting lawyers or Sky buying the TV interview with Ms Loos. The Iraq story covered the same ground in both market sectors.”

Cole’s honest and forthright assessment of the tabloid obsession with David Beckham’s love life and disregarding of the Iraq crisis paints a vivid picture as to the priorities of the ‘red-tops’ (tabloids). Whilst the broadsheet focused on the human interest stories occurring out in Iraq at the time, the tabloids chose to zero in on the private life of a sports star and dedicated many more column inches to this subject. Perhaps they knew it is what their readers wanted? After all, it would place tabloid readers in a better position knowledge-wise. Tabloid readers would be familiar inside out with the Beckham story and would have a reasonable grasp on the Iraq crisis whereas broadsheet readers, although knowledgeable over affairs in the Middle East, would remain clueless as to the ongoing scandal over England’s then football captain. But we are then forced to revisit an ongoing theme: would it really have been in the best interest of the public to be aware of every aspect of the Beckham story? Or was it just another case of tabloids dumbing down culture?

It is palpably clear that newspapers have a strong link to culture and that the opinions and angles portrayed in those column inches will more often than not directly shape the opinions of the public. If the masses are reading sensationalistic stories about general sleaze and celebrity, then they will come to view this as the norm for news coverage. And whilst tabloids may attempt to cover more serious news, there remains the feeling that they are still taking liberties with the facts and that any chance to exaggerate will be pounced upon.

In spite of this, it is harsh to assume that tabloids are the only outlet of sensationalism and are, as a result, directly responsible for the dumbing down of culture. Other reasons lie deeper in other forms of media such as reality television. Tabloid papers have obviously thought a great deal about their readership and are aware that sensationalism sells stories. And in the world of print journalism, extra circulation is never a bad thing, regardless of how it comes about.

The bottom line? Sensationalism is intrinsically linked to tabloid reporting and this isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Still, it is clear that tabloid journalism will forever carry a stigma among modern journalists and the attitude towards it is neatly summed up by Colin Sparks in the introduction to his book Tabloid Tales: Global Debates Over Media Standards: ‘The consensus among U.S. and British journalists is that tabloids and tabloidisation are a jolly bad thing.’

(University essay on Journalism, Media Communications and Culture, 2009)

Contesting War by Klaus Dodds

In his chapter ‘Contesting War’, writer Klaus Dodds examines the British media reporting and coverage of the 1982 South Atlantic War (Falklands). He defines the management of the British media during the conflict as ‘a classic example in the history of journalism of how to manage the media in wartime’. Looking back on the event so of the war and how they were reported in the British media, he discusses how the delay in transmission of news copy affected the relaying of news and how the government had control over what was being told to the public.

Dodds cleverly uses the contrasting images of the Vietnam war to portray the differences in media coverage of both events. Where the Vietnam war was significant in terms of the reality provided to the US public through graphic and intense media coverage, the Falklands War was not a ’television war’, in that there were relatively few actual images being brought from the battlefield. Instead, the UK public had to make do with radio reports and what they read in their newspapers. An newspaper article can be easily edited, a picture cannot.

Critics have labelled the Falklands conflict as ‘the worst reported since the Crimea’, making reference to the delay in copy and images being received from the frontlines and to the general desire to censor from the British government. War reporting is a sensitive issue in any event, with mass debate being over just how aware the public should be made of the brutal horrors of war or whether the government should attempt to relay a positive message to improve moral. Bad news stories leads to an unhappy nation and that is the last thing any government would want in an already fractious time.

In the passage, Phillip Knightley concludes: ‘The Ministry of Defence were brilliant - censoring, suppressing and delaying dangerous news, releasing bad news in dribs and drabs so as to nullify it’s impact, and projecting their own image as the only real source of accurate information about what was happening.’ Knightley’s attitude paints the picture of an approval towards the media-political management system employed by the Thatcher government.

Dodds then examines the reasons for the conflict and the initial events that took place at the beginning of the war. His detailed insight into the various causes from both sides is both interesting and though provoking. He then discusses the media-political relations and the initial reticence of the military to allows reporters to accompany them. As Phillip Taylor points out in the passage, ‘Real war is about sounds, sight, smell, touch and taste of the nasty, brutal business of killing people… Media war, however, is literally a mediated event which draws on that reality but which, in and of itself, is confined to merely an audio-visual - and therefore inherently desensitizing - representation of it.’

Media war is an alternatively different prospect to actual war, in the sense that media war can be adapted or edited to suit a function. To protect the public from the harsh truth perhaps or to raise moral. It may be a desensitizing process but often it can be an effective one. Dodds makes reference to the reluctance from the government and military towards the media and uses a recollection from Bernhard Ingham, then press officer for the Prime Minister, in which it is stated that there was considerable hostility, even, from the Royal Navy towards journalists to accompany the task force being sent to the South Atlantic.

The Ministry of Defence eventually thrashed out an agreement with the media allowing 29 all British journalists to be sent to the Falklands. Task force commanders, perhaps alarmed at the potential of the media to interfere, were reluctant to fully accommodate the working needs of the reporters, which inevitably led to complaints. Throughout the conflict, the media accused the military of using technical excuses in order to prevent the transmission of material.

Another key issue with media reporting the war was the delay in transmission. The geographical location of the Falkland Islands meant that transferring film and images back the UK was a lengthy task. With zero means of direct transmission, film was transferred to Ascension Island and then flown back to Britain, providing a frustrating delay for journalists eager to dispatch their copy to their editors. As Dodds notes, the average gap between filming and transmission was 17 days, an unwelcome time lapse in the modern world of media news.

Dodds then provides extremely interesting examples of actual MOD censorship. He cites the example of the MOD beginning to withdraw accredited contact with journalists with the effect of denying access to additional task force information. As BBC journalist Peter Snow recalled in the passage, ‘And there was a sort of barrier building up between the press and the MOD that was really hurting both sides‘. The decision was reversed eventually but evidence continued to mount that the MOD was engaged in a deliberate policy of misinformation, especially when it came to releasing details of British casualties.

Many view the media coverage of the Falklands as the perfect example of how to utilise the media during a conflict situation. While other wars may have been more directly reported (Gulf War, Vietnam, etc), the geographical distance between the conflict (the South Atlantic) and the media audience (Britain), in this case, was a useful tool for the censorship and manipulation of news information. Dodds’ informative account of the situation and the problems that arose though the Ministry of Defence’s determination to release news as they wanted it to be released is a remarkable insight into the inner workings of a media system and of a government desperate to be seen in the correct light.

Media ethics paper

Critically assess the following: ‘Is a good journalist one with high principles or one who brings his employer, within the deadline, stories that will boost circulation’?

In the book Journalism, Ethics and Regulation 2nd edition, the author Chris Frost attempts to fully examine and analyse the ideas and principles behind ethics and morality and how these themes can be applied to journalism. Frost looks at the arguments for media ethics and considers the question of whether a good journalist should be defined by the moral and ethical principles that they adhere to or the number of stories and the amount of circulation they provide.

He begins by applying the idea of ethics to a common journalism case: ‘At their most praiseworthy, the journalist’s tussles are going to be between the right of the public to know and some other moral tenet - perhaps the invasion of an individual’s privacy - which would militate against publication’.

Frost sums up the issue of media ethics quite succinctly in that he implies a common struggle. The very idea of journalism ethics revolves around the right of the public to know information. If a journalist’s duty is to report the truth then one can argue that the public have a right to know what is happening truthfully. However, the pursuit of these truths can be a difficult path for a reporter to take as it may involve, as mentioned, an invasion of privacy or a period of apparent harassment. It may not necessarily be about getting the truth to the people but about how the journalist gets that truth in the first place.

Frost then provides an argument against the right to know of the public and claims that this ideal has fundamentally led to the creation of what he terms ‘circulation-boosting journalism’. “All too often the right to know is used as an excuse to publish circulation-boosting journalism. Whether this is designed to appeal to reader’s prurient natures or pander to their prejudices does not seem to matter as long as there is a profit to be made from increasing sales.”

What Frost is trying to imply is that the rise of ‘soft’ news (e.g. entertainment/celebrity stories, ones that are considered to be trivial and insignificant by comparison) has been exacerbated by the idea that the public have a right to know absolutely everything.

