A lot of pundits, including Simon Jones in his interview with us yesterday, say the Ashes will be close. Even Jason Gillespie believes there are reasons for England to be optimistic. Dizzy reckons that age will count against the Australians – comments which, judging by the video above, got Michael Clarke’s back up. Take it easy Pup, you don’t want another spasm.
Unfortunately however, I’m afraid I don’t share the pundits’ optimism. It just seems like banter and hollow bravado. The Australian team it’s very strong in all areas. It’s full of players with good, solid, proven Ashes records. England’s team, on the other hand, is a blend of unknown quantities and senior players with modest records against the Aussies.
If you look past the fighting talk, try to be objective, and focus on the cold hard facts, there’s actually little for England to be optimistic about. England have hope, of course, but hope isn’t exactly tangible.
Let’s just compare the Ashes records of the individuals in each side. I’ve only mentioned the players’ strongest suit, so it’s batting averages for the batsmen and bowling averages for the bowlers. I’m assuming that Harris and Watson will play ahead of Hazlewood and Marsh. I know this won’t necessarily be the case at Cardiff, but Australia will be strong whatever combinations they choose over the series.
Warner 44 Cook 40
Rogers 44 Lyth ?
Smith 38 Ballance ?
Clarke 45 Bell 37
Voges ? Root 33
Watson 44 Stokes 35
Haddin 43 Buttler ?
Johnson 24 Mooen ?
Starc 32 Broad 30
Harris 21 Wood ?
Lyon 31 Anderson 37
As you can see, Australia’s team is a battle hardened and has a proven track record of Ashes success. England, on the other hand, have five Ashes rookies who haven’t yet played against a team as good as the Aussies; neither have they sampled the intense pressure and scrutiny of an Ashes series.
Meanwhile, Cook and Anderson, the two senior players England desperately need to perform, have relatively disappointing Ashes records. All of these signs point to a comfortable Australian series win.
The bookies, who analyse things dispassionately without rose tinted spectacles, seem to agree. Many have England as long as 4-1 to win the Ashes, whereas the Aussies are as short as 4-11. You won’t find too many neutrals backing England. The smart money is definitely on Australia.
Of course, the above doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s a cliche, but anything can happen in sport on a given day. Although the best side will usually triumph over twenty five days, the favourites don’t always win.
If England play particularly well, and get on a roll, then it’s quite possible there will be a surprise – just like there was in 2005. However, I can’t ignore that fact that England had been building something special under Michael Vaughan for a couple of years before the iconic 2005 series.
This time it’s very different. England’s test record since the Ashes whitewash eighteen months ago is mixed. A one-day renaissance which involved just four of our test players is unlikely to make much difference in the scheme of things.
What’s more I cannot subscribe to the Dizzy theorem. Although age might be a factor in the fourth and fifth games, it’s possible the Ashes will have been decided by then.
Crucially, Australia have so much strength in depth that they can happily rotate their seamers without weakening the side. They have five extremely good pacemen in Johnson, Starc, Harris, Hazlewood and Siddle. They only need to pick three at a time. By the end of The Oval test match, Australia’s seamers will probably be fresher than both Anderson and Broad.
So how exactly can England win the Ashes? Trevor Bayliss’s inside knowledge will help for sure. What’s more, it’s quite possible that our rookies rise to the occasion. If one looks back to 2005, Strauss, Flintoff, Pietersen and Simon Jones all made an impact despite never playing against the Aussies before.
Most people seem to think that England’s best chance is to play positively and attack Australia. Indeed, Bayliss himself stressed the need to be aggressive yesterday. However, how much of this is just a hangover from the recent ODI successes? Let’s not forget that test cricket is a completely different game.
When England beat Australia in 2010/11 and (to a lesser extent) 2013, we triumphed by playing a relatively conservative, patient and attritional style of cricket. We bowled accurately, our star batsmen were guys like Cook and Trott, and scoreboard pressure generally did the job. We put the Aussies under pressure and they imploded.
Consequently, I wonder if this attacking philosophy is a red herring? 2005 was unique in many ways because it was the only time in modern cricketing history that England have triumphed by going toe to toe with Australia. England have a very different team, with a very different captain, ten years on.
Most importantly the great 2005 side had belligerent cricketers capable of backing up the fighting talk. We had three genuinely fast bowlers and a top six full of positive stroke players like Trescothick, Pietersen, Vaughan and Flintoff.
This time, England’s side doesn’t look particularly aggressive on paper. A top three of Cook, Lyth and Ballance is almost apologetic, and there will be huge pressure on the middle-order to raise the tempo. Meanwhile, Wood (and perhaps Stokes) are our only bowlers capable of forcing Australia’s batsmen back. And even then, Australia’s fast bowlers are faster than ours.
In 2013, England showed Australia’s pace attack some respect by preparing sluggish wickets that offered turn for Graeme Swann. I wonder if England’s best chance is to do the same again?
Of course, it seems a little perverse to put our Ashes hopes on the shoulders of Moeen Ali, who is still relatively wet behind the ears as a first class spinner, but the spin department is probably where Australia’s advantage over England is least pronounced. Perhaps the selectors hope that the weather stays hot and two spinners is the way to go.
Don’t get me wrong. Nathan Lyon is a decent test bowler and England should respect him. However, a battle between Moeen and Rashid on the one hand, against Lyon and Fawad Ahmed on the other, is a battle that England can actually win. Maybe Trevor Bayliss knows this, which is why Rashid has been drafted into the squad ahead of the battery of fast bowlers they took to Spain.
There’s no doubt that putting our faith in spin is a high risk strategy. Australia’s batsmen have attacked English spinners mercilessly in recent Ashes series. However, is it more risky than preparing wickets that suit Australia’s quicks? Surely Darren Lehmann will be praying that England prepare surfaces tailor made for Johnson, Starc, Harris and Co.
The Australian cricket team has been the most successful in the world over the last twenty-five years. However, for all the wins in South Africa, New Zealand and the West Indies, one cannot ignore their travails in India and even the UAE.
