Didn't the 2nd innings...?

Question

just show that England (Especially Vaughan, Strauss and KP) bat best when they are positive.

Answer 1

Great question and I totally agree!!!

The most impressive aspect of the match from an England perspective was the ease and style with which the run chase was done. Partnerships were built, and the run-rate was healthy, both key factors that have come under the microscope recently, and this will please the management team and fans alike. Andrew Strauss continued his fine start to the series with an imperious century, and from there on in it was relatively plain sailing for England.

Heart will be taken from the valuable time spent in the middle by Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell as they finished off the chase. Both have been worryingly short of form of late, and it showed as they both struggled to pick Vettori. The fact that they were unbeaten at the end having begun to look more like their old selves, will cause a positive mood in the England camp, and perhaps boost the morale of the two players.

Perhaps the biggest positive however was the spirit shown by the England team which you mentioned, and the impressive manner in which they turned the game around. It was clear that tactical adjustments were made, and these have worked a treat. This was most noticeable in Michael Vaughan, who looks a different player to a couple of months ago. In the 1st innings his 30 runs took him 140-odd deliveries however in the 2nd innings it took him just 79 balls to reach the same score. The aggression shown by England was one of the hallmarks of their success in the Ashes of 2005, and it is refreshing to have seen it return.  :)

Answer 2

I wish they would pass it on to the Aussie batsmen at present.