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.

Steve Smith comes good

I knew this would happen. Darren Lehmann had said at the press conference following the Test at Chester-le-Street that a few of the Australian players would be playing for their careers at The Oval. He didn't name names, but you knew the players whom he was talking about: Usman Khawaja, Shane Watson, Steve Smith. There was pressure on each of these batsmen to prove their worth, prove they deserved their place in the team. Khawaja was dropped before he got his chance. Shane Watson made 176. Yesterday, Steve Smith made 138*.

I knew this would happen. I knew that, faced with the prospect of, yet again, being exiled from the Australian team, Steve Smith would pull his head in and bring out his best game. Steve Smith is a very talented cricketer who shows great promise and has the capacity to go on to do great things for Australia. It was clear from when he made 92 in India, in his first innings back from a two-year exile, that it was not a matter of if, but when he would make his maiden Test century. And now it's come, and in the Ashes to boot. Now let's have more of it, please, Mr Smith.

In some ways it is better that he got his maiden hundred here than at Old Trafford. At Old Trafford, you got the sense that Smith was being babied to his hundred by Michael Clarke, who was letting Smith take it slowly and easily when Australia ought to have been trying to score quickly at that point in their innings. Here, there was no Clarke to hold Smith's hand as he toddled over the line. After Watson went, Smith became the senior partner out in the middle, and maturely and with composure, off his own bat, made his way to a hundred, and beyond.

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?

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.

This man is the future of Australian cricket

Steve Smith made 104 not out on the first day of the Australia A match against Ireland yesterday. His second hundred of the Australia A tour of the British Isles. The man keeps reinforcing my belief, not only that he deserves a regular place on the Australian Test squad, but that he could one day captain Australia. Twitter's Richie Benaud thinks so, too. While his Test average may not be great (32.30), remember he outperformed the whole Australian side in India apart from Michael Clarke, making an impressive 92 in the Third Test. In any case, his overall first-class average measures at 40.98 - not too bad.

If you ask me, he should have been in the Ashes squad, preferably in place of Phil Hughes. I'm hoping his performance in the Australia A tour may single him out for a call-up, at least.

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.