Tim

Talk is cheap, and it's time for the actors to play their part. Saying Ponting will be sacked if Australia lose, or that the Australian selectors having reverted to the same players as 18 months ago is reckless is indeed cheap talk. I would add unbecoming. Ponting's future as captain will be determined largely by his performance as captain, and a myriad of other unpredictable factors - not be a simple arithmetic result. The Australian selectors have chosen the best available team for Australia.

As to England, criticism of their not choosing another number 3 I think is not fair game - how big do you want the squad to be?

Here's to a close and exciting series, with heroics and stoics aplenty.

Unfortunately I don't see any English players knocking on the door as even a reserve opener. Key is the nearest one and he is a number three who is still to convince at the highest level. England have the best side available (and had to back Trescothick even if that hasn't come off). Our main worry is the pacemen; please lets have Grevious Bodily Harmison not I want to go back to Great Britain Harmison!

There's quite some English bias in this piece. Just an example:

"For England, the stakes are not quite so high. Most of their players have made their names as Ashes winners."

Oh come on ... part of England's squad has won one Ashes series, part has won none ... do I really have to point out for you player for player how many Ashes series the Aussie players have won? Give me a break.

Tim,
I think it's a bit rich to suggest that if Australia lose this series that Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne et al would depart world cricket being remembered as 'losers'... What do you have to do beyond more than a decade of record-breaking and winning around the world year in and year out to ensure a legend? You're out of your tree mate...

Well I'm afraid you're wrong about two things, Tim.

Firstly, Ponting will not be sacked if Australia lose the series. It was not his fault last time and if Australia are to lose again (which is highly unlikely) there will have to be other factors involved out of his control. In Australia we treat the captaincy with a little more respect than in England, and we don't change captains as lightly as England and other countries have done.

Secondly, the statement "They have gone back to too many players who were dropped after the last Ashes" is simply rubbish. Five players were dropped: Martyn, Clarke, Katich, Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Of those only TWO have been recalled, Martyn (who is in top form and didn't deserve to be dropped in the first place) and Clarke (who is only in for the injured Watson, and is too young to fall into the category of players who are "too old to win a world title fight"). Really, we are all sick and tired of this "Australia is too old" nonsense. Nobody will be saying that at the end of the series...

Great article Tim - a nice excitement-builder a day before the Ashes coomences. I'm Australian and I fancy Australia's chances, but you're right Tim - win or lose, this is the last hurrah for at least four members of the current Australian team. Great players that that are and have been, it would be fitting to see them go out in winning style......

Tim,

Suggesting that their is a causal link between the Barmy Army's support and England's winning record in one of the last two tests is fairly niave. The fact that England win one of the last 2 test matches in the series has always been due to the series already been decided by then - Think Eng v West Indies in recent Champions Trophy.

Australia's only downfall at the moment is their conservative approach to picking older more experienced players rather than young talents. Damien Martyn, I believe, will be the first casualty. Michael Clarke will replace him in the spot he needs and Shane Watson will be at number 6 once Martyn is finished. That should allow the selectors to go with Tait. Now look at that side, Clarke, Watson and Tait bring that age down considerably. And this time around Australia have their very own Kevin Pietersen, his name...Michael Hussey. It will be good to see how they go against each other at number 5.

My best Australian team for the coming series, barring injury, would be:

1 Langer
2 Hayden
3 Ponting (c)
4 Clarke
5 Hussey
6 Watson
7 Gilchrist (w)
8 Warne
9 Lee
10 Tait
11 McGrath

And Englands...

1 Trescothick
2 Strauss
3 Vaughan (c)
4 Cook
5 Pietersen
6 Flintoff
7 Read
8 Hoggard
9 Harmison
10 Jones
11 Panesar

Australia will win because they are on home soil and they have no injuries after Shane Watson recovers from his hamstring injury whereas England are already missing 3 crucial players in Trescothick, Vaughan and Jones. Bell, Collingwood and Anderson aren't as good as those 3 as it will be proven in the coming weeks. 5-0 is very much a possibility and a foreseeable result.

the ashes win of england last time around has given a new dimension to the otherwise one sided ashes. australia are the favourites no doubt, but i am still not writing off england. no matter what, let's all hope for a tightly contested series..

England's last Ashes has given a new dimension to the the otherwise one sided Ashes series. Although Ponting and his men are clear favourites, I still wouldn't count the english off totally. No matter what happens, let us all pray for an evenly contested Ashes which most of us are hoping for...

England's last Ashes has given a new dimension to the the otherwise one sided Ashes series. Although Ponting and his men are clear favourites, I still wouldn't count the english off totally. No matter what happens, let us all pray for an evenly contested Ashes which most of us are hoping for...

