Now that Cricket Australia and the ACA have seemingly kissed and made up, it looks as though the Ashes will take place as scheduled.
Given that so much was at stake – advertising, sponsors, broadcast revenue, the goodwill of those providing the aforementioned, commitment of the supporters etc. – the chances of the biggest and most traditional of contests being allowed to sail by unchecked were negligible at best, whatever any of the protagonists may have said.
Fouling on your own doorstep is one thing, and this whole fiasco has been a shabbily conducted PR gaffe, but being unprepared to clean it up is another entirely. The proverbial bullet will have been successfully dodged when Jimmy Anderson/Mitchell Starc delivers the first ball to David Warner/Alastair Cook at the Gabba in late November.
And now that the ticket sellers can go about their business confident they actually have a product to sell, it seems apt to start making some robust predictions.
With the future always looking more assured in the warm glow of victory, and the thumping of South Africa warrants as much, it is ‘safe’ to say that come the first couple of weeks in January it will be Joe Root, and not Steve Smith, holding the small urn up for the cameras.
This may be jumping the gun a little bit, but if you’re going to support your team then you’ve got to support your team and that means optimism in large amounts.
Watching Anderson, Stuart Broad and Moeen Ali make mincemeat of Faf du Plessis et al at Old Trafford, it was tricky to see anything other than a comprehensive series triumph Down Under, in homage to that of 2010-11. I’m going to phone the bookmakers right away.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
Okay, I’ll stop with the patriotic jingoism and climb back down to reality, one which finds England in decent shape, especially on the bowling front where there is a good balance, but with worryingly big cracks in the facade.
Question marks over the odd player is usual and not many sides have taken to the field with a completely unchallengeable XI, but to have a top five with three under the hammer is hardly desirable. A strong lower middle order is all well and good, and it is very good, but they will only bail you out so many times.
However, if England turn up in Brisbane with no decent opening partner for Cook, a number three with obvious technical shortcomings, and a far from convincing number five they are serving themselves up for the taking.
If I was Starc or Josh Hazlewood I’d be licking my lips at the prospect of bowling at Keaton Jennings, Tom Westley and Dawid Malan. The first is a catch behind the wicket waiting to happen, the second has a tendency to try and hit balls from outside off through mid-on, and the third just doesn’t appear to have the game for the highest level.
Westley has looked the most at home of the trio, and his debut at the Oval was nice and composed, but it didn’t take long for a high-class attack to pinpoint a weakness – I’ve never seen a top order batsman at Test level faced with no cover point – and the Australian seamers are no mugs.
If the Essex man can iron this out then he could prosper as there is enough there to suggest an ability to contribute on a consistent basis, but the same can’t be said for Jennings and Malan. Both have had their respective temperaments praised and this is undoubtedly a major asset but the mind doesn’t hit the ball.
(AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
In Jennings’ defence, he had an excellent season for Durham last year and started his Test career brightly, but at this moment in time he’s either out of form, devoid of confidence, or has been found out. Keep the ball off his legs and he doesn’t look like scoring at all.
As for Malan, his selection at least made up for the rather strange choice of an average spinner in Liam Dawson, who is more accomplished as a batsman than bowler, to go in at eight, yet it looked like a short-term fix initially and that hasn’t changed. There, surely, has to be better option out there and that goes for the opening slot as well.
The one saving grace is three Tests against the West Indies for the selectors to get their hunches right. It isn’t as if they will be making decisions based on a series defeat, and any hope some of those under pressure still have would’ve been extinguished by such a scenario, yet if it is going to be done then it has to be done immediately.
Basing everything around the Ashes, certainly a year or so out as some are wont to do, is the best way to ignore what is in front of you but at some stage this has to be the focus.
A strong England XI, especially if their bowling unit are fit and firing, will have a good chance of holding on to the urn.