If England want to make the Australians uncomfortable – if such a thing is even possible – the only rational thing we can do is turn Sophia Gardens into Eden Gardens, Birmingham into Bangalore and Lord’s into Lahore . Any other strategy will be playing into Australia’s hands. At least slow wickets will give our batsmen a chance to find their feet.
I know this strategy isn’t exactly ideal, and plenty of you will be shaking your heads, but what other option do we have? We can’t just pick a side and hope for the best. There needs to be a plan. Otherwise any positivity is actually passive and amounts to nothing more than blind optimism.
James Morgan
@DoctorCopy
It’s going to be closer than you suggest. I think you’ve exaggerated Australia’s strength in parts. Yes, they’re settled and have some good players but there are still some pretty obvious weaknesses.
Granted, Australia have an advantage in the bowling department, although it looks like Harris will miss the first Test. I also think people have gone too early on Starc. Yes, he was awesome at the World Cup but he remains largely unproven at Test level.
There’s really not much difference in the batting. Voges is unproven, although I think he was a smart selection and should do OK. And Watson has been out of form for about four years. So there’s two question marks.
Rogers is solid but his record isn’t amazing. Test average of 39. Does that really strike fear into English hearts?
It leaves Clarke, Warner and Smith as the world-class batsmen. Warner can be hit and miss, while Clarke can break down at any time and isn’t as a good as he used to be.
Australia are stronger on paper but I don’t really understand this compulsion in some quarters to say they’re better than they are. If England play well, in their own conditions, they can win this series.
Is there an English tendency to overdo the pessimism before the fact so that if the wheels fall off they can always say they saw it coming?
Hi Tom. I tried to base the article on facts not blind faith. If you look at the respective Ashes records of the two sides, you see that one team has a lot of proven Ashes performers with good records, whereas the other has a lot of unknowns. I’m not talking about overall career records, but records in the Ashes, which is a bit of a unique thing.
The general point is that we all ‘hope’ England will do well, but there’s ittle to suggest they will. It’s all a bit of a hope and a prayer. Australia’s players, on the other hand, can point to a proven track record in the Ashes. Of course, that doesn’t mean that England can’t win, but the bookies – who do all the analysis – are rarely wrong. They make the Aussies big favourites. 4-1 versus 4-11 is a massive vote of confidence in Australia.
“If you look at the respective Ashes records of the two sides, you see that one team has a lot of proven Ashes performers with good records, whereas the other has a lot of unknowns. I’m not talking about overall career records, but records in the Ashes, which is a bit of a unique thing.”
I’m not really buying this argument. Ashes cricket is not a different sport. You should judge players based on their overall records, particularly when some of the sample sizes you’re talking about with the Australians are pretty small, reduced further by the fact this series is in England, not Australia.
For example, the fact that Watson averages 44 against England is not as significant as the fact he’s been short of runs for a long time. He’s not just going to flick the switch because he’s playing against England. Same goes for Haddin.
“Australia’s players, on the other hand, can point to a proven track record in the Ashes.”
I think that’s overstating it. People keeping banging on about Starc. Does he have a “proven track record in the Ashes”? Or against any opponent at Test level for that matter?
You’re making an argument based heavily on what is in some cases a small statistical sample.
But what other evidence do we have? This is the Ashes, so it makes sense to judge the players based on their Ashes record. It’s certainly more useful than looking at records against Sri Lanka, the West Indies and India, who are the weaker international teams away from home.
No system is perfect – and I agree that Watson and Haddin (the former might not even play) aren’t in great form – but what about the core players? Australia have a core bunch of players in good form, who have good Ashes records. The same simply cannot be said of England.
What’s more, I could add that Australia are ahead by any other means of comparison. For example, if we look at the ICC world rankings, which reflects pedigree and form, we see that Australia have 4 batsmen in the world top 25, whereas England have just 2. When it comes to the bowlers, Australia have 5 bowlers in the top 25, and England have just 2.
If you’re right, and I hope you are, then the bookies have got things horribly wrong. I think this is unlikely. They pay people lots of money to look at all the available evidence and make predictions based on that. Surely England have more questions to answer?
“But what other evidence do we have? This is the Ashes, so it makes sense to judge the players based on their Ashes record. It’s certainly more useful than looking at records against Sri Lanka, the West Indies and India, who are the weaker international teams away from home.”
–
Other evidence could be their overall records or their recent form. If we’re only looking at Ashes records, you’d have Watson over Root?
–
In reality, Watson is desperately short of runs and Root is one of the top batsmen in the world.
–
I reckon you’d get pretty attractive odds on Watson outscoring Root this series but if we compare their Ashes records then apparently Watson is the better bet.
–
You say “no system is perfect” – so maybe you shouldn’t try to boil it down to a “system” and instead rely on your powers of judgement and observation instead of two columns of averages.
–
And yes, I agree that Australia have a core of players in reasonable form with reasonable records but there are also more question marks than your pessimism accounts for.
–
What would your analysis have been ahead of the last Ashes series in Australia? On paper, England looked much stronger but it didn’t play out that way.
–
I’m not saying that England will definitely win. As I said, Australia are stronger on paper – you don’t need to quote the ICC rankings to make that point. But if England play well, in their home conditions, victory is possible.
I don’t think that’s a fair observation to be honest. Lots of people thought Australia had turned the corner after losing in England and most expected the return series to be extremely tight. I certainly don’t think England looked much stronger on paper.
I do think England have a chance this summer, but my powers of judgement tell me that Australia will win; therefore I went in search of statistics to support my theory (not the other way around).
I think the person we should be comparing Root to is Smith. These are the best young batsmen in the sides and the captains in waiting.
Good debate as always :-)
Turned the corner with 7 losses from their past 9 matches? That was their worst run since the mid-80s.
.
It’s true that Australia played out the 2013 Ashes competitively and the wheels didn’t fall off completely but I think a fair bit of revisionism is required to suggest they weren’t weaker on paper going in.
.
Remember, this was before Smith or Warner had emerged as decent Test players and before Johnson’s resurgence. Without those factors, Australia were not the side they are now. Put that up against the English side of the day, with Cook, Trott, Bell, KP and Prior, all averaging 40+ at Test level. Australia had one batsman in Clarke.
