Thoughts on the series so far

I'm writing this in the Tea break on the fourth day of the Third Test at the WACA. Australia are two up in the series so far, and England are staring down the gun barrel of a third consecutive loss. The Ashes are as little as one session within reach for Australia. Here are some of my thoughts on the series so far.

Australia's supremacy or England's weakness?

In three consecutive Tests, Australia has set England a lead of over 500 to chase. According to the commentators, that has never happened before, ever. Australia's batsmen have made seven hundreds thus far in the series; England's have made none. Australia have made an innings total above 400 twice (including a 570); England not once.

What's happening? England are being steamrolled much more comprehensively than Australia were in the English summer. I felt dejected during the last Ashes series, but I can only begin to imagine what it must feel like to be an England fan now. There was no question of Australia being better than the 3-0 scoreline for the last Ashes series seemed to suggest, but this is a complete turnaround in fortunes. I expected England to win this series by perhaps a 3-1 or 2-1 margin. Now it seems that a 5-0 whitewash for Australia is by no means off the cards, as Glenn McGrath, for once, will be pleased to know.

It's hard to process what's taken place. Have Australia rediscovered the old mojo? Mitchell Johnson has certainly been the X-factor for Australia this series, but Australia's success can't be put down solely to Mitch. I feel that it partly has to do with England being weaker this series. It's not only that Trott has been missing from the England batting lineup for the second and third Tests, it's also that England have been poor and mentally weak in all departments of the game. Many England wickets have been self-induced - complete gifts for Australia. England's fielding has been poor, and their bowling hasn't been up to their usual standard. Australia have been good enough to exploit that weakness, making England spend excessive time in the field watching the Ashes slip away from them run by run.

I was wrong about David Warner

Boy, was I wrong about David Warner. After India, I had him down as inexorably on the fast track out of the Test team, to be consigned in perpetuity to a flashy yet quaint and supremely unmemorable career in the Big Bash. He was dropped from the Test side in the last Ashes series in England before being flown back in after making 193 against South Africa A. I've got to admit, I had written him off. I didn't think he was suited to Test cricket. I used to get very anxious every time he came to the crease. I thought he was a liability, and that it would, ultimately, be a good thing if he were to be permanently dropped to make way for a proper opener.

But this Ashes series, he's gone and proven me very wrong. His batting figures thus far this series are: 49, 124, 29, 83*, 60, 112. Something has obviously changed. Has his girl made an honest man of him? Is his commitment to become the next Mr Cricket paying off? Whatever it is, it's working. To be sure, the way he lost his wicket in the last of his innings was incredibly reckless and unprofessional, but he has an average for 91.40 for the series so far, the highest average of both the Australian and England sides. He now has a career average of 43.21. Fair play to the man, he has completely changed my mind about him through the sheer brilliance of his performance. Not many people can do that. I can now say definitively that I see Warner as being essential to the future of Australian cricket. Like Steve Smith, I think Warner is another exciting young prospect for Australia. At 27 years of age, Warner has a long career ahead of him; he can only get better from here, and I can see him maturing into a very talented, quality opener for Australia. We talk about the glory days of Australia being over - but if those glory days are ever to return, surely David Warner will be there in the thick of it.

Shane Watson haters gonna hate

I've written about this before. Shane Watson is the man who divides Australian cricket. He's like vegemite - you either love him or you hate him. The hatred of some of those who hate him borders on pathological. To their minds, there is no debate about it: he must be dropped and kept away from the Test team with a twenty-foot barge pole. To them, Shane Watson can do nothing right. Every success he makes is tainted or diminished in some way. Every failure is justification for dropping him. Therefore, it was no surprise to me when I read the reaction of one anti-Watsonite on Twitter when Watson got his hundred in this Test: "Kill me." There you have it: these people actually want Watson to fail. They would rather Australia's total have been one hundred runs less than for those runs to have been made by Shane Watson. Others were saying his hundred doesn't count because he was batting as if it were an ODI rather than a Test match. It's quite honestly pathetic, unsporting and unpatriotic. Where's the Aussie spirit of a fair-go? Quite clearly absent in these mean-spirited individuals. Why not recognise Watson for the genuine, albeit inconsistent, talent that he is? They can't, because their disdain for Watson is not rational, but emotional.

How wrong was I?

Before the Ashes started, I made some outrageous predictions about how the series would pan out. Let's see how my divination skills have shaped up...

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).
This happened only once, when Clarke made his 187 at Old Trafford. Apart from that one innings, Clarke has not fired this series - one significant cause of Australia's batting woes. Is it the back problems?

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.
Well, this didn't happen. He almost made a double ton, yes, but it was his only hundred in the series. He passed 50 only twice. Despite this, Clarke averaged 47.63 for the series (accounting for his two not-outs), with 381 runs in total. He'd have averaged 27.71 if not for his 187.

Shane Watson, if he remains an opener for the duration of the series, will make a hundred. Maybe even two.
Shane Watson did make a hundred, although for the great majority of the series this looked like it might not happen at all. Remarkably, he actually averaged 41.8 for the series, making 418 runs in total; he would have averaged 26.89 if not for that 176, though. In any case, he made his 176 at no.3, not as an opener. Perhaps we've killed two birds with one stone: the no.3 dilemma and the Shane Watson dilemma.

Chris Rogers will be the second most solid Australian batsman in the series after Michael Clarke. He will certainly make a hundred.
Rogers averaged 40.78 for the series with 367 runs, although he made three scores above fifty - equal only to Steve Smith. I would actually say he was the most solid batsman, since Clarke and Watson, both of whom averaged higher than Rogers, only did so because of one great innings each.