A strong England eight, regardless of whether they’ve thumped South Africa or not, won’t.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I suppose the big difference is, if a player plays those great innings / takes those vital wickets, then overall has averages slightly worse than someone who never seems to do that, it's because in between those "match defining performances" that player has basically done very little, while the other produces less amazing performances, but is a lot more consistent. So it really comes down to which is better, a player who might play a match winning innings every 10 matches but basically be a passenger in between, or a player who does consistently decent but less often amazing, but also fails a lot less often. ie Which is better scoring a hundred and then 10 single figures scores, or scoring consistent 30's and 40's?
Nudge
Guest
Roland Jones. serious, the ashes is in Australia. May as well bring over Derek Pringle
Nudge
Guest
Absolutely I'd take Cummins over Broad. While Broad has been a great bowler over his career, he will have zip on Cummins if he gets a good run at it. Anyone who bowls accurate 150km outswing at 6'4 is going to be a freak. If he plays 5 tests he will take 25-30 wickets at 15
Colin N
Guest
You would take Cummins (15 wickets in three Tests) over Broad (379 wickets in 106 Tests)? Right...
Colin N
Guest
Swann, I believe, also said that he should never have gone on that Ashes tour in the first place as he was physically incapable of bowling his best.
JW89
Roar Rookie
Chris, With all due respect I must disagree. I can't name a single time Watson won a game, played a game changing innings, or had a destructive spell with the ball (maybe this is just my ignorance). I can name all three for Stokes. I think the reason for our disagreement is that you're basing this in the stats - I agree that stats wise they are very similar right now, but I would bet a lot of money I don't have on that changing throughout the next 5/10 years of Stokes! JW
magic
Guest
alec i think australia is still v good team no matter how many players have been retired from the team but still not that good when rt ponting was captain quite sure
George
Guest
Hadn't realised we were discussing who bowls faster... You sound like Lehmann - 'Pace, pace, pace!' Broad has done well at Test level in the period you cite.
George
Guest
Come on, the side was rejuvenated but hardly cleared out. Same coach, same captain, same mentality of hit the ball hard and bowl fast, and same selections based on personality preferences. After bringing in Renshaw, Handscomb and Wade, Australia won a dead rubber and then beat Pakistan before losing in india with only Smith performing consistently there.
George
Guest
Good line-up.
matth
Guest
I may have been rounding as honestly I couldn't remember. I turned out to be 24 when Gilchrist was on his way to the fastest century by an Australian. Here is the commentary: 106.1 0 Panesar to Gilchrist, no run, that's wide and Gilchrist reaches out, a long stride, to defend on the front foot 106.2 2 Panesar to Gilchrist, 2 runs, fifty this time and that's well-driven through cover. That fifty came up in just 40 deliveries, his fastest Test fifty and it's a blink-and-you've-missed-it one. Shame if you did... 106.3 6 Panesar to Gilchrist, SIX, shouts of 'Catch' which I hope can be heard from the man in Row V. He comes down the track, eyes bulging and straight drives that like a rocket. Seeing it like a football, hitting it like a golf ball. Spectators look out 106.4 6 Panesar to Gilchrist, SIX, Row ZZZ this time but there's no sleeping up there as Gilchrist sends that straight and miles. And miles. He's now got 95 Test sixes, I'm not sure that's allowed 106.5 4 Panesar to Gilchrist, FOUR, carnage - this time it's a swing over midwicket, not quite middled, so it didn't go for six... just the four. Almost like a tennis whip that one 106.6 6 Panesar to Gilchrist, SIX, unbelievable stuff. If you can't watch this, I instruct you to go and find some highlights later, oh my word, it's well worth it. This time that's another straight bosh and that's travelling. By bosh, don't misunderstand that it's a slog, it's not. It's just brilliant. Some in the crowd are bowing down
13th Man
Guest
The current Australian lineup beat South Africa in Adelaide (and that was with carrying Maddison) The team that lost to South Africa had Burns, Voges, Ferguson, Siddle, S Marsh and Mennie running around. That south African side also had Steyn as well. Completely different side to the one that England will face at the Gabba.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Yeah fiar enough that Warner and Cook are the openers, but in Australia you'd take Warner ahead of Cook, Renners ahead of whoever else opens, Khawaja ahead of whoever bats no.3, Smith ahead of Root, Handscomb ahead of their no.5. England get there at 6 and 7 (our weakest two spots), and that's about it.