And England still had Swann, before he decided it was too hard. Going up against Lyon, who’d been dropped for Agar in the previous series.
And you’re telling me there was no real difference on paper going into that series?
My word.
Won’t be enough scoreboard pressure and I can’t see England’s attack securing 20 wickets on a consistent basis. Australia all the way.
For me, not a lot in the batting but they probably edge it, their bowling on paper is a lot better than ours. I think we’ll struggle to continually take 20 wickets, I get the feeling they won’t.
You make a good point about the Aussies woeful record in India, UAE and here recently, but this a strong team who will be very tough to be beat still and there are some pretty fundamental weaknesses in our team still. Maybe there won’t be by the end of the series but we still are from set at opener, #3, spinner, 3rd seamer…that’s a lot of question marks.
The Ashes records are facts, but it’s a selective choice of facts. E.g. I expect Buttler to have a greater impact on the series than Haddin and a fact to back this up no doubt would be their average over the last two years. Players expected to be key for this series (e.g. Root, Starc, Smith, Buttler etc.) will do poorly based on the “historic Ashes” analysis whilst others with handsome records have lower expectations attached to them this time round. You can hardly call it an objective look a the cold hard facts without referencing recent form.
I think the last Ashes shows what can happen when a “battle hardened” team is expected to repeat the success of an earlier series.
Can’t believe for a second that the bookies are rarely wrong but perhaps you can confirm – how have the last six or seven Ashes series gone against bookies predictions?
I doubt any team has gone into recent Ashes series as unfancied as England are now. 4-1 versus 4-11 is a huge disparity.
In a way, I think your argument about Buttler versus Haddin perfectly enshrines what I’m trying to say. Why, for example, do you expect Buttler to have a bigger impact than the bloke who was possibly man of the series (from a batting perspective) in the last Ashes?
Brad Haddin is a proven performer whereas Jos Buttler hasn’t played a single test against top class test opposition. Yes he’s very talented, but we have no idea how he’s going to play the short ball against 90mph + fast bowling. It’s a massive leap of faith to say that Buttler is going to be key.
This is my overall point. England simply ‘hope’ their players are going to do well. But it’s a kind of blind faith. A hope not necessarily an expectation. Australia’s team can say ‘we expect to do well, because we’ve done well against this opposition before’.
“I doubt any team has gone into recent Ashes series as unfancied as England are now.”
.
What about Australia in the last Ashes? They had lost 7 of their previous 9 matches, with no wins.
.
“Why, for example, do you expect Buttler to have a bigger impact than the bloke who was possibly man of the series (from a batting perspective) in the last Ashes?”
.
That’s a bizarre question. Surely recent form is more important than what happened 18 months ago. Why would you expect this series to merely be a continuation of the last with none of the fluctuations since then coming to bear?
.
“Australia’s team can say ‘we expect to do well, because we’ve done well against this opposition before’.”
.
Cook, Bell, Anderson and Broad can also say that. Stokes as well to a lesser extent. And you’d have to be really pessimistic to say Root isn’t going to score some runs given his form over the past 18 months. Equally, several Australian players have also done poorly against England at times or are unproven.
I think you’re ignoring the main point here Tom. I’m not ignoring Buttler’s recent record. He’s proved he can score runs against the minnows. But there have to be doubts until he’s done it against the best. Haddin has done it against England repeatedly.
I think you’re also missing the point about England’s senior players. Yes they have had success against Australia in the past, but they’ve also failed against them in the past too. In fact they’ve failed more than they’ve succeeded – as the averages demonstrate. If key players fail against particular opposition more than they succeed, then surely there is reason to be pessimistic?
The final point I’ll make is that I am, contrary to what you think, taking the fluctuations of the last 18 months into account. England have been inconsistent and pretty disappointing over the last year and a half. Australia have become the No.1 team in the world and won in South Africa. They dismantled the Windies very convincingly. We played poorly and only drew with them. Surely the relative performances against the Windies are the best indicator of recent form that we’ve got?
Don’t get me wrong, England can win if they play well, but all tangible evidence points to an Australian victory. The stats I raised are talking points more than anything, but they’re the best indicator we have imho.
“I think you’re ignoring the main point here Tom. I’m not ignoring Buttler’s recent record. He’s proved he can score runs against the minnows. But there have to be doubts until he’s done it against the best. Haddin has done it against England repeatedly.”
.
I don’t want to get bogged down in Haddin v Buttler, because I agree that Buttler still has a lot to prove. But I wouldn’t get too hung up on what Haddin has done against England in the past. I think that’s a flawed way to draw any kind of conclusion about what might happen this series, as evidenced by the fact Watson has a decent record against England but has basically been a basket case overall since the start of 2011. Surely, his prolonged lack of runs is more statistically significant than his two inconsequential tons against England that padded his numbers.
.
“Don’t get me wrong, England can win if they play well, but all tangible evidence points to an Australian victory.”
.
Maybe. That’s why Australia start favourites. But why are people going one step further and declaring England have no chance? For mine, that simply doesn’t square with reality.
I didn’t say England have no hope. I agree with the bookies that we have a 25% chance of winning. 4-1 odds sounds about right to me.
4-1 odds means a 20% chance of winning
Because of the respective players’ form over the past two years. Why do you expect Mitchell Starc or Hazlewood to have a greater impact than Broad or Anderson (if indeed you do – but I’m guessing this might be the case considering your comments on England’s chances…)? Ditto Smith and Bell. There are plenty of examples that could be used here.
You can’t blindly apply one metric without considering the wider picture. There is nothing objective about that.
I generally agree overall about your assessment of Australia being favourites, but I think you’re being a bit stubborn here.
Hazlewood is unproven and I didn’t include him in the main article. Bell is woefully out of form, and most of the arguments against my article seem to be about recent form! Starc is a completely different animal now. Just like Steve Smith. These guys have age on their side and are improving all the time. Can the same be said for Jimmy and Broad?
Have you seen Starc bowl in the last year or so? He’s the fastest bowler on the planet. All I’ve said about Anderson and Broad is that they have average Ashes records over a long period of time. And that their Ashes records are worse than their Aussie counterparts. Therefore the evidence points to an Australia win. I don’t see anything controversial about that observation.
