Ashes 2017-2018: Preview

And so, after a glut of 3 series within 2 years and then some calm period, a new Ashes has come: the time when Trott and Swanny broke down, when Johnson blew Cook's defences away, that time seems far, far away, though Australia retain wicket-targeting weapons in Starc and Cummins. Though Australia do start as favourites, including in my books, especially if Stokes continues to be unavailable, it is still a difficult Ashes to call. I reckon that this English side's best chance would be the Gabba itself, which is an unusual feeling to have given Gabba's history, and if England start well, that would make the series very interesting. Adelaide and Perth would be good chances for Australia, though Adelaide being a day-nighter, it will be also down to twilight luck. It's difficult to call Melbourne, while Sydney may be a high-scoring draw or an Australia win. My punt is on Australia winning 3-1 or 4-0 the five-match series, but that's a very uncertain punt, and that's also based on current squads (including the fact that Stokes is absent). Australia do need to retain Starc and Cummins fresh and bowling, and Warner injury-free: as for England, they need Root and Bairstow to be injury-free, but otherwise no one is indispensable, not even Cook, in these conditions. Overall, I think, fielding will be the key to this series: if England hold on to all holdable chances that come their way and grab a couple of spectacular ones, then it could be England 3-1! Well, let's get down to the squads then!

While I said just now that Cook is not indispensable, he could make himself so, though: the English side would rely heavily on their opening partnership of Cook and Stoneman. If Cook is in form, England will certainly win or draw: whatever else happens. However, Cook to me lately has not been looking in great nick, so my hopes of a good return have dwindled down. I do hope that Cooky would prove me wrong and have another season like the 2010-2011 one: even a season close to that one would suffice! On the other hand, I do have good hopes from Stoneman, who has not so far distinguished himself much in his England career. Not in the same mould maybe as Cook, I still think his game is well suited to Australia. I am not so sure about Vince: I think Vince a likely candidate for getting out early enough with the modes of dismissal being caught-and-bowled, lbw, and caught at short mid-off or cover. If Hameed were available, I would put him there, but I would now go with Root at 3, though he doesn't seem to prefer it. Or Moeen. In any case, I would not select Vince, even though in this squad, I think, Malan is worse than Vince as a batsman. Yet, Malan might, given luck and if previous batsmen have batted well enough, still get along, given his propensity for attacking shots, which are not that bad an option in Australian conditions (if the Ashes were happening in England, I would say, you could still retain Vince, but not Malan). So, in this team (given the current squad), I would pick either Ballance or Ben Foakes instead of Vince (or both Ballance and Foakes instead of Vince and Malan): I would not ask any of them to bat at 3, though. As for the English bowling attack, I am happy with Anderson, Broad and Ball, but I don't know if selecting both Anderson and Woakes in Australian conditions is wise enough: the attack becomes too unidimensional then. However, since Mark Wood is not in the squad, and Finn also is now out, with only the raw Overton and a promising all-rounder Tom Curran in the ranks, not much is left to choose from, so one can leave as is for the Gabba Test and see how everyone performed. If Anderson bowls well and Woakes does not do enough, I would certainly like to see Curran or Overton in place of Woakes. If one were to look at the Lions squad, which might come in handy later on, though I have not seen all of them, one name that does interest me there is Ben Duckett. The man was miserable against spin, but Lyon, though a decent spinner he is, is of a different type than the ones who terrorised him: in that case, Duckett could be a good bet. He is attacking and can take the game away in a jiffy: if Stokes is not there, one does need someone to do that.

Let's get to the Aussie squad then for the first 2 matches, which has generated a lot of controversy. I like their bowling attack a lot: Starc and Cummins are very good fast bowlers, and Hazlewood and Lyon are able support. If all four of them can remain fit throughout the series, in particular Starc, Cummins and Lyon, then it will be hard for England to take the series. The problem, though, is Australia's inconsistent batting, which consists of some who should not be there. Like the no. 3 Usman Khawaja. He may or may not make runs, but he is not Test material, and certainly not no. 3 material: he is not tough for that. Then there is the captain, Steve Smith: he is in form for a couple of years and more now, incredible really considering that he never seemed such a good batsman. He still does not: one always feels that a wretched season is about to begin for him, for his technique looks awful. His hand-eye coordination might save him often, and this time too as England does not have any very good bowlers in these conditions, but I for one do not repose confidence in him. My confidence is only in Warner, who has matured considerably in recent times and has started to be more than a mere slapdash batsman. He plays proper cricket now, long innings, and can play both defense and offense these days. Warner would be the no. 1 thorn in the flesh for England. I do not know much about the guy to open with him, Bancroft, but I am sad to see Renshaw being dropped: I think he was quite good, and would have been good here as well. Shaun Marsh is a good bat, and might do well in the series: he has to keep his mental toughness going, for that is where he sometimes lacks. I do not rate Maxwell highly, but against England, with no bowlers who are going to blow you away except Broad in some spells, I don't see why not to play Maxwell: he can take the game away fast. I don't know much again about Handscomb, so let's see how that goes. As for their wicketkeeper, I don't see a lot of difference between Paine, Nevill and Wade: I am OK with Paine, as I recall him as a good, fighting cricketer. I also would have dropped Wade for either Paine or Nevill. The more important thing is that there might be a bit of confusion and sore feelings about the squad because of shock selections: if England can boss the first game, or even just win it, then that could make it a festering issue, especially if Smith is found out a bit. If Australia win, especially if that is commandingly, then those things will be forgotten about and papered over. And, hence, England's best chance is the 1st Test, at the Gabba, the ground where it seems to be too difficult to beat Australia. What England have in their favour is that some of their young players should not be awed by the Gabba and Aussie crowds: some of them, like Stoneman, have spent quite a lot of time here. That's a significant advantage in conditions like Australia and the Indian subcontinent: many lose or break down because they are too spooked or awed by being so far from their comfort zone.

