England should put Geraint Jones at no3. Bell goes to 4, KP 5, Colly 6 and Freddy gets the break he needs at 7. G Jones looked awesome against the 2nd new ball on Monday and got done by a semi-grubber. He could do some serious damage against the harder ball. So what if he only gets 40, if its run-a-ball, the momentum would be with England. How will the aussies like it, if at 4 down, you have KP, Colly, Freddy and Gilo to come?

NZ - McCullum - 2004 tour to England

Yup, no point in picking on Clark. But I'm convinced England tried it with McGrath: how else to explain Strauss' horrible hoik in the first innings? If so, the strategy got what it deserved.

Australia look the best they have for some time. No matter what anyone says about age, this team knows what it is to win and keep winning. England made alot of statements about dads army, but Australia did their homework and are keeping the kids under control.

Maybe the aussies have filled two of their glaring holes, but i think that England have not.

Our two holes last year were inconsistent Keeping, and poor spin bowling. As much as i respect and applaud Gilo and Jones for their contributions over the past 2-3 years, especially against the West Indies and New Zealand, they have not been able to step up against the better opposition. Giles, picked for better batting against the Aussies, has an average of only 17 (i think). Is this truly valuable?

Putting Geriant Jones up the order merely adds 5 extra overs to the ball when the big hitters come in. Although it is nice to see Jones, a fluid and aggressive player, coming in at No.7, it seems that we should be encouraging a more grafting batsmen for this position, as KP/Fred and Co. are far more flamboyant than other top order batsmen.

This continuation of stroke playing, swash buckling middle order players will result in these frequent collapses in the England line up, as none of them (bar Bell and Colly) seem to have the nouse to buckle under and hang on in there!

If we need a Wicket keeper batsman, then we need one who has the ability to put together consistent long lasting partnerships with the top order players.

Mind you, we'll never get a better spinner than Giles so long as Fletcher looks for a spinner who takes 6 wickets a match, takes five catches and scores a double century... Keep trying Monty!

Tim,

I agree that Australia have plugged a few holes with their third seamer and some solid middle-order batting.

But here's a question for you Tim that no English writer seems to want to tackle - what would England do if circumstances were the other way around?

Australia has held onto older players, and Pidge's continuing foot complaint is another example of the dangers the team will have with older players. But if England had McGrath, would they have dropped him? Warne? Martyn? Langer?

If Nasser was still scoring runs, Goughie still getting wickets, etc they would still be there today probably. And England would have Dad's Army as well.

Australia are risking letting generations of great players get old on the sidelines, maybe there's another Lillie or Border out there somewhere. But slow and easy does it with the transition from the current crop of greats, and a few players will get their 15 minutes of fame at some stage.

But the question stands: England jeers at Dad's Army, but would they blood youngsters if they had old but performing stars still in their team? Would the lust of a few more years of success get the better of them?

"How will the aussies like it, if at 4 down, you have KP, Colly, Freddy and Gilo to come?"
yes, while i see you point about maybe giving freddy a rest....i'm not so sure that the Aussies will be quacking in their boots about the threat of Gillo...!
The batting order is good. any sign of tampering with it is a sign of weakness. Although that being said i think it would be great to have KP batting with Cook, i think their styles really complement each other.

I believe this ashes is only made competitive in columns written in the press. Realistic and mathematical analysis clearly reveals that Australian are going to win it and win it "Easily". No matter England plays Monty or Giles, Harmison or mahmood, Gones or Read.
Have a great day.

Hussey was always going to be a huge factor. He is adding the vital runs that will ease the pressure that should be on Clarke and Martyn. If England can somehow make break-throughs sooner they must pick the scabs of doubt that could easily resurface in the middle order (including Gilchrist). Mahmood and Panesar in I reckon.

Sorry, had to post a comment, I've read just about every blog and comment site I can on the ashes, and prize for the most ridiculous comment of all goes to... Jonathan Huggin.

Jones at no.3!!!!! You're either an ill man or an Australian.

So what if he only makes 40!!!!? When was the last time Jones made 'only' 40 in a test?