Whatever metric one applies, Australia are favourites. But that’s not to say England have no chance. The article is about looking for evidence as to who will win. We all hope England will triumph, but there’s little reason to think they will – unless you have faith that our senior players play better than they usually do in the Ashes, and our unproven players can rise to the occasion. That’s two very big ‘ifs’ and these ‘ifs’ are bigger than the Australian ‘ifs’.
But you’re contradicting yourself. Anderson and Broad are “proven performers” in most senses of the word – they’re both well above the other two in the rankings.
It seems you’re willing to base judgements on form only for the Australian players on good form and England players on bad form, yet you do not allow for this when considering e.g. Haddin & Buttler (same argument applies about age on side and improvement)
I think we’re going round in circles a bit..
My argument is based entirely on the Ashes records of the players in each team. That is all. Yes, Broad and Anderson are proven test performers, but in Ashes series they have generally underperformed. Anderson has a poor Ashes record overall (37). Broad’s record is better (30), but it’s still not as good as the Aussies’ opening bowlers Harris (21) and Johnson (24). In fact, Broad’s Ashes record is identical to Siddle’s record. Siddle isn’t even first choice for Australia. Do you see my point?
I’m only mentioning form because others have brought it up. Jimmy and Broady aren’t in particularly good form anyway.
I never missed the point about Ashes’ records, I was just illustrating that by basing your argument only on one metric, and talking about objectivity and cold hard facts… you’re quite open to challenge there when we consider other aspects such as recent form and (for want of a term) “career trajectory”.
I think we’re unlikely to see Harris much to be honest but I am very concerned about Johnsen and Starc too.
I have a feeling Broad’s form on recent figures is actually pretty good, but I don’t have the stats to check. I actually fancy Wood to do a fair bit of damage this summer and Jimmy is lethal with the new ball. We’ll see.
In your book – I’m an optimist, in my book, you’re a pessimist, even though we both might consider ourselves realists..
James,
I think you overstate the importance of Ashes records as opposed to career records. You could just as easily focus on the Aussies’ Ashes records in England, which are more relevant if anything. On that basis no one in this Aussie batting line up should strike fear into our hearts, Johnson’s record in England is dreadful etc etc.
Which isn’t to say that’s how it will play out – it’s just to say that if you pick another set of facts, there’s plenty to be optimistic about.
The one thing we know is that the Aussies still can’t play the swinging ball. Even the game they lost to NZ in the world cup proved that. I think we’ll play the conditions better than they do.
The thing that undid us in Australia was pace and bounce – so as long as the wickets don’t have much bounce then a huge part of Australia’s armoury, both batting and bowling, is neutered. Similar wickets to 2013 give us our best chance.
That said, I think the Aussies will win. There’s nothing to choose between the batting line ups for mine, but their bowling looks so strong and Hazlewood scares the crap out of me in English conditions. Add to that the fact that Australia are a more hardened unit, and will probably have the nous to win the important sessions. Against that, I still think there’s a lot to be said for home field advantage.
So 3-1 Australia for me. But within that, I expect the individual games to be very closely fought. I expect this England side to compete well, fight to the death and land a lot of punches – and given where we are in the cycle of building a team, I’ll take that.
I agree that home advantage makes a difference. If England have one glimmer of hope (a tangible glimmer that’s supported by evidence) it’s that the home team usually dominates in recent test history.
I don’t buy the argument that form somehow favours England though. Australia’s recent form is much better than England’s, plus they have far more cricketers in the top 25 in the ICC world rankings.
Glimmer of hope? Definitely glass half empty aren’t we?
Rankings will always be skewed in favour of more established players due to the time it takes for players to accumulate points. Not unreasonable as a system, but as a result it is unlikely to capture recent form, or more importantly trajectory. E.g. Hazlewood and Starc for all the recent hype is down in 28 and 21 respectively. Now I know you rate them higher than that…
It’s not glass half empty. It’s a realistic appraisal of England’s chances. Yes we can win, but the odds are against it.
England’s Ashes odds are 4-1, which is identical to Aston Villa’s odds of beating Arsenal in the FA Cup final.
“The thing that undid us in Australia was pace and bounce”.
You sure about that? Harris got most of his wickets from accuracy and a persistent line, while MiJo did the most damage when pitching it up and swinging it – or at least bowling very skiddily. In his case it was pace through the air more than off the pitch.
Maxie,
Point taken re Johnson, but the reason he was so effective when he pitched it up was because most of our batsmen were camped on the back foot looking out for the bouncer. Even with Harris, it was that little extra nip and bounce that made his good line so effective.
I’m not saying they won’t get wickets – of course they will. But I would expect us to be able to handle them much better in our own conditions, while Anderson and Broad become more threatening in return.
It won’t be enough to turn 0-5 into a series win -,but I think the games will be much closer than most believe.
Johnson’s record in England is better than Anderson’s. In fact his record anywhere is better than Anderson’s.
Ian
Johnson’s record in England is 23 wickets at 37.7 apiece. Most emphatically not better than Anderson’s.
In ashes series in England (where Jimmy is in his most favourable conditions) Anderson avgs 35.1 v’s Johnson’s 32.6.
Anderson’s bowling average in England is 26.8 compared to Johnson’s.
Anderson also has a better record in Asia (32.2 to 40.3)
Our batting line-up isn’t particularly inspiring until Root comes in with hopefully Cook still there on 50 odd on his way to another Cook-like ton. If Cook and Root fall cheaply we are simply doomed. Buttler, Stokes and Ali need a platform to enable them to do their thing. If the top order have gone cheaply they are going to really struggle
But what worries me is our bowling. Jimmy Anderson is class with the new ball but not that great at all thereafter and Broad isn’t the bowler he used to be. Puts a lot of pressure on Stokes and Wood, both of whom show great promise but are far from world-class at the moment.
That said I am toying with a blindly optimistic 3-1 to England at 18-1 as you never know!!
Don’t be surprised to see Mitch Marsh in instead of Watson. Talented young alrounder
Watson averages 30 with the bat since the start of 2011. Very lucky to still be in the mix.