Well, then, I hope that the series is played in good and competitive spirit, and no one gets injured, so one can have the pleasure of a contest at full tilt. Root's captaincy, which was very poor this summer, will be a concern for me, but I hope at least he learns on the job and is smarter by the time England travel to the subcontinent (where captaincy skills are very crucial). The series might be fun to watch as it's hard to call. I dream that Cook will again make a mountain of runs. That will be my reward, irrespective of which team lifts the series.

Ashes 2015 in England: Preview

This Ashes looks quite close to call, even though the media is viewing Australia as clear favourites and even though the final result might be pretty one-sided: this series will basically depend on how Australia will bowl to Cook, and even if they bowl well with the Dukes ball to Cook, can Cook bring his best onto the field? Cook's batting, in short, will define the results: and that is why it is hard to predict. I think, judging from what I saw of him in the New Zealand series, Cook is in close to his best form, so England stand a very good chance: and to convert that chance into some clear winnings in the bank, Cook needs to be a bit smart. No, not about field placements that much: but more about batting order plus bowling changes. The latter is where Cook often misses out.

Cook needs to use the spinners intelligently: Moeen, Root and, if need be, Rashid. I rate Root highly for getting tailenders out, as he bowls wicket to wicket and fast, whereas tailenders tend to be swashbuckling. Wood and Root would be an ideal pair to bowl if conditions are benign and tailenders are there on the crease: for me, that point is important, because it was Haddin and the tailenders of Australia who contrived that 5-0 whitewash Down Under. Unfortunately, Cook seems to use Root as the last resort, and that too for not too long: somehow, he keeps using Stokes in such situations, which only plays in the hands of the opposition, as we saw in both WI and NZ series. Stokes might get a wicket here or there with fast toe-crushers, but he is what the tailenders also like: ball coming fast onto bat to hit it with freedom. No Stokes, no Broad in such situations. I don't think Cook is going to read this, so I don't think much will change on the field. Similarly the other things: even in that famous series in India which Cook won, he used to place a third man from the very start for Virender Sehwag, fearing an out-of-form man even. That he escaped then does not mean that that will keep on happening: Cook places third mans too often and short legs too rarely. Fortunately, he has started getting the knack of keeping some leg slips and some very short covers, so he is progressing. Cook also needs to sort out his batting order; for me, Root should be at 4 or 3, he is their best bat actually. Dropping Ballance to 5 might help as well, because Ballance seems to be a person who feeds on the tone already set: he does not seem to be someone who can set the tone. Root is someone who does that; Cook also does it, even though people deride him for being slow, and as does Lyth. Ideally, Bell and Ballance should not have a place really in this team, for in modern cricket, you cannot be unable to set the tone of the match you want to. You don't want to, that's OK, but not that you cannot. Keep Stokes in the team for all matches but don't give him the ball when Haddin, Johnson and co. are out there: unless he's really in some matchwinning spell. And give him short spells: use him in the Johnson way. I do rate Stokes highly with bat: I would even like to drop Ballance altogether, and move Stokes and Moeen all up by one place (Moeen should come before Buttler), and also have Finn or Rashid as a bowler. Attacking cricket is the best way for England to beat the Aussies.

As for the Aussies, it is not that they are very good: many of them are bits and pieces players, like Mitchell Marsh or Watson, or just flashy blades with hardly anything else, like Warner and Haddin. However, they feed on confidence and bullying: and that is what they will do. Their confidence-damaging tricks compensate easily for the lack of talent in their ranks. They have only two really good players for me in their ranks: Michael Clarke and Nathan Lyon. I have always rated Lyon highly as a spinner, and the English must be careful to not to lose soft wickets to him: especially aggros like Stokes and people suspect against spin like Ballance. They also have an in-form bowler like Starc: he is not top quality for me, as he sprays it too much around as well, a bit of on and off day player, but he is right now in form, so if England can dent his confidence early on, half the contest will be won. For denting Starc means denting Johnson and all others: for me, Ryan Harris was really good, but he's retired. Siddle is large-hearted but not that talented. So Cook is key, as I said at the very beginning: for Cook and Lyth and the no. 3 will have to do that job of denting Starc - and hence I would like to see Root or, if not Root, Bell at no. 3, and not Ballance. For I don't have the confidence that Ballance can dent Starc. Lyth also does not inspire me with great confidence for now, but I'd like him to get the long rope: all 5 matches. Steven Smith is another man in the form of his life: his game has improved highly, but I doubt if he can continue that way in English conditions, especially if Cook makes the right bowling changes. Wood should be key against Smithy. But I like Smith otherwise; he's a nice lad and has talent and youth. When he comes next time to England, he will probably be the most dangerous Australian in their party. Voges is solid and might prove hard to dislodge, and Aussie tailenders all bat quite well and aggressively, so England cannot relent. That is why I would like England to drop Ballance and play a 5-man attack. Broad bowled quite well against NZ, but I still would play Finn rather than Broad if it's going to be a 4-man attack. I think England will just stick with Broad for the first 2 matches, the safely conservative choice, and then see what happened. Both sides' tails in fact play quite well, but Australia's attack is better, especially as they have a good spinner: however, if Cook has blunted the Aussie attack, the English tailenders can also make merry. For that to happen, Broad needs to bat at 11, below Anderson: at least, it will rub Broad's ego the wrong way, and he might want to prove a point, get back to no. 9 or 8 even. These are little, percentage things: but modern cricket is fast-paced, and it is these things that turn a game on its head. It is these things that most English supporters feel Cook is slow to grasp: I hope he proves us wrong. And proves us right by his form with the bat.

