I wonder how the remaining England touring party felt as they finally prepared to depart those seemingly jinxed antipodean shores. Mentally fried, I'm assuming; physically exhausted, confused, and also, privately, utterly delighted to be finally going home. It has been a torturous experience for everyone involved.

This must have seemed like the longest tour that any of the party, players and assortment of backroom staff included, had ever been on. Nothing went their way. From the beginning of the test series, to the pyjama clad embarrassing finale, England were found severely wanting.

Last week, the first non playing, but arguably highest profile casualty of this ill fated tour became known, when England team director Andy Flower fell on his sword and announced his departure from the role. There will be very few people doubting the respect that Flower has gained during his time in the job; nor would many doubt the impact that he has had on English cricket. His achievement in taking England to the peak of number one test side in the world, was remarkable, especially given the chastening experience of seeing his team bowled out for just over 50, in his first game at the helm, against the West Indies. From such humble beginnings, Flower has collected admirers in their droves, and deservedly so.

There was a ruthlessness about his modus operandi that the players, and ECB hierarchy alike, bought into immediately, and very successful it was too. But apparently there has been a price to pay for the methods employed during that successful period.

Before Australia arrived on these shores in the summer of 2013 - in much the same bedraggled state as England have just left theirs - England had returned from a none too convincing tour to New Zealand. History will suggest that the alarm bells were beginning to tinkle there, and if they were barely audible at that point, they were soon to go up a decibel or two during the summer's home Ashes series.

During that campaign against the "old enemy" England, Ian Bell apart, played a brand of cricket that on occasions looked as if they had become snared in their own mantra. They played dour, grinding, steadfast, cricket; trying to gain control, to wear the opposition down, before seizing the moment to strike. It was a method that had worked well for them over the years, and it worked then as well - JUST.

Nick Compton had scored two, shall we say circumspect, hundreds in New Zealand, but wasn't selected for the Ashes series. Instead England eventually went for a top three consisting of an out of form Alastair Cook, an even more out of form and out of sorts Jonathon Trott, and an inexperienced and out of position Joe Root.

Suddenly, on slow lifeless pitches, Brand England's bus got horribly stuck in a quagmire of its own making. This was a top three that simply went nowhere, took time out of the game without making the scoreboard operators break sweat and left the more attack minded middle order and the bowlers to pick up the pieces; they did, won the series 3-0, but it was far from convincing. The Australians, and Darren Lehman in particular, could smell blood.

Let's roll forward and look at selection for part two of the Ashes saga, this time in Australia, and in particular the inclusion of Hampshire's Michael Carberry. At that point, he had yet to play at test level, he is however, a vastly experienced first class and domestic 'one day' cricketer. He is a wonderfully gifted player, and a fine striker of a cricket ball.

His inclusion in the squad seemed to be in response to the soporific batting performances during the summer. So what happened? Why did he allow himself to get so bogged down? Yes, Australia bowled well throughout the series, but there seemed little attempt to break the stranglehold. Was it nerves, fear, instructions, a consequence of match and series situations? it could have been any one of them, or indeed all of them, but whatever the reasons the shackles remained tight, and he along with others, slipped deeper and deeper into their own quagmire, from which there was no release.

We can also look at the inclusion of the "big three" fast bowlers: Rankin, Finn and Tremlett, These selections were, to me, another indication of a methodology that had little room for a plan B. Add Broad to that trio and suddenly England's pace attack took on a very one dimensional appearance. When you also take into account that Tremlett had just come back from injury and was not firing on all cylinders, Finn was still not happy with the adjustments that had been suggested to him, to counter his pre-disposition of breaking the stumps with his knee, and Rankin was still untried at this level, this plan started to look a little flawed.

These days young players around the world gain huge reputations on the back of the one day format. Their swashbuckling, big hitting, innovative style is manna from heaven for television companies and their audiences. Some countries, including Australia, are adopting this style in test match cricket. Giving players space to vent, to express themselves, to entertain the paying public. I'm thinking particularly of Warner, Smith, Haddin and, eventually, Watson. Players who had been given the freedom to go out and play their own special brand of cricket.

Once Darren Lehman had found the key to unlock the shackles that had seemingly held Australian cricket in check during Mickey Arthur's reign as coach, there was no holding them back. Yes, they will come up against a sterner test than the one England provided for them and in more trying conditions away from home. We must avoid the temptation to heap too much praise on this current team, but the freedom with which they played their cricket, should not, and must not go unnoticed, when the time comes to appoint Flower's successor.

So what next for England? It could be an exciting new dawn. In my view, they have to unlock their own shackles, begin to play a more dynamic, expansive brand of cricket. One that encompasses the very attributes that have made people sit up and take notice of the new generation.

These attributes have to be honed and allowed to flourish in a 'no fear' environment; for unlike previous generations of cricketers, the longer format of the game no longer holds sway. It is not the format that attracts and beguiles youngsters, and in an increasingly mercenary world, it is not the format that brings status and wealth to the modern player.

Nowadays young players have to learn their five day skills, after they have had their one day education; no real problem with that, but they have to be given time and space, because test match cricket is a hard school. England now have a great opportunity to go forward and embrace the modern game, and the modern player; they have an opportunity to be bold and dynamic, to play without being tethered by fear of failure, but above all, they must learn to play in a way, that puts a smile back onto their faces.