Ashes predictions

I'm torn.  A bit of me thinks this and a bit of me also thinks we're going to get thrashed.  There are reverse comparisons with a few years ago when England fans assumed we were going to walk the back to back series because Australia weren't much cop as they didn't have Mcgrath, Warne etc any more.  This ignored the fact that you don't need to have all time greats in your side in order to still be a very good team.  Anyone who had followed the fortunes of that Aussie team knew they were a lot better than that and were improving all the time.  OK, no one predicted that Mitchell Johnson was going to suddenly put it all together but nevertheless that was a much better team than a lot in England gave them credit for at the time and the danger signs were there in the home series win which really flattered us.  We were very lucky at Old Trafford where we were saved by rain - if that hadn't happened we could easily have lost that series too.  Yet I remember loads of people talking confidently about how we were going to go Down Under and wallop them again.

This time it's the other way round and the narrative seems to be that Australia are a total powerhouse and England are in relative disarray.  Well I'm not sure I agree with the first half of that equation but I do have some sympathy with the second.  Australia are good but they are not invincible even the Windies were able to expose a certain soft underbelly at times in the recent series.  There are still definitely some issues with their batting and all those 'bangers' they have always risks coming unstuck against a moving ball in England.  Rogers is quite a key player for them from that point of view I think and his preparation has not been great.  Like you said the jury is still out on some of Aussie players ability to perform in English conditions.  So I agree that with that.  I also think we will prepare pitches that will try to negate their big advantage in the spin department (unlike last time when we prepared a ton of turning tracks for Swann).  This Aussie side is more like late 80s/early 90s Australia, who were a good side but one that benefited massively in Ashes series from English cricket being in total meltdown across the board at the time.

So the key question is what shape are England actually in.  On that I'm less confident.  Bowling wise we're heavily dependent on Broad and Anderson.  We have no obvious spin threat and our back up seam attack is inexperienced, unsettled and really quite expensive.  An injury to Broad or Anderson and I think we'd be in deep trouble but there's every reason to think that in our conditions they should be the best 2 bowlers in the series.  Jimmy's the key I think; this is the defining series for him.  Either it's going to be the crowning moment of his fantastic career or the point at which you start to see a sharp decline.  The batting needs to be better than it was against New Zealand.  I think the truth is we don't actually know how good a Test batting lineup this is.  Since the last Ashes we've played Sri Lanka, India, Windies and New Zealand.  In my opinion only NZ had a bowling lineup that was genuinely Test quality and we looked dodgy.  On the other hand early season English conditions normally make everyone look dodgy against quality swing bowling which is what NZ had.  Our batsmen absolutely pulverised India last summer but it was a very poor Indian bowling lineup most of whom won't be playing international cricket in a years time.  So I think the jury is very much out.

My head says Aussies will win 2/3-1 though and I'm not sure it'll be a great series; Ashes cricket has generally produced pretty poor quality series for a while now.

Oh crap, forgot about that!  To be honest my record of predicting cricket has been utterly dire for a long time.  It's particularly hard to predict England though because we're so stuck in this bubble in terms of cricket coverage in this country where everything revolves around detailed assessment of every aspect of every English player.  I think it means their strengths and their weaknesses tend to be over exaggerated particularly in terms of comparisons with the opposition.  Now I might be fully aware of that but still get suckered by the narratives around a particular players and parts of the side.

For example, Ballance.  I entirely agree with you that what matters is how (and to some extent when) players score their runs.  Against Windies and NZ Ballance looked like a player who had been found out.  What you are looking for is if there are patterns of dismissal beyond a player simply getting a good one first up which can happen to anyone (and for which Lyth seemed a bit unlucky in the NZ series).  Ballance was consistently getting out to the very full late swinging ball and it was clear that the word had gone out that if you deprive him of the short stuff keep him under pressure at some point he will just get horribly tangled up on the crease to one that does a little bit more than expected (India on the other hand took the standard strategy against a Test newbie and tried to bounce him out and he feasted).  That is definitely worrying in a number 3 and I agree with you that warning lights should be flashing.  On the other hand though maybe it was just a bad run and a temporary flaw which he can correct.  It looked pretty bad but it's hard to really know for sure when you haven't seen that much of a player.  If Alistair Cook had entered his lean run say 18 months into his Test Career instead of 5 years would people have written him off? It's an inexact science and there's a lot of luck involved when it comes to timing I think.  Just think how Ballance's career would be analysed if he was in the opposition and less under the microscope.  They'd probably be saying this is a young guy who had a great start and has just hit a bit of a bump in the road but talent will probably out etc.  In England we're all already diagnosing the possibility of terminal career failure.  Makes rational assessment quite difficult.

The problem with the backup seamers is that they are all still in the 'potential' category whereas nearly all Aussies are in the 'proven' category.  It wouldn't be shocking if Wood or Finn delivered the goods, it might be a bit more surprising (and very interesting) if Footit played a strong part but we don't really know.  Aussie question marks are largely about fitness and transforming performances to new conditions, our ones are still whether our guys are up to it full stop.  I'd definitely rather have their question marks than ours.  Lyon is a real threat - I honestly if spin is a big factor in this series then we're be in a lot of trouble.  I mean NZ's spinner (name temporarily escapes) did far more damage on far more unhelpful wickets than Lyon's going to get.  That's pretty worrying because he's in a different league; possibly the number 1 spinner in the world at the moment actually (admittedly from a very average bunch but still).  Moeen's confidence looks shot to me with bat and ball.  I think they were hoping Rashid would do enough in the ODI's to demand selection but he didn't really as the dice were so loaded in the batsmen's favour he never really had a chance of standing out. Clearly they should have given him a chance in the Windies, I cannot for the life of me understand why we were selecting Tredwell.

