My playing XI for Old Trafford

1. Shane Watson
2. Chris Rogers
3. Usman Khawaja
4. Michael Clarke
5. Steve Smith (if injured, Ed Cowan)
6. David Warner
7. Brad Haddin
8. Peter Siddle
9. Ryan Harris
10. Jackson Bird
11. Nathan Lyon

For me, this is Shane Watson's last chance at opening. Needless to say, he hasn't performed as well as I expected opening the batting. If he fails again at Trent Bridge, drop him down to six.

Khawaja stays. Despite that inexplicably stupid shot he got himself out on in the first innings at Lord's, he's shown his grit and class in the second innings. I hope he kicked himself after that first innings, and learnt from it. Otherwise, he looks a keeper.

Clarke moves up to four. Our best batsman should not hide down at five when all around him the ship is capsizing. He's better placed to put a meaningful total on the board, as he is capable of, the higher up he bats.

My preference for five is Steve Smith, but if he's injured, Cowan gets another bat. Maybe Cowan would need to swap with Khawaja in that case.

David Warner replaces Phil Hughes and comes in at six. It's hard to ignore 193, albeit 193 against a Second XI. Putting him down at six will let him play with his natural aggression, away from the moving ball and allowing him to capitalise on the fatigued bowlers.

Hughes is out because he's rubbish. End of. Okay, maybe it would be worth looking at him again once Rogers et al have been shuffled out, but this is not the time. The Ashes are much too important.

A few changes to the bowling attack. First, Pattinson is out; he's not been in form this series, and may continue to prove a liability if persisted with. Also, Agar is out; his 98 was impressive, yes, but he hasn't been doing the job he was picked for - bowling.

Jackson Bird comes in as replacement for Pattinson. Probably the most promising young bowler in Australia, he performed well in Hove, keeps a good line and length, swings the ball, and has amazing figures.

Nathan Lyon replaces Agar as the spinner. This is a bowler who came off the back of a career-best performance of 7/94 in India. He is a much superior spinner, I don't know why Agar keeps getting picked ahead of him.

Cross fingers and pray.

Is the second coming of David Warner imminent?

I've got to be honest, I thought we had seen the last of David Warner. Foundering amid scandal and lack of any good showings, the man was exiled to the Dark Continent, where I presumed he would continue to fail to impress, heralding his quiet departure from Test cricket. I presumed (hoped) the same thing would eventually happen to Phil Hughes before the blasted fellow made 86* at Trent Bridge.

But, O wondrous thing! After making 6 and 11 in succession against Zimbabwe, Warner defied all expectation and made a blazing 193 against South Africa A yesterday. This is the same David Warner whose last eight Test innings have been (going backwards): 8, 0, 2, 71, 26, 6, 23, 59, averaging at 23.50. Go figure. Yes those are his innings over the tour of India. Granted, South Africa A is not India, but any first-class 193 is a good 193, to my mind.

When it looked like David Warner was resolutely on the slow road out of the Test team, he goes and confounds us all by coming lip-smackingly close to making a first-class double century, with twenty-three fours and one six (which still leaves a respectable 71 runs made from running between the wickets). When our Test batsmen struggle to even make fifties, let alone hundreds, in the Ashes, David Warner's 193 suddenly makes him look tantalisingly attractive. Faith has been restored in the beleaguered fellow, and suddenly he isn't a liability who needs to be permanently rotated out of the team, but a prospective saviour of Australia's Ashes hopes.

Perhaps the best thing to do, after all, is stick with Warner. Invest in him, keep faith in him, develop him. The lad shows promise after all, and, eventually, he ought to come good. The same applies to Cowan, Khawaja, Smith, Watson and - dare I say it? - Hughes. Good Test sides are built on a cohort of strong, experienced, established players who know the game and, importantly, know each other. Look at the currently dominant Test sides: South Africa, India and, especially, England. All are built around a core of established, experienced players. As was Australia in our heyday. Continually chopping and changing a team in a desperate search for a better performer is no way to build a Test-winning side in the long term. Yet that is precisely what Australia is doing: groping around for new players in a wrong-headed attempt to build a strong team, rather than doing the hard yards in investing long-term in players. Stick with Warner and the rest, and be patient with them until they come good.

Australia are hoping, praying, grasping for anything - anyone - who can restore dignity to this tour, who can at the very least help Australia leave England not completely humiliated. David Warner returns to England ahead of the Third Test. It is very likely he will get a spot in the side. Let's just pray he can replicate his great feat against England.