If Marsh plays he’ll possibly make Australia stronger then. This isn’t good news for England.
England will need Cook to have a blinder this series. He’s incredibly central to our hopes. Yet Cook has performed well in just one of the five Ashes series he’s played in. One could argue he has a 1 in 5 chance to having the blinder England need him to have :-)
“If Marsh plays he’ll possibly make Australia stronger then. This isn’t good news for England.”
I agree that Marsh would be the bold, attacking selection. But your whole argument so far has been that Ashes records are what count. On that basis, surely dropping Watson would weaken Australia?
.
After all, he averages 44 against England, thanks to two of the most inconsequential Test centuries you’ll ever see.
I think Watson now needs be viewed in the balance and value he brings to the team a stock, containing bowler who can biff the odd 30-70 score these days. He performs an absolutely vital role for the team with the ball.
Him being able to send down 15-20 overs every innings at an economy rate of 2.5 or so allows Clarke to properly let his strike bowlers do just that. It’s a fundamental weakness we’ve had since the decline of Swann through injury and going back even before, that we haven’t had someone to do that allowing Broad and Anderson a little rest.
If you’re judging him on his recent batting form, then yes, he’s a lucky boy to be in the team.
“I think Watson now needs be viewed in the balance and value he brings to the team a stock, containing bowler who can biff the odd 30-70 score these days. He performs an absolutely vital role for the team with the ball.”
.
Well, he’s still batting at No.6 so should be judged primarily on his batting form. But if it’s his bowling keeping him in the side, his numbers with the ball in recent times are nothing special either. And, frankly, wouldn’t Marsh perform the same ‘stock bowler’ role just as convincingly, with the advantage of being in better form with the bat and 10 years younger?
This is exactly where averages are (or can be) a flawed metric. Watson’s bowling avergae does not capture his value to the side – for example he played a vital part in the last Ashes series despite taking hardly any (0?) wickets. Rightly or wrongly, the way this Australian team is set up, the No. 6 Batsman has to be a bowler who can hold up an end, so that the main bowlers, and Johnson in particular can have short sharp stints with the ball. Watson’s batting has been disappointing but if he bowls well over the next two days, he’ll be in the side.
“This is exactly where averages are (or can be) a flawed metric. Watson’s bowling avergae does not capture his value to the side – for example he played a vital part in the last Ashes series despite taking hardly any (0?) wickets.”
.
I wouldn’t say he played a “vital part” but I take your point that his usefulness as a bowler isn’t reflected in his numbers.
.
However, I don’t think he can be retained at No.6 on the back of his “useful” bowling when he’s been short of runs for so long.
.
I agree that they need an extra bowler in the top six – the point is that Marsh may well be the better bet.
This is the England side that lost a test to West Indies. Frankly, if England win a single test they will have done well.
The New Zealand ODIs were nothing but distraction in context of test matches.
“This is the England side that lost a test to West Indies. Frankly, if England win a single test they will have done well.”
It’s an Ashes series in England.
I have to say I’m a bit baffled by the over-the-top pessimism about England’s chances.
Not every negative comment regarding the Ashes and the inevitable loss for England can be construed as pessimism. It’s realism.
I expect England to lose and lose comfortably. What have England done since the last Ashes to warrant any form of optimism? If anything it seems to be the norm for England to have a batting collapse every other innings. Against what I regard if not the best then the second best bowling attack in the world (SA being the other), any of those collapse is going to be terminal.
If England were to win even a test match, it will be because one or two players will have an inspired game and everything goes for them. I have no faith in the captain to win us the game strategically.
“Not every negative comment regarding the Ashes and the inevitable loss for England can be construed as pessimism. It’s realism.”
.
Well, I’m sorry but I think saying England will do well to win a single match goes over-the-top and is more pessimistic than realistic. 1) It’s in England conditions; 2) England are not a rabble; 3) Australia are not an all-conquering super team. If England play well, in their own conditions, they can make a fight of it. I don’t know why people are bending over backwards to insist England have got no chance when, on paper, there’s not that much difference between the sides – granted Australia have an edge in the bowling department but that doesn’t make it a laydown misere.
.
Honestly, I think a lot of people are indulging in that classic English pathology of slitting their wrists in advance so if it goes pear-shaped they can claim they knew all along – and, of course, if they end up playing well and winning, they’ll still be happy to crow about it.
.
I’m not saying you have to be giddy with optimism. But how about just being balanced? How about just concluding that Australia are probably the stronger team on paper but England can compete if they play well?
.
What was your analysis before the last Ashes in Australia? England certainly looked the stronger side going in but Australia found something and came out on top. Why can’t England do something similar? Maybe not 5-0 but at least win a Test and compete if they play well.
I thought England would loose but not 5-0. The signs were there in the home Ashes.
Why do I think England will do well to win a single test? Let’s take West Indies tour as an example. The manner in which Australia dismissed WI is one thing. For England to loose a test to that team shows this England team has serious vulnerabilities.
The first question I ask is how are England going to take 20 wickets in at-least 3 games? (providing each game has a result) James Anderson is a fantastic bowler but his wicket numbers have been fattened by taking lower order wickets since the last ashes. His potency is no where near his peak. Broad even at his peak was absent quiet often in matches then once in a series he would have a match winning spell. Which begs the question, if your two front line bowlers have question marks against them let alone the rest of the bowling unit, How do you expect 20 wickets? I am not selling the English bowlers short here either; Against WI and NZ (total of 5 games), England got 20 Wickets twice.
Secondly, as good as Root has been since the last Ashes, once could argue he has been a protected species coming in at 5. Against lesser teams Sri Lanka, India, WI, they only have 1 or at most 2 quality bowlers otherwise it’s like cannon fodder. Against the Aussies, I expect him to be thoroughly tested against a very strong bowling unit. Do I expect him to do well yes but I don’t think he will live up to the the expectations of the fans.
Whilst a small sample, Gary Ballance was found wanting against NZ. This was always going to be the way, he was mentally strong against poor bowling opposition and scored heavily. But against quality bowling his technique is found wanting and I think it will be the same during the Ashes.
