Root's Caution Backfires as Aussies Stand Tall in Lord's Draw

Of everything that Australian supporters can take out of the just completed 2nd Test, the main one is this – four weeks ago, did anyone actually believe we would be leading this series 1-0 after Lord’s? That Australia is in this position is thanks mainly to its two finest players, and though much of the remainder of the team is in various states of disarray it augers well that Australia in now just one victory away from retaining the Ashes trophy. 

At the start of the final day, England held the upper hand even if many thought otherwise. The loss of Smith for the remainder of the Test with concussion gave the home team the upper hand given they could score enough runs quickly enough to force a result. Anything over 200 to win and leaving 60 overs to bowl would have been a tantilising strike for both teams, but it all relied on the courage of the England captain and his belief that his bowling attack could take down an Australian batting line up that minus Steve Smith could only manage 126 runs in total in their first innings. In the end Root flinched despite the absence of Australia’s best batsman, and refused to declare until his team was safe from defeat by leaving Australia requiring 267 runs for a win, but left his bowlers only 48 overs to achieve a victory they needed. Australia’s final total of 6/154 proved only that if ten more overs were available England would have been in the box seat. I suspect captains such as Ian Chappell, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Michael Clarke would have declared earlier in the hope of victory. Despite Root’s words of encouragement about his bowling attack at the end of the match, his actions spoke otherwise. 

Both Marnus Labuschagne and Travis Head have again shown their tenacity and fight in the Test arena in holding off the English charge. Labuschagne had enormous boots to fill as Steve Smith’s concussion replacement, and copped his own clanger second ball. Yet he battled on and played his most important innings in Test cricket, seeing off the danger period and playing some lovely shot along the way. He seems to improve with each innings at this level. Head was fortunate to be given a life after a simple catch was shelled in the slips by Jason Roy when he was on 22, but apart from that he again played with ease and showed good defence against pace and spin. Neither of these two are the finished product yet, but they are both showing the kind of attributes that make you think they could become good value through the coming years. 

I’m not against Joe Root claiming the catch that ended up dismissing Labuschagne, nor am I against the third umpire going with the soft signal given by the standing umpires. Both of those things are fair enough. What does annoy me is that, in general in the past, those types of disputed catches are rarely given the soft signal as ‘out’, and the third umpires rarely rules in the favour of the fieldsman. And yet here this is exactly what happened, in the final hour of a Test match that was desperately trying to be saved by the batting team. I am probably biased in this thought, but you suspect that if England had been batting and a similar incident had occurred that it would have been unlikely to have been signalled out nor overturned by the third umpire. 

Stuart Broad’s continued excellence and encouraging signs on the final day from Jack Leach were overshadowed by the performance of Jofra Archer in this Test. Perhaps not since John Snow has England had a fast bowler to equal Archer’s pace fear factor. Those old enough to have seen it (not me, I’m afraid) still talk of Snow’s pace and vitriol in the 1970/71 Ashes in Australia, and how he single-handedly wrested the Ashes out of Australia’s hands. Archer, in this Test at least, has proven his equal, hitting the Australian batsmen repeatedly with an action that appears from my position safely in front of the TV screen to hide his intentions, which when combined with his pace is causing problems for the batsmen. It was fascinating to watch if not face, and in the short three days between Tests I assume a lot more focus will be put on trying to combat what he has to offer. Ball machines from 18 yards at 150kph into the body perhaps. England will be salivating at what he can produce over the rest of this series, but on the other hand the pressure on him to reproduce those kind of fireworks for another three matches may also be a difficult thing to match. 

How on earth was Ben Stokes awarded player of the match? In a game where Steve Smith refused to buckle, and where Jofra Archer’s bowling was the talk of both innings, how did Stokes get the award? A century on the final day? Yes, he batted well but not better than Smith. And he didn’t offer much with the ball while Archer was dangerous throughout. Whoever was deciding on the award should never be allowed to do so again. Rubbish. 

Changes will no doubt be considered for Headingley on both sides. Both teams have the same batting woes, and none of Cameron Bancroft, David Warner, Joe Denly or Jason Roy will be convinced they will be selected. While there are no immediate replacements for England’s woes, Marcus Harris would not be the worst selection at the top of the order for Australia. With such little time for recovery Australia will consider resting Cummins and Hazlewood to avoid any possibility of injury, even though neither will want to miss a Test. Pattinson is likely to play, but at whose expense is an open question. Smith would appear unlikely to recover in time, leaving Labuschagne as his likely replacement given his fine innings in his stead. 