George
Guest
Agreed. He shouldn't keep.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The South African side didn't beat the current Australian side last summer. The side had a clear out after two thrashings and the rejuvinated side (more the side we are looking at now) then won the last test against SA. So you could almost say the current Australian side beat SA 1-0 after the previous one lost 2-0. So it's hard to really use that series as much of a comparison. Also, Australia and SA have a weird relationship. It's the one pair of teams where they both seem to do better away than at home in that match up. SA regularly wins in Australia and Australia regularly wins in SA. The same isn't true of the England v Australia matchup.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I was only commenting on Smith v Root. And one look at their records in recent times and it's clear that while Root is one of the best batsmen in the world at the moment, Smith has just been on another level. He's averaging over 60 in test cricket and has just kept scoring runs everywhere. He is one batsman who stood up in those series Australia lost. I wouldn't call Warner the best opener. But at this point in their careers, playing in Australia, he might harrowly be the choice over Cook. Outside of Australia, definitely not! As for the bowlers, that is a weakness for England at the moment. They have really struggled for a third pace bowler, and of the two main bowlers, both are getting older and have lost a yard of pace, and one of them has a pretty poor record in Australia to start with. Meanwhile, Australia has had a lot of trouble with injuries in their fast bowlers and most haven't been available for a lot of those recent series, but, despite Starc recovering from a foot injury that has caused him to miss the Bangladesh tour, I'd be pretty surprised if he wasn't available for the Ashes, and Australia will likely have more of an issue of struggling to work out who to leave out, rather than trying to find 3 test quality bowlers. Sure, a lot of these guys have limited test experience to date, but that limited test experience has all been very good. So while they need to get on the park and stay on the park and play a lot more tests to have a career record that will put them alongside the likes of Anderson and Broad, when it comes to who I'd want to have in my XI come the Gabba test, none of the English bowlers would get a look in.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yeah, that's the thing isn't it!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I'm not saying Stokes isn't a decent test cricket, but simply that he's not as good as he seems to get talked up. Looking at his record over the last 12 months he's had a couple of good scores, and a lot of mediocre stuff. His last 12 months sits around about his overall average in the mid-30s. I'm just saying that while you say we'd kill to have Stokes in the Aussie side, I disagree because we had a player who was very similar to Stokes output with bat and ball, in fact, slightly better overall, and he was widely panned. Throughout his career people were calling for him to be dropped. With that in mind I would think that if Stokes were playing for Australia we would see Aussie fans calling for him to be dropped like we did with Watson, not thinking he was some lynchpin of a strong middle order.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
2 fully established good batsman and one who looks like he could be but it's still a bit early to fully tell. I think that suggests I rate Bairstow to this point. I put Handscomb and Renshaw in a similar bucket. Look like they could be good, but it's still too early to tell. Bairstow is probably slightly further along. I do worry about Bairstow as one of the top 3 batsmen when he's the keeper though. History shows that when a keeper has been one of the main batsmen they've generally had to give up the gloves. Very few examples where they didn't. Andy Flower is probably the only one I can think of who just didn't give up the gloves and focus on batting. It's also a worry i have with South Africa promoting Quentin de Kock up the order.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
If Australia trot out its strongest line up and do away with their little pet favourites I can't see England winning a single match. For me that would be: Warner Renshaw U.K. Smith Handscomb Maxwell Nevill Starc Cummins (Possibly Lyon in Sydney) Okeefe Hazlewood