Match Report: Trent Bridge

What an amazing Test match. The frills and spills, the ebbs and flows, the heart-in-mouth moments, the triumphant heart-fluttering moments, the relief and the heartbreak. This match had it all. Australia did very well to come within a whisker of claiming a famous victory in this First Test, although I think we had it in us to get over the line; we were very unfortunate not to claim a win in this Test. Here's my match report.

England First Innings
Australia may have lost the toss and, by extension, our preferred opportunity to bat first on the First Day pitch, but it soon became clear that bowling first may, in any case, have been the better option, what with the muggy overhead conditions and all. Indeed, the very first balls of the innings gave elaborate, shapely swing for the likes of James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc. Had Australia batted first, Jimmy Anderson might have wreaked havoc with the new ball and seen Australia off for a total even more measly than 215.

The first innings was undoubtedly owned by Australia. After the new ball quietened down, Peter Siddle came in to flush the English out. With first innings figures of 5/50, he masterfully dispatched Root (30), Pieterson (14), Trott (48), Bell (25) and Prior (1) in succession. At that point England were reeling at 6/180, having suffered what could only be termed a nervous collapse. Siddle had done his job by then, and Starc and Pattinson finished off the England innings mercilessly, leaving England in a precarious position with a total of only 215.

It looked like the bad old days were back. It looked like Australia, having been written off and sneered at in the British press, had rediscovered their cricketing ascendancy. With England reeling and in disarray after that incomprehensible innings, Australia looked much more threatening, much more like the big bad Australia of old that had sent England into 16 years' of Ashes exile, than the Australia they were expecting.

Of course, in the Aussie camp, everyone knew that the onus was on the Australian batsmen to follow through with the positive work done by the bowlers. That's what made us nervous.

Australia First Innings
We always knew there was a danger of this happening. The opening partnership looked good, before it was scalped barely in its infancy, triggering a top-order collapse that left Australian fans looking on in horror, helpless as Australia went from 0/19 to 4/53 in the space of eleven overs. Michael Clarke, the only batsman we could truly rely on to make a big score, went for a duck off six balls.

Steve Smith, the next Steve Waugh, the comeback kid, the lad who made 92 in India while all around him the Aussie ship was capsizing, surely, would save the Australian innings. Indeed, he made a well-earned, tension-easing half century, but it wasn't good enough. Smith failed to do his duty, and by then we were getting into the tail with only the serial dud, Phil Hughes and the resurrected wicket keeper Brad Haddin left to rely on.

The Australian collapse resumed unabated. After Smith went, Australia standing at 5/108, Haddin, Siddle, Starc and Pattinson followed, making all of five runs between them, leaving Australia seconds from death in the risible position of 9/117. We had squandered this opportunity to stamp our mark on the series by winning the First Test. We would, by our own incompetence, gift England a lead of nearly 100 runs, which would become 600 by the time England's second innings was finished, and we would be humiliated, gutted, thrashed, flogged, mutilated, ravaged and wrecked in our second innings, losing the Test by an innings and 400 runs, which would set the tone for the rest of the series.

But then our saviour arrived. An inoffensive-looking lad of 19 years who seemed, in all honesty, out of his depth, came on at no.11. His being there was just a formality. He would go next ball, or else give the strike to Hughes in order that he would snag a couple more runs before Australia's last wicket inevitably fell.

But he didn't go. Turns out the kid was quite nifty with the bat, scoring a few quick runs for Australia off his own steam. The kid was very enthusiastic; he almost got himself run out, but the DRS saved him. "All right, laddy," the England bowlers said. "Let's see what you make of the short ones." Short ball after short ball England bowled, which Agar neatly pulled, cut and hooked away to the boundary, unfazed.

Who was this kid? He just wouldn't go. England were visibly frustrated, and out of ideas as to how to get rid of this uppity debutant no.11, who showed no signs of weakness as he brought up his fifty, amazingly levelled the scores - to great relief from the Australians - and edged closer and closer, at an alarming pace, to his hundred. At 98 not out, every Australian fan was sitting on the edge of his seat, the tension unbearable: this debutant, nineteen-year old no.11 was about to make a hundred on debut. His heroics had already saved the match for Australia. But, eager to get those final, unattainable two runs, he lobbed one into the air, not sending it quite deep enough.

After punching the air in triumph, every Australian's face suddenly fell as we watched the ball fly into the taunting hands of Graham Swann as though magnetised. Heartbreak. Disbelief. Frustration. It was Mitchell Starc's 99 all over again, except the disappointment was much, much greater. We had cheered on this prodigious debutant no.11, who had seemingly come from nowhere, as he heroically saved the Test for us, this complete nobody showing the kind of confidence and skill that were painfully missing from the top order. We so, so wanted him to get his century, but, in the end, he was as eager as we were, and made his first fatal mistake of the innings.