The series is still wide open, and while England may feel they are coming into the next Test with momentum, they are still under the pump. Their top order is misfiring as much as Australia’s, and the middle orders are still cobbled together from bits and pieces. It offers the best opportunity for results, as it appears unlikely either team can bat for long enough to stretch a match to a draw unless like this match almost two days are lost to rain. Smith’s absence would offer England their best chance of getting back into the series, but it doesn’t guarantee it. What is certain is that the bowlers hold the key to the Test match, and the balance of their selection for both sides will be more interesting than any considered changes to the remainder of the teams.

2nd Test Day 2: Australia Holds Sway as Lyon Levels Lillee

The first day has been lost to rain, and the second day has provided an even contest come the close, and surely the result of this Test will be as dependant on the amount of moisture that falls from the sky as it does the actual contest between bat and ball on the field. If by the remotest possibility there is no further time lost in this match then a result is more likely than not. Which way that result would swing is still not certain.

Personally I thought Tim Paine took a gamble when he won the toss and inserted England. The reasons why he did were sound, but I still come from that Richie Benaud field where you bat first wherever possible. There’s no doubt that the option taken was the one England would have least preferred though. Batting first in tricky conditions with their collapse in the 1st Test no doubt still uppermost in their minds was not what their batsmen were hoping for. We’ll know better this time tomorrow if it was the best decision for Australia’s batsmen.

The dogs will be at Jason Roy’s door once again, but he got a fair delivery early from Josh Hazlewood, and sometimes you get them. The commentators again lauded Rory Burns’ innings, but he was dropped twice in making fifty and he still wasn’t convincing. The jury is still out on his future. Joe Denly made 30 but again fell without capitalising on his start. So many England batsmen have been tried and discarded over the past decade who seem to have the same fallibilities. Vince and Malan from the last Ashes series suffered the same fate that looks to be rushing at full steam towards Denly. Perhaps that’s unfair, but the number of chances that the selectors will offer their stars such as Buttler, Stokes and Bairstow will not be afforded to someone of Denly’s calibre.

Joe Root was pinned in front of the stumps where so often Steve Smith flicks the same ball past square leg. The English media and the heavy influence of the English on CricInfo have pushed Root’s claims as one of the “Big Four” of current world class batsmen, and though he has obvious class his inability to make a score when his team desperately needs it weighs against him. (Now watch Smith go for a duck and Root score a century in the second dig).

At 6/138, Australia should have had England out for 200. That they scrambled to 258 may not look to be a much better position, but with so much time already out of the game it will be important. If they had been dismissed for 200, and Australia was 1 or 2 down for 80 at stumps, the game would have had a much more tilted perspective than it does now. The one thing that hurts Australia about leaving out Mitch Starc is that there is no go-to guy to blast out the tail like he does. 

Nathan Lyon has now taken 355 Test wickets, equal with the great Dennis Lillee and now only behind Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne in Australia's wicket taking list. Once again he has come out on what is notionally a first day pitch and managed to snare three wickets. For much of the first half of his career he seemed to have an easy ride, chosen as much for his ability to hold up an end than to bowl his team to victory. In the last three years that has turned around, and he is comfortably one of Australia's match winners on all surfaces. Early in his career the 'experts' claimed he would never be able to be a Test spinner unless he developed a doosra or carrom ball or something that went the other way. Though he dabbled with it, he disposed of these thoughts in favour of a spinners best weapons - the ability to change the flight and speed to deceive the batsman, and spin the ball as hard as you can. Since he started doing this, he has become the bowler he is today. When you look at all of the recent bowlers behind him who were unable to reach Lillee's milestone total - McDermott, Johnson, Lee, Gillespie - you can see just how difficult a mark it was to reach. That Lyon has done so, and appears to have a few years left in him yet, is a remarkable achievement.

