Through the Crystal Ball

Now that the unpleasantness is over, it is time to look into the crystal ball, and seek out the future of Australian cricket.

Despite losing the Ashes, the comparative closeness of the series in all barring the First Test could theoretically allow the national selectors to continue with the current side during the upcoming domestic summer - especially against the weakening West Indians.

But the Ashes series only proved these things -
a) That without Warne and McGrath, Australia would struggle to bowl out any other international side twice.
b) That Langer and Ponting are the only batsmen assured of long-term national selection.
c) That the majority of next-best options are either under-prepared or aged on the wrong side of 30.

You can be almost assured that the international careers of Gillespie, Kasprowicz and MacGill are effectively over. Gillespie was given enough chances for three men in an attempt to overcome his form slump, and still failed to find any cure for his ineffectiveness. Kasper was given two Tests, albeit at late notice, to do enough to be retained, but was also unable to find his old zip and ball movement. MacGill was a victim of poor programming, which led to a lack of consistent match bowling, which therefore gave him little chance of being injected into the series - this despite the fact that Australia's other leg-spinner took an astounding 40 English wickets in just five Tests!!! Despite his continued credentials, one suspects that, when an opportunity comes along this summer to play two spinners in the same Test eleven, that the selectors will begin blooding a youngster to be the successor to Warne's throne, while the King still reigns to guide him.

Those on notice that the end may be approaching include Hayden, Martyn and Katich. Hayden's epic knock at The Oval was a bonus for him and the team, but doesn't eradicate the twelve months of struggle he has been through. He won't be immediately abandoned, but he will need to rediscover his touch to last the summer. Both Martyn and Katich were victims of some dreadful LBW decisions during the Ashes series, which stymied their progress, but both must still face the reality of the numbers they posted. They were not good enough, in a batting line-up that struggled.

It is not a time to panic. Nor is it a time to stand idle. The selectors must continue to be vigilant in regards to the ageing of its player base, and ensure that there is a smooth and consistent transition within the team.

A glut of runs and wickets over the Australian summer will make careers of those on the fringes. Players such as Phil Jaques, Dan Cullen and Cameron White are the next generation. Their time may soon be upon us. Following the Flintoff phenomenon, players like Shane Watson, Dominic Thornley and even Andy Symonds may find they have a chance to become Test all-rounders.
Any player, with age on their side (sorry Michael Bevan), who comes out this season, and can score 1000+ runs, or take 40+ wickets, may find themselves fast-tracked into this Australian team, such is the need to find some youthfulness.

This now shapes up as the most important 12 months in Australian cricket in two decades. Our champions are heading towards the exit door, and new ones must be found to replace them.

When a Draw is a Win

3.48am. Tuesday morning. My phone beeps, and I read the SMS inscribed upon it.

“Victory! A draw! My heart now recedes into my chest”

The sender, Dan Reilly, later exclaims how exciting it had been watching Australia fight for a draw after all those thousands of victories he has watched over the years. Oh, the innocence of youth. All it brought back for me was the pain of my youth, watching Australia celebrate draws as victories – and not celebrating very often.
Most people of my generation would especially relate the joy we felt when Mike Whitney, a 'ferret' of a batsman [for those not in the know, the 'ferrets' come after the 'rabbits'], was able to survive the entire final over of a Test match in Melbourne, enabling Australia to draw the match and win a series for the first time in four years. The bowler was Richard Hadlee, and the team was New Zealand. The Kiwi's for goodness sake! We celebrated a DRAW against NEW ZEALAND like we had WON!! The depth of the abyss can never be measured until you have crashed to the very bottom.
So – as much as Rocket enjoyed it, let's hope there aren't too many more of them.

What will it take to win this series? Australia will consider themselves favourites, if only for the fact that they only need to win one of the final two Tests to retain the Ashes, a drawn series being enough for them to do that. They will want to win the series outright to quell any speculation. England will consider themselves favourites, if only for the fact that they do have some sort of momentum, despite being unable to dislodge Australia with 108 overs at their disposal at Old Trafford.

When it comes to making changes to Test sides, Australia have been very reluctant to do so in recent times. They back themselves to perform, even if they have a player or two in the side who is struggling to contribute. This, of course, is fine when the team keeps winning. If the team is not winning, it certainly must make that task more difficult. England, on the other hand, have often chopped and changed their side. On this occasion, they have played the same eleven in each of the three Ashes Tests.

