Following in Freddie's footsteps? As long as it is Broad...

There was never any doubt, of course, that Andrew 'Freddie' Flintoff could possibly allow the fifth and final Ashes Test match of 2009 - and his last for England - to pass him by. Though he offered two indifferent innings with the bat, and huge, gargantuan heart and effort with the ball for no reward, the pivotal moment of the deciding Test nevertheless fell to Flintoff - in the field.

Australia, chasing an improbable (and would-be record-breaking) 546 to win, were making a decent effort of it. Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting had shared a third wicket stand of 127 runs when Hussey chanced a quick single to Flintoff at mid-off, presumably thinking he would be the one in danger as they ran. But Flintoff, so often in his career the big man for England in big moments, had his eyes on the big prize: the potentially match-winning wicket of Aussie captain Ricky Ponting. And, in one 30-yard throw, as though of pure lightning, Flintoff had done it. The single second on which the Test, and ultimately the 2009 Ashes series, hinged, was a moment of magic from Flintoff. As he has done more recently (as he's got older), Flintoff stood basking in the adulation of the crowd, awaiting his teammates to envelop him hugs and high fives. The key moment of the Ashes 2009 series had fallen to the key man, and he had, as ever delivered.

Following the ecstasy of the series win, the talk swiftly fixed upon where England are going to find Flintoff's replacement. He had always been considered the 'Botham' of his generation - who would be the next one, or more pertinently, the next Flintoff? Up until his announcement that he was retiring from Test cricket, it hadn't really been a problem. Suddenly, it was a panic. It was fitting, then, that the fifth test's Man of the Match, Stuart Broad, should properly step up to the plate in Andrew Flintoff's final Test match for England.

Broad, supported by Graham Swann, stole the show over the first two days. An entertaining quickfire 37 ensured England nudged a first innings total of 325+, but then came his starring moment. A majestic, unanswerable 12 overs of quick, accurate and clever fast bowling blew apart the Australian batting order, and gave England an advantage from which it would soon become impossible to lose. This, to many watching, was where Stuart Broad finally delivered on the potential he's been showing for the last two or three years, and proved he is capable of individual match-winning performances.

Without doubt, Broad has always had the talent to be a top performer for England. But critics have pointed to his temperament - think back to his dreadful over just in June in the T20 World Cup against Netherlands, where he literally threw the match away - and his bowling has often been expensive, a sign of inexperience and lacking concentration. With the bat, Broad has regularly shown his natural talent - elegant strokeplaying, attacking mindset, able to score quick runs - but his bowling seemed to let him down in the 'all-rounder' takes.

Not anymore. As well as scoring two fifties, contributing important runs in the final match and averaging better than recognised batsmen Alistair Cook, Paul Collingwood, Ian Bell and Ravi Bopara, Broad also became England's most potent bowler. Broad took the most wickets, including two 'five-fors', at the best average. And contrary to his previous problems with expense, Broad's economy rate was a smidge over 3.5 an over: compare that with Jimmy Anderson who was at 3.4, and generally recognised as England's best bowler before the series, and it seems more than decent.

The Ashes 2009 was the biggest series of Broad's life and across the five tests he has performed. After an inauspicious start too; following the first two tests Broad was in the firing line to be dropped. But Andrew Strauss, Andy Flower and the England selectors stuck with their precocious pin-up - and it paid dividends. England have now got to be patient with the star Englishman of the Ashes 2009. Broad is far from the finished product: consistency is what separates the greats like Brian Lara from erratic genius like Kevin Pietersen, and Broad is only just learning now how to use his talents tactically: when he does, he has proven he can be a match-winner. For sure, Stuart Broad can be nurtured into one of the best English all-rounders of recent generations - he is after all still young and, touch wood, not injury prone. But to be the next Andrew Flintoff, he will need careful handling, support and persistence; enough time to bloom, enough matches to become a regular England performer, enough opportunities to win matches for his nation. Because when England expected, Flintoff would deliver. If Broad is given the same treatment as Freddie, he will deliver too.

It's Calypso cricket, Andrew, but not as we know it

Fortune favours the brave. He who dares wins. Just a couple of cliches that could be, and have been, applied to England's 3rd Test in Antigua. If you're feeling particularly vitriolic, you could apply them more specifically to Andrew Strauss's captaincy. In these days of instant success or failure, a lot of questions, if not criticism, will be placed at the spikes of Andrew Strauss.

