To answer this question, the first thing you need to ask is: “what have Australia learnt from the Ashes series just gone in England?”
What they’ve learnt is that Chris Rogers is clearly the best opening batsman in Australia.
His selection was met with a mixed reaction in cricket circles, yet the decision to play him was absolutely justified, culminating in him making 100 in difficult conditions at Durham.
Steve Smith needs a long run in the Australian middle order.
He clearly showed why he has been in and around the Australian team for a few years now, and he is an attacking middle order player, slightly unorthodox yet scores runs.
He will also give added flexibility to the Australian bowling attack if he continues to work hard on his leg spin bowling.
This is a very important part of his game and potentially could be the reason he gets an extended run in the Australian side.
Another thing that Australia has learned is that they need five bowlers. Long gone are the days when they could get by with three quicks and one spinner.
They could get away with it when they had Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne playing together.
McGrath could bowl long, penetrating spells and Warne was simply the best spinner ever.
Someone in the top seven being able to bowl adds great flexibility to the Australian bowling line up.
Also, England’s batting can be put under pressure with disciplined bowling. Australia’s seamers were excellent and Nathan Lyon, when he finally played, was also a threat.
We saw this throughout the whole Test series.
Alistair Cook struggled with Australian fast bowlers’ fuller length. This is something they need to continue in Australia if they want to keep him quiet.
Joe Root only made two significant scores out of ten innings opening the batting. He is going to be a fantastic long-term player for England but they will need to be patient with him.
Yet, Australia will feel they can minimalise his impact at home by bowling fuller, looking to hit off stump because he is more of a back foot player who likes to hit through the off-side.
Jonathon Trott was frustrated by good planning.
His leg-side scoring areas were blocked off and the short ball was used effectively. He is never as comfortable when he is looking to hit through the off-side off the front foot.
Kevin Pietersen is a tough proposition.
His greatest threat is how he can change the momentum of an innings through his positive stroke play. He prefers the leg-side, so disciplined bowling on a fourth/fifth stump line can frustrate him into playing a poor shot.
Ian Bell will challenge Australia’s bowlers this summer, much like he just did in England.
He is strong all around the wicket and is very patient. Good old fashioned line and length will be the best option, with possibly a catching man on the off-side drive to get him thinking about hitting squarer off the front foot, thus bringing the keeper and slip fielders into play.
Jonny Bairstow and Matt Prior had mixed success.
They are both similar with their aggressive style of play, yet what Australia learnt is, because of their aggressive natures, they will always offer a chance and possibly play a poor shot if the ball is pitched up on off-stump, bringing bowled and LBW into play.
England may need to make a decision sooner rather than later.
Bairstow is a good keeper and Prior has struggled of late. But having their keeper at six allows them to play the extra bowler/all rounder.
If Australia can consistently deliver their plans to the England batsmen, much like they did in England, this will put England’s batting under real pressure and the final score in the series could be very different because, in Australian conditions, I am sure that not only will Australia bowl well, they will bat much better than they did in England.
I suspect that the series will be Australia’s to win.
Northerner
Guest
I think your big problem is you need another opener, a 3 and a 5. I don''t think Warner is an opener, except on very flat pitches. I don't think Watson is a 3, despite that 170-odd - he was fed pies by caterers. I don't think Smith is a 5, though he may be a 6. All rivalry aside, I like the look of Khawaja - I would persevere with him as England persevered with Bell. So my top six for you guys would be: Rogers A N Other Khawaja Clarke Watson (for his bowling)/Warner/A N Other Smith/Warner
Northerner
Guest
Neither his head not his feet are still at the moment of delivery. His bat does not come down vertically (when he's playing straight bat shots). He falls over in the drive. His shot selection is woeful. Other than that, his technique is great and I think he Aussies should pick him.
Hookin' YT
Guest
There are just 3 shield matches before the 1st test. The 3rd finishing just 5 days before. Get in early lads.
mark
Guest
Yeah I understand that mate, and fair enough, but my question was with regards to the fact that he lived in pakistan until he was 28. why was he not considered good enough for their national team? I know they've got afrdi etc, but just don't understand how a spinner not good enough for Pakistan is now good enough for the aust team. I know we're after a leg spinner, i'm just wondering what Pakistan selectors had against him cricket wise?