It wasn't just a good innings, it was a classy and skilful innings. Agar had left the England bowlers completely powerless, and seemingly with no idea what to do as this slip of a boy bashed them to the boundary again and again, clocking up the runs at an alarming rate. It was luck, and Agar's own nerves, more than anything, that finally got the better of the kid. Who knows how far he would have gone if not for that vital, and, as it seemed, uncharacteristic mistake?

So Australia, having come from complete disarray to being undoubtedly in the stronger position, went into England's second innings ready to fully take advantage of their lucky recovery from near-death. If only.

England Second Innings
Didn't that look like we were on top again? 1/11, Root goes for 5. 2/11, dangerous Mr Trott goes for a golden duck. The Australian fans were licking our lips, ready to plough through the England batting order once more. We were slightly disheartened when the next wicket didn't come, though. Danger man Kevin Pieterson had made his half century and was cruising into the sixties before he was neutered by Pattinson. Alastair Cook was, thankfully, soon to follow shortly after making his fifty. A brief blip, nothing to worry about, we assured ourselves; Siddle and Co. would work their magic again to get through this innings quickly - wouldn't they?

But the wickets didn't fall fast enough. 4/131 - 5/174 - 6/218. Even as Bairstow and Prior added useful runs to England's total, Bell looked immovable. His partnership with Stuart Broad had us biting our fingernails again, willing Siddle or Pattinson or Starc or Agar or someone to make a breakthrough soon.

And it looked like we had. Anyone watching would have known we had. Stuart Broad knew we had as he followed the ball in horror as it left the edge of his bat and flew neatly into Michael Clarke's hands at first slip. So clear-cut was that dismissal that Clarke didn't even bother appealing, at first. But Aleem Dar, inexplicably, didn't budge, not even as the Aussies crowded around him screaming at him to raise his bloody finger. Broad, cleverly arranging his face to make it look as though he hadn't a clue what the Aussies were appealing for, walked over to his partner and, amazingly, stayed put. He didn't walk. He didn't even have the grace to acknowledge that he was out but that he was choosing to stand his ground - rather, he was dishonestly pretending he didn't know what had happened. With no reviews remaining to right this wrong, Australia were left utterly helpless.

Play returned with the Australians fuming. Robbed of the wicket they dearly needed, they stalked off the field at the end of the third day in bad blood. Returning the next day, they pointedly declined to clap Broad when he brought up his fifty - a tainted fifty. His eventual dismissal brought a savage pleasure to every Australian fan watching, although in fairness, this time Broad walked off without waiting for the umpire's decision, showing perhaps that he regretted what he had done the previous day.

Soon after Bell brought up his hundred, a genuinely good innings that had put England back into a dominant position. Thankfully for the Australians, England's innings were wrapped up quickly, with Bell going for 109, Swann for 9, Finn for 2 and Anderson for 0.

The Australians were feeling very fortunate that England's lower order could not bat as strongly as Australia's, as Australia were left with a total of 310 to chase. Certainly not unreachable, but, knowing Australia's batting lineup, any more may have simply been too much.

Australia Second Innings
What Australia really needed was a good opening partnership. Then, the middle order - the likes of Clarke and Smith - would not be under as much pressure. Not least, it would mean we would have a buffer against a middle-order collapse.

And, indeed, the opening partnership looked good. Shane Watson, declining to attempt to dominate the bowlers as he tried to in his first innings, played it safe, played calmly, and steadily clocked up the runs. Chris Rogers looked safe, a veteran of English conditions he, frustrating the bowlers with his adroit batwork. As Watson and Rogers brought the opening partnership closer to the 100 runs mark, Australians' breathing began to ease as Australia edged into safe waters.

Together Watson and Rogers made 84 runs before Watson was unluckily dismissed LBW on 46. Cowan came to the crease, on a pair, every Australian watcher sending him the same message: please, please don't cock it up. He looked precarious, making the same wild swipe at a wide ball that saw him dismissed for a duck in the first innings, but, luckily, the ball didn't find the edge this time. Getting himself off the pair, and taking three boundaries, he almost looked set to continue Watson's good work. Almost. Dismissed for 14, he left Australian fans glumly wondering why he was even in the side in the first place.

Then the collapse started. At first it didn't seem like a traditional collapse, rather a slow-motion, tortuous execution as the drip-drip of falling wickets allowed Australia fleeting glimmers of hope before the next wicket fell and we became disheartened again. By the time Michael Clarke's wicket fell, it seemed England had grown tired of playing the psychopath serial killer who plays with his food before he eats it. The wickets of Clarke and Steve Smith fell one after another, and Phil Hughes went for a duck two overs after Smith, Australia standing on 6/164.