But this was only Strauss's second Test match as captain proper. It was also one in exceptionally unusual circumstances, although given the Mumbai bombing-affected Tests last December, abandoning one due to the pitch being more like a beach and rearranging the next for two days later must seem like pretty standard fare by comparison. Regardless, several key decisions had to be made, and as it was England drew a Test they should have won.

The first decision was whether to make the West Indies follow on, after dismissing them for a first innings total of 285. Strauss instead chose to bat again. Was he right? England's bowlers were on a roll, there was enough time in the day to take another couple of West Indies wickets, and possibly pile on the pressure for day three. They could have knocked the West Indies all out for an innings defeat, or leaving a meagre total to chase in England's second innings.

But: Flintoff had picked up an injury. Harmison had been unwell all day. In fact the whole team had toiled admirably in the hot sun all day, and would have to do so again indefinitely the next day. Batting again, the West Indies could have posted a total some 200/250 ahead of England, leaving Strauss's men a difficult run chase and the danger of losing. And bearing in mind the last match's 51...

So for my money, it seems in hindsight that not enforcing the follow on was the right choice. By leading England out to bat again, Strauss ensured that England eventually put themselves in an unassailable position - 500 runs ahead. But one or two points stick with how he got there.

The second decision in sending James Anderson out as a nightwatchman at the end of day three was too defensive. We weren't protecting a lead because every run gained was an extra piece of the target for West Indies to have to chase, so a lower order nightwatchman was a hindrance as Anderson slowed things down - especially on the morning of day four - in Strauss's quest to reach a 500+ lead. Thirdly, there are question marks over the need to have that high a lead anyway. By giving the West Indies 450 or so to think about, a carrot dangling so to speak, they may have been inclined to go for their shots, take risks, and be more likely to go out. Did Strauss effectively price Windies out of the game to England's cost? Was he too worried about losing?

Well, really the answer is no. The Windies reached 380 - not all out, either - when trying not to take risks and score lots of runs. The ground, small and uneven, is notorious for having big run-scoring records broken on it. A lead of anything less than 500 would have been less of a carrot dangling, and more on a plate: England bowled 128 overs defending 503, and even then the West Indies only needed to score 4 an over to win against that lead. If they'd have been actually trying to score runs to win rather than avoid defeat, and especially if that target had been sub-500, who would have bet against the Windies getting there?

So we've established that Strauss's decision not to enforce the follow on was correct, the decision to declare with a 500+ lead was sensible, even if putting out Anderson slowed up the scoring. Why, then, did England not win?

There's a case to be made for the weather. England lost 75 minutes bowling time to rain, and bearing in mind England spent about 35 minutes trying to get the last wicket, it would be safe to say that with an extra 75 minutes that task would have been achieved. Of course, that is too simplistic because in the morning both Chanderpaul and Sarwan were at the crease, so it was they who would have taken up the minutes. but who's to say we'd not have rattled through them before tea, if it hadn't been for the rain?

Ifs, buts, maybes. The real truth of the matter, and the central point to this roundabout defence of Andrew Strauss, is that he is captain of a side that is not as good as it was two, three, four years ago - bowling especially. Anderson and Harmison shared just four of the 19 West Indies wickets to fall - Harmison in particular looked sluggish, bowling short and erratically for the most part. Swann is a virtual beginner in Test cricket, bowling in just his third ever Test - and he was England's keynote spinner. Broad, so useful in the second innings, remains expensive, and is only just beginning to show signs of maturing into a consistent world class bowler. Flintoff was the man to make things happen with the ball, but is short of full fitness and hasn't made a noteworthy score with the bat since returning from injury.

On the subject of batting, Pietersen's oddly subdued innings, Cook's two unconverted 50s, Owais Shah's uneventful debut and Collingwood's place-saving (career-saving?) century all went unnoticed in the excitement. No real complaints but overall, England were taught a lesson in Antigua on how to bat in the face of adversity, how to apply oneself to the task in hand and contribute to a match-saving team effort.

Cometh the hour, it was cometh the West Indies performers. England have got positives to build upon - I remain convinced that this match would have been an England victory but for the rain delay - but Strauss has got to ensure his troops are rallied, confident and prepared to win in the 4th Test.