Tonight is a good Test for Australia’s batting line up. They now all have recent runs under their belt, and they must produce that to gain a good first innings lead. Khawaja looks good, and this is his moment. It is time for him to deliver and make that big Ashes century that anchors the innings, allowing his teammates to bat around him. If he can do this and take the pressure off Smith it will hopefully allow the middle order of Head and Wade to do their business as well. It won’t be easy, but it should be a great contest between bat and ball, as long as we can negotiate our way through the dismal and frustrating commentary being offered.

England's Allround Talent Has Them Primed for Ashes Victory

Running the rule over the 14 man squad England has chosen for the 1st Ashes Test this Thursday is an interesting task. Compared to the ruminations over what the final XI will be for the Australians when they front up for the toss on Thursday evening, England has such an abundance of options that their one glaring weakness is something that they should really be able to overcome with some ease. 

England has had a revolving door when it comes to the opening batting for years. As has been mentioned a thousand times, they have spent seven years trying to find someone to replace Andrew Strauss as Alistair Cook’s opening partner at the top of the order, and now Cook has retired they are STILL trying to find someone! Now they have to find two who can make a batting partnership that will do the job for them, and they don’t look to be any closer than they have been. They have three options to fill the two places, assuming they are too frozen in fright to consider moving any of their other batting options into the role. Those three are Joe Denly, Rory Burns and Jason Roy. Denly looks compact but without form behind him. Burns has a technique that looks as though he is trying to bat using the edge of the bat as the face and looks a candidate for caught behind. Roy has shown his prowess in the one-day format on flat tracks and straight deliveries, but doesn’t look technically capable against the ball that moves and with more than one slip fieldsman. Despite all this England look likely to stick with Burns and Roy, and they will be hoping that Roy can give them the kind of start he has in the one-day game while Burns holds his ground and nudges the ball around. If they both achieve this then they will have done their job. 

He may have tried to avoid batting at three in the Test team, but in terms of team balance there looks to be no alternative to Joe Root stepping up to the platform this series. He is the best credentialled batsman in the team, and if he wants to regain the Ashes he needs to lead from the front. This will allow his foot soldiers to fall into line behind him – Jonny Bairstow at four, Ben Stokes at five, Jos Buttler at six and Moeen Ali at seven. Perhaps in many minds these batsmen all have to prove themselves at Test level like they have at ODI level, but they all have the ability to do so. Certainly, England’s five and six look a lot more dangerous than Australia’s. 

With both Stokes and Moeen in the top seven, England now has the opportunity to go for the kill with the ball with a four-pronged pace attack. No doubt both James Anderson and Stuart Broad will be chosen as long as they are fit. Chris Woakes should also be a walk-up start, adding another seam option as well as lengthening the batting line up further. That would leave only one place remaining for the three other aspirants. Olly Stone looks to be the drinks waiter given the quality of those bowlers in front of him, which would leave a choice between the incumbent all-round abilities of Sam Curran or the pace talismanic ability of Jofra Archer. You would expect they would stick with Curran if for no other reason than he seems to score 30+ runs every time he comes to the crease but it is by no means absolute. Indeed, if they chose to use Root’s off spin capabilities they could even leave Moeen out of the side, and play Woakes at seven, Curran at eight and Archer at nine and probably score just as many runs through those three positions in the order. 

England may not be as proven in the Test arena as they are elsewhere, but they have quality batsmen and bowlers, and have not lost a home Ashes series since 2001. Australia has struggled since the last Ashes series in 2017/18 and are nowhere near as settled in team make up as the home team. If England are not firm favourites in this series then there is a real problem in their mindset, which would only suit Australia. The stumble against Ireland aside, England look the team to beat.

Misplaced Loyalty Betrays Confused Selection Process

“Excuse me Mr Peters, your soapbox is ready”

You know what, you’ve all read all of this before. You know what I’m going to say. I could post links to various other articles where I have gone off my rocker about our national selectors. Not just about those that they have selected and those they have ignored, but in the way they have made those selections, where the method has betrayed exactly what their real motivation is. And though they will deny it until the cows come home, there truly is no other logical explanation for what they have done.

Yes, once again we have seen at least two selections made that look suspiciously like they are because they are from a certain coach’s home state, and the loyalty that should have been shown to players who had won the team the last Test series at the end of a dismal summer was instead shown to two players who are perhaps least deserving of it.