In an effort to win the final two Tests, you would expect both sides could make some minimal changes to their line-up.

England will probably only consider one change, that being selecting another bowler in the place of Matthew Hoggard. Despite picking up two wickets on the final day at Old Trafford, Hoggard still appears largely ineffective, and Vaughan appears reluctant to use him. If England are to retain the balance of their team as it is, with four bowlers plus Flintoff, then surely picking a bowler that the captain feels confident about bowling for more than 6 overs (as occurred in the first innings) would be a benefit. Chris Tremlett is the popular pick as 'next-best'. At this stage, it appears that the England selectors will stick with the eleven they have. To me, that would be folly.

Australia must now be on the verge of replacing ailing strike bowler Jason Gillespie. 3 wickets at 100 is a true indication of the struggle he has faced all winter. He has been given every chance to run back into anything vaguely resembling form, and has failed to find it. Loyalty can only reach so far, and the loyalty to Gillespie realistically expired some time ago. Interestingly, it has probably only been his batting that has kept him in the team this long, and it has been invaluable on two occasions.
The selectors will probably fall back on Michael Kasprowicz, another legacy of loyalty. It would, however, be nice to think that Shaun Tait might get a run. New blood is needed in Australia's bowling ranks. Surely the best place to learn Test match bowling would be with alongside Glenn McGrath.
Loyalty will no doubt keep Australia's top 6 intact, unless injury forces Michael Clarke out for Brad Hodge's debut. However, how much of a difference could Andrew Symonds have made if he was available for Test selection? Batting at six, and offering a genuine fifth bowler option, who can bowl both medium pace and spin, depending on the conditions? We'll probably never know – but, if the selectors were feeling adventurous...

... and on the other side of the coin...

The integrity of Test cricket has been brought back into question this week, following New Zealand's incredible thrashing of Zimbabwe in their 1st Test clash in Harare.

Early on, you would be forgiven for believing it was going to be a contest. The Kiwi's were 5/114, and must have been gearing themselves up to have a bowl that afternoon.
Enter Brendan McCullum and Daniel Vettori. Both scored centuries, and along with help from the tail, New Zealand were able to declare at their overnight total of 9 for 452. Not a bad recovery, one would think.
Day 2 ended early. Not because of poor light, or wet weather, or even riots. No, it ended early, because Zimbabwe were unable to cope with the 'lethal' New Zealand bowling attack, and lost their entire 20 wickets in less than a day. That's right. TWO innings, not one. All out for 59 and then 99. Not since the days of uncovered wickets and 'The Demon' Spofforth and 'Terror' Turner have Test matches been concluded in under two days. But here we are, the fifth-rated Test nation giving the ninth-rated Test nation a bollocking. And on their home turf, as well.

If history is any guide, the International Cricket Council will do little to find a solution to the apparent decline in the standard of some Test nations. It appears as though it has been posted into the 'too hard' basket. Perhaps moving their headquarters from Lords to Dubai will clear their thinking a little.

No one is denying that exposing fledgling nations to international cricket through the One Day format, via the ICC Trophy and World Cup, is an excellent concept. The more intelligent format for the qualifying rounds of the 2007 World Cup in the West Indies will also (hopefully) bring with it more competitive matches, and less blow-outs. The One Day format also, on occasions, provides upset results, such as Bangladesh defeating Australia in England two months ago. For heaven's sake – Zimbabwe have made the Super Six of the past two World Cups, and Kenya made the semi-finals in 2003!
But Test Cricket is a different ball game. You don't get five overs of Michael Clarke to slog at in the middle overs – you get 30 overs of McGrath and 40 of Warne. When 50 overs have been bowled, Ponting will keep pounding at you until you can dismiss him. And when you wake up sore on the third morning, you can't have a replacement – you have to go out there and do it all again.

A properly-convened two-tier system in Test cricket can work. Those deemed to be second-tier nations can still play each other, building up their own rivalries. They would also be scheduled to make tours of the major nations. For example, Bangladesh would tour Australia, playing first-class matches against all the state teams, as well as, say, two five-day clashes against an Australia A team. As a result, Bangladesh are exposed to good, hard first class cricket, in differing conditions, while Australia's first class cricketers have the opportunity to press their own selection claims against International opponents. With first-class matches being squeezed out of International programming in the modern age, due to so much more International cricket being played, it would be a great opportunity for the First Class teams around the world to still get matches against International teams.

