“You are just nakedly jealous he got 6-45 and had every right to. Or racist. Or both.”

Your comments are totally irrational and beside the point.

Moreover, I notice when your views are challenged you resort to personal insults – not just to me but to several others on this thread.

You made three assertions: a) Archer has an English passport – wrong; b) Archer is English – wrong, he Bajan and a British citizen; and c) Archer has a birthright to play for England – wrong again, he had to serve a qualifying period.

And now you say that my three responses suggest I’m racist.

“Jofra Archer was a British citizen at birth. As is James Pattinson for that matter.”

You have changed your argument. Did you think I wouldn’t notice ?

You said in several posts that Archer and Pattinson are English. I said they are not ! Now you say they are British. I agree.

They are not English, they are British. Let’s not quibble about whether it is subject or citizen – I don’t care. The point is that they are not English, which you claimed and which you now have clearly backed away from.

Don’t forget, you started by saying that Archer had an “English passport” which is obviously nonsense.

Archer is not English and he had to serve a qualifying period. Darren Pattinson is English and didn’t have to serve a qualifying period.

Archer had no birthright to play for England as you claim. He had to qualify.

“He has been English since birth.”

No, he’s Bajan (Barbadian) from Birth and a British subject. There is no legal means of acquiring English nationality.

Similarly, James Pattinson is Australian because he was born in Melbourne. He may identify as English (although I doubt it since he chose to play for Australia) but identifying as English provides no legal entitlement.

Darren Pattinson was born in England. That makes him English in a way that James and Joffra will never be. That’s why he played for England without having to serve a qualifying period.

Archer did not have a birthright to play for England as you claim because he is not English. It doesn’t matter if he identifies as English, he still had to serve his qualifying period.

“His English passport trumps your complete utter ignorance.”

Actually, he has a British passport. There is no such thing as an English passport.

“He’s been English since birth.”

No he hasn’t. He’s British, not English. Holding a British passport does not make one English.

Holding a British is no big deal. I wouldn’t be surprised in Steve Smith and James Pattinson have British passports and they have not been English since birth.

“It is his birth right.

No, he had to serve a qualifying period. Then he was eligible.

“At Lord’s, express quick Jofra Archer caused more carnage with the bouncer than perhaps any Test bowler since Mitch Johnson five years ago. And that was on a very slow pitch, while the UK press is now tipping the third Test deck will be faster, perhaps even substantially so.”

I got the impression that it was the two paced nature of the pitch at Lords that made the bouncer more difficult to manage. Even if Headingley is quicker, if the bounce is true, then the bouncer may be easier to negotiate.

I worry that Australia is talking up Warner as the potential match winner. He has never been a match winner outside Australia/SA, and certainly not in England where he averages only 30. If we are relying on runs from Warner I think we are in trouble.

“Burns has 3 hundreds on Australian roads against average bowling attacks and one in NZ against an average attack. ”

It does dissapoint me when one feels the need to disparage a players achievements by denigrating their opponents.

Burns scored 180 against an attack that hopped on a plane and beat the saffers 2 – 0.

His century in NZ was scored against Boult, Southee and Wagner – all decent performers in their home conditions.

“….there had been improved drainage systems in a lot of the grounds.”

Chris, this explanation has been around for several years now.

In the 2013 Ashes series the pitches were dry and spin friendly. The England commentators claimed that it was as a consequence of the improved drainage systems. The Australians were not buying this. They believed it was to assist Swann, who was the leading wicket taker for the series.

In the following year against the Indians the first test at Trent Bridge was played on a dry lifeless pitch and the test was drawn. Again, claims were made that it was caused by the drainage, which was officially denied by the ECB. (The Australians noted that no official comment was provided about the dry turning decks prepared for the 2014 Ashes.) The next 4 tests against India were played on green seamers which England won 3 – 1.

The dry lifeless Trent Bridge pitch of 2014 became a seamer’s paradise in 2015.

I suspect that pitch preparation is not an exact science and that things don’t always go according to the curator’s plan.

“But if pitches similar to Trent Bridge and Edgbaston of 2015 (where the Aussies were respectively skittled) don’t appear forthcoming, their superior pace and spin weapons solidify the favourite tag the visitors acquired after the first Test win.”