Matthew Kieran, in his book Media Ethics: A philosophical approach, provides a plausible explanation by saying that light news stories do have a function. “At best, an entertainment story may serve as a light-hearted leavener between the real news of significant events and disasters. Thus a story about Princess Diana and her children going white-water rafting in Aspen might be a therapeutic sweetener at the end of a bulletin cataloguing the latest serial killing, the day's proceedings of the 0 . J. Simpson trial, the disasters in Bosnia, or some current dispute between the president and the White House.”

It is clear that these types of stories do serve a purpose. Frost’s insistence that they are written mainly to boost newspaper sales may be true but there is a public demand for them. It may not be considered ‘hard’ news and, in some quarters, it may not be considered as real journalism. But if it is truthful, well researched and in the interest of the audience then it should be considered no less a journalistic piece than any other.

Frost then discusses the difficulty of ethics in journalism, stating that a perfectly ethical journalist is very much an almost impossible concept. “A reasonable definition of a good journalist is 'someone who gathers, in a morally justifiable way, topical, truthful, factually-based information of interest to the reader or viewer and then publishes it in a timely and accurate manner to a mass audience'. However, all too often journalism falls far short of this ideal.” He opines that many see the ability to ‘get the story’ as the yardstick by which a good journalist should be measured.

He goes on to imply that the means taken to access the story aren’t as important. “How the news was gathered and sourced, together with the degree of accuracy, would seem to be secondary considerations in this definition of a 'good journalist'. 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story' is an instruction that has been heard in more than one newsroom.” This description of journalistic values would seem to point to the notion that a good journalist is simply one who provides stories time and again which boost circulation of the publication. This theory certainly removes credit from the idea that journalism is a noble and high-principled profession.

It’s a long running argument; is money the key factor and motivation in journalism or is it about seeking the truth? In an interview with ZENIT, journalist and author Gabriel Galdon, a professor of journalism at Madrid’s CEU St. Paul University, states clearly his belief in high-principled reporting rather than consumerism. “Journalism's mission is to proclaim the truth that is good and the truth that serves for the good of society. Obviously a newspaper does not cover everything that has happened in the world. There must always be choice. That choice can be made with various things in mind: trends, looking to satisfy a certain audience, economic interests, power, etc. It can also be made by following the criteria that to seek truth is good, which citizens need to know to be freer and have more dignity.”

Perhaps the answer is a simple one. Frost goes on to suggest that a good journalist needs to be a bit of both. They need to be able to gather news stories in a fair and accurate way yet they need to be able to provide as much circulation as possible at the same time. If there’s a lack of stories then people won’t buy the newspaper and if there’s no newspaper, then what purpose does the journalist have then?

In a perfect world, it would seem that the arguments for good ethics do seem are stacking up. A high principled journalist will do all the things that Frost mentions; gather stories fairly, report the truth as accurately as possible, be careful not to impeach on any strict harassment rules. As a result, the stories produced will be honest and the readers will form a trust with that reporter, which is an essential component in the relationship between reporter and reader. Without trust, the journalist loses credibility in what they are saying and could be deemed a ‘bad’ journalist.

Lecha Neace, in an article on helium.com, says, “You want to say, ‘a journalist has to be honest’ but this is not always the case. There are so many types of journalism in the world. Yes, there is the journalist that stands politically correct, and then there is the kind that writes about things that are not so true. Journalism should be completely honest, have integrity, they should be accurate, they should avoid stereotyping, they should give a voice for those who don't have one, make sure to tell both sides of the story (if there are two sides), and always show respect in their work towards everyone. Good journalism is something that is priceless.”

It certainly highlights the pressures in which journalists work these days. With all these apparent ethical requirements - honesty, integrity, identifying sources, etc - it’s a wonder that any are considered to be highly principled when they have to contend with so much when writing a story. And it lends support to the reporter who is more interested in churning out stories to tight deadlines (regardless of how they gathered the story) than taking the time to be 100% accurate and honest in order to please the reader. Frost sums up the situation succinctly in the quote, “All too often a journalist can forget his or her loyalties to the reader in the rush to show loyalty to his or her employer.”

It could just, however, be a case of what counts as high principles. What is regarded as good ethical judgment for a journalist? Is it simply an idea of moral obligations to do what is judged as ‘the right thing’?

The principle of utilitarianism is widely accepted as a valid ethical system and is one that can have sizeable appeal for journalists. People who believe in utilitarianism believe that an action that brings more beneficial effects than detrimental ones must be the right action. In essence, it’s a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. Frost uses the following example to demonstrate it’s pull for journalists: “It justifies, for example, ruining the life of a children’s home superintendent by exposing him as a child abuser on the basis that it has saved children of the future for a good deal of misery.”

There are problems with this system however, as Frost points out. “For instance, one could justify the killing of a homeless down-and-out who has no family in order that his organs could be donated to several desperately ill patients on the basis that four people could live with consequent benefits to their families for the loss of only one life.” By using utilitarianism, an evil act can be defensible, provided that as a result there is an increase in happiness.

Perhaps a significant ethical theory is the concept of duty ethics, developed by Immanuel Kant. Kant determined that a moral act was one that followed only obligation and duty to others. Frost goes into more detail on Kant’s theory, explaining the implications for journalists. “Kant's theory allows the development of a set of universal laws for journalists that can be applied in many varied circumstances. Kant also believed that one would have to examine the motives of a person to see whether their behaviour was good or bad. If they acted solely from a sense of duty and not out of self-interest, then their action could well be morally justifiable no matter what the consequences. If a journalist were to report something that was not true, despite thorough checking (perhaps he or she had been lied to), then the journalist could not be blamed for the consequences, even if these were damaging.”

However, Kant’s theory raises a problem when you consider conflicts of interest. Kant uses the examples of a journalist being asked by the police not to publish a story about a kidnap in order to protect the victims life. How could the journalist not publish a story of such public interest? Yet, it must also be a duty to protect the victims life? Frost sums up the situation with the quote, “Since much of the ethical debate within the media is balancing the right to publish against some other right, such as a person’s right to privacy, Kant is not always that helpful.”

The debate is set to rage on. There are compelling arguments to suggest that being a good journalist requires impeccable ethical standards, just as the need for circulation would paint the picture of a good journalist being one who provides as many stories as possible, with little regard to preparation. In many cases, a sense of context is required. It’s very easy to cling to principles and ethics when sometimes the truth just needs to be reported regardless of damaging consequences. Just as at times a sensitive and moral approach is required to gaining as much as one can from a story.

Perhaps the opinion of today’s journalists is the most important one and it would appear that ethics are becoming secondary concerns. Andrew Marr sums up the cynical view in My Trade: A Short History of British Journalism when he suggests that the phrase 'responsible journalism' should be ignored: “Responsible to whom? The state? Never. To ‘the people‘? But which people, and of what views? To the readers? It is vanity to think you know them. Responsible, then to some general belief in truth and accuracy? Well that would be nice.”

(University essay on Media Ethics, 2009)

Broad at seven and no Bell

Not that I'm an England selector or have anywhere near the credentials required for such a role but here follows my gut feeling for the First Test in Centurion that's slowly creeping up on us in December:

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood
Prior
Broad
Swann
Sidebottom/Plunkett
Anderson
Onions

No, I don't like batting Stuart Broad at seven. I don't like it one jot. But the alternative is handing a debut to Luke Wright, a decision that seems a tad premature in my opinion, and moving everyone down a place. Ideally at this stage in his tender career, Broad would come in at eight, in front of the capable but not 100% reliable Graeme Swann. But the void created by Andrew Flintoff's departure means England need a stroke maker to come in after Matt Prior and, while Wright may have explosive potential, Broad is the safer option.

With Graham Onions and Jimmy Anderson as the other pacemen, the remaining spot is a toss up between the perennially injured Ryan Sidebottom and the reborn Liam Plunkett. Sidebottom's Test career is in the definition of word 'stagnation' at the moment and my instinct would be to avoid him. Having said that, it's a tough baptism of fire for Plunkett, who is known to have a wayward radar when things aren't going his way. Do the selectors opt for Sidebottom's experience and unique left arm threat? Or do they gamble on Plunkett's late swing and new found confidence?