Phil Hughes will manage to stand his ground - just - against the English pace bowlers, but will be tormented by Graham Swann.
Hughes averaged 27.67 for the series. He played four innings: 81*, 0, 1, 1. True, he showed some grit in his 81*, but I stand by my description of him as a "serial dud". The selectors seem to agree with me, since they dropped him after Lord's. And, indeed, two of his three dismissals were by Graeme Swann (both lbw).

Steve Smith will make a hundred. Or two. And will emerge from the series as the new darling of Australian cricket.
Steve Smith did indeed make a hundred. It was truly glorious to watch. But, in fairness, he did not perform as well over the series as I had originally predicted: one hundred, two fifties, at a reasonable average of 38.33. He hasn't emerged as a "darling" as such, but at least is now seen as a long-term Test batsman. The no.5 spot will be his for the foreseeable future.

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.
Warner played three Tests, making one score above 50 and averaging 23.00 for the series. Despite this, I very much doubt Warner is going to be dropped any time soon. His 193 on the African tour torpedoed him back into the Test side, and, unless his Test form plateaus from here, he will very likely remain in the side for a long time to come. Which is good, I think...

Jackson Bird will be the scourge of the England batsmen.
In one Test, Bird took a grand total of two wickets for 125 runs. Doesn't exactly set the world alight, that. It's strange, since his first-class figures are so freakishly good. Perhaps he had trouble adjusting to the English conditions? Or perhaps we are seeing a manifestation of the State teams' damaging and self-interested practice of preparing result-oriented pitches, and that Bird is little more than an ordinary bowler whose results are made to look extraordinary by the help of doctored pitches. Or perhaps he just had a poor match. That's my hunch. It happens. After all, that lbw dismissal of Alistair Cook was absolutely sublime. And remember his debut? I still rate him as one of the best bowlers in Australia.

So will Mitchell Starc.
Yeah, that didn't happen. Over three matches, he took 11 wickets for 357 runs (average 32.45). Not terrible, but nothing special. At The Oval all he seemed to do was leak runs, bowl wides and, yes, take the occasional wicket. Like a poor man's Mitchell Johnson.

James Faulkner will not get a bowl. Unless Ryan Harris breaks down.
Faulkner was quite a find in the The Oval. 6 wickets in the match for 98 runs - an average of 16.33. I quite underestimated him. He seems a handy bat, too. Let's see more of him.

Ryan Harris will break down.
Amazingly, Ryan Harris played four matches in a row ... before promptly breaking down. But at least he had the consideration to wait before the Ashes were finished before contracting a hamstring problem. Averaging 19.58 over four Ashes Tests (including two five-fors), Harris has shown what a class act he really is. Easily one of the best pace bowlers in the world now.

And the end scoreline? England win 3-1.
I was close, I suppose. England did win three matches. Australia had four chances to win one: one will go down as one of the great Ashes Tests in history; one will be remembered for what could have been, if not for the ruddy weather; one will be remembered for a bungled opportunity; and one will be remembered for a brave display of captaincy that unfortunately didn't pay off (#losetowin).

Now just wait for my next round of outlandish predictions for the home Ashes series in Australia.

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.

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.

My Ashes Side

My picks for the Australian team in the First Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.

1. Shane Watson
2. Ed Cowan
3. Shaun Marsh
4. Michael Clarke (c)
5. Usman Khawaja
6. Steven Smith
7. Tim Paine (wk)
8. Mitchell Starc
9. Peter Siddle
10. James Pattinson
11. Nathan Lyon

12. Mitchell Johnson

First of all, Shane Watson has copped a lot of criticism lately, not least from Twitter's Richie Benaud (not the real one). True, he performed poorly in India, but so did the whole side apart from Michael Clarke and perhaps Steve Smith. But what sticks in my mind is Shane Watson's performance in the ODI series against the West Indies in February, in which he made 122 and 76 as an opening batsman in his first two matches since returning to the side after a lengthy break. He went on to make 84 and 60 in the three-day warm up match in India, again as an opening batsman. There's no doubt that he can bat. He has form. To my mind he is still by a good length the second best batsman on the Australian side. But we need him in a place where he can score runs, and that seems undeniably to be as an opener.

I've dropped David Warner because I feel, on balance, he's not a solid Test batsman. He has too much T20 in him; some of the shots he got himself out on in India weren't that spectacular. That said, he's an impressive T20 and ODI batsman, but every time he's at the striker's end in a Test match I can't help but feel apprehensive that he's about to get himself out on every ball. Ed Cowan is a more solid opener who is better suited to Test cricket. Plus his performance in the English County season definitely inspires confidence for his inclusion in the Ashes squad.

Hughes performed dismally in India, showing himself to be seemingly incapable of playing against spin. The Indians poked open huge holes in his batting technique, and he can't possibly expect to be included in the Ashes squad after that performance. Shaun Marsh would be a better choice for #3.

Usman Khawaja has great technique against pace bowling and will undoubtedly be an asset in England. Khawaja is a high quality batsman who has been sidelined for too long, and deserves the chance to prove himself on an Ashes tour.

Steven Smith proved himself in India to be a capable and solid Test batsman. He looked comfortable and in control at the crease, and shows enormous promise. I think he has deserved a place in the Ashes squad, if not at least a regular place on the Australian Test squad. He also has a handy leg break up his sleeve (Sachin Tendulkar's dismissal anyone?).

I'm going on my gut feeling with Tim Paine over Matthew Wade. Wade has not been wicket-keeper long enough to "establish" himself as premier Test keeper so it is not yet heresy to shuffle him out.

I've kept Mitchell Johnson in, if only at twelfth man, despite recent criticism of a decline in his wicket-taking prowess. He can be a very dangerous bowler when he is in form. His performance in the IPL season is encouraging, and he will be a great asset in England.