Ashes 2013-2014: II, Australia: Preview

The Ashes have been getting progressively short of some good cricket except in patches: the DRS dominated so much of the last Ashes that whatever good cricket was there (Bell's batting) was also completely overshadowed. It didn't help that two of the best bats from the team, Cook and Pietersen, never came to the party, nor that Clarke also was subdued for most of the time except for one big innings. Add to that stupid tactics by both camps - nod to rookie Agar ahead of Lyon as spinner-in-chief for the first part of the series, and England's bizarre selections in the last Test - and only DRS had a series to remember.

As the cricket moves to Australia, on truer pitches and with both sides showing more sense of selection and strategy, there's better hope. Australia have more importantly brought Bailey in: he might not prove to be a matchwinner in his own right at Test level, but he's a very mature person with a strong mental make-up. If he can stitch a couple of fine partnerships, that's all what Australia might need, especially since that I don't expect much from Australia's top three. Clarke should be at four, followed by Bailey, Steve Smith and the wicketkeeper (and I much prefer Wade to Haddin, but a divisive captain like Clarke will of course go for the latter): if Watson can't bowl, then I won't select him and the top three will be Warner, Rogers and Cowan for me (no Hughes or Khwaja). Mitchell Johnson will again be a liability: I never rated him as a good bowler and I don't see any reason to do otherwise. Performing against India, which he has always done, is a different thing: England rather face more problems against Watto's gentle bowling. However, if Australia does select Johnson, then they will have to drop a batsman (Cowan in my scheme of things): for they have to definitely have three men out on the field: Harris, Siddle and Lyon (except for Perth). I would select Faulkner over Watto and Johnson: that is the nut to crack for Clarke. And that could well set the momentum for the rest of series: one wrong spell by Johnson, and Australia can bid the series goodbye already.

As for England, they will depend heavily on Cook and Trott: they cannot look every time to Bell to guide them out. Pietersen might play a brilliant innings here and there but also might get out early or into 20s and 30s often: he might be a bit scratchy, but still explosive enough to turn the match on its head whenever he feels like to. That's the beauty about Pietersen, isn't it? I do expect both Cook and Root to score very well: both are good backfoot players, and what better place than Australia for such players? Carberry is an unknown for me, but I back the move to have Root back at no. 6 for now: even if Carberry does that much as what Compton did in India, that should suffice. Anything over would be lovely bonus. I don't expect England batting to have much worries, except maybe at Perth and the 1st day of Brisbane Test (since they have a history of starting a series poorly): it looks much more solid with Root at 6, and Bairstow is not bad to replace an injured Prior. The problem for England is their bowling attack. Swann is now ageing: he's not been in the best of forms since some time now, injury or no injury. It's good that Broad looks in good nick, for Anderson might not be the most suitable bowler for Australian pitches: it's Broad in fact who has to be in prime form. But look beyond them, and we've got nothing. I cannot believe that England have brought three carbon-copy bowlers in Finn, Rankin and Tremlett here: Topley or Onions should've been there instead of Rankin in my opinion. For me, the third pacer has to be Finn, even if he's expensive: he's also quality when he bowls in the right areas and is unplayable every now and then. Sure, he will spray it around, but not like Johnson: Finn will also give you wickets every now and then. The thing to fear is though what if any of (or both) Anderson and Broad break down: then England will have to be ready for attritional cricket, trying to look for draws. Hence, it is important that England break their habits of these recent years and start the series on a winning note.

A good Ashes for England will go a long way to build up tomorrow's England: for players like Root, Bairstow, Ballance (hope he gets a game or two! maybe if England have wrapped up the series early on?) and Finn, this will go a long way to nurture their confidence at the highest level. They will be readier to take on South Africa in South Africa: when that supreme battle happens.

I only hope the cricket is of much superior quality this Ashes, and that DRS controversies remain in the background. The ICC has already created more stupidity by the new rules, but hopefully there won't be HotSpot in the series: so one completely unreliable technology at least won't be affecting match flow. And hopefully no rain-affected matches petering out in draws.