Even if England do produce green seamers, it’s not obvious that we will see a repeat of Trent Bridge and Edgbaston 2015. Not only is the England batting line up more fragile than four years ago, but the Australian bowling line-up would be more capable of exploiting those conditions than Johnson, Starc and (a very inexperienced) Hazlewood were in 2015.

Bravo Steve Smith. He’s spared our blushes yet again.

This is his first century outside London. He has struggled to score meaningful runs elsewhere in England, which is perhaps a good omen for the rest of the series.

I wasn’t optimistic before the series started and watching the meek capitulation of the top order I had that sense of déjà vu. Sadly it appears that Smith is the only feather we have to fly with. Of the others, only Head gave us some hope that he might be able to survive at this level.

Perhaps there is another point in Australia’s favour Paul. I think that this is the best bowling attack for English conditions that Australia has sent for some years.

I believe that an attack of Cummins, Pattinson, Hazlewood, Siddle is a better for English conditions that last tour’s attack of Johnson, Starc and (a very inexperienced) Hazlewood.

“But in 2019, again, a sense of optimism again fills the nostrils of the average Australian fan.”

I can’t speak for the average Australian fan, but a sense of optimism does not fill my nostrils.

I am hopeful. We have seen too many abject batting displays on overseas tours for me to think that this time it will be different. Especially if the England curators prepare pitches to assist the seamers.

The conventional wisdom is that Anderson is getting better with age. However he has always been formidable on pitches that help him.

In 2009 he took 4/55 at Lords and 5/80 at Edgbaston in the first innings. He bowled without success in the other 3 tests and ended up for the series with 12 wickets at 45.2.

In 2013 he took 5/85 and 5/73 at Trent Bridge and 4/95 at the Oval in the first innings. For the series he took 22 wickets at 29.6.

As I say, he is lethal on a pitch offering assistance to the bowlers. I just wonder if he is getting better with age, or if he is getting more helpful pitches to bowl on these days.

“I couldn’t care less whether a batsman is 32 or not for this series.”

Nor could I. What concerns me most is that he has played 22 tests and averaged 28.6.

” ….Jonny Bairstow at four, Ben Stokes at five, Jos Buttler at six and Moeen Ali at seven.”

Bill, I’ve only ever seen these guys play against Australia and I don’t recall them performing that well with the bat. I’ve checked the stats and the stats seem to confirm my recollections. Batting against Australia your preferred numbers 4 – 7 have fared as follows:

Bairstow – averaged 28;
Stokes – averaged 30;
Buttler – averaged 15; and
Moeen – averaged 27.7.

Historical averages do not give one much confidence to predict the batting performances in the coming series; but, facing a more than useful attack, on pitches that will nip around a bit, do we think these guys will improve significantly on these numbers ? Buttler probably, but the others, I’m not so sure.

“Wade (my pick at 6) perhaps over Buttler (though close call)”.

I am yet to be convinced that Wade is now a test quality batsmen. He has played 22 test matches, which is a decent sample size, and failed to impress, especially in his last few seasons. In 2016 he averaged 7 with the bat and 24.2 in 2017.

If he makes a solid contribution to Australia’s Ashes efforts, I will be very (pleasantly) surprised.

Wade is pushing 32. Personally, I’d rather go with the young man at the start of his career – Labushagne. He bowls useful leggies also.

“If Australia gets absolutely thumped in the Ashes, I’m sure questions will started to be asked. But until then, Paine is the incumbent, the Test captain and absolute Lock.”

I’ve always wondered how it is when Australia are thumped questions are rarely raised about the coach and selectors. It’s a miracle to me that Lehmann kept his job after so many abject batting displays overseas.

If Australia are thumped in this series I would be looking closely at Langer position.

Coaches of the football codes must be very envious.

“You know that dream. We all had it, right?”

No, not me. There is no way I would want to scrum against the ABs, with our without John Eales.

“The prediction that may have the greatest influence on this series is whether Jimmy Anderson is fit and effective..”.

The conventional wisdom is that Anderson can rip through Australia in England and destroy our chances of retaining the Ashes. However, his record in Ashes cricket in England is nothing special.

Based on my quick calculation he has played 13 Ashes tests in England and has taken 44 wickets at an average of 33.4. Of course he did destroy us at Edgbaston last time we were there taking 6/47 in the first innings. So, who knows what to expect.

Well argued Glenn. I can’t fault your team.

