Disagree with the opening statement, really. I was able to watch most of days 4 and 5 and England weren't bad with the ball on day 4 (particularly Hoggard) but Michael Clarke played exceptionally well. To survive he has had to tighten his game immensely and you'll notice that a lot of his runs came from smart 1's and 2's backward of square and not many boundaries. Certainly no bit cut or pu shots. He played like one should play against tight bowling and didn't lose his head (aside from the shot which got him out) Gilchrist was also kept relatively quiet before he hit a few boundaries but really, he had to take a few risks and they came off. He also had to fight like hell to keep Harmison out like he did. On another day, he probably would have given at east one chance through gully. When England came out late on day 4, Strauss and Bell looked quite untroubled by Lee and McGrath.
Day 5 dawned and the key points for me were this; Australia had to not only bring their A-level game to the party to stay in the match but also had to prevent Engand paying theirs. The reason England only scored at 1-per-over before lunch was a combination of English defensiveness but also outstanding 'stick-to-the-plan bowling by Australia. Stuart Clark was top-shelf and to take the wickets he did, Warnie had to also bowl at his best. I think England were really shaken up by the soft run-out of Bell and the dodgy decision against Strauss. From there, the pressure just built and built. Yes, English bats played some ordinary shots but those shots were brought about by the sheer pressure-building at both ends. I suspect Freddie is feeling his injury and fatigue (besides which, havinng already bowled his guts out, to also expect him to be a match-winner with the bat was a bit much) but KP's shot was an attempt to wrest some of the momentum back and it just didn't come off due to hesitation. Geraint Jones, again, was undone by the pressure and his shot looked quite desperate. England may well have been looking to target guys like Lee for runs but when even he is bowling on-the-spot line bowling, who do you go after?
Good bowling is never just about in-swinging yorkers or balls pitching leg and taking off-stump. On a super-flat deck like that, you need guys who can stick to a plan and when all four of your bowlers do it, not many teams have the ability to counter that. Indirectly, I get the feeling the Aussies learnt a great deal from the bowling of Hoggard; stick to your plan, don't lose your head and keeping running in. He did it so well and took half of the Aussie wickets in the match.
So yeah, whilst I agree that England didn't exactly have a day out, it wasn't just because they suck; they weren't allowed to. That there is the difference between the sides because they have just as many match-winners with both bat and ball as each other. The lack of sense in selection hardly helped matters, either......