Whatever the case, let's hope that this week's result is the last of its kind. The game of cricket doesn't need to have such one-sided results occurring. There are enough of those involving Kiama...

Scorecard: 1st Test: Zimbabwe vs New Zealand

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Like most other Australians on Sunday evening, I sat down in front of the television to watch the last rites of the 2nd Test from Edgbaston (unlike my father, who had flown out for Bali that morning for three weeks, no doubt in some annoyance at the Australians' plight).
Despite the theoretically impossible task that faced Shane Warne, Brett Lee and Michael Kasprowicz in chasing down the 107 runs required to win the match, there was a faint glimmer of hope in the heart.
My wife, Helen, boldly predicted an Australian victory. Unlike many wives, mine has a sense of what is happening on the cricket field, and is not adverse to coming up with correct predictions. My thoughts, however, were not so confident. I thought I'd be seeing the second half of Star Trek: The Next Generation on TV1.

The overs passed, and the runs required kept shrinking. There was tension – nervous laughter and chatter after each scoring shot. I traded SMS messages with Josh Jones down in Tasmania to keep occupied between deliveries. When Warne trod on his (expletive deleted) stumps, the match surely had to be over. The Poms thought so.
But the runs kept ticking over. And almost before we knew it, the runs required was in single figures. Incredible!! Now, perhaps Australia were a chance. They couldn't fall short again.....could they?....

Sunday December 30, 1982. 

I sat glued to my television, a faint glimmer of hope in my heart, as Allan Border and Jeff Thomson chased down 37 runs to win the 4th Test against England, and regain the Ashes.
The pair had already put on 37 runs the previous evening, and defied the England attack to fight it out on the final morning. Over 20 000 people took up the offer of free entry to watch what, in all probability, would be a very short session. One ball would finish it.
Border, who had been out of touch all summer, found himself with a single whenever he wanted it early in the over, before being crowded towards the end. He took most of the strike, looking for two's and four's, with singles towards the end of the over. Some came simplistically, others suicidally, but they survived.
As the score crept closer, England began to panic. Fieldsmen collided, misfields appeared, five senior players convening conferences almost every delivery...you almost believed that Australia could win the unwinnable Test...
WIN TV returned from an ad break, for viewers to see a ball from Ian Botham fly from the edge of Thomson's bat to 2nd slip...who dropped it! For a brief second the dream was still alive...until 1st slip came behind him and caught the rebound. Thomson was out, and Australia had lost the Test by a measly (expletive deleted) 3 runs.
As a 13 year old, that was bloody painful. Even when the 5th Test was drawn, and Australia had regained the Ashes that were lost in 1981, the closeness of that defeat still left a bitter after-taste.

Tuesday January 26, 1993. 

I sat glued to my television, a faint glimmer of hope in my heart, as Justin Langer, Tim May and Craig McDermott chased 84 runs to win the 4th Test against the West Indies, and win a series against them for the first time in 17 years.
Chasing a rather modest target of 186 in the final innings, the Australians had collapsed to 8/102. Langer was on debut, and showing the guts and nerve that has now brought him over 6000 Test runs. Tim May was holding up his end with aplomb. When Langer was finally dismissed for 54, Australia still required 42 more runs to pull off what now looked a most unlikely victory.
Ans yet, the two tail enders fought to the end. May played some immaculate drives, McDermott some nudges and surprising pulls. The score crept closer and closer, and by late afternoon, they had drawn to within one run of the combined West Indian total....you almost believed that Australia could win the unwinnable Test...
WIN TV returned from an ad break, for viewers to see a Courtney Walsh bouncer graze the grill of McDermott's helmet, and fly to the keeper. The West Indians went up, and Darrell Hair (to his eternal damnation) raised his finger. (And YES, it DID hit his grill NOT his glove!!).
The West Indians were ecstatic, Allan Border threw a cricket ball into the ceiling via the floor, and Australia had lost by the narrowest margin in Test history – by a measly (expletive deleted) 1 run.
As a 23 year old, that was bloody painful. The West Indies went on to win inside three days in Perth, and win the series – and the closeness of that defeat still left a bitter after-taste.

Monday January 6, 1994. 