With no Ravi Bopara in the squad, Paul Collingwood's spot is safe - for now, at least. Jonathan Trott should probably be entrusted with the troublesome number three slot over Ian Bell. His tough demeanor and knowledge of South African conditions will ultimately put him in better stead than the infuriatingly inconsistent Bell. With all the luck in the world, Kevin Pietersen will be fit and happy again to bat at number four, giving the line-up a touch more flair and firepower. Pietersen's achilles injury will hopefully have given him the chance to recharge his batteries and regain some enthusiasm for the game he admits he needed a break from.

On paper, it doesn't appear a hugely strong team and pundits have been predicting a series of leather chasing for tourists. But underestimate this England side at your peril. Australia made the mistake of being too blase with their attitude towards Andy Flower's men and paid the ultimate price. In Onions and Swann, England have two underrated bowlers who the South Africans have yet to face and whilst it'll be a mightily tough challenge, they will take with them the faintest glimmer of optimism and the firm belief that, on their day, they can upset anyone.

Ferdinand's failings exposed

As much as I enjoy seeing Man Utd get beat, there was something quite disturbing about the casual ease in which Fernando Torres shrugged off Rio Ferdinand for his opening goal yesterday.

The Spain hitman, widely acknowledged as one of, if not, the best striker in the world, combined superb upper body strength with beguiling touch to keep Ferdinand (widely acknowledged as England's best defender) at bay and create space to lash his shot into the roof of the net. A fantastic goal and a joy to watch it most certainly was.

But it comes with mighty ominous signs for England followers; The nation's best centre half is having a torrid time at the moment. For the all the celebration of Torres' goal, fast forward nine or so months and put both players in their international kits. I very much doubt there'll be much euphoria when Torres has Ferdinand wrapped around his little finger in a World Cup quarter final.

Liverpool's gain, England's loss.

The morning after the night before

Hands up if you don't care about this one day series?

After just three games, it's fairly obvious that this contest embodies the very meaning of the word 'anticlimax'. And there's a plethora of reasons as to why public interest in this arduous series is on the wane.

A lack of big names, some dire cricket, September-like weather, an outrageously long schedule and the fact that it directly followed a gripping Test series; you can take your pick from excuses to avoid the action. Injuries to Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff and the absence of Ricky Ponting have robbed the series of some of it's most reputable players meaning that there isn't as much of a pull to the general public as the Test series had.

If there is blame to be had, then a portion of it belongs to the administrators. Whoever decided it would be a good idea to schedule a seven match series ending on the 20th of September needs a change in profession. Ignoring the fact that audience focus would naturally be on the Test series anyway, seven matches is simply far too much. There's no urgency to it - a team could lose the first two games then still win the series (a team more competent that England, that is). I genuinely feel for the beleaguered bunch of players who will see out the series in the cold and bitter reaches of Durham in late September.

The fare on offer so far has been sub-standard. At The Oval and Lords, England bowled with great skill only to see their batsman let them down when chasing a relatively easy total. At The Rose Bowl last night, the batsmen again let them down, this time setting a mediocre score for the Aussies to chase. The games may have looked quite close on paper but the slow scoring and lacklustre fielding on display are deadly ingredients in the recipe for audience killing cricket.

This is all after England were making reasonable progress in the shorter form of the game. Consecutive series wins over the West Indies had manifested a degree of confidence - a confidence that has been rolled away by the combined efforts of Cameron White and Callum Ferguson and co. The powers that be will certainly panic and make widespread changes. Don't be surprised to see the likes of Eoin Morgan and Adil Rashid rudely dismissed from the squad, despite having genuine promise.

The failure of the series so far also points to the apparent decline of the one day game. With the ECB cancelling the domestic 50 over game from next season onwards, it would appear that public for demand is decreasing. And this series so far will have done nothing to re-awaken that interest.

So, frankly, it's a dire contest and not one that people are too concerned about. A 7-0 defeat is never desirable but there won't be too many tears shed if that's the outcome. It may sound harsh but, with players like Owais Shah, Paul Collingwood and Tim Bresnan, England are never going to be a thrilling side. Collingwood typifies the current malaise of the team; slow, a bit boring and unable to deliver when it really matters.

Is there anything else on?

Interview with Aaron Norton

Breaking into the music scene can be a gruelling task and it’s certainly not one for the easy dissuaded. The glory and adulation provides a strong motive at first but, all too often, the time and perseverance required to make it to the top is all too much. But there’s one local musician who has his eyes firmly set on spreading his music to the masses and it’ll take a great deal to stop him in his quest.

Aaron Norton is a supremely gifted musician. Armed with his acoustic guitar, he’s been turning heads on the local music scene for some time now and it appears only a matter of time before he cracks the big time. With an army of local and dedicated fans, his gigs in and around the Kingston area are always popular events and as the biography on his website says, ‘His desire to perform and to entertain the world with his music is now unstoppable’.

Curious to learn more about the hype, me and a friend went to one of his gigs: an intimate performance at the Waggon and Horses pub in Surbiton. And we were not to be disappointed as Norton thrilled the closed in crowd with a variety of his own songs and some contemporary classics. Alone on a small stage with nothing but his guitar and a pint of Guinness behind him, he immediately captured the undivided attention of the assembled throng and didn’t lose it all night.

He wowed the audience with soulful renditions of well known songs such as Wherever You Will Go by The Calling and Fall At Your Feet by Crowded House. Later on in the night, he chose to present his acoustic take on some more alternative numbers such as Umbrella by R’n’B songstress Rihanna and the immortal reggae classic No Woman No Cry by the great Bob Marley. His choice of songs was a considerable success and clearly a big drawing point for his fans – by performing his renditions of crowd favourites, Norton immediately established a rapport with his followers and it’s clearly fundamental to his success.

So where does he see himself going in the big, bad world that is the music industry? “I look at artists like James Morrison and Paulo Nutini. That’s the kind of genre that I’m aiming at. It would have been nice to corner that market first but those guys have had success already so it’s just a case of emulating what they’ve achieved.”

The list of venues he has performed at reads like a where’s where of south London music scene haunts. From the Rose Theatre in Kingston to the grand London Palladium, he’s even managed to squeeze in two live performances on Capital FM radio. Norton has impressive and burgeoning CV to his name - so does he have a favourite venue? “The Oak (a Kingston pub) is always a popular place to play, I always enjoy it there. Every crowd you get is different. There’s a different atmosphere or a slightly different age group.”

Whether he makes it to the big time or not, no-one can fault the guy for attitude. When you speak to him or listen to him play, he gives off a powerful aura of relaxed confidence and determination. As we conclude our conversation, he tells me he’s confident that the opportunities will come if he keeps trying his hardest. And with talent and bravado like his, it’s difficult to imagine him not getting all he wants. Watch this space.

(Chessington Chat Magazine, 2009)

When the dust has settled: The Ashes 2009

Innings of the series – Michael Clarke 136, Lords

Clarke was the outstanding batsman of the entire series and his superb, unfathomable rearguard innings against all odds was just about 100 runs shy of bringing his side an unthinkable victory. With the Aussies struggling at five wickets down and still a good 400 away from victory, Clarke found a willing partner in Brad Haddin and showed astounding courage. He played some brilliant shots whilst ensuring that England would not be able to get him out easily.

He frustrated them to the point where there was genuine talk of Australia actually chasing down their mammoth target. Jonathan Trott’s debut 119 on a tricky Oval pitch was just as impressive for effort but for combining sheer guts alongside audacity, Clarke takes the plaudits. What a remarkable batsman he has become for his side.

Bowling spell of the series – Stuart Broad 5-37, The Brit Oval

Whilst Andrew Flintoff’s 5-92 at Lords was one of the most awe-inspiring and terrifying spells of fast bowling in recent history, Broad’s effort was something miraculous. Written off in many quarters for an apparent lack of penetration, he arguably won the series for England in one electrifying and devastating spell of pace bowling. Combining deadly accuracy with inherent seam movement, he reduced Australia from a comfortable looking 73-0 to a match and series defining 111-7.