I cannot understand all of this talk about being "too old". I think, in the first place, it was just some sledging by Beefy Botham but he was not exactly a spring chicken when he hung up his team bag. The Aussies are just "older" than they were and, in many ways, this will just make them hungrier to win the Ashes so that they do not end their careers as hasbeens who blew it towards the end.

McGrath is on the decline? Does this mean one ball every ten overs is not on perfect line and length instead of the customary one in every fifteen overs?

Gilchrist is on the decline? "Oh dear, my batting average in 85 tests has fallen from 57 to a mere 49. Does that mean I have actually fallen behind Tendulkar, Lara, and Richards with my batting ability? I must get back into the nets!".

Ponting on the decline? "Must be about a year now since my last double hundred in tests".

Lee on the decline? "Why does that bloody radar thing only say 98.67 mph?".

Hayden and Langer on their last legs? "You know Matty, we are going to have to stop these 200 stands because my box is starting to feel a little looser every day and the Sheila's getting a little concerned".

Warnie past it? "Jeez, only 6-89. Must work on the old flipper".

Reincarnate Jardine is what I say. And while you are at it, a few youngsters like Larwood, Voce, Verity and Hammond wouldn't go amiss!

About Tim's comment above - I hesitate to contradict someone called Tim, but he is quite wrong to say that England's Test wins in Australia have 'always' come when the series has been decided. The wins at Adelaide in 1994-95 and Melbourne in 1998-99 both pulled it back to 2-1 with one to play. And those were the days when 2-2 would have been a very good result for England. It's also a mistake to dismiss the part played by the Barmy Army. Nasser Hussain said they made a difference in Sydney in 2002-03; Michael Vaughan said the crowds had been like a 12th player for England in 2005.

I'm a great fan of your blog but you're way out here, Tim.

As an England fan it pains me to say it, but it is England, not the Aussies, who have become "conservative to the point of recklessness." The Aussies have disposed of Katich, Kasprovitch and Gillespie. There is no need for further bloodshed, certainly not before the series has even begun. Langer and Martyn are in great form; why shouldn't they play? Even if McGrath's selection is a gamble, I'd rather gamble on a legend than a keeper who, while manifestly the lovely kind of guy you'd want your sister to marry, cannot be relied upon to catch a cold.

Finally, if strengthening the batting is so important - and there is at least a case that it is - why not select Mahmood, who is going to go for a few but will get a hot of lift on Aussie pitches and is beginning to look like a batting hitter in the Brett Lee mode, over Anderson? Hell, why not play Joyce, or even Jones as a bat and Read as a keeper, and ask KP, Colly and/or Bell to send down 15 overs between them?

I disagree with you Ian. The Australian selectors HAVE been conservative. Martyn and Clarke were dropped after the last ashes series as they were deemed not good enough. They have been brought back and will be exposed.

McGrath is now too slow to trouble England batsmen the way he used to. Lee has never troubled England batsmen. Warne will, but his magic is not for Brisbane. The fourth Australian seamer is a vital component in the outcome of this first match. If, true to form, the Australian selectors are conservative and pick Stuart Clark I predict an England victory. If they do what they should, and be aggressive, they will pick Mitchell Johnson. And then I would be worried.

England can be as negative as they like in Brisbane as a draw represents an excellent result at this fortress of Australian cricket. Australia need to be agressive in selection and then on the pitch. Do their selectors and their team have it in them?

'They are repeating old mistakes, chopping and changing, picking the infirm, playing favourites...'

Yes, but what about England Tim?

Seriously, how can you chop and change and play favourites. If Duncan Fletcher is guilty of anything it is too consistent a selecion policy, for example sticking with Jones and Giles. Had there not been injuries, then there is no doubt the same eleven who won at Trent Bridge would have been taking the field at the Gabba. But cricket doesn't work like that, so the only thing that has caused the 'chopping and changing' are injuries. Much as you appear to dislike him Tim - and probably want a 'proper' Englishman in charge - I don't see how you can blame Fletcher for the injuries. England's old problems stemmed from picking players and dropping them without a decent run, going on county cricket form alone and creating a corrosive team spirit and defeatist attitude. None of which Fletcher can be accused of. England may lose, but it will be because Australia played better cricket and handed the pressure better.