Listing the ordinary hand shown to Joe Burns over the past three years or so is like writing a Greek tragedy. Started his Test career on fire but then made the scapegoat three times. He was dropped after a slight wavering in form, and then brought back for the fateful Hobart Test against South Africa when Shaun Marsh was injured. Australia was wiped, and so were half a dozen players including Joe Burns who had had only one Test to re-establish himself. It is widely seen that this Test is what eventually led to the Newlands debacle, which led to Joe’s next Test appearance. Despite a solid performance he was then overlooked again for the next tour to Pakistan, before finally getting another chance against Sri Lanka in what felt like a situation that the selectors just shrugged their shoulders as if they had no ideas left NOT to pick him. He responded with 180 in the second Test when Australia was reeling at 3/23. His reward? Thanks Joe, but we’ve got our favourite back now, so take a seat at the back.

I could write about this for another 2000 words but it will not decrease my anger and frustration at the selection process. Joe Burns deserves the loyalty of the selectors for putting up with the way they have treated him, and then delivering to help save and eventually help win a Test for Australia. Cameron Bancroft has been a part of embarrassing Australian cricket across the globe, and while it is completely correct to forgive and allow contrition, on the level of which player deserves to be given more leeway at the selection table, Burns has Bancroft in spades. I don’t care about what Trevor Hohns has said, this is a disgraceful selection decision again. It is beyond belief that someone who has again done all that is asked of him and scored big runs can be discarded so recklessly. For this alone, once again I guess, I believe the whole panel should be sacked or stand down or just eradicated. This is Simon Katich all over again.

As if that isn’t bad enough, yet again we have been stuck with a bloody Marsh in the touring squad. This is just ridiculous, but what is more ridiculous is the way that the selectors have stuffed up the balance of the squad to squeeze him in. They eventually decided on a squad of 17, which in all logic would include two keepers and two spin bowlers for balance and cover in case anything goes wrong. But what do the selectors do instead? Well, they choose Bancroft and then Matthew Wade (finally forced to bow to their own decree that scoring thousands of runs is the way into the team, but having ignored that for some time in Wade’s case), and decide that these two can cover the wicket-keeping role should anything befall Tim Paine, and so leave out the generally regarded next Australian Test keeper in Alex Carey. They also decide to only choose one spinner in Nathan Lyon and deciding that Marnus Labuschagne can be cover if a second spinner is required. So we have part-time options as cover for two major positions in wicket-keeper and spinner, which opens up a spot.... for Mitchell freaking Marsh. WHY?!?!?! What the hell has he actually done to get a spot in this squad?!?! He isn’t good enough to be chosen as a batsman – there are already eight others in this squad. He isn’t good enough to be picked as a pace bowler – there are already SIX others in this squad, and that doesn’t include Jackson Bird who tore apart the Shield competition last season and has done the same in England over the last month. So how the hell does he make this team?!?! It is a bloody travesty. If he is chosen in the first XI at any stage, he actually weakens the team from any other combination. This obsession with “all-rounders” is destroying the selection process of the Australian cricket team. Once again, this selection comes down to selectors favourites getting the nod based on ‘potential’ and being a ‘good bloke’ rather than performance and raw numbers.

Oh, and one more before I step down. How can we possibly have a 17 player squad, and only one spinner. I know they are going to play Lyon come what may in every Test, no matter what, but what if he does a Glenn McGrath and rolls his ankle half an hour before play? Do we rely on Labuschagne as the specialist spin option? Just play four quicks? Pick Marsh to bat at eight and bowl five overs? This is so short-sighted. Jon Holland may not look threatening but he has a good first class record and would not let the team down if he was needed. By picking six fast bowlers plus bloody Mitch Marsh, there are just too many fast bowling options, and at least one if not two of them are going to be twiddling their thumbs for two months without ever looking like getting a game. Why not at least have a spin option there doing that, just in case?

I know selections are difficult, but for this selection panel it comes across as their most difficult decisions are coming up with viable excuses as to why they have chosen their favourites at the expense of players who are more deserving of being chosen based on every other factor. Joe Burns and Kurtis Patterson scored centuries in the last Test Australia played, and now can’t even make the squad? Jackson Bird topped Shield averages, and yet even when SEVEN pace bowlers are chosen in the squad, he can’t get in?! Honestly... this does my bloody head in.

Anyway. You all knew this was coming. Thanks for putting up with my ranting once again.