He got good players out, too: Ricky Ponting, not for the first time, outdone by Broad’s uncomfortable bounce; Mike Hussey leaving a ball that shaped back in and struck him plumb in front; the dangerous Clarke chipping straight to short extra cover. It really was a sight to behold and was a testament to Broad’s mental skill as well has his considerable bowling talent. The new Flintoff? Not quite yet but he’s showed tantalising signs of being even better.

Men of the series - England: Andrew Strauss, Australia: Michael Clarke

Strauss deserves accolade for both his gutsy and authoritative batting as well as his intuitive captaincy. He led from the front in every sense of the phrase – be it setting the tone at the top of the innings with the bat, his frank and honest assessments in post game press conferences or his knowledgeable use of the players. His utilisation of young Broad at The Oval was a perfect example example of brilliant man management.

As for Clarke, the statistics say it all. 448 runs at an average of 64 paints the picture of a sublime series and he played some of the tour’s most eye-catching innings. He became the prize wicket alongside the captain and when England didn't get him early, he invariably went on to punish them. Surely it must be only a matter of time before he is handed the captaincy.

Unsung Hero – England: Matt Prior, Australia: Marcus North

Prior had a fine series both with the bat, as we’ve come to expect, and behind the stumps. The fact that he went unnoticed when keeping alludes to the fact that he didn’t make any noticeable errors, especially when keeping to some diabolical bowling at Cardiff and Headingley. His alacrity with the willow helped inject much need momentum into England’s batting and he can reflect on a job well done all round.

North arrived as a batsman familiar to English conditions but with very little Test experience. He ended it with an average of just over 52, having scored two hundreds. His ton at Headingley went much unnoticed as the bowlers claimed much of the credit for Australia’s win. But he effectively set up their victory bid with a classy and uncomplicated 110. He even grabbed a few wickets on the spinner’s haven at The Oval and ends the series very much a fixture of the Aussie middle order.

Best commentator - Matthew Hayden

Aside from the always superb Mark Nicholas, Hayden stood out on both TMS and Five. Imaginative, wise, objective and was the voice of calm to Boycott’s age old fervour.

Rising star – England: Jonathan Trott, Australia: Ben Hilfenhaus

Trott’s debut hundred confirmed his golden boy status among the press. He’s already being primed as the next unfortunate candidate to take on the poisoned chalice of the number three slot. Still, he does appear the best qualified to take on the role at present. He played with a maturity that belied his limited international experience and hung firm with his mind focused on the task while all around him were throwing the bat and getting themselves out. He is certainly one for the immediate future and possibly longer.

It seems unthinkable that Hilfenhaus wasn’t tipped to make a single appearance in the series before Cardiff. But Brett Lee’s injury and doubts over Stuart Clark’s effectiveness saw the Tasmanian given a chance with the new ball and, boy, did he repay the faith shown in him. He ended as the leading wicket-taker with 22 scalps at an average of just over 27 and generally made England sweat every time with the new cherry in his hand. Not the quickest of bowlers but with an uncanny ability to swing the ball, he posed problems time and again to England’s fragile top and middle order. Quiet and unassuming by nature, Hilfenhaus must now be a cornerstone of the Australian attack.

Biggest disappointment – England: Ravi Bopara, Australia: Mitchell Johnson

Bopara was heralded as England’s number three saviour but ultimately he found the pressure to be a little too much. He was always likely to be targeted by the Aussies and as bad score followed bad score, England ran out of patience and replaced him for the final match. His time will come again for sure but his unfortunate failures remain a large regret for England fans. With any luck, however, he won't be written off quite yet.

Johnson had a ridiculously strange series. Wayward at Cardiff and unable to prize out the last England wickets, it obviously affected his mindset as he had a complete shocker at Lords. Be it spraying balls down miles down leg, firing them wide through the slip cordon or delivering wild ill-directed bouncers - he gave keeper Haddin an absolute nightmare. He improved marginally at Edgbaston and then was back to something like what he was capable of in the win at Leeds. But by the end of the series, he was back to his shocking worst as he completely failed to turn up when it really, really mattered. He suffered so many maulings at the hands of England’s lower order, he must still be having nightmares about seeing Swann or Broad stride to the wicket. Still managed 20 wickets but was a monumental letdown.

Comedy moment of the series – Ricky Ponting getting hit in the mouth at The Oval

You had to feel for him. Having witnessed his side toss away the series in a Broad-inspired collapse, Ponting and his beleaguered bunch took to the field again. And it wasn’t long before Ponting, fielding at silly point, was back in the wars as took a nasty looking hit on the mouth at point blank range. The crowd cheered unforgivingly but stopped when the extent of the blow was realised. Ponting shrugged it off but it was yet another painful Oval memory from a ground that has shown him nothing but contempt.

Moment of the series – Andrew Flintoff getting his 5-for at Lords on the last morning.

It was a moment that received a rapturous applause. Flintoff was peppering Peter Siddle from all angles before all of a sudden he turned and steamed in off a shortened run up. A full length ball nipped back and defeated Siddle’s tailender-like prod, shattering the stumps. Siddle, having been lucky to survive the amount of balls he did, smiled at his wicket’s inevitability and Flintoff went down on one knee, arms aloft, to celebrate only his 3rd Test match five wicket haul. In his final Test series, Freddie had secured his place on the famous honours board and it was a perfect Lords farewell for the great all rounder.

Biggest commentary overreaction – Michael Atherton

Iron Mike scared the life out of millions of viewers at Edgbaston when Graham Onions bowled out Hussey, seconds after trapping Shane Watson lbw. Anyone wishing to settle down to a quiet start to the morning was out of luck as Atherton’s over-zealous ‘BOWLED HIM!’ yelp could be heard all the way from Birmingham to Sydney.

The future...

Possible England side for First Test vs. South Africa –

Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior (w), Wright, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Harmison

This is all dependant on Kevin Pietersen getting fit. My god, how we miss him. The best batsman of his generation, he was voted into Cricinfo's all time England XI, a testament to his sheer presence at the crease and outrageous talent. His absence proved England can win without him but the batting looked nervous and uncohesive. Frankly, he is simply unreplaceable.

Adil Rashid must now be groomed as England’s 2nd spinner. Monty Panesar’s performance with the bat at Cardiff was admirable but as a spinner he is good for nothing at the moment. Rashid needs to be slowly introduced to international cricket and touring with such an excellent spinning role model in Swann can only be a positive thing. Make no mistake, this kid is the future.

Steve Harmison may or may not tour. But should he take the gamble to continue his international career, one suspects England will need the firepower his bowling offers as it provides a better balance with the swing and seam of Jimmy Anderson and Broad. Onions is a more than credible alternative although there remains the fear that he may be slightly innocuous in less helpful conditions.

The all important all rounder slot could be filled by Luke Wright, who is maturing slowly into a medium/fast bowler and powerful middle order batsman. His batting is a concern, with a susceptibility to get himself out before getting set. But with Prior providing a safety net at number six, there is less pressure on whoever plays at seven. Rashid would provide a better batting option but England may not want to play him and Swann in a twin spin attack. We all saw how well badly that worked at Cardiff.

Bopara is too good a batsman to be left out of the England team but he probably lacks the ideal temperament and composure to bat at number three. His time may come at first drop but for now he should be utilised in the middle order, in place of the struggling Paul Collingwood. Oval hero Trott looks to have the ability to handle the pressure of a promotion to three and his steely determination and resilience gives England a balanced batting order. You’d have to say that in Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bopara, Prior and Wright you have a mixture of everything – solid defence, attacking flamboyance and resolute determination. Throw into the mix Broad’s increasing confidence and the carefree hitting of Swann and you have a competent top nine. Hell, even Anderson can play his shots when he applies himself.

England are taking great care to ensure they don’t go over the top in the wake of this triumph. The mindset is spot on, the players are more or less the correct ones and, in Andy Flower, they have a thoughtful and on-the-ball coach. The only thing remaining is genuine progress. It may take time and it may not be easy sailing but perhaps they’re finally on the right path.

The ECB's deal with the devil

Much has been made about England's low key celebrations in the wake of their Ashes success, especially so when you consider the endless hullabaloo that surrounded the 2005 win. Gone were the open top bus rides, speeches to a packed out Trafalgar Square and clearly drunk cricketers falling head first out of hotels. Gordon Brown will have certainly rested easy on Monday knowing that no-one would be pissing in his 10 Downing Street garden.