He shouldn't even be in Australia, unless he decides it's time to go home - for good.

There was an article here on Cricinfo very recently, on why Indian cricketers aren't as polished as any others, despite being talented. I think England are facing the same problem. They need a few hardened players, players like Ramprakash, Lewis, Chappel. Players who have been playing cricket for more than 5 years.

The Aussies have fixed two holes while Fletcher is set to ensure that England have two fixed holes in Giles and Jones.

I think Tim is right , the real problem for the australia was there third seemer , Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Tait were not only expensive but they were not taking wickets, the two test matches England won , Mcgrath was also not playing . but this time i dont see them winning even a single test .

Steady on Tim! It's early in the morning here and I almost spat my breakfast all over the computer...

Was that an article from you dedicated to actually giving credit to an Australian player where credit is due?

But wait. "Hussey is older then the entire England team", "McGrath and Clark are mere clones" and "all of Clark's wickets are tailender bunnies". Whew! Tim, for a moment there I almost thought you were losing your one tracked pommie mind.

Luckily, however, Tim's usual subtext remains in place, and I get to keep my coffee down, after all.

Huh!

I cant resist spending time writing this, though I have a huge exam tomorrow. True, Clark is a clone of the best bowler in the world. You so could not be paying him a bigger compliment.

As for the hole in the middle order. Well, you base all your analysis on one single series. And I am sure no English cricketer/writer is ever going to let the rest of the world forget for the rest of the millinieum (hope got my spelling correct) that England won the Ashes in 2005! M Clarke, if I remember right, was replaced by Hussey. There was also a certial Hodge. And I just checked the stats. They seem to have done very well. So, there was no HOLE. Australias weakest middle order is better than most other middle orders. With Hussey, things, just got better.

Australia lost the momentum in the last Ashes series by repeatedly and mistakenly putting their faith in a severely underperforming Jason Gillispie. I can't help drawing parallels between that and what England is doing with Steve Harmison at the moment.

Geraint Jones at 3? How about not...

Stuart Clark performed well, but I'm not going to get overly excited just yet. I hope it's fair to say that he'll face more determined batsmen in the second test. A pitch like Adelaide, usually a batting pitch, will be a better test of his ability.

I have to agree with the sentiment though - what Australia lacked in 2005 was a pace bowler that could drop the ball on a length consistently. Even if Clarke's figures inflate his performance at Brisbane, his ability to bowl line and length would have been an absolute blessing in 2005.

I'm interested what you think about Brett Lee's performance (generally and in Ashes cricket)? He's basically an automatic selection, yet I'm still not convinced that he has demonstrated that he deserves it.

Jones may have briefly looked good against the SECOND new ball. This is when the pressure was off (the test was as good as lost) and the bowlers had already bowled 15-20 overs. It's a different scenario when they are fresh and the pressure is on. As a kid growing up in the 80's listening to and watching Australia get belted by all and sundry, I really couldn't care less if Australia never loses again. I'd love it. Jones at No.3 would only help the Aussies win, so, yes, do that.
I remember the bad old days of countless floggings (we always seemed to be playing the Windies), the papers (and the public) never failed to let us know how useless the Aussies were. Now, apparently, they win too much and it's all a bit boring. What would you like them to do? Sit down before the summer starts and work out which ones they should lose just to keep it interesting? The loos of the Ashes in 2005 has spurned unprecedented interest in cricket simply because they lost. People are saying that it was great for the game. Well it is great for the coffers of Cricket Australia. Not sure the game is loved or hated any more than it was, just more people are going to the ground to watch it rather than sitting at home and watching it on tele.
Australia is ruthless and should be admired. They had some problems on one tour. They are now fixed. They don't like to lose and why should they?
As for the Dad's army bit? Well boys and girls, instead of carrying on about how old Warne and McGrath are, just sit back and watch them do their thing. They are very, very good. Take it in while you can because if you are an Australian cricket fan, you will miss them when they are gone.