You can put this soap box back in storage for a few days son.

Logic Outweighs Partisan Selections if Ashes are to be Retained

Being a selector is not an easy job. Anyone who has done it knows that no matter who you choose in a team or a squad, there will be just as many people howling you down than praising you. Your judgement call on a player will just as likely be seen as biased or uninformed by those who think the player you have chosen is a talentless hack. Much of this will come to pass again over the coming days, when the Australian selectors first choose their Ashes squad for the next two months, and then a few days later choose their eleven to play the 1st Test against England. There is every chance I will be one of the pack howling.

Looking at the cases for all of the players in line for selection objectively, the choices look to be mostly obvious. Much will depend on what balance the selection panel feel is necessary for the coming weeks – and that is the real key. Balance. 

Four opening batsmen are looking to find a way into three positions in the squad. David Warner looks to be an automatic re-inclusion, leaving three fitting in to two positions – the two incumbents in Marcus Harris and Joe Burns, and their predecessor Cameron Bancroft. Bancroft has made a good fist of his game since he returned to first class cricket in January and adds depth to the position within the Australian cricket platform. However, to be fair, he has not done enough to deserve a spot in front of either of the other two contenders. Harris may have tailed off at the end of the Test summer, but his rollicking Shield form to complete the Australian summer should be enough to suggest he deserves to be stuck with, while Burns and his double hundred in Canberra against Sri Lanka cannot be ignored. It would (again, unfortunately) send the wrong message to all Australian cricketers if he was overlooked. Lock in Warner, Harris and Burns. 

Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith look to be the natural three and four in the batting, though pressure will be on both. Since his marathon effort with the bat to save Australia in the UAE, Khawaja has struggled to score the runs he and Australia need. If not for the gift century that Tim Paine allowed him in the second innings against Sri Lanka in Canberra it would have been a barren summer in a season where he was required to stand up and lead with the bat. Australia cannot retain the Ashes if Khawaja does not perform at number three. It may not be understating the importance of his role in this series to suggest that his future in the Test team relies on him doing well in this series, injury or not. Smith is now, once again, the lynchpin. How much the past 15 months has affected his ability to blunt and then dominate bowling attacks over five days will soon be known. The confidence of the team will surge or stagnate depending on just how Steve Smith bats. An argument can still be made that number three is his best position, but the batting looks stronger with him at four as long as Khawaja comes to the party. 

Travis Head earns and retains his place after a breakthrough summer at home. One suspects his technique will be put under enormous pressure by the English bowling attack this series, and we will have a better idea of just how good a player he is by the conclusion of the Ashes. 

Two more batsmen need to be chosen, and how the selectors go here will be of interest. If form is to be the guide, then those two selections become fairly easy. Matthew Wade has dominated all three forms of the game at domestic level for over 18 months. In 2019 in first class cricket he has 566 runs at an average of 62.89 with two centuries and three half-centuries. Marnus Labuschagne may not have had the best home summer with the bat despite playing the final three Tests, but his County form has been outstanding. It does need to be looked at through honest eyes, as his 1114 runs at an average of 65.52 with five centuries and five half-centuries is in the 2nd Division competition, where you suspect the bowling would be less dominant than in the higher division. He has still scored those runs in English conditions in match situations which leaves him in the best position possible to mount a case.

The challengers have less to fall back on. Kurtis Patterson is the incumbent number six and scored his maiden century in that run fest in Canberra against Sri Lanka, but his first-class form since then is disconcerting. 236 runs at an average of 21.45 with one half century is not keeping his name above those with runs on the board. Will Pucovski has been given some great experience in having been around the Test squad at home and this tour with the Australia A team. In 2019 he has 351 first class runs at an average of 35.10, with one century and one half-century. All of this is invaluable for his development. While it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will be selected, the most likely scenario is that he is encouraged to return home and prepare for a big 2019/20 season, where his chance for Test selection is likely to eventuate.

The spectre of Mitchell Marsh will rise again, especially as the selection panel has an obvious soft spot for him. Once again though, the figures do not stack up to justify his selection in any form. In 2019 he has scored 267 runs at 33.38 and taken nine wickets at 22.89 in four first class matches. That is nowhere near enough to justify leaving out one of the other eight batsmen I have nominated here to squeeze him in. He hasn’t done enough to be considered as a batsman, nor as a bowler. He certainly on that count cannot be considered as an all-rounder. In that regard Labuschagne has him covered anyway, having taken 19 wickets at 38.10 in County cricket. On form alone, Labuschagne gets in the squad in front of Marsh.

