An Australian summary - The Ashes 5th Test, day 5, The Oval

Australia: 9/492 dec. from 128.5 overs
Shane Watson 176, Steven Smith 138*
James Anderson 4-95

England: 377 all out from 144.4 overs
Joe Root 68, Kevin Pietersen 50, Matt Prior 47
James Faulkner 4-51, Mitchell Starc 3-92, Ryan Harris 2-64

Australia: 6/111 from 23 overs 
Michael Clarke 28*, Shane Watson 26
Stuart Broad 4-43

England: 5/206 chasing 227 runs for victory 
Kevin Pietersen 62, Jonathan Trott 59
Ryan Harris 2-21, James Faulkner 2-47

I am happy to eat my words written after day four was washed out. I wrote, "even if there is play tomorrow it will be a deflating display of defensive batting and tiresome bowling, with a few possible moments of excitement to play out for a drawn result."

We ended up getting quite a bizarre play of events in the end as England, probably reflecting on their batting on day three, came out with a more attacking attitude and we ended up seeing a game of it all. However, it was still a drawn result but it could have gone either way with England looking like favourites in the end until the umpires called for bad light. Worrying but exciting.

Michael Clarke's declaration was well timed in the sense that this game would have come down to the wire. England had to attack, they had to play out of their shells and we were tested in a limited overs sense prior to the limited series being just around the corner. Good on Clarke for making a match of it in the end, even if it was a nail-biting scenario and he opted for more conservative tactics after Kevin Pietersen's assault. Not sure of the crowds reasons for booing him though. Poor show after the crowd surely got a great days entertainment? Most puzzling indeed. 

Brydon Coverdale of ESPN summarised the tactics of Clarke really well on the final days play. In a way it highlights the slight confusion amidst our cricket ranks at present. Have a read at his article via this link.

This series will go down as one where the scoreline showed complete and utter dominance by a relatively stable English team. However, if you watched as much of the action as possible you will see it all came down to England's experience as a unit to win Test matches and having certain individuals stand up to the challenge having known how to do this from previous scenarios. It pays to stick with a side and show belief in the men who wear your teams caps, doesn't it?

Yesterday I summed it up, "the English team have been together a lot longer now and experienced winning Test matches. They know how to win those small passage of play which - ultimately - brings about the main result in the bigger scheme of things.

As a result the selectors will hopefully realise that the players who showed strong performances or indications of their true skill need to be retained for the home Ashes series - they must not chop and change. The players who didn't step up will need to play out of their socks come the Sheffield Shield. They will need to fight for the right to put their Baggy Green caps back on, while I am certain other players will be as keen to bag lots of wickets or pocket plenty of runs to get their opportunity. "

There will always be the bitterness regarding the Stuart Broad incident, which I prefer to put down to blind umpiring rather than Broad being a cheat. Andrew Symonds didn't walk against India in 2007/08 after a generous edge to MS Dhoni, so I'd be hypocritical to call him (Broad) a cheat even if he uses stall tactics too. Many players don't walk, period. They don't have to if the umpire doesn't raise his finger. It came down to the umpiring and it was a pretty bloody obvious edge too which made it infuriating and humiliating.

It has been a shocking series for the umpires and that decision ultimately changed many things regarding this series. The DRS came under scrutiny and the umpires have now become far more vulnerable to couch-umpire criticism. It could have been very different had their standards been better and had Michael Clarke been more strategic with his reviews, so bad luck has to come into it for The Baggy Greens.

Here's a look at the Tests. We fell 14 runs short in the first Test, just 14 runs after being down and out after a top order collapse - one of many. The second Test we were outplayed and I owe this to the manner in which we lost the first Test. I do believe this affected the teams confidence and self-belief immensely, whereas England just took the momentum home. We also have to wonder what if we'd caught Joe Root when he edged a delivery on just 8 runs and the slip cordon just watched it sail on by? He went on to score 180 runs.

The third Test was ours. I have seen enough cricket to know that any play that goes away due to rain or bad light cannot see potential results brought about my assumption. Anything could have happened had play resumed that day but yes, it looked like we had it in the bag. It was a bitter pill to swallow as I wrote at the conclusion of the Old Trafford Test.

The fourth Test we had it in the bag after Ryan Harris delivered another sensational spell of high performance fast bowling. Yet after a solid foundation set by Chris Rogers and David Warner it imploded and once again that lack of belief we saw after the first Test came out again. It was a humiliating loss which we threw away. It was once again a small passage of play which England just stamped with total dominance and authority.

We also had a first innings lead in four of the Tests but still didn't secure a victory. Further highlighting batting inconsistencies for a balance between good performances and shocking ones.

We could then perform an autopsy looking into the other aspects within each Test which brought about an English victory and further doom and gloom reports over the decline of Australian cricket. I can understand the pessimistic attitudes out there. We tossed many golden moments away, but I think we had many positives to take away from this series and if those can materialise with stability and consistency (along with selection consistencies - same old song) we have a massive chance to win back the urn next series and hang onto it for some time.

Chris Rogers was outstanding in my opinion. He came into this side with immense pressure as he would have been expected to perform from innings one given his county form and the circumstances surrounding his selection. He brought up his maiden Test century this series and even gave us solid platforms to work from, but our fragile middle order made his efforts seem lost at sea.

