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.

Five things I took out of Old Trafford

Well, well, well. How frustrating was that? The first time in this series that Australia are genuinely on top of a Test match, with victory fully within reach - and the match gets rained out. I don't know if England fans reading this appreciate how incredibly frustrating this is for us Aussies, that the weather (God?) denied us even the opportunity to get back into the series, handing the Ashes to England by default, in a match in which Australia inarguably outplayed England.

But such is life. Here are some things I took out of the Third Test.

Australia's batsmen have finally come good. Four successive top-order batting collapses in the Trent Bridge and Lord's Tests had seen Australia's batsmen derided and disparaged. They were weak. Incompetent. Not Test quality. Easy pickings for the likes of Anderson and Swann. But now the weak, incompetent Pommy-fodder have finally come good. A sterling 187 by Michael Clarke - the highest individual score so far in the series - was complemented by muscular scores of 84, 89, 65 and 66 by Chris Rogers, Steve Smith, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Starc, respectively, to bring Australia's first innings total to a menacing 527. This, dear chaps, is the real Australia. This is what Australia can do when they're on song, and against the likes of Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann no less.

Australia aren't rubbish. Australia out-batted England and out-bowled England in this Test match. This is what Australia are capable of. If Australia play like they did in Old Trafford at Chester-le-Street and The Oval, the scoreline for the series will be 2-2. There is a good chance it would have been 3-2 if not for Day 5 of Old Trafford being washed out. Be under no delusion: Australia, when playing their best, are more than a match for England. Australia aren't rubbish. What Australia are, though, is a relatively young Test side finding their feet, with few players of genuine experience in the international arena. Chris Rogers, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, David Warner, Shane Watson, Phil Hughes, Ed Cowan, Brad Haddin, Michael Clarke - there are no real mugs in this batting pool; they're all good batsmen, just inexperienced. The same goes for the bowlers - Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson, Jackson Bird, James Faulkner, Nathan Lyon: no spot-fillers here (except perhaps Agar, although at 19, he shows promise for the future).

Steve Smith is rather good. Yes, The Cricket Hooligan loves talking about Steve Smith. The Cricket Hooligan was doe-eyed over Steve Smith before it was cool. The Cricket Hooligan isn't sure why he keeps talking about himself in third person. But seriously, as Russel Jackson says in The Guardian, Steve Smith is developing into a mature Test cricketer, and a genuinely exciting prospect for the future of Australian cricket. Since returning from his two-year exile from Test cricket earlier this year in India, he has continued to impress. Almost making his maiden hundred at Old Trafford, we perhaps saw a glimmer of the old Steve Smith - the one that was dropped after the 2010-11 Ashes - when he got impatient to get his century and lobbed a Swanny delivery high into the air, gifting a comfortable catch to Tim Bresnan. He won't make the same mistake next time - of that you can be assured.

Watson, Watson, Watson. One Australian batsman who didn't share in the fun at Old Trafford was Shane Watson. With an average of 14.6 for this Ashes series so far, even I, the ardent Watsonite that I am*, have to admit that my faith in Shane Watson has been sorely shaken. I thought moving him back to opening the batting would unleash his natural flair. Not so. I thought being released from the burden of vice-captaincy would take a weight off his shoulders and, consequently, free his game, à la Ian Botham. Not so. So where does that leave me, the last Watsonite standing? Give him until the end of this Ashes series, it doesn't matter where in the batting order. If he continues failing to deliver, he must be told he's to be sent back to Sheffield Shield, and won't be accepted back in the Test side until he's genuinely improved his first-class game. A two year exile might do him good; it will come as a shock, but will rightly humble him and focus him. He might return as a reformed cricketer, like Steve Smith.