The fast bowling cartel will have its chance to shine in this series, and in all honesty they must if the Ashes are to be retained. Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood will be joined by the fit and firing James Pattinson in a massive boost for this tour. If all things were equal they would be joined by Jhye Richardson as the fifth prong of the attack, but his shoulder injury is likely to have put paid to that. Instead the final pace position falls to between the four remaining candidates, all of whom would do a good job if given the chance. Both Michael Neser and Chris Tremain have been excellent in first class cricket in recent seasons and have suffered from having such quality bowlers in front of them for such an extended period. Here once again they are likely to miss out, as the final place becomes a shootout between Jackson Bird and Peter Siddle, who have both played in Tests in the past 18 months.

Bird in 2019 has taken 31 wickets at 21.78, having been in the top two in the Shield aggregates last summer, while Siddle in the County season has taken 27 wickets at 18.96. Bird’s ineffectiveness in Australia during the last Ashes series – on unfortunate unhelpful surfaces it must be said – is likely to be held against him. Siddle, the “People’s Champ”, has been kept in the Test squad all summer which is as good an indication that the selectors think he is the man for the job. He should have played more in 2015, and you would suspect the selectors won’t make the same mistake this time around.

Nathan Lyon may be the only likely frontline spinner used in the Test series given the firepower the team has with the ball, but all bases need to be covered, which means Jon Holland should be selected in the squad. As a rounded and balanced squad, there is a need for two specialist spinners without having to rely on Labuschagne’s part-timers if a real turner is rolled out to quell the Australian pace attack.

That makes 16, and that might be a number the selectors sit on, but it would require having Matthew Wade as the reserve keeper should anything untoward happen to Tim Paine. Given that Wade has given up the gloves to become a batsman, and Alex Carey is now regarded as the next long-term keeper in Australia, then it seems petty not to have him in the squad to fulfil that role. Let Wade concentrate on his role in the team and not be burdened with a role he has already accepted he won’t be offered again, and let Carey be a part of the squad that he will likely eventually become a major part of.

These to me look like the logical decisions that need to be made to have the best squad with the best form behind them. There are always players you would like to squeeze into a squad like this, but that’s not always possible. Someone like Kurtis Patterson would feel very unfortunate not to be included, but the form of those here makes it difficult to look past them. I also feel for Chris Tremain who has a body of three seasons of brilliant results behind him, and if given the chance would absolutely do a sterling job, and yet it is hard to go past the five fast bowlers selected here.

Can they retain the Ashes? If they perform to anywhere near their best, then yes. But our batsmen have to make runs. 250-300 scores will not be enough. Everyone has to contribute or we are in for a long couple of months.

My squad: Tim Paine (c & wk), Pat Cummins (vc), David Warner, Marcus Harris, Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, Travis Head, Matthew Wade, Marnus Labuschagne, Alex Carey (res wk), Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Peter Siddle, Nathan Lyon, Jon Holland.

Selectors Favourites in Line for Ashes Selection

Whatever may be seen as the reasoning behind the trial match between two Australian XI’s beginning tonight in England, you can be fairly certain that no matter what the rhetoric is that comes over the next few days, the Australian selectors already know who they are going to choose in their Ashes squad. What may be being referred to as a final trial match for all participants is really just a high level centre wicket practice for the ones who will be named in that squad come the weekend. Some don’t like that idea, but given the valueless third XI level teams the English Counties usually dish up as opposition to touring teams looking to hone their skills in the build up to a Test series, this appears as good an idea as any to try and get some decent practice in before the 1st Test begins in nine days time.

“What do you mean the team has already been picked?!” Well, I mean exactly that. There is very little that can happen in this match that is going to create any last-minute adjustments to the team that the selectors will already have in their heads. They know who they are going to choose, and their biggest decision will be whether they are going to keep 16 players in the squad or 17.

I’ll tell you one thing though – their greatest hopes for this match is not that certain players on the ‘fringe’ score runs or take wickets. They will more likely be hoping that those players fail to make an impression so that the players they WANT to choose can be done so with less media attention.