I sat glued to my seat, a faint glimmer of hope in my heart, as Damien Martyn, Craig McDermott and Glenn McGrath chased 42 runs to win the 2nd Test against South Africa.
As with the previous four days of the Test, I was sitting in the concourse fronting the M.A.Noble Stand at the S.C.G. It was the first time I had watched every ball of a Test match live at the ground.
The previous afternoon, Australia had appeared a shoo-in, before Jonty Rhoads and Allan Donald put together a most unexpected partnership of 36, and left the home team 117 runs to win.
Even that appeared a formality, but a late collapse left the score at 4/63 at stumps. Wickets continued to fall on Day 5, until it appeared left for McDermott and Martyn to finish the job.
McDermott took it upon himself, and began to hit the ball hard through the line. Runs began to come at a flow that hadn't occurred throughout the innings...you almost believed that Australia could win the unwinnable Test...
Martyn saw the winning of the match, played the only forcing shot of his innings, and was caught at cover. The media cried out in anguish and anger. A very dodgy McGrath drove poorly straight back to Fanie DeVilliers, and Australia had lost by a measly (expletive deleted) 5 runs.
As a 24 year old, that was bloody painful. For some reason though, the media and the selectors decreed that Damien Martyn carried the can for the loss, sending his career spiralling. He would not play another Test for almost six years.
And even when Australia won in Adelaide to square the first series between the two countries in 23 years, the closeness of that defeat still left a bitter after-taste.

Australia's victory target had snuck down to 3. I was sitting on the edge of my lounge, feet habitually tapping away, hands clenched together. I hadn't moved from this position since Kasper had come to the crease. It's bad luck to move. You all know this. But we needed just three to seal a magnificent victory against the odds...you almost believed that Australia could win the unwinnable Test...
Bad move. NEVER begin to believe! Surely past history had already proven that!
As Harmison's delivery ballooned to Jones, the thoughts that rushed through my mind were,

“It was NOT off the gloves!”
“The ball hasn't carried!”
“Billy (Bowden) won't give it out!”

The truth, of course, was obvious, and before the ball was even halfway to the keeper, I exclaimed to Helen, “That's out...”.
And so it was. Kasper was out, the Poms were delirious, and Australia had lost by a measly (expletive deleted) 2 runs.

As a 35 year old, it was bloody painful, and the closeness of that defeat still leaves a bitter after-taste.

Of the narrowest losses in terms of runs in the history of Test cricket, Australia now have four of the top five. Adelaide 1992/93 (1st), Birmingham 2005 (2nd), Melbourne 1982/83 (4th) and Sydney 1993/94 (5th).

The series is wide open again. Both sides are relying on too few players to win matches. To me, it appears that the team that can break this dominance first, by having more than two or three players contributing to the total effort, is likely to be the eventual victor.

Isn't it amazing what a difference (expletive deleted) 2 runs can make?

Deja-Vu All Over Again

So. The First Test has been run and won.

The media have been whipping up this series as the most “anticipated” clash between these two nations in almost two decades. The England players pledged that they would not be “bullied” by the Australians, and that they would be just as hard and focused as their opponents were. Former England captain, Nasser “Send 'Em In” Hussain, was quoted as saying that Shane Warne was ten years past his prime. English bowler, Matthew Hoggard, was quoted as saying Australia's pace attack was too old. England captain, Michael Vaughan, refused Ricky Ponting's goodwill notion before the start of the Test, in which Ponting suggested that the batsmen take the word of the fieldsman in any disputed catch situation. Vaughan was quoted as saying that over the past eighteen months the umpires had “seemed to get it right on most occasions” - while blatantly ignoring his own refusal to walk when caught by Justin Langer in Adelaide in 2002.

Is it just me, or is anyone else beginning to believe that the Poms got everything they deserved?

It was all and good for the England players, management, commentators, media and supporters to show a united front, take a hard line, and not take a backward step. To be positive. But it appears as though they went just a little too far. Because they seemed to forget that they still had to defeat Australia, because Australia were not going to roll over.

England bowled aggressively on the first day, hitting all of Australia's top 3 with painful blows before dismissing them. England commentators regularly reminded us that the home side had the fastest pace attack of the two sides, and that they would not be afraid to use it - “in the same way Australia has in the past”. No question, and no argument. On a pitch providing some encouragement, they bowled very well. At tea, it was almost inconceivable that they would not hold the upper hand at the conclusion of the first day.
Come the second day, and the second Australian innings, and things didn't seem so simple. Harmison aside, the fastest pace attack found taking wickets a tad more difficult. Suddenly, just bowling the ball was not good enough to take wickets. They had to find a plan of attack. Did they have one?

