The dust is starting to settle on the Ashes. England and Australia will begin to look ahead, learn some lessons and work out the best way forward. What went right, what went wrong, who did well and whose position in the team is under threat? Then for England, there’s one special question: how to replace Andrew Flintoff?

I hope that Stuart Broad isn’t going to be labelled with the tag of “next Freddie”. That won’t help anybody, least of all Broad. He seems to have his feet on the ground and there is no doubt about his promise. But I think England may have another stronger candidate waiting to fill that all-rounder’s role.

Broad first. For now, he strikes me as more of a No 8 batsman than a seven. It was interesting to hear him say that himself yesterday. That one place makes a big difference. At seven, you are expected to score runs. When Broad was there in the first innings at Headingley, he didn’t perform. Some of the pressure is off at eight.

He could certainly fill that slot looking farther ahead. If he wants to be an all-rounder, he should play a few games for Nottinghamshire as a specialist batsman at No 4 or five to get into the mindset. A large part of county cricket is about producing England players, and this would hold him in great stead.

My alternative, though, is Adil Rashid. Yes, he’s a spin bowler rather than a seamer, but there is no reason why England can’t go with three pacemen and two spinners. That’s a balanced attack, to me. Rashid has scored hundreds and taken five wickets in an innings in his past two matches for Yorkshire. He’s a real all-rounder.

A seven-eight-nine of Rashid, Broad and Graeme Swann would be pretty effective in Test cricket. Perhaps in time Broad and Rashid would switch positions. At present, though, I would have them in that order. Rashid just looks ready to come into the fold and should be picked for the South Africa tour.

I spent some time with him a couple of years ago when Hampshire played Yorkshire. Michael Vaughan asked me to have a few words. Rashid seemed confident and knew what he was talking about. At the time he was only 19 or 20, but he had a good understanding of bowling. Most important, he liked to spin the ball.

It was good to see that he had a long bowl during that game. Captains have to show faith in spinners. One of my roles as an ambassador for Cricket Australia is to promote and encourage spin around the country. A lot of it comes down to understanding, so that captains see their spinners as attacking options, not just as an afterthought.

I wrote in my column yesterday that omitting Nathan Hauritz at the Brit Oval was a mistake. Ricky Ponting admitted it after the game. I thought that Hauritz bowled nicely through the series when he played. The selectors have to ask themselves whether he will remain the No 1 spinner.

When we lost the Ashes in 2005, our board set up a working party of six people, led by Mark Taylor and Allan Border, to look at all aspects of the game. We recovered then, but there were quite a few experienced players still around to take the team on. We all know what happened in 2006-07.

The fact is that Australia have won only one of the past four series, losing in India and at home to South Africa before beating South Africa away and losing in England. I still think that the squad is about right. The batting is strong and deep, and there are bound to be ups and downs with an inexperienced bowling attack.

With Brett Lee injured, none of the bowlers had played Test cricket before in England. It took some time before they began to bowl as well as they could, and by then they were 1-0 down. Peter Siddle put in a good effort and Ben Hilfenhaus made special progress, moving from third or fourth seamer to leading the attack.

For England, the two blokes under scrutiny are Alastair Cook and Paul Collingwood. Cook will survive for now because he is an opener, and there isn’t an obvious replacement. But it’s going to be difficult for Collingwood. Ian Bell scored runs at three, Kevin Pietersen is a certainty, and you can’t drop Jonathan Trott after his hundred.