The 2005 Ashes series, and the first test of 2006 bring to mind a certain cliche. "You are only as strong as your weakest link". This certainly applies to a bowling lineup. Australia in 2005 were exposed by Gillespie and Kasprowicz in poor form and England have been exposed by Harminson, Giles and Anderson in poor form so far. One batsman in a side in poor form will merely make a duck. Bowlers in poor form are much more likely to influence a matches decision - there is nowhere to hide. If there are ever two bowlers in the side out of form, the team is in a lot of trouble (ie Australia in 2005, England in 2006).

I know I have said it a few times before but bring MIKE GATTING BACK! he is a better option then Jones at three. There is also a case for "Tuffers" to also be brought back out of retirement and play with Giles in Adelaide, he stands a better chance of playing then Monty under that fat jowled Fletcher. By the way Tim I bet you and the rest of England would love Harmison to take lower order wickets like Clark can, then maybe you would stand a chance of not letting 6/470 blow out to 9/602 dec.

The middle order has performed more strongly since 2005. The only lasting change since then has been Katich coming out and Hussey coming in. Hussey's effect has certainly been more than Katich's, but one change doesn't make a middle order.

Martyn has looked in far better touch than during the 2005 ashes, although he hasn't played many of the intervening tests, and the Gabba test wasn't a decisive statement on his behalf. Clarke has more famous names behind him than ever, although I'm still waiting for him to deliver - he looked pretty scratchy early in his innings in Adelaide.

Two other factors played a bigger role in the Australian win in the first test, the better performance of the top order, and the poor performance of the English attack (but enough has been written about that). Hayden looked far more certain against the English than in 2005 and Ponting looks in sublime touch. Langer, I thought, didn't look any better than during 2005, where he contributed well but lacked the steady flow of four balls he received at the Gabba.

A middle order is generally going to perform better when the top order gives you 150-200 runs. That's where the Australians won the Gabba test.

Jonathin Hungin - hopefully Duncan Fletcher consults you mate, Jones at 3 - youv'e made my day with that rubbish. Why not get Harmy to open, KP to bring the drinks and bowl half volleys as the perfect length. Don't want to be another cocky Aussie (I was last year when I was in the UK - still waking up in cold sweats from that one) but unless there's rain or the main man Freddie "I play like I'm an Aussie" Flintoff or Kevin "it doesn't matter where I'm from, I'm still gonna hit ya for six" Pietersen, pull off a bigger miracle than parting the red sea - Aussies 5 - zip

Putting Geraint Jones in at 3 is a terrible idea. No.3 is where you put your most valuable and talented batsman. A player capable of tearing attacks apart or playing the role of a third opener if necessary. Geraint Jones does not meet that criteria by any stretch. What's more, he has a glaring and fundament glitch in his batting technique. Rather than bringing his bat through perpendicular to the ground and down the line of the ball, Geraint has his bat at 45 degrees and swings across the line of the ball. Hardly the trait of a top order batsman. This is why he gets bowled one in every three innings. My tip is Geraint will be bowled every second innings this series. England have an absolute star, who accepts every challenge and thrives on it and he should be batting at three.

So far interestingly enough no one has mentioned the parallels between 2005 and what might happen in Adelaide tomorrow, it does not sound like McGrath will play from 2005 this means an England win, selectors should have had magill to pick from

I said it in my last post, and I'll say it in this one: Flintoff to open the bowling, because he's the best fast bowler to lefties in the world.

With Harmy on song in 05, Freddie came in first change, with Jones following him once the ball was starting to reverse. Perfection.

Harmy is way off his game now, but maybe bowling first change would do him the world of good.

If Hoggy and Freddie bowl as well as the both can, we could get through 10 or 12 overs with way less than 50 on the board, and possibly a wicket or two.

Harmy could then replace Freddie, and if the batsmen take this as a signal to play some shots, the occasional lifter could get him in the wickets.

And then Monty to take over from Hoggie after he's tired himself out. From there, we cycle the bowlers around Monty holding an end down, with Freddie coming back on as and when required...

But one thing is key: we need to get in the wickets in the opening spell, which means Freddie has to bowl - leading from the front will be the only way for Freddie to lead.