The Australians took 20 English wickets for less than 350 runs. Each batsman faced a bowling plan that had no doubt been worked out well in advance of the match. McGrath, Warne, Lee and to a lesser extent Gillespie just kept plugging away, making the batsmen play almost every delivery, until they made an error, and were dismissed.

England's batting must be a concern for them. Andrew Strauss gave Damien Martyn a huge send-off in the second innings. One can only wonder what was said to him after the dreadful shot he played to be dismissed by Lee on the third afternoon. Vaughan has been clean bowled twice. Both Andrew Flintoff and Ian Bell have been bowled by McGrath and deceived by Warne.

To some extent, the performance of Australia's elite papered over the cracks of their few concerns – the form of Gillespie number one. He did not bowl poorly, but he also did not appear to trouble those he bowled to. He will play the 2nd Test, and sooner or later will take wickets again. As long as the other three keep dismissing their opponents, Dizzy can continue to be carried.

In the end, it appeared that during all of the huffing and puffing before the contest began, the English forgot to respect the Australian's position as best cricket side in the world. They are rated that for a reason. By taking what appeared to be an antagonistic position, England allowed Australia to quietly and methodically take control of the contest after tea on the first day, and not let go. It is hard to believe that the English bowling line-up, as it currently stands, could ever bowl better than they did in the first two sessions of the 1st Test. The fact that they lost the Test convincingly despite this must be frightening for them.

The doomsayers are out, of course. Can England come back? What do they have to do? For years, their biggest problem has been taking 20 Australian wickets to win matches. They achieved this in the 1st Test, and must believe (rightly or wrongly) that they will do it again. Despite what the media appear to be peddling, it wasn't the dropped catches that cost England the Test. It was their mediocre batting. But how do they strengthen what appears to be the best batting line-up they can put together? (perhaps apart from the now-retired Graham Thorpe).

Most people appear to be favouring the selection of another specialist batsman to play at number six, relegating Flintoff to 7 and Geraint Jones to 8. This appears sound on the surface, although the name being touted to be this replacement is Paul Collingwood, another bits-and-pieces allrounder. Surely if England tread this path, they must find the best English middle-order batsman, and play him. A difficult task these days, with so many overseas imports playing County cricket, and taking up the best positions in each team!

If this was to happen, whoever they chose to fill the number 6 batting slot, you would think that it would mean Matthew Hoggard heading back to County cricket, which for England would not be such a bad thing. He still appears to be a non-threatening bowler to the Australians, and his figures flattered his performance in the 1st Test. If the ball is not swinging, Hoggard becomes a medium paced trundler, and there are plenty of those plying their trade in the United Kingdom. He was the least dangerous of England's four pronged pace attack, and none of the other three deserve to lose their spot.

Many are also questioning Ashley Giles' continued inclusion, and have actually earmaked him to be the bowler dropped to make way for an extra batsman. This would be a ludicrous decision. Despite the fact that he appears to have no answers as to how to bowl to the Australian's in Test conditions, he does at least provide some variety. Going into a Test Match without a recognised spinner would be fraught with danger, especially if they got Australia on a fifth day wicket chasing a target for victory. If he is the best spinner in England (and, more's the pity for them, it appears that he is), then he must be retained.

The Australians will know that the job is not yet done. Langer and Hayden will be dissecting their 1st Test performance, looking for ways to break away from the threat Harmison and Flintoff have with the new ball. Michael Clarke, after his sparkling 91, will know he needs to follow it up with more scores to consolidate his place in the side. Adam Gilchrist will be receiving a week of net bowling from around the wicket. Jason Gillespie will know that he must rediscover the art of wicket-taking before Michael Kasprowicz, or even Shaun Tait, starts climbing over him.

Solutions will be thrown around for the next seven days, until we kick off the second round. England have it all to play for. They need to throw everything they have at the Aussies now, rather than waiting until they are 2-0 or 3-0 down. They simply cannot afford to lose.

As an Australian, you can't help but sit back and smile contentedly.

The Ashes Are Here... at Last!

It might be the middle of winter, but the real cricket starts tonight, as Australia take on England for the biggest prize in the game - the Ashes.

All of us have talked about it for so long now, and opinions have differed and changed throughout that time period. But what really awaits the viewer as England attempt to wrest back the trophy for the first time in almost two decades?