With Haddin and Agar at the crease at the end of day four, Australia allowed ourselves some hope. There was over a hundred runs to go, but yet we still had four wickets in hand. And our in-form batsmen were by no means finished; Haddin had proven himself over his Test career to be a solid, competent batsman, and hadn't Agar performed magnificent heroics with the bat in Australia's first innings? Still yet, Starc, Siddle and Pattinson could all bat. This match was by no means finished yet.

Agar declined to play in the same attacking way he did in his first innings, being very defensive and careful. Perhaps it was to his detriment as he went cheaply, having contributed only 14 runs off 71 balls. Starc, who showed in Perth against South Africa this summer that he could hold his own against quality pace attacks, went for 1. Siddle went for 11 soon after.

This was frustrating. We had blown it again. We had deluded ourselves into thinking the Australian side had any chance in an Ashes series in England, and were about to find out the hard way how wrong we were. Pattinson would go for something measly like 2 or 3 like his fellow tail-enders, and Australia would lose comfortably and anti-climactically by around 80 runs.

But he didn't. Haddin and Pattinson stuck in there, putting runs on the board quite quickly. Cynical resignation turned to a faint glimmer of hope. A faint glimmer turned to a genuine belief that these two could make it. When Anderson, the scourge of the Australian batting order, limped off the field, having seemingly injured himself fielding, genuine belief turned to slightly astonished confidence as we thanked our luck and were ready to see Haddin and Pattinson gobble up these last few runs or so with England's most dangerous bowler out of the picture. Australia looked set to bury the ghost of Edgbaston 2005, comparisons with which were irresistible.

 But he came back on. Bugger. Haddin and Pattinson brought Australia tentatively to fifteen runs to win before the appeal came. It was a desperate, unconvinced, pleading appeal more than anything. Aleem Dar gave it not out, as they expected, but with Australia fifteen runs to victory, why not review it? Alastair Cook threw his protocol to the wind in the hope that hotspot might show some tickle of an edge.

And it did. An inside edge on Haddin's bat that carried to Matt Prior. The viewers watching at home already knew: there was no other explanation for that noise. The England team squealed and punched the air in disbelief at their luck: they had won the First Test - off an overturned decision by DRS. England win by 15 runs.

Summary
What Australia really needed to do in the First Test, to stamp their mark on this series, was not only to win it, but to come in, guns blazing, and utterly overwhelm England, leaving them reeling, dazed and confused about what had just transpired. Australia showed signs of doing this early on in the match with the ball, having dismissed England for a paltry 215, but failed to follow through with the bat. If it weren't for a young nineteen-year old debutant, Australia would have been utterly decimated in this First Test, and may not have recovered to make any impact on the rest of the series.

Australia did well to lose by such a small margin, but Jimmy Anderson won the day with his ten wicket haul. Australia will struggle against him. It is tempting to presume Michael Clarke, Shane Watson, Steve Smith, Chris Rogers will not be as quiet in future Tests as they were in this one, but with Jimmy Anderson, "the magician", spearheading England's attack, it might be a presumption too far. Perhaps the Australian batsman actually did well to hold Jimmy off as they did, and even more comprehensive devastation is ahead?

My tips for the next Test at Lord's: Cowan out, Khawaja in. Starc out, Bird in. Keep Agar at #8.

NOTE: Future match reports probably will not be in this format. This post went on for far longer than I had anticipated.

On Stuart Broad, walking and the DRS

I didn't actually see the Stuart Broad not-out howler last night. I expect I was asleep. But when I woke up and hopped onto Twitter this morning to see how the cricket went, just about every cricket tweeter I follow was going on about this controversial decision of Aleem Dar to give Stuart Broad not out after edging one right into Clarkey's hands. Not only this, but there was heated discussion about Stuart Broad's decision not to walk when Dar gave him not out.

I had my reservations about making a judgment when I read all this, having not actually seen what happened. I tend to give the batsman the benefit of the doubt on walking until the following question is answered: did the batsman actually see the catch? Did he watch the ball into the fielder's hands? Simply put, did the batsman know he was out? I immediately set to finding a video of the incident to have these questions answered.

It was quite stunning. A thicker edge I cannot remember witnessing. A more regulation catch there never was. Only Broad's being clean bowled would have been a more straightforward dismissal. The Aussies shouldn't even have needed to appeal the catch. Yet, he was given not out. You couldn't make it up.