Ashes 2013-2014: I, England: Preview

Ten Tests of Ashes within six months: an overkill? Not for any Test cricket fan. There will certainly be one team wanting revenge when the latter half of five Tests commence in Australia: there will have been some heads rolled, many new, fresh faces introduced (esp. in Australian terms, given the muddle they have been in during the past couple of years, combined now with Ponting and Hussey exits), and the world of cricket much richer. A chance to dream if Root can be the poster boy of English cricket: he will certainly be if he does well in an Ashes. A chance to watch if it is only negative thoughts and ill-confidence that have been ailing Australia: or is it plain mediocrity? On the evidence of their Champions Trophy one-day match vs. England, it certainly seemed the former to me. English bowling, which has been a worry now to me since some time and will continue to be so all throughout the Ashes, wasn't anything out of the decent: and yet Bailey's side played as gingerly as if they had never seen a cricket ball in their lives. Lehmann's dramatic appointment as coach will certainly bring fresh energy and some missing attitude to Aussie players: which can only be good, as one wants to see two evenly matched sides in action, at least as far as possible. However, in the long term, I am not sure if this is a good move: this team is now Lehmann's team, and Clarke, quite an arrogant man in general, wouldn't like it one whit. He doesn't have too much of a say right now, after the India fiasco and his own troubled back, plus his known history of getting good players (Katich, for one) ousted just because he doesn't get along with them doesn't help him: if Australia start winning, all will be good, issues will be swept under the carpet, but if they don't - then I don't expect the Clarke-Lehmann combo to be comfortable. Clarke is an authoritarian, and he was comfortable with Arthur, a middle-management person: what Australia needs is someone like Kirsten or Moody, who is not as weak or bereft of ideas as Arthur, nor as attention-hogging as Lehmann, rather gelling in with Clarke, let his team be his, but slipping in good management, good advice and good consultations almost unnoticed.

Let's move on to the Ashes itself. The game is this time primarily between Aussie bowlers and English batsmen: so let's review the weaknesses first, English bowling and Aussie batting. There's not much going on for English bowling now since some time, except for the top-class Anderson and Swann. Broad is an overrated bowler who might chime in with some destructive spell at some point of time, but is otherwise too profligate and nothing to worry about; Finn is yet to develop, and has somehow lost his hostility, though he does have a golden arm, it must be said; Bresnan is no bowler at all, rather just continues the now-ages-old English policy of bits-and-pieces cricketers who don't contribute neither a bit nor a piece when it matters; conservative England under Flower hasn't tried Topley, Meaker and Rankin so far in Tests, which they should have had in New Zealand; Tremlett might find himself on the plane to Australia, but right now it's too soon to call him back in; Onions is a decent bowler, and if cloud cover and other conditions assist swing, I would select him over Broad, but would the conservative duo of Flower and Cook do that? I doubt that. Swann himself is a bit of worry for me: he has not been in great form in the last couple of years (yes, he bowled well in India even with that lack of form: that just shows how good he is), plus now he's got this surgery done. Fingers crossed if he continues to be the good spinner with a very good control that he has been. The only positive for England on the bowling front is that in Joe Root they have discovered a very good part-time bowler and potential golden arm: in some years' time, Root might be even as useful as Gayle/Samuels are for West Indies (largely in one-dayers), or maybe even more, but that has to wait. If in these couple of Ashes, he just picks up a wicket or two, breaks some bedded partnership, then all of us would be more than happy: of course, there are no expectations of him on the bowling front. If he doesn't, well, he doesn't. He is just a Samuels-type wicket-to-wicket bowler, Bopara in spin version. My four bowlers would be in fact Anderson, Finn/Broad, Onions/Broad (if conditions assist swing, the former), and Swann. I would keep Rankin in the squad, to keep Broad and Finn interested: if these two fail, get in Rankin, and Tremlett if he's doing well on the county circuit. Or even Topley. But, please, no Bresnan anywhere near the team. Please, no!

What is the mitigating factor here for England is that for Aussies, it is their batting that is the main problem: they are susceptible to huge collapses, especially when Clarke does not fire. They are over-dependent on Clarke; I like the new coach's move of moving up Watson in opening, and giving him Rogers as partner, with Cowan coming one-drop. That does inspire a lot more confidence than what the Warner-Cowan duo did. However, if two wickets fall early, which could happen easily in English conditions, then it gets much trickier: both Khwaja and Hughes are simply not Test quality, and I do not expect Clarke to keep churning out double hundreds as he did in the last year. Simply put, there is no more Michael Hussey in the Australian side. What they have is Khawaja, Hughes, Wade, Smith, Haddin and tailenders like Starc who can bat: all of these to cover up for one man, Michael Hussey, and I am afraid all of these combined won't be as good as the man. A middle order comes rarely as spineless as this one: and this is where England's advantage lies. However, since it is the England bowling that is the weak link to English defence of the urn, this is where the fascinating battle lies: can England find bowlers outside of Anderson and Swann to expose this mediocre Australian middle and late order?