England’s top order do not have the fire power to make the opposition bowlers have any fear. The top four batsmen score at such a steady rate that even if Australian bowlers were to have a bad session the damage to the scored board tends to be recoverable. Whereas, bar Rodgers or Clarke, they can make one bad session pay dividends. In Warner, they have an opening batsmen who can score a century in one session.
Ultimately, I think there is a reason why bookies have such a gulf in the odds between England and Australia. But then again, I did bet against Amir Khan against Prescott when a bookie offered 35-1 in a two horse race!
“I thought England would loose but not 5-0. The signs were there in the home Ashes.”
.
Well, look at the sides on paper that went into that series and it’s pretty clear that England were stronger. They had five batsmen averaging 40+ at Test level compared to Australia’s one. They had a world-class spinner, while Australia didn’t. And Australia appeared to be nailing their hopes to Mitchell Johnson, who, frankly, looked finished 12 months earlier and had been maddeningly inconsistent even at his best.
.
And, of course, Australia had lost 7 of their past 9 matches (with no wins) going into that series.
.
But if you’re telling me that, despite all those factors, you thought Australia would win, then you should have put some money down because I reckon you would have got good odds.
.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that there are question marks over some of the English players. But there are question marks over some of the Australian players too.
.
Even if we agree that Australia start favourites, I don’t see how you extrapolate that into England having no chance. That seems like an exaggeration.
Again people making unsupported statements about Johnson.
I hate to sound like a stuck record but it annoys the hell out of me that people don’t check the things that they say are fact.
Johnson has a better record than Anderson by pretty much any metric that you care to measure except number of wickets overall and that is due to Anderson’s longer career.
what annoys me is how people keep saying that England started the last Ashes as favourites. They may have started as favorites in England but the Australian media, players and fans all felt they would win comfortably. In fact Micky Arthur was so confident that, before he was sacked, he gave the plan away to the Australian media – probably loose in England and then win the return series with pace bowling.
With regard to Johnson, his form had been good leading up to the Ashes in England and many in Australia were surprised that he wasn’t picked for that series. It turned out to be a master stroke to hold him back and Micky Arthur may deserve some of the credit for that.
As for England having a world class spinner, when was the last time a touring off spinner did well in Australia? Swann was never going to be a match winner in Australia. You win tests in Australia with fast bowling.
I can see England winning a test or 2 in the current series but I think Australia will win the series. As others have said, on paper, Australia have the stronger bowling attack. However we should remember that cricket is not played on paper, it is played on grass or by cricketers on grass – just ask Ian Botham.
“what annoys me is how people keep saying that England started the last Ashes as favourites. They may have started as favorites in England but the Australian media, players and fans all felt they would win comfortably. In fact Micky Arthur was so confident that, before he was sacked, he gave the plan away to the Australian media – probably loose in England and then win the return series with pace bowling.”
.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish.
.
Australia had lost 7 of their previous 9 matches (with no wins) going into that series and by any analysis England were stronger on paper – they had five batsmen averaging 40+ compared to Australia’s one.
.
Those are the facts. I’m not sure how you conclude, from those, that Australia were anything other than underdogs.
.
Don’t just keep asserting a sweeping generalisation about what “all media, players and fans” thought. That’s absurd. Look at the facts and tell me how England’s weren’t favourites given Australia’s form and the relatives strengths of the two line-ups going in.
I’m not sure where you live. I support England but I live in Australia and in this country they were considered favourites to win. You can argue about whether that was based on logic or blind faith but you cannot claim that it is rubbish that the Australians thought they were going to win.
“Again people making unsupported statements about Johnson.”
What’s the unsupported statement?
Keep going Tom! You are doing a fine job keeping the optimists’ end up. You’re providing some much needed optimism. It wouldn’t be a debate if we all agreed that England are screwed :-)
Fascinating debate. It will be interesting to see the outcome of all this. I’m not one for stats but using my judgement I see Australia as the nailed on favourites. However, given the right conditions and a bit of luck we could well spring a surprise or two.
On the matter of the Bookies I’m with James. They are not usually far wrong.
KP still the elephant in the room? Does Cook command the dressingroom?
” Does Cook command the dressingroom?”
Well Moores said he was excellent in the dressing room.
It’s on the pitch that he’s crap.
Strauss in yesterday’s press conference didn’t exactly give a ringing endorsement of Cook’s long-term future:
“None of us know what the future holds – none of us knows what’s going to happen over the next five Test matches – so it would be wrong to speculate about what goes on after the end of this series. But at the moment he is the right man”.
The biggest difference between the last series and this one is that it is played in England. Australia will have to play extremely well to win. Their young bowlers will need guidance onfield and they won’t be getting it from Harris as he will be lucky to play any of the series. As an Aus fan, I can only hope that we are not going to have to rely on 6 and 7 to bail us out as Haddin is pretty much shot as far as run-making now and Watson is the ultimate test match con-artist masquerading as an all-rounder.
People keep having a pop at Haddin and his lack of form with the bat but I would take his keeping ability against Buttlers runs any time.
Buttler drops more runs than he makes and he may not find it so easy to make them in the next couple of months.
Haddin might not be making many runs but he’s excellent behind the wicket.
IN RESPONSE TO DLPTHOMAS…
“I’m not sure where you live. I support England but I live in Australia and in this country they were considered favourites to win. You can argue about whether that was based on logic or blind faith but you cannot claim that it is rubbish that the Australians thought they were going to win.”
.
Regardless of where you live, do you not see how it’s problematic to make an assertion about what “the Australians” thought? What kind of basis can you possibly have to make that claim? Did you conduct a poll?
.
Again, I direct you to the facts. Australia were 0-7 from their previous nine matches going into that series and faced an England side that was undeniably stronger on paper. On what basis – aside from your assertion that you know what millions of Australians thought – could they be considered favourites?
Using your logic, on what basis do you claim that England started as favourites – did you survey millions of poms?
You seem very upset over a trivial point.
ie england thought they were going to win, Australia thought they were going to win.
However, if it makes you feel better, let me put it like this. I can not remember a single story in the Australian media that argued that England were going to win.