Hookin' YT
Guest
I read somewhere it was political views that resulted in death threats. Don't think he is fan of Islamic extremism. Today's blurb: "Ahmed was granted refugee protection in Australia on the basis that Taliban commanders in his homeland threatened on multiple occasions to kill him for coaching local children and promoting education free from religious extremism for women and girls. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ca-slams-bigotry-against-ahmed-20130906-2t9yz.html#ixzz2e6o2epGK"
JimmyB
Guest
With regards Watson, there's no denying his talent, however I just think if he happened to be English and he'd been given as many chances as he has had, he very well may have been dropped from the test team by now and as Ronan says playing the shorter formats alone.
mark
Guest
Lots of people are talking up Ahmed's chances- my question is if he's that great how come he never played a test, or ODI for pakistan? When did he leave the country- he's 31 now? His average of 31 in first class cricket is respectable, and Pakistan are known for changes players more often than I change underwear, so any reason he wasn't considered good enough over there, but suddenly he's good enough to play for Aust the minute he qualifies?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Well he'd be the first player chosen in England's ODI and T20 sides anyway, not so sure about Tests.
JimmyB
Guest
I'm recoiling alright Chris. ;)
Nudge
Guest
I never said he should be replaced. That would be stupid. I'll take Haddin before him though
ChrisUK
Guest
Said it before (though JimmyB tends to recoil in shock), England would love to have Watson in their side.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I never said that Hookin' if you read the article you'll know that Dizzy said its important that we've got someone in the top 7 who also bowls decently...that to me is why watto is so crucial
JimmyB
Guest
Very sad to see the steady decline, how the mighty have fallen. Warne didn't even play in that Aussie series I see, was he serving a ban by any chance?
Sydney Kiwi
Guest
Is Faulkner good enough to play #6? Will be interesting how he goes in Sheffield shield as he would solve alot of problems - left armer (that way no Starc or Johnson will be played and we know the selection panel love a leftie), can bowl long spells, great bowling record in Aussie conditions. I would argue him and Haddin need to show they can hold up their ends in the shield rounds with solid nuggetty innings with confidence. Key obstacle in the tests will be the 2nd new ball. Reverse swing and spin will be less of an issue. Scores in the lower order by Patterson and Siddle should be considered bonuses not expected.
Sydney Kiwi
Guest
The reason why Prior is better to play at #7 than #6, number 6 needs to halt the flow of early wickets and build runs, number 7 needs to bat with the tail and score runs before all out. Prior is a match winner, they would be foolish o leave him out, get Root back to six and give the other guy a go more favorable conditions for batting.
ChrisUK
Guest
You can't take out the big scores from any player, it doesn't work like that. Prior's record is depressed against Australia by having such a poor series this time, but even after that, 32 for a keeper is hardly a disaster. And in the time he's played for England against Australia, he's not exactly had that many chances before this series to come in when England haven't been in a strong position has he? Bit harsh to give him stick for that. In fact, during England's disaster at Headingley, he was the one who got England any kind of score at all. Half the Tests he's played against Australia he hasn't even got in second innings.
pope paul v11
Guest
Go Cossie
JimmyB
Guest
If he had 15 hundreds after 40 tests, he would be sitting in some pretty distinguished company.
JimmyB
Guest
Nudge, I suppose it's a peculiarity of us Aussies and Poms that we care more about players performances in the Ashes over their career records as a whole (maybe), Prior has so much credit in the bank with the selectors, media and public that it seems faintly preposterous to us the idea of dropping him, but maybe to an Aussie, they've seen him in the Ashes and feel, what's all the fuss about? I'd bet all my worldly possessions that he will be the England keeper for a good few years yet, who knows he may even surprise a few of you guys this winter.
ChrisUK
Guest
I think we all agree that Australia's pitches will be more conducive to run scoring, but I was referring to the personnel, not the performance. The initial post suggested that the attack was entirely different to the most recent series, I was pointing out that isn't really true. Harris and Siddle were there.