On the other hand, the English batting order does inspire loads of confidence. They have Cook, they have Root, they have Pietersen. What more can any team in the world ask? If these are not enough to inspire visions of 500+ totals and innings wins, then there is Trott, the ideal run machine (and good though Australian bowlers are in general, the likes of Starc keep straying on the legside every single over: Trott will love it so, so much!). So, among the 7 batsmen, we already have 4 solid run machines (with one of them, KP, a real murderous, game-changing, come-to-watch-just-me man, and I fear would be at his best - seems finally matured), all 4 hard to dislodge; plus Prior, the busy, attacking keeper, a 5th bat. The only debate is about the remaining 2 bats: I would personally prefer to have Compton as opener, at least for this Ashes and then think about the one later on in Australia, and keep Root for the time being in the middle order. As Bell has not been in any form now since a long, long time, a middle order of KP, Bell, Bairstow looks wobbly (remember, KP is coming in from a long break). If I have the utterly reliable Root there (KP, Root, Bell/Bairstow, Prior - as per my preferred order), then that looks much more solid. I would personally select James Taylor in fact over both Bell and Bairstow, but somehow inexplicably the guy has been utterly forgotten: in that case, I'd go for Bell over Bairstow for the first couple of matches, and if Bell doesn't strike form, then Bairstow for Bell. But I would keep Compton as opener and Root at 5 (6 is too low down for a player hard to dislodge: he would be wasted if he's playing half the time with tailenders). It's good by the way that both Bresnan (if he's selected) and Swann have struck some useful form with the bat: the latter in particular is a really good batsman (wish he could take it more seriously!).

Aussie bowling is though sharp: if conditions assist, they will be real handful. I will be particularly wary of Faulkner, Pattinson and Bird (if he plays). Siddle will put in lion-hearted efforts here and there, but I don't expect him to be a consistent threat; Starc does bowl some great deliveries, but all around them are cannon fodder, so he's hardly a worry for me. I haven't seen Harris bowl, so he's an unknown quantity for me. The chief worry for Australia will be to keep their pacemen injury-free plus fresh. If they can manage to do so, then this Ashes will be close. Plus, there is Lyon, whom I don't rate badly: he is a good, attacking spinner. I think he doesn't get enough support sometimes from Clarke, or he would be an even better bowler. I don't know if Watson would be able to bowl, but if he is, then he would be a real threat in English conditions.

Cricket is a mind game more than anything else or more than any other sport; Australia will come out bounding with some fresh energy fed to them from the new coach: if England, normally poor starters, can for once not start badly and win the first Test, then the series might already be a doomed one for Australia. But if Australia can take their best chance, the first Test, then you never know what may happen: the series might be close, but there might be an upset at the end of it round the corner. England must learn to be not conservative, not complacent: two evils they are often accused of, and rightly so.

For me, the stars of the first Ashes leg may be Root, Pietersen and Anderson from England, and Pattinson and Rogers from Australia. I am not selecting Cook and Clarke, the two premier batsmen of the series, in the list: I think both will have good enough series, but I think middling ones, not the mammoth ones both are used to. I don't mind getting it wrong in Cook's case, but in Clarke's case I would like to get it right!

Ashes 2010-11: Preview

England not only have their best chance of finally winning an away Ashes after more than two decades of wait, but they also have a chance of being ruthless: modern sport is not an amateur's pleasure, and for the English cricket team to attain supremacy over the next five-odd years, it is important that it starts stamping its authority on a pathetic Australian team right now. A much more stiff challenge would come whenever it meets India; and there's no better way to prepare for it than to relegate the Aussies to somewhere midway in the Test teams' table.

I have no idea from where will Austalia produce a win: at the most it can hope for inclement weather, poor umpiring decisions, and draws. The biggest thorn in their flesh will be Graeme Swann: also, this time England are not carrying any baggages who only flatter to deceive; rather than the likes of Harmison and Hoggard, England have a well-rounded pace attack without stars: Anderson to swing and zip it, Broad to pepper it short, and Finn and Tremlett as able seam backups. It is important that Broad doesn't get carried away and gets mature: he should start mixing full-length deliveries with his short ones, the stock ones for him. To reiterate, Aussie batting is in doldrums, and I don't see the likes of Katich filling an opener's role beyond making a slow, scratchy half-century at times. Ponting and Clarke are completely out of sorts, while Hussey's been found out now since some time in the international arena; Australia will have to depend on quick runs by Watson at top of the order and a fightback by the lower order. But those are not ideal situations to have: it's the middle order, numbers 3 to 6, that are vital for winning a Test match. It would have been wise for Australia to bring in Cameron White in place of Marcus North; he is a much better batsman, attacks more, plus a genuine spinner compared to North's colorless bowling. But, nowadays, Australian selectors behave more like the English selectors of the last decade, and vice versa.

On the other hand, England's biggest problem ahead of the series looks only to be the enigmatic Pietersen; I don't think he will like that adjective, and he shouldn't. Geniuses like to prove themselves in tough conditions, and that is what he will love to do. However, if England have the series early in their bag, then I will still be tempted to replace him or Trott (whoever's not doing too well) with Eoin Morgan, even if Morgan hasn't played a single warm-up game so far; Pietersen and Trott are around thirty, and it's the mid-twenties' Morgan who is the future for England. He's courageous, and he takes the game to the opposition. He's a mature lad, unlike Bell, who in my books is a far greater worry than Pietersen or Cook. The rest of the English batting lineup is solid: Strauss as always is very reliable, Collingwood is in good nick, and the English lower order led by Swann and Broad know how to knock off quick runs.