There needs to be a royal commission into third umpiring. There were so many shockers in this Test that I can't remember them all. The Usman Khawaja decision by the third umpire in Australia's first innings was obviously the big one: just about everyone apart from - tragically - the third umpire seemed to know that was not out, even Kevin Rudd. Needless to say, a lot of people came out of that Test match very much disillusioned with the fallibility of third umpires and even the DRS system as a whole. I'm not suggesting that the third umpire was corrupt or that there is skulduggery afoot in the third umpiring fraternity (England got just as many shockers as Australia), just that this particular third umpire was particularly incompetent. This kind of ineptitude should really not be entertained in such high-profile international fixtures as Ashes series, where a wrong decision could potentially sway the outcome of an entire match. There must be some change in third umpiring.

*Is it because I'm a Queenslander?

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.

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.

Are these the green shoots of recovery?

It looked like Australian cricket was at its lowest point in decades. Having barely missed out on pipping the #1 Test rank position against South Africa over the Summer, we went on to lose two of the last truly great Australian cricketers from the national side, suffer a 4-0 defeat against India amid shambolic management and disciplinary controversy, and were relegated to rank #4 in Test cricket. Then Shane Watson stood down from the vice-captaincy after poor showings and leadership in India. To top it all off, we've just emerged bottom of our group in the ICC Champions Trophy without a single win to our name.

An optimist would think "Surely things can't get any worse? Surely it can only get better from here, right?" It's beginning to look as though such an attitude could be justified. In the space of twenty-four hours, Cricket Australia has announced the addition of Steve Smith to the Ashes squad, the sacking of Micky Arthur as head coach and his replacement by Darren Lehmann, the standing-down of Michael Clarke as a selector, and - joy of joys - the end of the rotation policy.

Could it be that we are, finally, witnessing the green shoots of recovery? We should naturally hesitate from making any such Lamont-esque remarks, but it certainly seems so. One could be forgiven for thinking that the CA grandees had suddenly come to a miraculous epiphany and, by the work of God's grace, repented their sins and amended their ways.

That Steve Smith, The Cricket Hooligan's favourite up-and-coming young cricketer, has been added to the Ashes squad makes him wonder whether John Inverarity et al. read his humble e-rag. Certainly they had demonstrated an uncommon display of sense when it was announced they had appointed Smith as captain of the Australia A squad to tour Africa. It was a sign of things to come, I thought at the time; against a dearth of genuine talent of the calibre of the great Australian teams of old, Steve Smith stands out as a profoundly exciting prospect for the future of Australian cricket. It is most reassuring that Cricket Australia have finally caught on to this.

It is equally reassuring that Cricket Australia have had the sense to sack the man responsible for #homeworkgate and, not least, 4-0 against India. There have beens suggestions that Justin Langer could have been a better replacement, but I suppose Darren Lehmann is a good choice in any case - anyone would have been an improvement on Micky Arthur. Lehmann carried Queensland and Brisbane Heat to great success under his veteran stewardship, and the hope is that he will transfer his success in coaching of Queensland to the national squad. Perhaps there won't be enough time to salvage the Ashes in England, but the appointment of Boof is a positive step for the future.

I suppose Michael Clarke's standing down as a selector is for the best. I have always thought that, instead of the captain being a selector, he ought to have the final word on player selection decisions made by the National Selection Panel. But I suppose the choice really must be all or nothing: either the captain is the head selector, or the captain is not a selector at all; none of this awkward halfway house, please.

And so we come to the scrapping of the rotation policy. Virtually everyone except John Inverarity and Glenn Maxwell will be overjoyed to hear that the dreaded policy is to come to an end. We can be sure there won't be too many mourners at its funeral, nor too many tears shed as its expired corpse enters the crematory. Will we see a return to the culture of excellence and leadership that distinguished those great Australian teams under Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting? Will we see a strong, dependable and consistent Australian Test side without constant face-changes that dazzle and bewilder the fans? Will we see again the kind of strong team culture, distinctive of a tight-knit team at ease with itself and each other, that characterised the great Australian teams of the nineties and noughties? The latter we see today in the currently dominant teams, particularly in England and South Africa - testament to the fact that a strong team cannot necessarily just be built on the best players; a strong team culture, where the players know each other in and out, is essential for building great teams.

Are we seeing a recovery from the ashes (so to speak) in Australian cricket? There's every sign that we are, and I jolly well hope so.