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.

Watson vindicated

That's my boy. What did I say? I always knew he had it in him. An Ashes 176. Raise the bat, and be proud. You deserve it, Watto.

It looked like his Test career was nosediving, but then he goes and does that. A testament to the fact that Shane Watson really is a quality batsman - he really does have the ability to flourish at Test level, as this muscular, manful innings has shown.

I doubt that will deter his detractors from insisting he be dropped, though. Watson polarises opinion among the Australian cricket-following fraternity: you either love him or hate him. And those who hate him really hate him. You get the sense that they want him to fail; you get the sense that his detractors were willing Watson to go cheaply again so they could continue in their smug denigration of him. Doubtless they'll make excuses to belittle his innings: he scored too fast, he hit too many boundaries, he was pretending to play one-day so it doesn't count, etc. Really pathetic.

Now let's see more of this, Watto, my lad.

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.

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.

Give 'em hell, Watto...

 

Shane Watson is to open in the Ashes, says new coach Darren Lehmann.

I think I am facing some kind of existential crisis. First the Aussies took my advice and added Steve Smith to the Ashes squad. Now they've gone and done it again and announced Shane Watson will be opening the batting. Has The Cricket Hooligan become a kind of Holy Spirit that compels the hearts and minds of Cricket Australia officials? I wonder for what good or mischief I can use my extraordinary power? They now only need to give Phil Hughes the can for my holy work to be completed.

In any case, this is great news. Watson plays his best in the opening position, as I have expounded at length before. For "Danger Man" to be at his most effective in the Ashes, he must open. It's a relief to see Lehmann is taking these bold steps so quickly after being appointed.

Seize this opportunity, Watto. As you very well know, your career is on the line. You've just been given a lifeline to salvage it and cement your position in the team. Take it, and give 'em hell.

Whither Shane Watson?

It hasn't been mentioned much, but Shane Watson got a century just recently. He scored 135 runs off 98 balls in the ICC Champions Trophy warm-up match against the West Indies. Of course, in the next match he scored 4 (India) and in the next one, he scored 24 (England). Go figure.

It seems as though the Australian cricket-following fraternity is cleanly divided over the Shane Watson Conundrum. There are his loyal supporters, such as myself, who see Watson as the second best batsman on the Australian side by a good margin, but who has unfortunately been beleaguered by a spat of poor showings of late, interspersed by the occasional triumphant hundred; and there are his ruthless detractors, who would rather see him permanently dropped from the Australian side and would purge all evidence that he ever wore the baggy green.

The figures I mentioned above for the last three matches of the ICC Champions Trophy demonstrate this divide. His detractors point only to his poor figures, especially his shoddy Test figures in recent times. His supporters like me point to his occasional display of grand form to demonstrate that he has the skill and the capability to do great things and lead the Australian side.

For what it's worth, after consideration of the matter, I thought Watson's retirement from the vice-captaincy was the right decision. I was disappointed at the time, as I had always seen Watson as the natural deputy and successor to Michael Clarke (and I still do, as a matter of fact). But I think Watson needs the space and the time to recover his form. I wouldn't rule out Shane Watson eventually resuming the vice-captaincy, or even one day captaining Australia (providing he isn't too old, or retired, by then).

Like many Shane Watson supporters, I think he should be placed where he plays best: as an opener. He has batted forty-six Test innings as an opener at an average of 43.07. Not too bad, eh? He has limited experience elsewhere in the order, and with not nearly as much success: eight innings at no.3 for 28.50; seven innings at no.4 for 27.86; one innings at no.5 for 5; seven innings at no.6 for 24.29; and six innings at no.7 for 14.50. To bat forty-six innings as an opener for a consistent average of 43.07 should suggest that the opener position is his natural position, especially when compared with his less-than-spectacular averages at other places in the order. This is confirmed by the fact that he has an average of 46.10 at the opening position over 91 ODI innings. Impressive, no?

In the Ashes I would pair him with Chris Rogers in the opening position (ignore my previous post saying otherwise, I had admittedly not even considered Rogers then). That's what I call a formidable opening pair, or at least as formidable as Australia is capable of at this point in time. But I have a cynical feeling that Watson will continue to be played down the order to make way for David Warner and/or Ed Cowan (neither of whom inspire tremendous confidence as openers).