Indeed, there's a different feel about this Ashes win and it's a world away from the carefree euphoria of 2005. The standard of cricket was inferior to last time though the level of drama was almost as thrilling. For the 2005 Old Trafford draw, read Cardiff in 2009. For England's dramatic win at Edgbaston, read the easier but no less exciting Lords win. There is a feeling this time around that England didn't deserve the victory as much as they had last time out. And, not to take anything away from Andrew Strauss and his men who did deserve their win, Australia are certainly easier to beat these days.

Lily Allen aside, this series win hasn't drawn the masses of newly found cricket fans that 2005 did. Perhaps there's another reason for the lack of national outpouring of emotion. Where last time everyone in the land had access to live pictures of Michael Vaughan lifting the famous little urn, this time only those lucky enough to have a Sky subscription could watch Strauss' turn.

The viewing figures do not do this series justice. Sky do a brilliant presentation and can only be commended for their cricket coverage. But the truth remains that many in the UK were unable to watch any of the series because they were saddled with plain, old, regular terrestrial television. What hope is there for cricket to take off again as a summer sport if children up and down the land have no basic exposure to it?

The ECB have their reasons for selling out to Sky and the revenue earned per year from the lucrative deal probably allows them to sleep a little easier each night. But as long as international cricket is only available for a subscription fee, then national interest in the game will continue to falter.

It's a sad truth that whatever heroics Strauss and his men achieve, their efforts may not be as universally recognised as those from years gone by.

The legacy of Freddie

The King is dead, long live the King.

Yes, Andrew Flintoff has departed the Test match arena for the last time and England will have to do without the man whose Herculean efforts over the last 6 or 7 years have propelled his country to glorious heights, even if there were some forgettable lows scattered inbetween. Statistically, he won't be remembered as one of the game's great players and when you consider his all round talents, a feeling resides of what might have been. But the Lancastrian leaves a sizeable impact on England cricket fans and will be held in the highest esteem, regardless of how little five wicket hauls he took.

The memories are plentiful.

His spell to Jacques Kallis at Edgbaston in 2008 as he tried single handed to drag England back into a Test match; His pugnacious twin fifties at Mumbai in 2006 where he took on the responsibility of captaining an injury depleted side with aplomb; That breathtaking 95 at The Oval against South Africa in 2003, dragging England from simply a 'good' score into a match winning one. The list of memories Flintoff's cricket has created is both mightily impressive and lengthy.

And who can ignore his greatest moments, saved for the greatest enemy of all? Ashes contests brought the best out of Freddie, none more so than 2005 where he rose above himself time and again to deliver the most cherished of all cricketing achievements for his country. It's no surprise Adam Gilchrist spent his 2005 nights unable to think of anything else but the tall paceman steaming in towards him from around the wicket and delivering searing out-swingers time after time. If ever Flintoff did earn the term 'legend', it was in this series.

2009 may not have brought as much personal glory but he had his moments. The devastating spell on the final day at Lords, where he moved earth, wind and fire to bring victory for his country. The blistering 74 at Edgbaston where he batted as if to put the Australians back in their place. The fantastic run out of Ricky Ponting on that last day where he came from nowhere in the game to stamp his own influence on proceedings.

He may not be an all rounder to compete historically with the likes of Ian Botham, Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee, whose exploits are the stuff of cricketing legend. But what Flintoff leaves to the English game is a legacy of popularity and drama. His personality endeared him to many a worldwide cricket fan and he played the game in the best spirit possible. Rarely flustered, always with a smile on his face, Flintoff made cricket look fun more than any other player in his generation. Sometimes wickets fell as a result of his sheer force rather than cricketing skill.

No matter who eventually replaces him in the England set up, his all round talents will be greatly sought after for years to come.

Speaking of replacements, attention has inevitably turned to who should fill Freddie's giant shoes. Stuart Broad is in the process of being hyped up to gigantic proportions by the media but, at 23, he needs time to mature and develop. No one can doubt his potential but what England fans crave is a big hitting middle order batsman and a fast, relentless pace bowler. Broad isn't yet either one of these. He needs to spend more time developing his potency as a bowler and, in time, his batting can be worked upon to attain the middle order temperament he so craves.

There's another two young guns waiting in the wings who would seem in a possible position to assume Flintoff's role. Adil Rashid is a much talked about leg spinning all rounder with bags of promise. He has limited England experience, having played in the World Twenty20 earlier this summer, is a prodigious turner of the ball and can bat as high as number 7. He seems destined to have an England future sooner or later, having been touted to play in this summer's Ashes contest.

And for all the arguments that it's too soon to play him, there remains the distinct possibility that holding him back will do him no good. Perhaps it's time to see if he's as good as we all pray he is. He certainly ticks all the boxes in the all rounder category. His one 'limitation' perhaps is that he is a spinner and not a terrorising fast bowler in the Flintoff mould. Playing him would effectively mean England go into games with two spinners and three pacemen, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing on certain surfaces - it just may leave them short of express pace.

Another burgeoning talent is Sussex's Luke Wright, a dashing middle order batsman and improving seam bowler. Wright has been in and around England's one day setup for a few years now, having been tried in a number of batting positions and having failed to make a consistant impression. However, two County Championship centuries this year have led to calls for him to be given a chance to step up too Test level and, provided he learns to rein in the sometimes mindless stroke play that has inhibited his one-day batting, he looks like he can be a decent enough batsman. His bowling is coming along nicely - initially considered as medium pace, Wright is starting to hit the enviable heights of the mid 80's, in terms of mph. He already possesses a superb yorker length ball and, if he can step up in pace a notch, he could just be the bowler England desire.

However, with both candidates comes an element of risk. Whatever they achieve or fail to achieve will invariably be hung up next to Flintoff's imposing stature. And it will take time and steady performances to properly fill the void. But perhaps this is precisely the new ethos of this England team. Keep our feet on the ground, regardless of what we achieve, and build steadily towards getting better and better. Whoever takes Flintoff's place, it may be a case of giving them time to blend into the role and not getting too critical or too praising.

Still, it's an exciting time for this brilliantly inconsistent but promising England team, who head to South Africa in November to try and further the progress made this summer. It's a time for blooding new players and Wright and Rashid will almost certainly be on the tour at the very least if England want them to succeed. But for now fans should bask in the memories of the great Andrew Flintoff. He may not have been perfect but nothing should give fans greater pleasure than seeing reruns of him shattering Peter Siddle's stumps to gain his fifth wicket at Lords in the Second Test last month.

A fantastic player and a thoroughly decent bloke, Flintoff was and is one of a kind.

Thoughts from the Oval

A few musings about the current Test match:

- I really like the look of Jonathan Trott. He looks solid, compact and able to dig in. These may all be traits of Paul Collingwood but where Collingwood sometimes decelerates the scoring rate with his lack of free flowing technique, Trott looks capable of playing a patient but sensible innings. One for the foreseeable future, no doubt and he will have a big role to play in South Africa this winter. Expect him and Bopara and Bell to form the backbone of England's middle order at the expense of Collingwood, at least until Kevin Pietersen is fit again.

- England were right not to pick Monty Panesar. Put simply, he's not a very good player. If you're struggling to play well for Northamptonshire at Division Two then an Ashes deciding Test match is beyond you. He did precious little when given the chance at Cardiff and though the pitch has shown signs of taking outrageous spin, Graeme Swann and the four seamers are more than capable of exploiting it. See Australia's first innings for evidence of that.

- Will the Australians give Andrew Flintoff a guard of honour? Or rather, should they? It's a toughie. Michael Atherton has argued in The Times that Flintoff cannot be classed as a 'great' player and surely such marks of respect should only be afforded to those of the highest calibre. But he is certainly a cricketer with a distinguished reputation and the Aussies make no secret of their admiration for him. Will they extend him the courtesy of a guard of honour in his last Test innings? We may well find out later today.