Who’s upset? I’m just saying you’re wrong on the facts.
.
If you “cannot remember” any articles contradicting your argument, here’s Ian Chappell saying before the series that England start as favourites (http://es.pn/1f7CtcG): “On this occasion Australia have more ifs, while England are superior in the number of proven performers. And unless my memory’s playing tricks, that means the tourists will start as favourites.”
.
Here’s George Dobell – an Englishman, admittedly – making similar arguments (http://es.pn/1GSXgHB): “There are, by a generous assessment, four great players involved in this series – Pietersen, Cook, Swann and Clarke – and three of them play for England. Australia may well be on the rise and England may be coming towards the end of their period of success, but in this series at least, they should still have just about enough to retain the Ashes.”
.
Here’s a link to another site showing England as favourites with four different betting agencies, including sportsbet, which is Australian: http://tune.pk/video/3761424/best-20132014-ashes-series-cricket-betting-odds-australia-vs-england
Who’s upset? I’m just saying you’re wrong on the facts.
.
If you “cannot remember” any articles contradicting your argument, here’s Ian Chappell saying before the series that England start as favourites (http://es.pn/1f7CtcG): “On this occasion Australia have more ifs, while England are superior in the number of proven performers. And unless my memory’s playing tricks, that means the tourists will start as favourites.”
.
Here’s George Dobell – an Englishman, admittedly – making similar arguments (http://es.pn/1GSXgHB): “There are, by a generous assessment, four great players involved in this series – Pietersen, Cook, Swann and Clarke – and three of them play for England. Australia may well be on the rise and England may be coming towards the end of their period of success, but in this series at least, they should still have just about enough to retain the Ashes.”
.
Here’s a link to another site showing England as favourites with four different betting agencies, including sportsbet, which is Australian: http://tune.pk/video/3761424/best-20132014-ashes-series-cricket-betting-odds-australia-vs-england
See below for my basis…
Here’s another Australian agency’s odds from the first week of 8 October, 2013, quoting the odds for the forthcoming Ashes (http://bit.ly/1R8Rcos).
.
They had England at $1.91 favourites, which means you would have got 1.91 if you’d bet one dollar on England and they won. That works out to be about 9/10 on in fractional odds. In other words, they had them odds on to win the series.
.
Australia, on the other hand, were at $2.63, which works out at about 8/5 in fractional terms.
Yes, I remember thinking at the time that they couldn’t possibly have been watching the same Ashes series in the summer of 2013 that I had been watching. England were heavily flattered by the score line, and looked like an old team, completely bereft of ideas. In November 2013 I was personally predicting something between 3-1 and 4-0 to Australia. After we went 1-0 down in such a calamitous manner, 5-0 was inevitable.
Ian Chappell saying before the series that England start as favourites (http://es.pn/1f7CtcG): “On this occasion Australia have more ifs, while England are superior in the number of proven performers. And unless my memory’s playing tricks, that means the tourists will start as favourites.”
.
George Dobell – an Englishman, admittedly – making similar arguments (http://es.pn/1GSXgHB): “There are, by a generous assessment, four great players involved in this series – Pietersen, Cook, Swann and Clarke – and three of them play for England. Australia may well be on the rise and England may be coming towards the end of their period of success, but in this series at least, they should still have just about enough to retain the Ashes.”
Ian Chappell, the last voice of sanity in the Channel 9 commentary box, is always worth listening to. However, I “see” your Chappell and “raise” you The Back Page and Foxtell’s cricket show, both of which had a seemingly endless parade of ex-Australian players who were only to happy to rabbit on about how Australia were going to win back the Ashes. Some even tied themselves into knotts arguing that despite loosing 3 – 0 to England, Australia had been the better side.
In Chappell’s article that you cite, he writes “ever since England landed in Australia, it’s all been about the problems facing the tourists and how the home side is settled and in good shape for the upcoming Ashes series.” I take that to mean he has written the article in response to the majority of the Australian media being “all..about” Australia being favourites. (Can you imagine Ian’s face as he wrote that England should be favourites – it would be like he had a mouth full of piss and didn’t know where to spit it)
In the Dobell article that you have also kindly cited, he writes “to read much of the Australian media in recent days, you would think the England team were a pretty hopeless bunch” This would also seem to support my claim that the Australian media, public and players thought that they were going to win.
So who were the favourites? It depends who you asked. All I am saying is that the Australians thought they were going to win. (and I am not commenting on whether or not that belief was justified)
So over to you for the last word as I think by now everyone but us else is bored shitless by this discussion. (though I guess we could adjourn to the Tavern if your really keen)
I think we both know that’s not good enough. I told you England were favourites. You asked me what my basis was for saying that. And I cited an Australian commentator saying England were favourites, an English commentator saying England were favourites, and links to bookmakers confirming this. My job is done.
.
Don’t talk to me about local media spinning a populist line. The Courier-Mail is not serious. We both know that. But if you want to bring them into the equation, then how about this piece from the Daily Mail (http://dailym.ai/1klb7QM) talking about “the gulf” between the two sides after the first day’s play at the Gabba? How about that for English confidence?
.
Ultimately, the term “favourite” is about the betting. And the bookies had England at shorter odds to win than Australia. So your arguments about what various people thought are erroneous. I’ve provided you with links to bookmakers showing England were favourites going in.
.
You should do the gentlemanly thing and admit you were wrong.
You’re funny. In fact, I’m beginning to think I have been had by an immensely talented piss-take artist (that’s a compliment).
Let’s recap. You took exception (ie called it rubbish) to my statement that the Australian media, fans and players thought that they were going to win. I am not sure why that statement upsets you so much just as I am not sure why you introduce irrelevancies such as what the bookies thought, the parochial nature of the Australian media or the opinion of English journalists. You have also cited articles by Chappell and Dobell which actually support my claim as both authors clearly express surprise at how confident the Australians were that they would win. And that brings us to the article by (another Englishman?) Martin Samuel’s.
The article has almost nothing about whom were favourites going into the first test being instead about England’s performance on Day 1 in Brisbane. With the retrospectoscope, it is very funny and I am sure it came back and bit him in the arse so hard that he still can’t sit down.