Nevertheless, this may be the defining period of Watson's career. He must make or break. His performance in the upcoming back-to-back Ashes series must be up to par - and preferably beyond - or the siren calls of the drop-Watson brigade will be all the more pertinent, and the selectors might just have a mind to start heeding them.

Evaluation of the Ashes Squad

The Ashes Squad has been announced:

Michael Clarke (c)
Brad Haddin (vc)
Jackson Bird
Ed Cowan
James Faulkner
Ryan Harris
Phil Hughes
Usman Khawaja
Nathan Lyon
James Pattinson
Chris Rogers
Peter Siddle
Mitchell Starc
Matthew Wade
David Warner
Shane Watson

Some good points and bad points about this squad. I suppose Brad Haddin is a decent choice as vice-captain - he is just as experienced as Shane Watson (slightly more, in fact, with 44 Tests under his belt compared to Watson's 41), so he certainly has the experience needed for the leadership role. But he wouldn't have been my first choice for wicket-keeper: he's 35 for goodness' sake; five Ashes Tests, four first-class tour matches and three Australia A matches will be a great demand on the fellow's strength and endurance.

The bowling attack is good. Since Shane Watson will be bowling that gives us seven pace bowlers (Bird, Faulkner, Harris, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson, Watson) and one spinner (Lyon). I'm pleased with the inclusion of Jackson Bird in the squad; he's a very talented up-and-coming bowler whose ability to swing the ball will be a great asset in England. I'm a bit disappointed with the exclusion of Mitchell Johnson, though, who apparently "narrowly missed selection"; despite his performance in India (not that he was given much of a chance) he can be very dangerous when he is in form.

The inclusion of Usman Khawaja is reassuring, but will he be chosen for a Test? How many times has Khawaja been chosen for a squad before and not been selected for a single Test? I genuinely hope this is not one of those times, as he will be very useful against England in English conditions.

What is really disheartening about this squad is the inclusion of Phil Hughes. I cannot stress this enough: he is rubbish. He can't play against spin - his performance in India proved that. Here are his figures for the entire Indian tour: 6 and 0, 19 and 0, 2 and 69, 45 and 6. That's a total of 147 runs over four Tests at an average of 18.38. In five of his eight innings he didn't pass 10 runs. Swann and Panesar will tear him apart. It seems like the selectors are just continuing to trot him out because they don't have the courage to drop him and try someone else (hint: Shaun Marsh). That may sound harsh but if Australia wants to climb back to the no.1 position, something the selectors apparently regard as rather important, we need to stop trotting out shoddy players like Hughes. Send him back to Sheffield Shield and when he's shown he's improved, then we can give him another shot in the national side.

What is even more disheartening about Hughes' inclusion is the absence of Steve Smith in his place. He performed better than any Australian batsman in India apart from Michael Clarke. Better than Warner and Cowan, better than Watson, better than Wade, and a bloody lot better than Hughes. I can see him as a permanent fixture of the Australian side, even a future captain, yet the selectors have seen fit to sideline him in favour of the "established" rubbish batsmen. That said, it is encouraging that he was made vice-captain of the Australia A squad, but why make him VC of the Second XI over a whole host of players who are in the Ashes squad, if not to include him in the Ashes squad itself? And why, for the last time, was Hughes included but not Smith???

Finally, turning to Shane Watson, it is a good thing that he is to be bowling again and re-assuming the all-rounder role, but I suppose this means he won't be opening the batting, as I had hoped. The inclusion of both Warner and Cowan (and Hughes) seems to confirm this. Despite criticism (some of it very unfair to my mind) of his recent form, I still have confidence in him. He is still the second best batsman on the Australian side. He made a hundred in the IPL just yesterday, if that is any show of his batting abilities. I very much hope that my faith in Watson will be vindicated in the Ashes and prove his detractors wrong. I am confident he will rise to the occasion. Just you watch.

What I take away from this squad overall is that the selectors have the right ideas for the Ashes, but still lack the courage to take bold steps with Australia's future in mind. The inclusion of Hughes and the absence of Smith is a case in point (although the total exclusion of Glenn Maxwell is slightly reassuring). It is a good squad, but could be better. We certainly have a chance of winning back the Ashes with this squad, or at least of avoiding by a good margin another devestating series defeat as in India - but every player must meet the challenge. It's going to be a tough one.

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.