- Should Steve Harmison retire too? We all know we're watching Flintoff's last ever Test match but will it be the last for his close mate Harmy? A bowler that England cannot rely on anymore, Harmison's role in this series has always been slightly peripheral and as much as a threat he looks at certain times, the fact is the England management appear to have lost patience with his inconsistency, much like they have with Panesar. Perhaps he should go down the same route as Freddie and call it a day, on his own terms?

- If England do win the game and the Ashes, it'll be an outstanding achievement. It won't necessarily elevate England to the top of the world rankings and we'll still have a way to go before we can compete with best sides. But a victory in this manner will have required supreme mental toughness. People can harp on all they like about England only having one hundred in the series but the majority of their innings totals have been team efforts - a lot of the players getting 40's, 50's and 60's. Hundreds are better but if everyone puts in a collective effort you end up with a commanding score. It's a team game, after all.

- Andrew Strauss deserves a knighthood. Well, not really but regardless of whether he leads England to Ashes glory or not, credit must go to him for his responsible batting and, at times, astute leadership. Just call him Michael Vaughan mark 2.

Play on, lads. Play on.

Bring him back and make the people happy

Barring a 1981-esque England comeback, it looks as if we’ll be heading to The Oval with the score at 1-1 and everything to play for.

England’s Headingley predicament is so dire it brings about horrendous memories of Australian batsmen carting James Anderson and co. all over Cardiff with nonchalant ease. Shot out for 102 then forced to watch the tourists rack up a lead of 343, you would have been forgiven for thinking the pain was temporarily over. But this England side has a special ability to bring delight and despair in equal measure and their collapse from 58-0 to 78-5 bordered on laughable.

It’s been a thoroughly miserable two days for England and the prospect of winning the Ashes looks a little further away on the horizon than it did in the wake of Edgbaston. The media have been quick to collectively jump on the ‘all England players are bad people’ bandwagon – it’s almost as if Ravi Bopara is purposely trying to play badly if you read the supposedly ‘professional’ garbage written about him over the last few weeks.

Still, never let it be said that this blog follows such a negative path. I’m all for the bright side of life even if Matt Prior will walk to the crease tomorrow morning with the company of the night-watchman and the steady reassurance of hardly any batting to come.

Going back to 1981 and Headingley, is anyone else dreaming of a miraculous turnaround? Does no-one think it remotely possible that Stuart Broad will discover his inner Ian Botham and blaze England to an unthinkable lead? I suppose when you put it like that it does seem rather improbable. But allow me to indulge for a second; in 1981, Botham took 6-95 as the Australians racked up 401 before beginning his quest to haul England back into contention with the bat. Today, Broad took 6-91. England are in just as calamitous a position now as they were then, if not worse. With history in mind, I wonder if Ricky Ponting will be tempted to have a punt on Paddy Power’s odds of 200-1 for England to win the match?

It’s majorly likely, however, that the Aussies will stroll to victory at some point tomorrow and take this Ashes series into a final Test decider at The Oval which, frankly, is the most entertaining prospect. With a series draw not good enough for England to bring the Ashes home, they’ll be going all out for the win. Expect a fired up (and probably hardly fit) Andrew Flintoff giving his everything in what is his last Test match.

How are England going to win? It’s painfully obvious that they’ll need a change in the batting order and, as much as I rate him, Bopara is going to have to be moved from the number three slot. He’s simply had more than enough chances. He could well make the position his own in the future but for now he needs to be either dropped or moved down the order. And for his replacement, here’s a left field selection that would get English pulses racing and bring the sweet smell of cricketing nostalgia: Marcus Trescothick.

Exciting, isn’t it? The veteran opener is still delivering a waterfall of runs down at Somerset and loves playing the Aussies. It was he in 2005 that provided the lightning fast, ultra confident starts to an innings that regularly got Ponting all hot and bothered. It’s he who would be perfect in this scenario, with England needing to play as positively as possible. Yes, he’s retired and can’t go five minutes outside of Taunton without getting homesick. But give him the chance to come in just for this Test match and play his natural, free flowing game and I bet he’d take it.

He can go in with Strauss and Cook can shift down to number three. Cook is a level headed, defensive batsmen and can be the anchor by which England build their innings around. He’s batted three for England before with a degree of success and, as mentioned, it’s only for one match. Trescothick can blaze the ball around like the days of old, Cook can play second fiddle and Matt Prior and Freddie can provide the middle order acceleration. It’s radical, it’s out of the ordinary and it could work. The Aussies will definitely not be expecting it.

If it happens, you heard it here first.

LVCC - Hampshire v Lancashire 6th August - Day 2

Afternoon session

Hampshire began the afternoon session looking to accelerate their run rate and Sean Ervine quickly signalled his intentions as he walked down the track and hoisted Gary Keedy over long on for four. Lancashire took the second new ball and after several tight overs, Kyle Hogg induced an edge behind from Mascarenhas, who fell for 21. Ervine brought up his fifty soon after with a quick single before a powerful square cut brought him his seventh boundary.

Oliver Newby then bagged another wicket after wicket keeper Tom Burrows (0) edged one to VVS Laxman at second slip. Hampshire’s hopes of passing 300 and claiming 3 batting points now rested on Ervine’s shoulders. Perhaps sensing the need to take charge, he went hard at a short ball and sent a top edge over the head of the keeper for four.

David Griffiths then fell for a duck, bowled by a spinning delivery from Keedy. New man Imran Tahir (0) lasted only two balls before losing his off stump to a full length ball from Tom Smith. Running out of partners, Ervine steered Keedy through point where a fielding error from Mal Loye gave him another boundary. Lancashire brought the field in to deny Ervine the chance to steal the strike but he responded in magnificent style, crashing a mammoth six over midwicket to raise the Hampshire 300. And the entertainment continued with an audacious reverse sweep that sailed into the crowd for another six.

James Tomlinson, who was clinging on bravely at the other end, was then dropped at first slip off Newby. As Lancashire heads went down, Ervine lofted Keedy straight down the ground before steering him down to third man for consecutive boundaries to move to 98. Tomlinson joined in the fun with a nudge down to fine leg for four. Ervine then reached a heroic century, his seventh in first class cricket, with a dab down to third man for two. A few more boundaries off Newby saw him continue to frustrate the visitors before he holed out for 114 giving Hampshire a score of 337 all out.

(rosebowlplc.com, 2009)

Read the full day's report here.

LVCC - Hampshire v Lancashire 6th August - Day 1

Morning session

Day one of the LV County Championship game Hampshire against Lancashire, a team Hampshire had never beaten at The Rose Bowl. The home side won the toss and elected to bat first. After a slightly slow start, Jimmy Adams opened his boundary account with an elegant straight drive back past bowler Oliver Newby. Partner Michael Carberry then laced Kyle Hogg to the square cover boundary before picking up two more boundaries off successive balls with a cover drive and a fierce pull stroke, in an over costing 12 runs.

Adams had a stroke of luck on 26 as he edged a Tom Smith delivery only for it to fall short of the slip fielder and run away for four. Carberry continued in a fluent manner, driving Newby to the cover fence. Adams was growing in confidence and flicked Smith out to midwicket for another boundary before unfurling an excellent on drive which gained him four more.

Lancashire then got the much needed breakthrough as Carberry (33 off 62 balls) perished pulling a Hogg delivery straight to Mark Chilton at deep backward square. New man John Crawley came in and immediately got going with a boundary down to fine leg. With regular boundaries hard to come by, both batsmen were on the lookout for singles to keep the score going along.

Crawley earned four more with a handsome looking cover drive before the visitors introduced the spin of Gary Keedy just before lunch. The veteran was unable to provide much threat save for a strangled appeal for lbw against Crawley that was turned down and the Hampshire batsman were able to take their team into lunch on 87-1.

(rosebowlplc.com, 2009)

Read the full day's report here.

Natwest Pro40 - Hampshire v Yorkshire 5th August

Hampshire innings

Jacques Rudolph’s fine 79 had helped Yorkshire to a tough target but Hampshire’s openers began confidently with a flurry of early boundaries under the floodlights. Jimmy Adams lifted Tim Bresnan over square leg and both openers were picking up singles at every opportunity as the early momentum was with the home side.

Adams was growing in confidence as he hoisted Deon Kruis over long on for the first maximum of the Hampshire innings. Yorkshire introduced Matthew Hoggard to stem the flow of runs but Adams was in no mood to hold back, immediately finding the deep point boundary for four.