Most believe England will be a bigger force, a tougher challenge than in previous years. Of course, we've heard the same thing in Australia for the past seven Ashes series since winning back the trophy in 1989. Seldom has that conviction lasted beyond the Second Test of the series. In fact, only in 1997 were Australia under any realistic pressure come the end of the Second Test. By winning the following three Tests, they again wrapped up the Ashes.

England have shown good form in the past two years, which not surprisingly has coincided with the introduction of some new faces, the phasing out of some older worn faces, and a change in skipper which in turn brought a more aggressive approach with it. The First Test will tell a tale. If Australia win (and they have only lost once in a Lords Test in the past hundred-odd years), the pressure on England will be enormous, certainly from their own media. If England win, the confidence they gain from that will stand them in good stead for the remainder of the series.

So many questions wait to be answered :

1. Can Trescothick, Strauss and Vaughan hold back the Australian pace barrage, and protect their middle order from having to deal with the new ball assault? England need good, solid starts, so that the likes of Pietersen, Flintoff and Bell can play their natural games once the ball has become a bit ragged.
2. Will Pietersen and Flintoff play in their natural, aggressive style, or be forced to play a more patient game? Although neither flourished overtly in the one-dayers, and Australia will have set bowling plans for them in the five-day games, they both showed an ability to hang around and build an innings if it was necessary. Their success or failure with the bat may hold the key to the series.
3. Will Australia's third seamer be a liability? While McGrath and Lee appear ready for battle, none of the options for third seamer have set the world on fire. Both Gillepsie and Kasprowicz have struggled for form so far, and Shaun Tait hasn't bowled on tour, nor for some months competitively. With only four specialist bowlers likely to be chosen, if one were to underperform, the pressure and workload on the other three will increase dramatically.
4. Warne vs Giles - pick a winner? Giles has had his most successful 12 months ever, and bowls that nagging, negative line of bowling outside the right-handers leg-stump that Phil Tufnell used to do with success against Australia. Whether that works against this Australian line up will be a key to his Ashes summer. Warne has been captaining Hampshire for three months, taken a few wickets, scored two centuries, has about three different girlfriends, and now an ex-wife. If he takes 25+ wickets, no one will give a toss about anything else.
5. Harmison vs Australia's top order. His tour of South Africa was abysmal, his last English summer superb. He will bowl into the Australian's ribs, and hope to hurry them into a false shot. The Australians will most likely take him on, in the hope of hitting him off his line and length, and out of the attack. If he is on song, England have the opening bowler they need to win. If he is off, then it is a problem the English captain does not need.
6. England's periphery bowling attack. Can some combination of Hoggard, Simon Jones, Tremlett or any other seamers in County cricket get Australian wickets? Hoggard has been tried before without a lot of success, while Jones, after showing some pace in his debut in Brisbane in 2002, then destroyed his knee and missed more than 12 months of cricket. Like the Australians, England must find solid back-up for Harmison and Flintoff if they are to keep the pressure on their batsmen.
7. The art of batting patiently. Have any of the Australians, apart from Katich, really mastered this in recent times? The intent is to attack at almost every opportunity. Hayden charging and mistiming to mid-off, Langer pulling and skying to mid-wicket, Ponting driving and playing the ball onto his stumps, Martyn caressing straight to backward point, Clarke slogging across the line - all have fallen in recent Tests to trying force the pace. Have they lost the ability to play a long, tough, boring innings for the best interest of the team? Supporters will say that, having only lost one Test under his leadership, surely Ponting and his team have nothing to justify to the likes of me. And they would be right. Still, let's just see what occurs, shall we? And how much it might cost us.
8. Andrew Flintoff - is his body up to the challenge of 5 consecutive 5-day matches? However unfair it may appear, the fate of the Ashes lays on his broad shoulders. Were he to break down again, there is no one in English cricket to replace him. He bats aggressively, and bowls the same way. Vaughan cannot afford to over-bowl him, simply because if he suffers an injury, then England suffer a massive hemorrhage.

There are five Tests, and the result is anyone's guess. My heart tells me the series will be drawn. This is only because I have an undisclosed sum of money resting on this result with SportsTab, paying a healthy $7.00 if it comes off. My head tells me Australia by a half-head. With Brad Hodge a big chance to play a part in the series.

Bring it on!