How carefully did you read Samuel’s article? He writes “the 3-0 gulf between the teams in the summer was perhaps not the fluke that has been depicted in these parts”. Even the title begins with “Australia claims of confidence and resurgence exposed”. Clearly, like Dobell and Chappell, Samuels’ was surprised at how confident the Australians were that they were going to win. I’d go further; he is not just surprised, he is openly contemptuous.
We agree on many things – favourites don’t always win, England could win the series and using 2005 as masturbation material is probably bad for your health. Sadly, I don’t think we are ever going to agree on this. In fact, we’re not even having the same argument.
And now, I promise you the last word. Make it spectacular.
“You took exception (ie called it rubbish) to my statement that the Australian media, fans and players thought that they were going to win.”
.
That’s correct. That kind of generalisation is unavoidably meaningless. Every Australian thought that, did they?
.
“I am not sure why you introduce irrelevancies such as what the bookies thought”
.
Because that’s what defines who is ‘the favourite’, rather than some imagined consensus that you claim millions of Australians shared. Which they didn’t.
.
“You have also cited articles by Chappell and Dobell which actually support my claim as both authors clearly express surprise at how confident the Australians were that they would win.”
.
You said you ‘couldn’t remember’ any Australians saying England were favourites. So I showed you the one written by Chappell, to refresh your memory. In addition, I showed you the one by Dobell to further demonstrate the prevailing view that England went into the series with their noses in front.
.
I agree that there was the view, in some quarters, that Australia were on the rise and would make a fight of it. That doesn’t make them favourites. On the contrary, England were favourites. Like I said.
.
I’ve presented you with real examples of people saying England were favourites? Can you do the same regarding Australia?
.
Or you could just go and look at the bookies’ odds – that’s all the proof that is required. There’s no point pivoting back and saying ‘this is what millions of Australians thought’. There’s no evidence for that.
Here’s a link to another site showing England as favourites with four different betting agencies, including sportsbet, which is Australian: http://bit.ly/1H4iCnz
Apologies to James and Maxie for the staggered posting. It didn’t appear to be submitting properly.
Hi Tom. No probs it’s not your fault. We’re just having a few teething problems with the new site. We’ll iron out these creases as we go along.
Thanks for all your comments. It’s great to have another good debate with differences of opinion.
One of things we haven’t talked about yet is HOW England should try to beat Australia. I was kind of hoping the debate would lead to this. Is preparing slow, spinning pitches the way to go? Or should we just prepare good cricket wickets and try to out play the Aussies?
Just one more thing. Apologies for the problem with the spacing between paragraphs. Ill try to sort this out today. I messed around with the CSS on Weds and must have deleted something in the code.
What about my ingenious solution of inserting full stops as paragraph breaks?
I apologise for diverting the discussion but I thought it worthwhile to clarify once and for all that England were in fact favourites going into the last Ashes.
“One of things we haven’t talked about yet is HOW England should try to beat Australia. I was kind of hoping the debate would lead to this. Is preparing slow, spinning pitches the way to go? Or should we just prepare good cricket wickets and try to out play the Aussies?”
I find this widespread assumption that home teams can prepare wickets to suit themselves quite alarming. Until 2 or 3 years ago it was assumed the home groundsman had a duty to prepare the best possible cricket wicket. The world game needs to get back to that mentality – it might need centrally contracted groundsmen to achieve it.
One reason English groundsmen might be susceptible to pressure is because of the bidding process. Outside the two London grounds I suspect groundsmen are aware that if they don’t deliver a pitch to order their county might lose out in future years.
“the best possible cricket wicket”
And how might one define that ?
As a disinterested spectator (which in this case, of course, I’m not), I would argue that such a wicket should encourage spin.
One might also observe that a single definition of “best possible” would eliminate a lot of interesting games.
A good cricket wicket isn’t that hard to define. First half of day one – some help for the seamers, rest of day one plus days two and three good for batting, days four and five some spin. Even bounce and some pace help. Essentially, a pitch where good batsmen can make runs and bowlers of all types have a chance at some stage (and very good bowlers at any stage). The two best cricket wickets in England I’d say are OT and Headingley and it is wretched that neither has an Ashes’ Test (whereas TB after that abominable wicket last year does).
Within that overall framework, grounds are allowed to have their own character. One of the worst things about England’s cricketing infrastructure in recent years is a tendency to homogenization. What are the typical pitches of many English grounds now? The five main Australian grounds still have their distinctive characteristics. Australia mainly exploit home conditions by when they situate the Perth Test.
yeah, basically as fast and bouncy as possible given the conditions, with a bit of grass coverage to start, followed by breaking up a little bit around the end of day 3.
“One of things we haven’t talked about yet is HOW England should try to beat Australia.”
Pray for rain, lots and lots of rain.
Good idea! I’m sure England were favourites but I doubt Australia were 4-1. Those were same odds for Villa beating Arsenal in the FA Cup final ;-)
An alternative way of sizing up the two teams is to look at their records as a whole.
Since 13/14 Australia have played four series and won three. One was at home and three were away. Their combined results are W6 L3 D2.
England have won one of their last four series (remember England need to win this series to regain the Ashes). Three were at home and one was away. Combined results are W5 L4 D4.
The series Australia didn’t win was against a team unbeaten at that location (Pakistan in UAE). England lost to a team (SL) who had only ever won once against a top eight side outside Asia. England have drawn series against the 8th ranked team and a team they had previously taken it for granted they would defeat (12 wins out of the previous 13).
Curiously, England’s best series was the one they started slowest in. The three non-wins all saw England start well but fade dramatically. Those hoping for a good England performance in Cardiff might be careful what they wish for!
Surely slow green seamers are the way to go? They play to Anderson’s strength without necessarily helping out Johnson and Starc.
Our batsmen would also have more experience of playing on sluggish seamer’s pitches.
And let’s not forget this piece from 5 years ago…
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/james-lawton-cyclical-decline-this-slump-looks-terminal-2162489.html
With Ryan Harris retiring, Australia’s advantage narrows further.