What we learnt from Australia retaining the Ashes

I remember reading an article 'England are not as good as they think.' Someone else wrote 'Australia are not as good as they think.' England couldn't win with home ground advantage, but drawing the series may mean they don't take hard selection decisions and get killed here in Australia in 2 years' time. Yay!

Still the records will show.. Draw.. But yes you are right. Away wins much rarer. Especially playing India. Only real exception is when Aus and South Africa play each other. I will discount the last series, too much off field stuff interfering with the result.

You're right it was a tied series, but in this era of away wins being rarer, to square the series was in some way holding ground. More often than not International teams rely heavily on one or two players, always have, that's why fans are in awe of the '48 Aussies, the '70-80's Windies and the '90-00's Aussies. It's also why fans are disappointed they didn't get to see the '60-70's Saffers play. Players like Imran, Kapil and Murali built belief in their teams and that's being emulated by Shakir and Rashid. So the outcome might have been wildly different if Smith wasn't playing, but so too if Stokes was out. It's a game where the tier below greatness needs to gel, because more than one a team will always be rare.

We have a mid table ranked team for a reason. Constantly resting a bowler so he can play more is the most flawed thinking since pundits claimed you can't have two left arm fast bowlers in the same team. The same skewed thinking was applied to not having two left handed openers, til selectors couldn't ignore Hayden and Langer. Anyway my point about Pattinson is he can contribute to wins now, because he's fit and in form. You may just be saving him for 3 months time and go down with a career ender in training.

I learnt that Australia batting wise over reliant on too few. One wonders if Smith was either not playing or not scoring runs what the outcome would have been. But this is not unusual. India heavily dependant on Kohli as are NZ on Kane Williamson. Recent past South Africa leant heavily on AB De Villiers and clearly missing him..... Being a Saffer The Ashes does not have much relevance to me so I saw it simply as a drawn series and not a victorious one for Aus.

Flatters to deceive! Dropped early on during his century against Sri Lanka. Was ordinary in England and again at the start of the Marsh cup. Comes under the number 3. "Anyone who can string a few scores together" umbrella.

Smith too needs to show that he has what it takes to be a good shield player. His average is just... a little too high and too intimidating.

Ahh Paul, you are so right. It's just without Dragons to support I need an outlet. So musing about the potential cricket team foots the bill.

Fair comment. I'd still pick Starc ahead of Marsh though.

Young Patterson hit a century in his last test. Is he not a chance?

I don't hate that suggestion. I think Ussie can count himself desperately unlucky to get dropped in the Ashes and should have been given the opportunity to open.

I agree Siddle should not be a first choice, given the wealth of Test quality fast bowling options, but it makes no sense to me to completely disregard him all together. He was chosen in the squad based on form. That is, form from his previous tours AND form in County cricket. 34 wickets at 20 is very acceptable, so I can certainly understand why the selectors gave him 3 Tests. He's got his mates to thank for not having much better figures. If they'd held some pretty simple catches, he'd have been looking at 12 wickets or more for the series. I'm also wondering how you decided Starc and others were in form? My impression was Starc lost it towards the end of the WC and his erratic spells cost him. Unlike you, selectors don't want to bowl Pattinson till he dropped. He started Tests at the same time as Starc. One's played 19 Tests and the other more than 50. The selectors, like me, would like to see Pattinson seriously add to that tally. The reason why selectors have persevered with out of form batsmen is because we have few Test quality batsmen in Australia at present. No-one predicted Warner's failures and the other guys who were in the squad were simply not up to it. Thankfully a few guys produced the odd quality innings to get us a drawn series, but the reality is, we don't have too many guys good enough to lock down a batting spot. If and when that situation changes and we go back to having lots of quality batting options, selectors might cherry pick guys for certain series. This is nothing new,just ask Doug Walters - terrific in Australia and not so much in England

Think it’s premature to say Labuschagne has proven himself a player of great stature on the international scene and has locked himself into the Test number three position. Firstly stature takes a few series and a few centuries to establish. Secondly, while the Ashes series was a great upswing in his performance and he looks really promising it will take continued success to make him a lock. He will have to overcome one very unpromising statistic- no one has forged a moderately successful Australian Test career (eg with a minimum long term average of 37) after such a weak statistical start to his Sheffield Shield career - an average of only 32.4 after 5 seasons. There are reasons to be optimistic he will break this hoodoo. I also suspect that Gabba wickets and Duke balls have brought averages down a bit recently. But it’s one reason that he is not a long-term lock yet, though certainly for starting this season. He isn’t necessarily a three though. If Khawaja returns at three for example, Marnus would be a good fit at number 5.