The key to this series, and the difference between the two sides, is bowling. Australia haven't got any decent spinner at all, while England have got Swann, the best spinner right now in world cricket. Plus, none of the Australian fast bowlers have any huge kit of unplayable deliveries: Hilfenhaus is honest but one can keep watching him carefully and that's all; Johnson and Siddle are wild and erratic, and I don't see them getting wickets unless the batsmen get overexuberant; while Bollinger can be a little dangerous at the start of a fresh day's spell or at the end of a day, but thereafter, for lack of variety and incision, he is simply not international class. On the other hand, though the English bowling attack is not at the heyday of 2005 (Harmison, Flintoff, and Simon Jones), the present one sticks to its guns and loves to tweedle out the batsmen more by precision than by sheer bluster.

I would love England to whitewash Australia: a fair justice for being at the same receiving end last Ashes in Australia. But is that possible? Yes, I say so, if England start well, and keep the intensity going. They must keep their fielding tight and go for correct reviews. In any case, England should at least win by 3-0 or 4-0, if not more. As I said, I don't see the other column giving any work to the scorer; I just don't see how can Australia win a game!

The Ashes won in Australia will also be a lovely final reply (not that he needs any now, after having inspired England so beautifully over the last year or so) for Andy Flower to all his who-now-say-they-never-said-so detractors. (That being said, the World Cup could be the last remaining dream; England has never won the 50-over one.) Mental strength is the best pedigree, especially in cricket, as has proved Flower, Strauss, and Collingwood: three men whose play and strategies are more marked by pugnacity and audacious determination than desires to bloom only when spring comes.

Ashes 2009: Preview

While I went horribly wrong in my preview two years back, England went similarly on a wrong path, not playing Monty Panesar in the first Test, and giving all the initiative to Aussies. The onus of poor selection policy this time though seems to be on Australia: a single set of openers both of whom look likely to fail, no all-rounder, and an extremely poor spin option. On the other hand, England, even after a wretched winter and a summer of success against a poor West Indian Test side, look strong: for one, Aussies are weak against spin, and England have an option of plenty after decades, with Graeme Swann certain to give headaches to Aussies and Panesar and Adil Rashid fighting out for the other slots.

Batting well may decide the series fate, since though England seems to have a better attack on paper, they haven't too much in their arsenal should conjectures remain conjectures and speculations remain speculations. Flintoff should last the whole series, Anderson must be the matchwinner he's expected to be, Swann shouldn't become nervous and should hold ascendancy, and Onions and Harmison, whenever played, should at least be taking pressure off from the tired spearheads. These are all ifs and could horribly backfire against a middle order of Ponting, Michael Clarke, and Michael Hussey. I don't have high hopes from Katich, who at the most will last for a scratchy 30, and the new opener, barring an innings or two, and neither from Brad Haddin. Having said that, England must guard against their inability sometimes to take tailenders out quickly, especially with Australia having Mitchell Johnson, who bats better than he bowls!

Ricky Ponting's poor captaincy will be another decisive factor, and one of the things being Johnson's use itself: how much and when he is bowled, and when he is sent in the batting order. If I were Ponting I would send him even above Haddin, since he can be a genuine all-rounder and an extremely destructive one. What strategy does Australia employ against an unflappable Swann will be again crucial: if Flintoff remains fit, they can't afford to remain quiet at both ends. Ponting's own batting form might be crucial: he is a bunny to spinners, and it will be interesting to see what does Strauss do when he comes to crease. Strauss is an inventive captain, and I hope the pressure of Ashes doesn't get to him that he doesn't remain one; he showed against West Indies that he isn't averse to surprise the opposition, and this would be more than handy against Australia under Ponting.

England start as favorites this time. I think the openers Cook and Strauss will be a success, and while a lot has been said that Bopara is going to come unstuck at no. 3 position versus Australia, I think quite the opposite. If Bell is to come back into the team, it should be at the cost of Collingwood, though I would hate a coward taking the place of such a courageous man and I cannot see foresee Bell ever really doing anything other than disservice to England. KP, if he remains fit, should fire really really well: this might be his series! If he and Flintoff remain fit, then Aussies are not going to win even a single match. If problems arise there, then it will become interesting: how well Broad takes up the responsibilities both in batting and bowling departments, and does England show the courage to go to Foster in the latter part of the series, especially if the upper order is clicking well and the bowling needs more support from the wicketkeeper? A forgotten interesting cog is Collingwood himself: I think Flintoff's not going to do anything with the bat this time round, so the middle order relies heavily on KP and Collingwood, and how well Collingwood and Broad can combine and produce partnerships (not to forget Swann as we start entering the lower order, since he's a handy bat too). I don't have any worries about English bowling: Anderson and Swann are enough for the Aussies, and if Flintoff adds to trouble, I don't foresee much there.

