The Australia team celebrates the dismissal of Pakistan's Kamran Akmal Mitchell Johnson on day 4 of the second test at the SCG in Sydney on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010. (AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)

The Australia team celebrates the dismissal of Pakistan's Kamran Akmal Mitchell Johnson on day 4 of the second test at the SCG in Sydney on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2010. (AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)

Peter Roebuck in a forthright column in the SMH some days ago made the fearless statement that the current Australian side cannot win back the Ashes. If this is true then the much put-upon selectors (who got Shane Watson right as an opener, it must be remembered) will have to start putting together a side that will.

This means, as far as I am concerned, some small changes for the third Test side against Pakistan in Tasmania. And a couple of significant changes for the Test against New Zealand, the last of this summer, in March.

With the Ashes series starting next summer in Australia, the new team needs to be basically in place when England arrive here.

All this, however, begs the question: Can this Australian side win back the Ashes? I reckon Roebuck is right, although my success rate with predictions is about on a par with those of Malcolm Mackerras, the political scientist who tends to get his predictions wrong.

There are weaknesses in the present XI that need to be addressed before the Ashes series starts.

For all his success, Nathan Hauritz does not seem to be an Ashes-winning spinner. More importantly, he does not have the spin or the variety to winkle out stubborn tail-end batsman.

This last point is especially valid as far as England is concerned. This side has a capacity to hold out for a draw when they have been out-played. They did this at Cardiff in the last Ashes series, and twice this season in South Africa Graeme Onions has blocked out the last over of play to give England a draw in a match they had no hope of winning.

The England tail survived the finger spin of Paul Harris, a bowler much like Hauritz with his inability to bowl the wonder ball.

Some readers of The Roar have rejected my notion that Steve Smith needs to be brought into the side. But Smith is an inventive, bold batsman, a terrific fieldsman and a developing leg-spinner.

Marcus North was given his chance, partly as a back-up to Hauritz. This reasoning no longer makes sense with Hauritz’s development since last season, and North’s innocuous spinners at Cardiff.

Smith has shown in the Twenty20 matches, at least, that he can get batsmen out.

Terry Jenner reckons he needs a couple of seasons of Sheffield Shield cricket before he can be the front line spinner for Australia. This is true. But batting at number six, mainly as a batsman who can turn a match (the role Adam Gilchrist developed so successfully for Australia) and as a complementary spinner to Hauritz, particularly against the tail-enders, Smith could be an extremely useful player in the Test side.

I have been a great supporter of Phillip Hughes. But his play against Pakistan in the second Test revealed that he is too sketchy for the opening role, right now. Anyway, Watson and Simon Katich are doing an excellent job and this combination needs to be kept for the Ashes series.

There is a suggestion going the rounds that Hughes might be given North’s spot. I can see some merit in this, although I’d prefer at this time to see Smith in the position. Ian Bell has shown against South Africa that a top-order batsman playing at six, who is used to the new ball, is a great asset to a side.

After the openers, a pairing that has been a great success, the Australian side this season has faced problems with the next trio of batsmen, Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Michael Clarke.

Ponting is one of Australia’s greatest ever batsmen. I rate him on his statistics and the way he has got his runs as the best after Don Bradman. But he has had a poor season this summer. Is the reason for this his elbow injury? Or is the old enemy of all batsman, age, relentlessly catching up on him?

Hussey has had a great season, but … He has struggled to score his runs and was lucky at Sydney in the second Test to be repeatedly dropped by the wicket (wicked?)-keeper.

Clarke has generally looked the best of the batsman (other than Watson) but he has not gone on to score the big totals someone in the sort of form he has been in should.

Perhaps it is time for him to be challenged with batting at number 3. Ponting could bat at number four and play like Mark Waugh, and Hussey could drop down to five and specialise in batting with the tail-enders, something he does well.

The fast bowling attack, too, needs some adjusting.

Mitchell Johnson is an old ball bowler now, and an effective one. Peter Siddle doesn’t do enough with the ball or have the variety for my liking. He would be fine if the side did not have Shane Watson to do the same sort of thing as the Victorian.

There is an obvious need for a really fast bowler to back up Doug Bollinger with the new ball. Can Brett Lee come back? I doubt it. Who can this tearaway be?

I’d be interested in the views of readers of The Roar on this matter and the other issues that have been raised.

For if the Ashes are to be won back in the summer of 2010/2011, the winning Australian XI needs to be put together now, or thereabouts, rather than through trial and error during the series itself.

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

Get a daily cricket email

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it.

We value privacy. More.