I certainly agree there was a hole that was perhaps self created by Australian selectors in 2005 through their policy of sticking to a settled combination. After the one day series in 2005, it was amply clear that none of the front line batsmen had shown any kind of concsistent form excpet a brilliant Mike Hussey. It was therefore a blunder to drop him from the test side when none of Hayden, Martyn, Clarke, Gilchrist, Katich were scoring runs. Maybe a case of over confidence then.

As for Stuart Clark, I think except Warne the bowling was so pathetic that any other option would perhaps have made a difference for the better. Having said that Stuart Clarke's disciplined style of bowling deserves accolades.

I was there second day of the Gabba test and the one glaring hole I noticed in Englands game was desire.... Okay they were WAY behind at the time but there was only one player out there (england) that was clapping, rushing in and trying to give at least the appearance of a fight.. that was that maniac KP... the rest were feeling sorry for themselves and generally moping... come on where is the fighting spirit????!!!!! When NZ play Aus they fight they scratch they attack- no matter how many more 'skills' australia have they are fighters... and that makes winners....

That's a very good point raised by Tim..Australia have really filled two big holes of last Ashes series..and England bowlers and batters have really helped them to do so..I m not doubting the abilities of Hussey or Clark but England have made their job a lot easier in both departments.When hussey came on to bat things were already in control to a large extent atleast, with captain in good nick..and before clark early damage was done by the old horse Mcgrath..so their job became a touch easier as they have to just capitalise on the early proceedings.
I woulnd not agree with the fact that Clark wickets were tailenders or Hussey did't face more deliveries from England best bowler(read it as Flitoff :) )...since Champians make use of the best what they have got..so brining up these points are pretty irrelevent in the context of game.
Now the problem is how England will over come this, and the only way to do so is, good start with both bat and bowl, their new bowl bowlers have to make early inroads so that they can put more pressure on middle order(Hussey and cmpny) and their batsman have to make sure that they don't lose early wickets against Mcgrath.I don't want to make much change in English batting order,I would go for Bell at 3, KP at 4, Collingwood can come before Freddie and then Jones. but mere shuffling in batting order won't make any change untill they perform also.I hope they will come to the party and will show Aussies that they are not here to surrender and I would love to see Aussies back on the wall and how they go about that.
HAIL ENGLAND!!

Jez, your off your head to say Langer looked in poor touch. Look at the stats and the highlight reel, he dominated englands bowlers! And Marto, look at his recent form in india etc. He was not playing badly in 2005 but got undone by some severe umpiring errors.

I think Hayden should be under more pressure than langer. He's lost the aggression that gave us a massive head start for so many years. Maybe if they'd kept him in the ODI's then he'd still have it

Much has been made of the apparent similarity of this Ashes series to the last, with Aussies winning hansomely in the 1st test and then going in to the second(possibly)without McGrath.
May I offer some moot points for consideration.
Firstly and most pointedly this series is being played in the Australian backyard not England.
Secondly the omission of McGrath in 2005 was on the morning of the match with little time for considered thought as to the options which, as has been pointed out many times, were an out of sorts and form Gillespie and Kasprowicz and an inexperienced Tait.
2006 will see his ommission (if it occurs) much better covered by his mini-me Clark and the opportunity for Tait on his home ground or perhaps the introduction of a "once in a generation bowler" (one D.K. Lillee's description, not mine) Mitchell Johnson.

Not only aussies filled their gaps but also our selction was not right either.fletcher and freddie should bring in monty for giles,sajid for anderson and even read for jones.i think read is better keeper and better batsman than jones than InshaAllah we will win ashes again

Jerm, I didn't say Langer looked in poor touch. He looked pretty good, I said he looked in as good a touch as his 2005 ashes form, where he was also pretty good. He'll probably make more runs here because the bowling looks far less threatening. Martyn got some poor decisions in 2005, but he didn't look like making runs anyway... remember Martyn had been Australian's best batsman for 18 months before the series, but he struggled in England.

I don't think Hayden should be under pressure, because he's part of one of the great opening partnerships. Rogers and Jaques are making lots of runs and are very unlucky to miss out on Test spots, but the two guys out there have great records. They deserve to be backed.