My prediction? 2-1 in favour of England, or even 3-1, with one game certainly likely to be a draw, most probably the first one at Cardiff. Hope I am wrong, since who loves draws? :)

Ashes 2006-07: Review

There's nothing much left to say. England had lost before the start of the series itself - in its own mind. When a team can think of Ashley Giles as a batsman, it indicates how woe begone is the team. Right through the series, Flintoff's captaincy was defensive and pathetic, to say the least. Wrong field placings for Monty so many times, wrong bowling selections at the wrong time, strange team selections (starting from the squad itself), and careless profligacy from many batsmen.
Strauss - it's time he, the great player he is, matures himself, curbs his tendency to slash outside the off stump everytime, and takes up the responsibility of being an opener. Bell - he cannot afford to go into his shell every now and then; the game is to score runs, not to simply stay there, boringly. Cook - the only one who didn't used to get out in a profligate manner, and showed maturity always. He has to work on his game when it comes to the corridor of uncertainty. Collingwood - is maturing, and playing beyond his abilities. So, cannot find fault with him. Pietersen - he was easily the best batsman and player for England in this Ashes, but he is a god. Don't think gods are expected to make 70s and 80s. Flintoff - the big let-down both with bat and ball, and captaincy. He bowled well, but didn't get enough support from other end, and luck from above. And battingwise, I thought he lacked some match practice, and that in Australia, he and Collingwood should have swapped their batting numbers. Geraint Jones and Chris Read - both the wicketkeepers - were dismal. The bowling was only good in patches, with Hoggard and Monty shining occasionally. Australia didn't have to do much except play their natural hard, aggressive game, and they were the winners. Besides Ponting, Hussey and Stuart Clark were the stars for them - and future matchwinners.
Hats off to Australia for winning it 5-0!

Ashes 2006-07: The Preview

The Ashes this time has got harder to predict, and ironically it is because both the teams have, in my opinion, become weaker. I am less worried about the absence of Michael Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick; the real thorn in England's side is the bowling - these are not the English pitches, and Hoggard might have to return empty-handed, Flintoff is coming back from injury and will have to pick up momentum, especially in the bowling department, and, most importantly, there's no Simon Jones. But, yes, there's Monty, that is if England pick him.

The only real threat to the Aussies could be Harmison and Monty, and possibly Flintoff from maybe the third Test onwards. England could be in a serious boil if they do decide to pick Giles over Monty - you have to be aggressive against Australia, you have to go for the kill, and picking Giles just for his some severely limited batting abilities is never going to bail you out. After all, do you think that Giles' batting would be the difference between England and Australia?

No, it will be much more, and the difference in the results could be much narrower. The numero uno will remain that how does England tackle Warney, the second for me will be the middle-order England batting (especially Flintoff and Pietersen), and the third is can England remain fit till the end of the series. Let me shed a little more light on each of these questions, and why I think they could determine the fate of the series. Australia is a severely depleted side now as far as bowling is concerned, and all its fast bowlers could be very well shut out from the game from the first day itself if England start their job with aplomb. And that's why it all boils down to Warney. He was the one who valiantly fought in the last Ashes, lone-handedly, and he could be again the one. Not only with the ball, but even with the bat. And once he gets down to his business, then all others also come into the picture with their pieces of cake - McGrath, Lee, and Clark. I think that the English middle order of Flintoff, Collingwood, and Pietersen shouldn't have any grave problems in dealing with him, but the suspects would be Strauss and Cook, the top order batsmen. And, after doing all the hard work against the faster bowlers, if you are going to be Warne's bunnies straightaway, then even one extra wicket of any of the middle-order batsmen could lead to a poor or just a decent-enough score. And England did manage with decent scores in the last Ashes, since it had the great quartet of Hoggie, Freddie, Harmison, and Jones that time. But, this time, the onus might very well rest on Harmison being the strike bowler, Flintoff being the stock bowler, and Monty the breakthrough provider. If of course everything would be according to plans, then I would say that England would win a closely fought series, maybe 3-1. Since, even though people do not want to look foolish in saying it, to me, on paper, the English team is superior. Australia is too aged, some of their players have even the fire missing now, the bowlers have not any "X" factor except Warne, and the batsmen are more arrogant than really good. Of course, English batsmen are also not the most talented on earth, but they are steady sorts, disciplined, and they also have the exceptional, but sadly mercurial, brilliance of Pietersen.

As I said earlier, Pietersen and rest of the English middle order will actually hold the key to the series. If it does not crumble, England, if it cannot win, cannot lose the series also. Bell and Cook have to keep their heads down and always play the role of anchors, Collingwood has to counter the spinners effectively, and the trio of Flintoff, Pietersen, and Jones have to blaze their ways to glory whenever the opportunity permits. Wishfully and wistfully thinking, Geraint Jones could find this as his best tour, as far as batting is concerned. He is a player in a cross-batted mould, and so if he plays without thinking he will find himself getting out very, very soon on the Australian pitches, for he will then perish of his own penchant. But, if he even a little sensible-minded, he can make use of these pitches and Australia's poor bowling attack and make a name for himself, and let his poor glovework forgotten for a while at least.