I am enjoying this Blog and the comments, and feel that this article sets up the hostilities nicely. Just one thing though, win or lose i hope we do not see the end of Warme, despite him being an Australian he is to me cricket!

after reading all the articles posted all over the site n other sites, a disturbing pattern has emerged. most of the articles suggest directly, or indirectly, that 2005 season was a 'glitch'. nasser's comment that his prediction of 2-1 to aussies and how he hopes he is wrong sums up my observation. one might say that 'if' the edgebaston match went the other way,which it easily could have, then the ashes could have gone the other way. but that is not the way to go about analysing a forth coming series. i mean matches like that of edgebaston could not be played out even with a script and a hollywood producer behind the camera. i would put both teams at equal if it comes to who walks out with the ashes when the dust is settled. just keep in mind that a tied series means england retain.

The wins in 94/5 and 98/9 were after the Ashes had been decided. England will not be favourite in 2009. Contrary to many ridiculous forecasts, Australia will not fall in a hole when their veterans retire. They still look better than England for many years to come.

I think that the English selectors have lost the plot I couldn't believe it when I first heard that Jones had been recalled into the side, he is a real problem with the gloves and one that Englands field just can't take. He is also a man that when pinned down and under pressure buckles. just look at his timmid performances in the summer. There is very little with Chris Read other than his primitive batting techniques, he is extreamly good with the gloves and diserves a place in the team.

Where as with Australia my money is firmly with them, they have experiance and skill and there is nothing weakening about the addition of Micheal Clarke back into the team.

I would personally like to hear people's views on the Jones or Read case, I think it merits debate.

Thanks for the comments everyone. A word about the post from Dan, which contains a few misapprehensions. The chopping and changing referred to Chris Read, dropped again after only two Tests. That wasn't down to an injury. Nor was the dropping of Saj Mahmood. Or the choice of Ed Joyce ahead of Owais Shah. Or the decision to pick Marcus Trescothick while he was still receiving treatment. And in the one-day team, chop & change has become the norm again. It's nothing against Duncan Fletcher: I greatly admire the way he turned England round, along with Hussain and Vaughan, and masterminded the Ashes win. Nor does it have anything to do with his nationality - which, I believe, is now British.

Paul

I'm afraid I have to disagree with YOU. Martyn is probably the best (in terms of technique) in Australia, and he wasn't "deemed not good enough" but rather recieved a massive number of shocking umpiring decisions. (Everyone said it.) Surely a player of his grace and ability can cope with anything the English can send down.

As for Clarke, he scored a debut century, in India, against Kumble and Harbhajan. That is surely testament to his ability. All he needs is to adjust his temperament a bit, and he should also cope.

As for the bowling spot, there's very little to choose from between Clark and Johnson. However, picking a line-and-length bowler is not an automatically defensive move- ASSUMING HE CAN TAKE WICKETS. As Clark showed earlier this year, he is capable- but of course, so is Johnson.

Not sure I can respond to a response, but here goes: does messing about one keeper constitute a charge of chopping and changing? It could also be argued that returning to Anderson, after injury ruled him out out for the summer following an encouraging performance in Mumbai, is consistent, given Mahmood did not nail down his place. It is also the case that the selectors pick the squad during the summer, while the coach and captain have more influence on tour. That can itself produce some inconsistency, as the two most important men get the team and personnel they truly want, which is important in the white heat of test cricket. Shah and Joyce is debatable; they valued Joyce's left-handedness. Bell's preferred position is three, so a man who can cover all positions between three and six seems fair enough. And as for not picking Trez, well, tghey were damned if they did, damned if they didn't. You know that. And if you truly admired Fletcher you would judge him on results, which have so far been excellent. I remember the 1980s and 90s, I was there at The Oval at our nadir against New Zealand. I don't want to go back there, but I fear a weak coach who bows to media pressure (Fletcher did it once the hopeless, hapless Ed Smith and see what happened there?) who is not prepared to make ruthless decisions and chops and changes according to county form, and therefore disturbs team spirit, will take us straight back there. But he's leaving after the World Cup ends so we'll soon find out, won't we?

Players can't help being 'undercooked' because of injury. They can help being under prepared by a rediculous lack of cricket. As we have zero chance of winning the world cup, the Ashes squad could have played the champions trophy then one more first class match (at least) could be played before the test. At least the rust would have dropped off.
Secondly, I can never remember Fletcher (or others) saying we will drop our best opener for a solid county pro as if we get into trouble in the field, he can bowl us a few overs... As it is Im not sure Panesar for Giles would have made much difference tho if KP can turn them on the first day Im sure Monty would have caused problems. And if you have Jones and Giles at 7 and 8 what good are they if the top 6 falls apart anyhow??
Why does nobody realise, for all the progress England have made these last few years, that it is Fletcher who should be taking the flak. If for no other reason than the defection of Troy C. Noticed the difference in the bowling attacks anyone???
I will not be re arranging my sleep to watch any more of this non contest. High(low)lights will be enough.