What?! Surely not! That can’t be the way the selectors are thinking! Oh, don’t be so sure. The selectors have their favourites, the players they want to shoehorn back into the team as soon as possible come what may, and they have players who (unfortunately for the selectors) have met every criteria that they have set out for them to be picked in the Test team… but they just don’t want them as a part of it. Unfair assessment? I’m sure they would think so if they ever read the stuff I write, but I think I’m close to the mark.

For instance, they would prefer to see Joe Burns, Matthew Wade and Jackson Bird not do so well over the next few days. Probably also Kurtis Patterson. Not because they want them to fail, but it will look a lot better for them when they don’t name them in the squad on the weekend. Because the selectors have already shown they don’t want to pick them.

Burns was ignored despite great Shield form for the best part of 18 months, given one Test in South Africa after the Newlands fiasco, then ignored for series against Pakistan and India, before getting a recall against Sri Lanka. Despite his double century in Canberra, the selectors are not sold on his defence and believe he isn’t the best option at the top of the order. Besides, they have Warner back now, along with his mirror image in Marcus Harris. You can also sense that their preferred back up opener is Cameron Bancroft, especially through the loyalty of the coach. For this to happen, Burns would have to miss out.

Wade was left out against England 18 months ago for almost every reason poor form can offer, but you cannot deny that in the words of the doctrine “score runs and you will be considered” he has done everything in his power to be selected again. He has dominated with the bat in every form of the game at domestic level, and in every chance he has had on the A tour. You can argue about the quality of the bowlers he has faced in England, but at home he has scored runs against every bowler except the Test attack. To be honest it has become slightly embarrassing that someone in such form cannot get a crack at the top level again. And this is where the selectors are in a bind, because if he scores big runs again over the next few days he cannot possibly be left out of the squad. Thus why the selectors desperately need him to fail, because they have shown they really do not want to pick him.

Bird too has had recent Test opportunities without being able to take big wicket hauls, albeit his last few appearances have been on flatbed concrete wickets, such as the MCG wicket against England 8 months ago. Still, he again topped the Shield aggregates with the ball and has done nothing wrong on this A tour. However, he too has players in front of him on favouritism, and if he gets wickets in this match he will force the selectors hand. Unfortunately, he too looks as though he is on a hiding to nothing.

Why so? Well, Bancroft I’ve already mentioned as a selectors favourite, one primed to be chosen simply because he fits what they want rather than on sheer weight of runs and performance. At a pinch he can also fill in as wicket-keeper should they decide not to include Alex Carey as a back up in only taking 16 men in the squad. Mitchell Marsh is another who has done practically nothing when it comes to scoring mountains of runs or taking bags of wickets, and yet here he is again within touching distance of a squad selection. And Peter Siddle has spent the last twelve months as 12th man in the Test squad, purely to ensure his name is still front and centre in the public’s eyes for when they can name him in this Ashes squad.

Is this a fair assessment of what the selectors are thinking? Even from the outside there looks to be eleven certainties in the squad - David Warner, Marcus Harris, Steve Smith, Usman Khawaja (assuming he recovers from injury), Travis Head, Tim Paine, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, Nathan Lyon, Josh Hazlewood (also assuming he overcomes injury) and James Pattinson. That probably leaves three batting and two bowling spots remaining, with Carey as 2nd keeper only an option if they choose 17 in the squad.

National selections have concerned me for awhile – regular readers of my tripe will already know this. It worries me that someone like Joe Burns, who was overlooked for so long despite runs on the board, and who scored a double century in his last Test, is still not a certain selection in the squad let alone the eleven for the 1st Test. It worries me that Kurtis Patterson scored an excellent Test century and showed great poise in his first two Tests and yet may also miss the squad. It worries me most that once again we may go down the path of choosing a spare parts cricketer under the premise of being an ‘all-rounder’ when better qualified batsmen will be cast aside to allow the selection of a less qualified player.

Perhaps I am being paranoid, and in a few days we will know whether or not any of this comes to pass. It will be interesting to see the results of this match, and whether the performances within do actually affect selection policy. I stand prepared to be proven wrong. But so help me… if Mitchell Marsh gets chosen in this god-damned Ashes squad…AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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...

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!