More to the point, Broad's eyes never left the ball: he watched it right off the bat into Clarke's hands. That, for me, finally satisfied me of Broad's guilt. No one can say he didn't know he was out. He should have walked.

Yes, I am one of those "sanctimonious idiots", as Twitter's legsidelizzy calls us, who think a man should walk if he knows he's out. I don't accept the argument that the players should "let the umpires umpire" irregardless of whether they make a decision that is clearly wrong. The umpire isn't the only person on the field who is able to know whether a batsman is out or not - umpires are only human, after all. A batsman who knows he's out, but is given not out by the umpire, has a duty to correct the wrong decision. He has a duty to walk. Not to do so is blatant cheating, plain and simple.

It's the spirit of the game. It's sportsmanship. It's cricket. No, the batsman is not obliged to walk strictly under the rules of the game - he is entitled to stand his ground and wait for the umpire's decision, and if the umpire gives him not out, he's entitled to stay put under the rules of the game. That still doesn't make it right. This is the gentlemen's game we play. "Cricket" is, or at least once was, synonymous with integrity and fair play. Every time a batsman refuses to walk he compromises the spirit of the game.

And let's not have any of this "we all know an Aussie would have done the same thing" stuff. The argument that it's okay not to walk if you're playing against Australia because everyone knows, obviously, that Aussies never walk, is pathetic, and a pleading excuse at best. I don't think the people who make this plea get it: Stuart Broad refused to walk off a blatant catch. Broad's defenders don't have a moral high ground to stand on; they are defending the indefensible. England are now as much tainted by the stain of non-walking as Australia is.

Of course, this whole incident wouldn't be as much a controversy if Australia had not already used up (wasted) all their reviews. Clarke would have promptly asked for the decision to be reviewed, the DRS would have shown a straightforward edge and catch at first slip, and Broad would have been sent on his merry way with no more questions asked. But Clarke had wasted Australia's last review on a complete non-starter, a review for an LBW off a ball of Pattinson's that was clearly going down leg side.

This incident should really bring home the need to reform the way DRS works. Giving the reviews to the captains encourages the teams to waste their reviews like this, on iffy LBW chances that might (but probably won't) go their way if reviewed, leaving them high and dry when a real howler goes against them. This was the original object of introducing the DRS - to get rid of howlers.

Mark Taylor often mentions his idea which would improve the DRS: to take the decision to review completely out of the hands of the players and to let the third umpire intervene unilaterally, as many times as he wants during the match, if he thinks a decision is wrong. This would get rid of dodgy, time-wasting reviews and let the DRS resume its proper function - that of getting rid of howlers. There's nothing controversial about this; this arrangement is already in place to allow the third umpire to check for no-balls at any time. This would, as they say, let the players get on with playing and the umpires with umpiring.

And so it begins.

The Ashes have finally arrived. In two days begins the first Test of the 2013 Ashes at Trent Bridge. England versus Australia. History in the making.

A great Ashes tradition is the practice of English and Australian cricketers predicting gutting defeats for the other side before the beginning of a series. There was Glen McGrath's famous prediction of a 5-0 victory for Australia in the 2005 Ashes series, which he repeated before the 2010 Ashes. This time round Ian 'Beefy' Botham, the great England prodigy, has confidently predicted a 10-0 whitewash for England in these back-to-back Ashes series.

Now it's The Cricket Hooligan's turn to throw his hat into the ring. These are my predictions for the Australians in the upcoming Ashes series in England:

Michael Clarke will, on more than one occasion, save Australia from complete humiliation at the hands of the England bowlers (instead ensuring we only suffer slight humiliation).

Indeed, Michael Clarke will make at least two hundreds in the series. He may even make another double ton, if the old back holds out.

Shane Watson, if he remains an opener for the duration of the series, will make a hundred. Maybe even two.

Chris Rogers will be the second most solid Australian batsman in the series after Michael Clarke. He will certainly make a hundred.

Phil Hughes will manage to stand his ground - just - against the English pace bowlers, but will be tormented by Graham Swann.

Steve Smith will make a hundred. Or two. And will emerge from the series as the new darling of Australian cricket.

David Warner, if he gets a bat, will struggle severely to hold his own against the England bowlers. This may be the beginning of the end for David Warner's Test career.

Jackson Bird will be the scourge of the England batsmen.

So will Mitchell Starc.

James Faulkner will not get a bowl. Unless Ryan Harris breaks down.

Ryan Harris will break down.

And the end scoreline? England win 3-1.

I seem to have an uncanny knack for getting the calls right so far, so don't be surprised if I'm proven absolutely one hundred percent right. You can thank me for your winnings later.