Hampshire were flying and had reached 77 for 0 when spinner Adil Rashid was introduced into the attack. And he got the vital breakthrough as Adams (44 off 53 balls), having looked so secure, top edged a sweep straight into the waiting hands of Bresnan at square leg.

Lumb reached his 33rd fifty after a powerful cut off Rashid gained him three runs and, although the boundaries had dried up, Lumb and Michael Carberry were picking up singles with relative ease. But David Wainwright then had Lumb caught behind for 53 off 66 balls, leaving the Hawks needing a further 111 runs to win.

New batter Sean Ervine flayed Richard Pyrah through the covers for a welcome boundary before pulling him for a meaty six out to square leg, just evading the despairing dive of Jonathan Bairstow. Carberry (39 off 57 balls) then edged to keeper Gerard Brophy off Pyrah to bring captain Dimitri Mascarenhas to the crease. The skipper heaved Bresnan over midwicket for a crucial six before launching him over deep point and the desperate leap of Rashid for another maximum to swing the momentum back Hampshire’s way.

Kruis was called upon to bowl the penultimate over and Ervine skied a simple chance only to be crucially dropped by Andrew Gale. However Mascarenhas was then run out off the last ball.

With 10 needed, Matthew Hoggard was entrusted with the last over. Chris Benham hit the first ball for a quickly run two before square driving an excellent four to send the crowd into frenzied excitement. A quick single was taken off the next ball before a mix up off the next saw Ervine run out. Liam Dawson arrived at the wicket with three needed off the last two balls and sprinted two off his first ball leaving Hampshire needing a single to win. As the field closed in, Dawson flicked the last delivery into a gap on the leg side and sprinted the winning run to seal a memorable victory.

(rosebowlplc.com, 2009)

For full game report, click here.

Sir Bobby Robson 1933-2009

Below is a transcript from a speech made by Sir Bobby Robson upon accepting the Lifetime Achievement award at the 2007 BBC Sports Personality of the Year ceremony. May he rest in peace, a true and dedicated servant of the great game of football.

"Ladies and gentlemen,

I’m absolutely delighted to be here to receive this prestigious award. It’s a terrific honour - I’m totally flattered. It’s a privilege, it’s an honour that I respect. I’m grateful to you and thank you very much. I was completely unaware that Sir Alex (Ferguson) was here tonight to present this to me so it makes the evening ever more thrilling and staggering and I’m grateful to Sir Alex for coming like he did (applause).

You know, nobody wins everything on his own. Even Tiger Woods has a caddy. And this award really is an extension and an opportunity for me to say thank you very much to everybody that has supported me, everybody that I’ve played with, everybody that I managed. I’ve had a fabulous career, I’ve played with and managed some of the greatest players in the world - of that there is no doubt.

I remember my Fulham days, my West Bromwich days, my England days. I remember particularly Ipswich Town where I went first as a manager - some of the players are here tonight. I think Roger is here, tell me Roger, are you here? Well Mickey Mills is here, the captain, so I had a great time at Ipswich (laughter)… and I went to Barcelona and so forth but without the players, without the people I worked for and that I inherited, I wouldn’t be here tonight. I worked with some fantastic chairmen. I always had around me a great coaching and technical staff, a great medical staff, a great scouting staff. I didn’t suffer fools, this is for them of course.

I’d like to thank my mother and father. My mother brought me into this world, my father brought me to football - I think my father brought me into the world as well (laughter). But he would have loved this tonight. If he would have been alive, he would have been there in the front row. He wouldn’t have come by car, he wouldn’t have come by train. He would have somersaulted all the way from Durham to here. And I tell you this it would have taken him about 16 and a half minutes.

I’d like to thank my wife Elsie who has stuck with me for about 52 years. I thank her for her loyalty, her support, her patience, her understanding - without her I wouldn’t be what I am (applause).

And so it’s been an absolute joy for me to have worked in association football all these years, more than fifty years, and to have met and to have played with and to have worked with all these fantastic international footballers. I’d like to mention them all by name but it would take me 17 and a half years to do it. I’ve got that time but you haven’t (laughter).

So it remains for me to say thank you Gary (Lineker), than you Sir Alex, thank you to the BBC for this magnificent presentation and for giving me one of the greatest evenings of my life. Thank you very much indeed (standing applause)."

To watch a video of the speech, click here.

How going unnoticed can sometimes be a good thing

England, dare I say it, are playing some electrifying cricket in this series, epitomised in its entirety by the devastating spell of bowling this morning that reduced Australia from last night's untroubled 126-1 to a worrying 263 all out.

That Graham Onions carried out the initial devastation speaks a lot for his sudden progression from county workhorse to international star. He's not just getting wickets, he's prizing out big name players too. Shane Watson lbw; Michael Hussey bowled; Ricky Ponting edged behind; these are not just tail end wickets. The backbone of the tourist's batting order was ripped out by Onions in a spell that perfectly demonstrated the value of hitting a good line and maintaining your accuracy.

The crowd were also treated to a five-wicket haul from swing merchant James Anderson as England's star bowler ensured Australia wouldn't recover from Onions' initial burst. Anderson's ascension to leader of the attack has been a joy to watch over the last year and his performances in the series thus far have confirmed he can work his magic against the very best. He may be a tad fruitless in less swing-condusive conditions but his value to the side is priceless - he is often of more worth than Andrew Flintoff.

Andrew Strauss continued his man-possessed style of batting, scoring runs in abundance as if he is personally responsible for England's fortunes with the bat. And it's just as well; with Kevin Pietersen out of the team, England need a batsman to be reliable nine times out of ten so they can play around him. With Alastair Cook unable to provide that consistency, Ravi Bopara still coming to terms with the spectacle of playing in the Ashes and Ian Bell now a three-time newbie in Test match cricket, Strauss could be the sole anchor with which England build their innings around.

But for all these wonderful things for which we should all be thankful for, amidst all the positive signs coming from England's play and in the middle of the fact that a few more good days and England could be on their way to winning the Ashes, one aspect is drifting along unnoticed.

Anyone seen any high-profile drops or spills from Matt Prior? Witnessed any sky-high figures in the extra's column? Caught sight of any byes racing away to the boundary having been missed by the England keeper? Nope. Not at all. Zilch.

Prior, a dashing batsman but a nerve-inducing wicketkeeper, has done his primary job to a very high standard so far this series. Gone are the mystifying dives across first slip to drop catches. Gone are the ugly fumbles behind the stumps as the ball darts away for bye after bye. Prior has done an efficient job and the best part about it is that no-one has mentioned it. For a wicketkeeper, the best piece of news can often be no news at all, especially a keeper with a chequered past such as Prior.

Before the series, a lot of focus was placed on Prior and the question seemed to be not whether he'll drop someone crucial but when. But the only column inches Prior has occupied thus far are for his brisk and superb batting. His punchy 56 helped gain England the iniative on the first day in Cardiff while his 61 at Lord's was imaginative, resourceful and thoroughly entertaining. Today he even pulled off a tremendous one-handed catch to dismiss Marcus North; he is continuing, day by day, to compound his critics.

I've no doubt jinxed the Sussex man - if at Headingley he drops Ponting who goes on to make a hundred, you can hold me responsible. But if he continues to perform in this vein then he'll face none of the questions over his long term England place that he's had to contend with in his career so far. As far as Prior is concerned, he'll be hoping to stay out of the limelight so long as he's crouched behind the stumps and not wielding the willow in front of them.

Time to say goodbye

I'm not a massive fan of David Beckham and, frankly, never have been. It's not that I don't think he's any good - far from it. I fully appreciate and respect his achievements in the modern game. Some of my greatest memories in football revolve around the man with possibly the sweetest right foot I've ever witnessed.

The last minute free-kick against Greece in 2001 was about as heart-stopping and dramatic as, well, your heart actually stopping. His emphatic, if slightly badly directed, penalty against Argentina at the 2002 World Cup was one of only a few moments where I've actually leapt from my sofa during a game and 'gone mental'. In either case, it was as if I was celebrating right there and then with Becks himself. It's a unique ability that he and few others possess - as if he picks and chooses his most dramatic moments in concurrence with what his audience would want to see. He is simply one of the finest players to ever play for England.