Even though I am an England supporter, I have to review now the enemy camp also to be a little more reasonable. Australia's arrogance cannot be simply dismissed, as it is the thing that brings victory to them so often though they be lesser talented. But, interestingly, it could also be the thing that could lead to their downfall, as did happen the last time. If somehow England doesn't get afraid of Warne, then I don't think that Australia's bowling has anything to make you afraid, unless weather and toss combine some day to make a heady cocktail. But, how do you get their batsmen out? This time, players brimming with newly found confidence like Hussey and Watson (thankfully, not in the first Test) are around, and wouldn't be victims very easily to a limited English attack. Attacking field placements and catches not dropped can be an answer, but dropping catches has become a habit for this team, and with the poor glovework of Geraint Jones sure to come into play sooner rather than later, the Australian batting could very well run amok. And, maybe here, Monty is something fresh - Aussies won't like him at all, they will also try to bludgeon him, they would be definitely found wanting in technique against him, and it could well depend on how much confidence the skipper (Flintoff) reposes in Monty. Also, can England's support bowlers be interesting (Anderson and Mahmood)? Can they provide at least one breakthrough in an innings when it's needed?

England has to remain fit, otherwise Aussies can even win 4-0 or 5-0. But if England do manage to remain fit, and out of the thin air if we might even see Vaughan from the third or fourth test onwards, then England is in with a definite chance - 3-1 or 3-2. The series is too close to call for me right now; maybe, only after the first two tests, I (and many other people) would be prophesy something definite. Australia start as favorites, even for me, but the tag of favorites at least can change for me even tomorrow. For the most important thing is that I want to see the spirit with which England enter the field tomorrow, and the team selection.
The men to watch out for me would be Flintoff, Pietersen, Cook, Harmison, and Monty (from England) and Ponting, Hussey, Gilchrist, Shane Watson, and Warne (from Australia). As an anti-climax, I think that the Ashes this time might not be as great as last time, in terms of last-minute hearbeat stops. But, the quality of batting might be better this time from both sides (and I hope catching!).

My verdict, putting my foot in the mouth: England wins Ashes 2006-07 3-2.

Ashes remembered

The Ashes lived upto their promise fantastically - it was not for vain that I waited for two years how Australia would fare against a full-strength English team. And England has won hands down.

All the matches were very hard fought, and Australia ran England to the close in three of the five matches. It could have been easily 2-1 for the Aussies had not Kasprowicz run into a Flintoff bouncer, and could have been 3-1 for the Poms had not rain stifled out a certain English victory in the third Test match. So everything was always intriguingly poised. Yet I feel that England were and came out more superior than the results show.

Australia were without McGrath in two of the matches, two that they lost, and also McGrath probably not at the top of his pace in the third and fifth matches. But then McGrath is not getting younger, and its a worry now for arrogant Australians to find somebody quick quick. "Arrogant" I say here since not long ago Australians used to follow rotation policies in one-dayers, thus implying to other teams that their bench strength was also better than other teams playing elevens. The real trump for Aussies was Warney again , but more importantly not due much to his magic as to the psychological hold that he possesses over England, even though half the players of the English team were playing for the first time against Australia. The only magic that he could really bring into the game was occasional bowls to left-handers outside their off-stump with the ball pitching on the rough and zipping into the batsman almost at right angles, the ones that used to get Strauss out. Rest was all bluff, and pity that the English succumbed to it. And still they won! Whoa!

England's main problems were simply a how-did-he-come-in-the-side Ian Bell and the lack of zip from Harmison ( and Hoggard's slumbering form for much of the series). Bell was simply boring, frustrating, liable to get out any time, very slow and thus liable to break the momentum of all other batsmen (maybe not Hoggard) , and to top it all having no clues to any of the bowlers, least of all to Warne. In fact when he used to get out , I used to be happy mostly since otherwise I feared that he will break the momentum of others. If Butcher and Key were unavailable, maybe Solanki should have been tried instead of Bell or somebody young,raw and exciting from a county side.

To talk of others, Geraint Jones probably was the most abused of all, but his courageous batting was refreshing . Still will have to bat for a lot more time on the field to make up for his certain lapses on the field. Pietersen was too arrogant, and usually paid the price of it, but his batting's brilliant. Hope he remains level-headed and does not go too much the way of becoming a fashion icon( if he wants to, then he better look up Sharapova instead of Kournikova).

England has come out with a lot of positives out of this encounter, I feel. First, the confidence that they have after beating the Aussies will make them feel that they can do anything hereafter. And they can do it, provided they remain level-headed and most of the unit remains reasonably fit, especially Flintoff and Simon Jones. Talking of the latter, he is now maturing fast and in two years time could be the most dangerous bowler in contemporary cricket, provided of course he does not tread on balls and jump on boundary boards ( maybe not keep him standing near boundaries would be an option !!!) Strauss's game will improve much, especially after having coped with Warney against whom he was much at sea yet kept bravely trying to read and defy him. Flintoff continues to be par excellence , and Vaughan may come back into form after a very long time. Trescothick will have to learn keeping level-headed and not go to soft dismissals, and Harmison a little more of Flintoff's zest in everything on the field.

Lastly, if only Geraint Jones would improve his wicket-keeping skills...