Surprisingly little analysis from Aussie forummers

There's not much to bitch about, really. The series was lost because of two first-innings batting collapses. Having Subi at Lords or Horrors at the Oval wouldn't have changed anything there and the other debatable decisions like Hilf and POCson didn't do anything wrong. Individually, we dominated the series but England performed together as a team at the right moments.

The team for the next Test will retain at least eight of the eleven, and I expect in the end the only change will be Subi making way.

Bradman wrote:Well from an Australian point of view I'm glad they were done away with. I still remember some Maj-Gen at a Duntroon grad parade pissed off that we'd done away with them just as he was promoted because a knighthood usually came with the promotion. This from a guy who'd polished a seat in Campbell most of his life.

I don't really have a problem with it in England even though quite often Zimmi's comment applies.

What of the Order of Australia? Is that in every case deserved, and self-evidently democratic? Is it a mimicry of other honour systems?

These are not rhetorical questions. And they come from a British viewpoint that (1) class deference is bunk; (2) the British honours system is cheaped by Thatcherist, populist and party-favour choices.

Our system is a lot better now than it was. Not so many time servers and cronies.