Can Australia really win the Ashes?

Khawja and Clarke have the best techniques out of all the batsman in Australia but Warner and Hughes know how to score.

Except Amla is a right handed bat.

As far as I am aware Sunil, you can only select 1 batsmen at each number, having 2 batsmen go out to the crease at 4 wickets down probably won't be a possible idea.

Sunil is it possible for you to make a comment with out mentioning the word Khawaja? I look forward to reading your comments after he is selected, and when he possibly fails.

ian something wrong with you quiney over warner you nuts clarke 4 having pattinson at seven following that top order your just stupid

What about the aussies in the most recent ashes?;) Pattinson is the only decent quick you have :)

Cowan is 31 and for a batsman this is statistically his prime. Waugh started in his very early 20s. Cowan is a journeyman. 30-something and averages 30-something in first class cricket. Back when the Australian cricket team was a source of pride that sort of record got you laughed out of selection meetings.

@ Every Cowan hater: People, remember that it took Steve Waugh years, yes years before he got his first test century. It took Sachin Tendulkar nearly 80 ODI's before he got his first century in that form of the game. It took years before the likes of Matt Hayden, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn (and even Saint/Sir/His Imperial Michael Clarke) got it going. Sometimes patience in a talented player will provide a better long term investment instead of a quick fix solution with the significantly less competent Watson, that will be very hit and miss. Cowan just needs some time and some support from the selectors. @aggregateddrupe, Your bowling attack is spot on. Lets hope the selectors stick with them for the whole series and not rotate them in and out. It really doesn't matter what the batting order is, Australia just doesn't have 6 batsman that can handle the English attack and conditions. @timmuh You are spot on. I hate the mentality shared by 99% of cricket fans and the establishment that Australia only cares about the Ashes and everything else is the warmup for it for 4 years. It's insulting to all the other touring teams and a particular insult to a team like South Africa who are the best at the moment. Play each match with equal importance and with your best eleven.

Regarding Wade, it was interesting following his reaction to Healy's criticism. I reckon Healy saw problems with his technique (he was right) and was testing him out by going public. I thought Wade responded really well. He said all the right things and took it on board, and is starting to show signs of improvement, though he still inexplicably drops some simple takes. Wade has the right personal attribues of a good test keeper. They are a bit like rugby halfbacks, they need to be in the batsmen's face, chatting all the time, keeping feildsmen on their toes. Once he sorts out the few issues with technique, I think he will have a long test career.

mago see comment above --

Aggregated dupe sorry my friend but you don't know what you are talking about -- Warner has not got the technique or the character to play test against sides who really know how to play test cricket -- not talking about custard pie teams like shri lanka, its easy to build up your stats against them I'm talking about test cricket against the only 2 teams who still know how to play it : england and SA (ok india in india) nor has hughes -- your claim that aust will win 3 in australia is laughable and shows that u don't know what test cricket or what it requires. Nothing beats experience in test cricket -- experience of playing tough cricket for 5 days ( and don't be dumb enough to say tests don't last 5 days anymore) experience in hanging in there when session after session goes against you -- its an arm wrestle and the english know how to do it and this aussie team don't -- that's the first reason they won't win -- second reason -- technique - warner hughes both of them won't score a 100 in how many tests they last in england --- the first 4 batsmen have to be clarke watson ( who I have doubts about but he does know what tests require) Ussmin K and cowen -- these 4 at least have the technique and the guts to play slow and tough it out for sessions - Usmin showed that against england last tour -- there are no other batsmen in oz who i've seen who can do this or have the technique -- a much better more experienced side than this went to england in 2005 and got comprehensively beaten -- against that england have cook trott and petterson plus bell who would walk into the australian team and even though he's struggling now is a proven performer plus prior whats more root birstow are both very tough competitors with good techniques and crompton looks like the business as an opener. Australia haven't got the batting to come anywhere close to that Bowling wise the english have not only their usual attack but also Tremlett who they are nursing back to fitness specifically for the ashes (like they did Jones) esp the aussie leg; Onions who is almost as good as anderson in english conditions plus bresnan anderson and finn who is a vastly improved quick --- these are test match bowlers proven at the highest level -- and then you have swann and monty who have just bowled out India in india -- broad is faltering but has a habit of turning it on just when youre about to write him off what have australia got ? Siddle a big hearted limited bowler who struggled to bowl out SL in hobert -- i watched the test in perth ( australia's favourite wicket) and not one aussie bowler swung a ball the entire game -- stark looks the best prospect but he is a prospect not an experienced test bowler --- five day bowling on a test wicket is a specialised art which needs experience -- the team has to bowl in a disciplined manner to a set plan for long periods -- the aussie attack can't do that, they proved it in Perth -- Lyon is a run of the mill spinner who the pommies will milk all day long -- he bowls too flat and too fast I don't know why i need to tell you this -- you can see what I can see - clearly you don't know what you're looking for - so It doesn't really matter in one sense who the aussie selectors pick, the players simply aren't there -- their best hope is that they pick a settled eleven and hope that after tests in india england and australia they develop as a team, toughen up and get experience -- but hughes warner lyon and siddle is the way to heart break city and no matter how hard they try they will not produce what is required -- I can guareentee it. and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so.

