You need to win series (or in this case draw a series) rather than get results in indvidual games... and if you bat 5 first-innings sessions as a minimum ona regular basis then (irrespective of total accumulated) you should be looking at fewer lost games... and greater odds over a 5-Test series.

The Aussie way looks great when minows are being slaughtered... but the moment you get to crunch time... it sucks. Without pressure, efforts to ride one's luck look great.. but the Aussies have all too often been close to implosion against decent rather than exceptional teams (especially have been lucky to play in an era of very true wickets).

Had the Aussies concentrated on being tough to beat they would never have lost the Ashes in 2005: the previous half-decade of treating opponents with contempt came back to haunt them.. and the difference this year is not so much England being weaker (though that's obviously true) as Australia re-adjusting and taking nothing forgranted.

Equally, England would never have lost the Ashes so meekly had they focussed on being tough to beat: ignoring the experience of Ramps and Lewis, ignoring the signs that Harmison, Mahmood and Flintoff were undercooked / jaded, presumably encouraging Strauss to attack where he should have focussed on quiet accumulation, playing Flintoff at 6 (and as part of a 5 man attack) instead of looking to bat the opposition out of every game, declaring rather than batting for 7-8 sessions in the one game they could have dominated and so on - the list could go on.

I don't mind that England have struggled to take 20 wickets... I just object to the way this has led to them losing games: the alternative to winning should be not losing!