If Siddle pops up somewhere else then the selectors have lost their way. No bowler should be benched when in form. Starc should've had the ball in his hand for the first Test and Pattinson should've kept going til he dropped. This ludicrous horses for courses garbage doesn't work. Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie, Damian Fleming......never would've had the careers they produced if they weren't backed to play in all conditions. I said before the last Test that any team with a bowler who has a strike rate under 50 sitting on the side lines fit, is playing a perverse form of money ball. It's ridiculous for any set of selectors to persevere with outta form batsmen who aren't producing defendable totals and then drop quality bowlers who penetrate regularly who are in form and fit. So the new normal in cricket apparently is batsmen can walk away at the end saying it was in their hands they had every chance to prove they were up to it, while bowlers look back thinking I was on a roll there, if only the selectors had shown faith that I could play on a green top, feathered, road, raging turner. Bloody ridiculous.

Good Read and well summed up Lewis. Agree totally about Siddle, picked on passed England tours rather than recent form and has had no penetration for 12 months or so. Not sure what you mean about Starc not bowling well in the Ashes, he only got one game in the winning fourth Test and took 4 wickets from 40 overs. His strike rate in that game was certainly higher than his Test average of 49, but was far superior to Siddle and test bowling average doesn't support critics who say he's expensive. I can't fathom what the thinking was when the hierarchy was talking winning the series, just soundly beat the opposition with one of your premier quartet getting some match fitness after being on the side lines for 2 months and you change the attack! It was a strange series from the selectors, they persevered with some top order bats when they were failing and dropped bowlers gaining form and returning reasonable results with Starc and Pattinson. I agree Lewis that Harris and Bancroft will need lengthy domestic innings to repair the damage and Khawaja and Burns are the likely contenders to partner Warner who is rampant in Aussie conditions. A settled opening combo for the next 12 - 18 months gives time for 23yo Renshaw to hone his technique. He's shown at an early age that he can dig in and in short form, hit. When he adds consistency to those attributes he will rival Hayden as an Aussie opener. His age is his asset at the moment. I remember Hayden when he first got his shot leaving one on the pegs at the G and everyone saying he'd never make it. But he, like Renshaw, knows that 90 percent of the game is mental.

hi DP, I'm trying to work out how any Test side can be considered this early, when not one red ball's been bowled in anger this Australian summer. There are so many batting places up for grabs, I'm guessing only Smith & Labuschagne have their names pencilled in and Labuschagne still needs runs to prove that Ashes form was no fluke.

hi lewis, This is an interesting first piece which will no doubt result in plenty of comments. You've nailed it with your comments about Steve Smith but some of your other remarks are debatable. I agree Labuschagne will play in the First Test but after that, all bets are off. He looked good for the most part when he batted in England, but he also had a healthy dose of luck with a couple of innings extended through some dead ordinary catching. Throw in his less than stellar form in last years Sheffield Shield and I think he still has a point to prove. Nearly all of the guys who toured were picked on some sort of good form, be it WC, County form, etc. Bancroft had shown he was up to the task and was rightly given an opportunity but sadly, he didn't take it. The issue the selectors have to sort out is trying to find an opener who is genuine Test quality right now. We've got 3 guys who are averaging well below 40 and have technique issues. Much will depend on who gets runs in the early Shield games to decide the First Test XI. I also think you're judging Pete Siddle a tad harshly. He did a job for Australia and was really unlucky not to end up with better figures. I'm sure selectors will continue to consider guys like him if they play in conditions that would suit his style of bowling. I'd be amazed if he got a Test in Australia, but might pop up elsewhere in the coming seasons.

Back in Australia now. Warner, Khawaja, Head and Starc in. Harris, M Marsh, Siddle out. The team for the first test: Warner, Khawaja, Labuschagne, Smith, Head, Wade, Paine (c) Starc, Cummins, Lyon, Hazlewood. Batsmen waiting order: 1. Joe Burns, 2. Will Pucovski 3. Anyone who can string a few scores together. Bowlers waiting order: 1. James Pattinson 2. Jhye Richardson 3. Riley Meredith Allrounders waiting order: 1. Mitchell Marsh 2. Jack Wildermuth Keepers waiting order: 1. Alex Carey 2. Josh Phillipe Players to watch: Josh Phillipe, Billy Stanlake (if he plays shield cricket) Riley Meredith

"I understand that Peter Siddle has been a great player over time, but in the matches that he did play this Ashes, he looked second rate compared to the likes of Pat Cummins, Josh Hazelwood, Stuart Broad, Chris Woakes and Jofra Archer." Someone's suffering from a bit of recency bias. Siddle played terribly in the fifth test, but in the first two he was the pick of the bowlers; the reason the statistics do not bear that out is due to the fact that the umpires couldn't umpire and his teammates couldn't catch. And you're also completely overlooking the fact that part of the reason that this tour to England was borderline successful at all is down to our strategy with the ball being to bore England to death, something Siddle facilitated ably. You sure your name isn't Darren, Lewis?

Marsh bats 6 and is expected to make runs. Starc bats 8 or 9 and isn’t expected to make runs. He goes out to bat without pressure. If Starc was in the team to make runs batting at 6 he’d be lucky to average 15. If Marsh batted 8 or 9 and his batting was just a bonus, he’d average 35 plus