Even if we completely ignore the Indian tour, the Aussie fast bowlers are still ahead. By discounting the Indian tour and yet including the first two matches of South Africa's tour of Australia (which were played on dull, dead pitches on which even Dale Steyn struggled [5/258 in three innings]), you would think that England's bowlers should come out ahead. But no, observe: In 2012: 439 overs and 4 balls = 29.25 @ 73.28 James Anderson (India discounted) 338 overs and 3 balls = 21.68 @ 54.89 Ben Hilfenhaus 382 overs and 1 balls = 27.78 @ 57.33 Stuart Broad (India discounted) 323 overs and 3 balls = 23.10 @ 47.34 Peter Siddle 160 overs and 5 balls = 32.00 @ 60.31 Steven Finn (India discounted) 142 overs and 5 balls = 25.05 @ 42.85 Mitchell Starc The statistics speak for themselves. I could show you their adjusted career averages without the Indian tour also, but it would not be statistically significant enough to effect any change. The Aussie bowlers come out ahead again and again. A cold examination of the facts suggest that the Australian quicks are better. Australians are just so scarred from the brilliance of the English bowling in 2005 that they've brainwashed themselves into believing that every contemporary English pace-bowler can become a world-beating swing merchant at the drop of a hat (a myth fortified by Broad's powerful [but desultory] spell in England's decisive victory at the Oval in 2009). But the world doesn't work like that. Statistically speaking, the English got lucky in 2009; barring a much improved performance, they could lose the next series on the comparative weakness of their fast-bowling alone. Heh. The Aussie pace bowlers actually statistically outperformed even South Africa's bowlers last year - only Vernon Philander collected better figures for the year than any of the Aussie quicks. Would you like to know how the South Africans went on their tour of England? ;)

What I like is he seems to score runs under pressure. We need to give him training and time as keeper. Rod marsh sucked in his fist couple of years.

Australia can win, it's just highly unlikely. The best chance is from the fast bowling ranks but the English batting is very strong. Meanwhile the Australiian batting is probably the least heralded since 1985 and the English bowling is very strong. I would not rule out any nuttery from the selection panel, such as Wade as a batsman, Haddin keeping or the Wade at six and a nominal allrounder a 7. Too much test and shield to go to speculate on the squad and injuries and what not. However if they were playing England today ( and Watto was actually fit ) i'd go; Cowan Warner Hughes Khawaja Clarke Watson Wade Johnson Siddle Lyon Bird Starc

Pommie speedsters also played on dead arse wickets against the Pakistanis in the middle east

Bailey and David Hussey's batting failures in the ODIs has ensured that Khawaja remains front runner for the number 6 spot. Today was the day to get runs but they failed to take their opportunities on a good batting pitch.

He's nothing special, Pattinson is a very good bowler mind.

All well and good with those stats, but have you taken side strength into account? Bowling on Indian pitches, and against the best side in the world will mean your average inevitably goes up.