One little (nitpicking) point – when you say re Bancroft: ” Against the Lancashire attack, led by James Anderson, he made 77 and 92no.” This is slightly misleading.

Anderson led the attack in the first innings and bowled Bancroft for 77. However, Anderson did not bowl in the second innings (calf strain).

However, I don’t mean to diminish Bancroft’s achievement. He was by far and away Durham’s highest scorer and saved the match off his own bat. A great captain’s knock.

“not sure how this became a conversation about Starc, that’s a fact!”

Surely it’s obvious. Your comment was made in reply to Noah who said Siddle and Pattinson “have to play” on a seaming deck. I’m assuming that, in his view, Starc/Haze miss out, because no one would drop Cummins. So, it becomes a conversation about the third seamer.

Siddle’s performances 10 years ago and 6 years ago are not very relevant – he is a very different bowler now to 2009, with a lot more experience in England with the Dukes ball. His performances in CC in recent years demonstrate this.

You have used old stats and have diminished his achievements at the Oval to downplay his potential to upset England on a seaming deck.

If we have a green seamer for the first test, I’d much rather Pattinson and Siddle to Hazelwood and Starc.

“(just for perspective, Lillee averaged 20.5 and Alderman 19 something over there.)”

To add further perspective, Starc has taken 29 wickets at 31.2 in England.

At the Oval in 2015, Siddle took 6-67, while Starc took 0-58.

I don’t know if he will “decimate” England on a green seamer, but there is reason to suppose that he is more likely to than Starc.

“…and that is very deflated due to one dead rubber test last time”

I feel uncomfortable discounting stats for intangibles such as “dead rubbers”. It can look like a person is attempting to argue away inconvenient facts.

“Paul, that’s what I really liked about Renshaw – he left a lot and seemed to in that mould of a player who knew how to survive.”

I agree about Renshaw. When you say he knew how to survive, I recall his maiden test innings at Adelaide under lights on a pitch that was nipping around. He played and missed innumerable times. The commentators such as Slater (whom I don’t rate as a commentator) remarked how lucky he was.

It struck me that it wasn’t just luck. Renshaw’s method was to play the line of the ball, and if it moved late, he didn’t adjust his shot. In other words, if he saw it go late, he didn’t try to hit it, which is unusual for an Australian batsmen. As Paul notes above, modern batsmen like to feel bat on ball – “see the ball, hit the ball”.

After the last Ashes series in England, a senior cricket journalist for the SMH (can’t remember which) wrote an interesting article comparing the number of times the Australian and England batsmen played and missed at Trent Bridge. The England batsmen played and missed a huge number of times. By comparison, the Australian batsmen played and missed rarely, they simply nicked off. The journo concluded that luck was not with the Australians.

I’m not convinced luck had much to do with it. I think it is a reflection of the approach the England batsmen adopted to survive on that pitch. Just like Renshaw, they covered the line for the ball and didn’t adjust their shot if the ball moved late.

It must be difficult for a generation of Austalian batsmen raised with the mantra “see the ball, hit the ball” to not follow the ball when it moves late. I hope they can work out a method to survive on a seaming pitch – Ashes success will depend on it.

“But the point was more about the potent attack at home …”.

Yes, of course it was. And my point was that at Lords and the Oval, England couldn’t buy a wicket and they were smashed. England are potent on green seamers, but then, so are Australia. If the pitch doesn’t offer much assitance for the bowlers, then the England bowlers struggle.

“If England leave out the likes of Roy and Buttler for relative unknowns like Jennings and Northeast everyone in Australia would breathe a collective sigh of relief. ”

I wouldn’t ! If England produce green seamers for the ashes then Roy and Buttler are the very batsmen I would hope England pick.

“England is at home and their attack more potent.”

I don’t agree. In the last series in England Australia bowled out England at Lords in the second innings for 103 (after having scored 8 – 566 and 2 – 254) while in the first innings at the Oval Australia bowled out England for 103 (after having scored 481 in the first innings).

The reality is that both batting line ups are seriously flawed. England have only one quality batsman in their top 6, while Australian batsmen do not cope well in seaming conditions.

England’s last test series against the Windies earlier this year demonstrated just how poor their batting line up is. In the first test they were bowled out for 77 in their first innings, while in the second test they were bowled out 187 and 132.

England deserve to be favourites because they are at home, but that’s all.