Their batting, I agree, is not as strong as it is being portrayed.  They have a lot of guys who will devastate poor bowling and take a game away from you very quickly.  I'm not quite so convinced that they have the gritty technical players that you need to do well in English conditions.  Everyone used to bang on about Hayden and Gilchrist but the core of that great Aussie lineup was really a set of rock solid Test batsman who had the technique and temperament to play massively long innings.  It's interesting they went to Voges, who has good experience in England, because it suggests that they're worried about that as well.  So a lot will come down to the sort of cricket that is played.  One reason I don't think this will be a great series is that I feel England will aim for attritional cricket.  The aim will be for flat decks that don't deteriorate too much roll out 4 seamers to bowl defensive lines after Anderson and Broad's initial burst and try to test Aussie patience while hoping their bowlers are not up to the work rate and become frustrated with unresponsive tracks.  That's the only way I can see England really winning this series and that will ultimately come down to which opening bowlers do the most damage which is where we may have a tiny edge.

The other way of looking at it is that we don't give the opposition a very tough workout and therefore they'll be undercooked when they play against our top players.  I think in the past touring teams have complained that they get poor preparation because counties largely put out their 2nd XI's in these games.  I'm pretty sure the Aussies would far rather be properly tested.  It's just the reality of county cricket though - back in the day when the touring side used to go round all the counties they used to have a sponsor for that series of games and it could be quite lucrative for a county to beat/put up a good performance against them.  These days the games are far less prestigious and there's no money in it so no county is going to want to risk injuring its frontline opening bowlers in a glorified friendly.  It is different down under because of the way their players are paid, the fact they have much fewer professionals on the books of their state sides and they play a great deal less cricket overall.

Not the start we were looking for, 61/3 half an hour before lunch.

England will continue to struggle in the 5 day game while Alistair Cook is captain, he must be instrumental in picking Ian Bell, who will struggle to get a 100 runs in the series, should he be picked for the whole series, which he shouldn't, this england side looks decidedly lightweight and if Cook struggles in the first couple we should drop him and bring in Morgan as captain he showed what a positive approach to cricket can bring to a side low on confidence, my prediction England to go 2-0 down after two, Cook and Bell dropped, players picked in form under Morgan and we only lose 2-1

Cook is one of the best opening batsmen this country has ever produced, our all time leading run scorer and he has made more centuries than any other England player.  On anyone's reckoning Cook has had a stunningly successful career and will go down as one of the best players of his era. Whereas Morgan's technique proved to be woefully inadequate in the Test Match game when bowlers bang it in short at will, test your technique and patience outside outside off stump and pack the slip cordon.  Morgan comprehensively failed all of these tests.  He would be a walking wicket for Johnson, Starc etc and his performances in the longer form of the game have been so poor in recent years that he has been intermittently dropped by his county side.  He has more or less acknowledged that he is a one day/T20 specialist.  There is absolutely no chance of Morgan ever being England Test captain and that is entirely a good thing.  Cook's captaincy is average but the influence of captain's as a whole is massively overrated - I can remember when people said similar things about Adam Hollioake's transformational skills as captain (post Sharjah Tournament win) that they are now saying about Morgan.  Adam who? Exactly. The ODI's were a promising start but it had as much to do with us picking young players who were suited to the format and had something prove against a New Zealand team that were missing some key bowlers and looked a bit jaded as any mythical change of 'brand'. I see Morgan as a placeholder captain, I very much doubt he will lead England into the next World Cup and if he is such an inspirational captain what on earth went wrong at this World Cup?! The next Captain of the England Test side will be Joe Root and that could happen if we lose this series but it will not come at the expense of Alistair Cook being dropped- I fully expect Cook to be opening the batting for England for another 5 years.  The guy deserves to be treated as one of England's all time greats because he is - some of the press hounding of him has been ridiculous.

Ian Bell is a frustrating but high class batsmen who is going through a horrible run of form.  But I think it's very unlikely England will drop one of their most consistent and experienced performers over the last decade especially as there is not really very much lining up to replace him.

This is a magnificent fightback from England here but I fear that the wicket was dead on arrival and this may well be a very boring match which is exactly what I think England want it to be.  They want to frustrate and exhaust the Aussie tyro bowlers over a condensed series.  I felt Lyth and Cook's dismissals were more nervy than anything else - poor shot selection, trying to be too aggressive.  Bell looked wobbly but ultimately got a good one that most batsman would have struggled with early in their innings.  Once they got themselves in these 2 have looked mostly untroubled.  England are now on top - Australia need a big session.  Normally the Ashes pendulum would suggest they'd get it but it's hard to see where the switch in momentum is coming from before the new ball by which time it might be too late to turn the tables in this innings. 

Can definitely hear Irene being sung at the cricket too!

Decent days cricket, but Buttler was a bit daft at the end. 50+ quick runs in the morning would be nice.

Mr Jinx.......you didn't stay away? We're doomed I tell ya, doomed !

PS - Was that you sat in the crowd wearing the Borat mankini?