Hell, he's played for Manchester United, Real Madrid and AC Milan, three of Europe's best and most prestigious clubs. When he eventually retires, it'll be tough for him to look back and lament many aspects of what he did, although once suspects he'll wish he kept his temper in check that night in St Etienne just over ten years ago.

But that's where my approval of him unfortunately ends and there's a multitude of reasons why. In some countries, Beckham is better known for his celebrity image rather than his exploits with a football. 'Brand Beckham' is a commercial juggernaut, a limitless roll call of advertising and sponsorships deals that plasters his face on billboards and magazine covers all over the world. Long ago, Beckham outgrew the restraints of being a simple footballer and branched outside of the sporting bubble and onto the world scene.

His relationship with his pop star wife Victoria is possibly responsible for the archetypal footballer and musician relationship that tabloids and gossip magazines now thrive on. Beckham enjoys global recognition and his every move is covered, written about and photographed.

And it's all a bit much for me. I'm all for the bloke trying to make a bit of money outside of football - if you've a marketable image then why not make best use of it. But it strikes me as too much power for a mere sportsman. The second he is decorated for his celebrity achievements rather than bending a ball into the back of a net, then the football becomes superfluous and we're not just discussing a very good right midfielder, we're discussing a world symbol - an icon for an assembly of industries.

Ever since his move to Los Angeles, where he commands a lucrative salary playing for LA Galaxy, his face is becoming more and more recognisable on the other side of the pond but not exactly for sporting reasons. In the 'soccer-unfirendly' climate in the US, Beckham is known for hobnobbing with movie stars and attending award ceremonies.

The move to America was doubtless fuelled by the lure of money and I'm sure a word or two in his ear from Victoria would have pushed him into signing on the dotted line. The decision to choose substandard Major League Soccer football over the other offers he was considering at the time was difficult to comprehend and contributed to my slight disapproval of him.

Having said all of that, one can't help be impressed by his insatiable quest to regain his England place in time for next summers World Cup. And I suspect he needs to leave LA in order to both make that dream more concrete and for his own well-being. When he's played for England of late, mainly as an impact sub, he's done his job to the best of his ability. Gone may be the energy and pace of his youth but what remains is match winning experience and the ability to play pitch-length passes that many are unable to. He's not an automatic starter anymore and rightly so but he still offers value to the side and that cannot be underestimated.

When Beckham went on loan to Milan last spring, his motives were transparent; the standard of football was infinitely better than in the MLS and a good run of performances would ultimately impress his national coach and get him back into some kind of competitive shape. So it's entirely understandable that he would want to return to Italy should the opportunity arise or at least to another club back in Europe. Even he must realise now that his American experiment has not gone entirely to plan and that it's time to come home.

Beckham has made his desire to return east public in America and fans at LA Galaxy haven't taken to it all too well. Having already alienated himself from his team-mates, he's also made a few enemies in the stands as demonstrated by both the angry confrontation between himself and a group of fans last week and another altercation, this time with a man in an England shirt, ironically. Beckham was fined $1000 (£600) for the first incident and it appears he is fast running out of friends. Maybe he can give Tom Cruise a call for emotional support?

Hollywood buddies aside, it's hard to see how Beckham can continue plying his trade out in the States, with conditions how they are now. He knows the level of football isn't good enough for him and now he has lost the support of the public, he cannot flourish in such a potentially aggressive environment. A host of clubs would be happy to take Beckham on. Milan have stated their desire to see him back with them, Chelsea have been linked due to Beckham's relationship with new boss Carlo Ancelotti and Tottenham and Manchester City have also been named as potential suitors.

Beckham is, as always, not short of options. But, one things for certain, in order to thrive and to make the best of his waning years in the game, he needs to leave LA Galaxy sharpish. One can understand the fans frustration with his desire to leave but they need to understand, he's simply better than their league.

His World Cup dream could still be alive but nevertheless, it promises to be an interesting few weeks for Goldenballs.

Kevin Pietersen and the rather large void he leaves

Much has been said of Kevin Pietersen ever since he was ruled out of the remaining three Ashes Tests and it seems those that constantly have it in for him are maximising the opportunity to stick the knife in regarding his form.

But, for someone who was apparently batting with all the fluency and cohesion of a blind man with no hands, it's not as if he wasn't scoring runs. Though so clearly hampered by his Achilles injury, KP still accrued 152 runs in four innings this series, at a pretty reasonable average of 38. Lest anyone forget that (brainless dismissal aside) it was his 69 that initially rescued England's first innings at Cardiff and even though he was clearly below his best at Lord's, he still churned out scores of 32 and 44 - hardly embarrassing.

KP's problem is that he sets such staggeringly high standards. Quite simply the most talented English batsman in eons, he walks to the wicket with a sky-scraping level of expectation on his shoulders. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it's likely that his status as England's best player has time and again motivated him to keep producing such vital innings.

But a few scores below fifty and suddenly the knives came out in full force.

Alistair Cook had a similar situation last year, when he was scoring fifties by the bucket load but couldn't buy a century - yet he was declared by the powers that be in the media to be 'out of form'. For the purposes of consistency, I'll say the same thing now that I said then: If these are the scores Pietersen makes when out of form then we should be eternally grateful when things are going better.

The void Pietersen leaves in the England line-up is worryingly vast. Whether he was playing badly or not, the absence of his name on the team sheet is eerily ominous. KP hasn't missed a Test since his debut, ironically, at Lords against Australia in 2005 and whoever is drafted to take his place the batting now looks thin. Pietersen's value was so enormous that in a team where the wicket keeper unusually bats at number six, the middle order still looked firmly resolute. With all due respect to the likely replacement Ian Bell, who on his day is an outstanding batsman, he won't fill fans with confidence in the way that only Pietersen does.

Still, it's best not to wallow or make too big a deal about it. The tourists are taking a different approach, however.

They've already decided to launch a feeble media campaign about their take on the loss of England's best batsman. Aussie bowler Peter Siddle, in his blog for The Wisden Cricketer, has made it clear that Australia couldn't be happier that KP is a goner and also that Bell will likely be taking his place.

"It looks like Ian Bell is going to replace him. He played against us for the
Lions and we assumed that if anything went wrong batting-wise he would be the
man to come in. He hasn’t had a lot of success against us in the past, and it
was pleasing that we were able to continue that by getting him out first-ball at
Worcester. When you take out a bloke that averages 50 in Test cricket for a
bloke that struggles against you it always makes you happier."

Yes Peter, he hasn't had a lot of success against you. And by 'you', I mean Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee. Best get him out at least once before shouting your mouth off. I'm nursing a rapid dislike for Siddle. I'm all for a bit of aggression and bravado on the pitch but Siddle is an international rookie and has about as much Test experience as I do (okay, maybe a game or two more). Might be time to earn a bit of respect for his bowling rather than his on and off field talking.

Still, Australia are naturally going to be privately buoyed that they won't have to bowl at Pietersen anymore. But gone are the days when they would publicly state their desire to play against an opposition's best player. When Andrew Flintoff was racing to be fit for the 2006/07 Ashes, a plethora of quotes came out from the team saying how desperate they were for Flintoff to take part so they could face the best possible challenge.

I suppose when you start losing your way it puts a different slant on things. It's all well and good trying to appear noble and sporting when you're in a period of sporting impregnability - not 1-0 down in a series you should be cruising. Say what you like about the decline of Australian cricket of late and whether they're still the best side in the world or not; their aura of invincibility both on and off the pitch is disappearing quicker than a Mitchell Johnson wide down the leg side.

So on to Edgbaston, a ground where England normally do the business. If omens from the past are of any use, then they can call upon that victory over the Aussies in '05. England are 1-0 to the good and are playing some effective, if inconsistent, cricket. They should head into the game relishing the chance to exploit some more Australian failings father than fearing the occasion. They should not focus on the loss of Pietersen no matter how much it may affect them.

I wrote previously that England could not win the Ashes without Pietersen in improved form. They're now going to have to find a way to win without him completely. It looks a tall order but the Ashes stirs something unique in English cricketers and I wouldn't write them off completely.