Ryan Harris was my Player of the Series for us and his delivery to remove Ian Bell at Old Trafford on day three was a beauty! He bowled his heart out and it kind of makes me sad to know that had his body been better equipped for Test cricket he'd be right up there with Dale Steyn. I spare a few thoughts for Ryano. He gave it his best and that isn't easy for a bloke whose endured so many injury setbacks. It must have been hard on his body to bowl as he did and with the success he had.

I wrote this about Ryano after the thumping at Lords:
"...Ryan Harris' body language was both sad and real. He worked bloody hard to grab a five wicket haul upon his return to the team. He made the Lord's bowling honours board and showed how proud he was to be back in the team. It was all in vain though as the batsmen burnt his efforts and you could sense his despair and sheer heartache. He was just going through the motions. That is the true frustration of the series thus far. We haven't secured vital passages of play, England has. Our batsmen haven't backed the decent performances of our bowlers, England has even if luck has been a major player in their fortunes."

Shane Watson finally scored a long awaited century which ended up being his highest Test score (176) and his first since 2010in Mohali, India. Watson is a frustrating cricketer because his ability is world-class but his application from a mental stand point is inconsistent. No one can pinpoint what it is but it was a relief to see him secure a massive score in the number three position. It came too late for us after he'd been disappointing with the bat but at least he did something a number three had not done since Shaun Marsh's century on debut against Sri Lanka in 2011.

Prior to Watson's century and since Ricky Ponting stepped out of the number three role (and ultimately retiring) we have used the following men at number three: Shaun Marsh, Ed Cowan, Rob Quiney, Phillip Hughes, David Warner Usman Khawaja and Michael Clarke. Took long enough. Watson also averages over 40 in the position.

Michael Clarke had to have an average series by his standards at some point. He couldn't continue to be the savior for our team. When he didn't perform with sublime output we saw how we desperately need guys to step up. Rogers did but ultimately it all came too late. Clarke's back will hopefully be ready for the home Ashes series. That is his biggest worry and could effectively end his career sooner than expected.

Steven Smith's century in the final Test was an important one. Like Khawaja he didn't really assert himself as a batsman making the position in the batting order his own and imposing himself as the man for the future to secure a middle order role for Australia. Yet one cannot deny it was a big moment for him to score a maiden Test century in circumstances where our team could have quite easily lost their fight and just handed England the match. He fought hard, batted with confidence and showed another sign he is slowly coming of age. I wrote my thoughts regarding Smith's turn of events on day two of the recently concluded Oval Test.

Nathan Lyon bowled with an attitude I have never sensed. He had a hop in his step and was really turning on the revolutions with his deliveries, foxing a few of England's best batsmen. His battle with Kevin Pietersen was fantastic to watch and, like Smith, this series gave an indication of Lyon coming of age. Perseverance with him will only benefit him as the Warne-days are now long, long gone and there will never be a spinner of that class again, even if Warnie was a leg spinner.

James Faulkner one and only appearance added a good dynamic to this side. His selection may have put some pressure on Shane Watson to perform, despite Watson having stacked experience in all forms of the game. Faulkner grabbed 6 wickets on debut and 45 runs. Nothing spectacular but a fairly good start compared some of the other Baggy Greens handed out like candy to a bunch of kids at party.

Ashton Agar's 98 on debut was awesome. "Awesome" is the perfect word for that display. He helped us stay in the game and showcased his abilities with the blade in hand, something I saw a bit of at The Adelaide Oval between Western Australia and South Australia in March. He was selected though as a spin bowler. Nathan Lyon is still our best and will be for some time. Agar will come around, he is just 19 but will need the correct mentorship and career management. I am not talking about "career management" as Cricket Australia markets it. I just mean I hope the selectors don't stuff up another young spin bowlers career by throwing him in to soon, making him suffer only to then pull him out for good.

Questions will be asked though.

Was this Brad Haddin's final Test for Australia? What if Matt Wade and Tim Paine get off to solid Shield starts? Haddin kept wicket extremely well this Ashes series, a big turn around for him if you think a few summers back. He's endured a tough run as a family fan off the cricket field so it was a big achievement for him to make this trip but is he too inconsistent now? He has yet to taste an Ashes victory as a member of the starting XI.

Is Mitchell Starc going to remain and pitch and match player? He continues to show poor discipline with his bowling and just cannot seem to build sufficient pressure from his end. On one hand I defend him because he is always in and out of the side so how can he build a solid game plan to match his abilities. Yet one has to ask is the reason behind his pitch and match selection due to the possible inability he has at present to build a game plan that compliments the other bowlers such as Harris, Siddle and Pattinson?

Phillip Hughes was a young man unbelievable confidence and he was piling on runs like no other young Australian batsman had done since Ricky Ponting. Then he had poor career management, endless advice and his game went to the crapper. He has been dropped four or five times now. How is a player meant to handle that? Surely he deserves an extended run? A man who has dominated a county stint and stacked up runs in Australia during different seasons surely deserves a run of consistency in the side? This is a batsman who has also dominated some of the best bowling attacks.

David Warner can belt a ball but is also becoming an inconsistent batsman to watch. Is he an opener or is he a middle order batsman? We all know the destructive player he is but until there is another batsman ready to knock down the doors to any possible batting order plans the selectors have for him, where is going to be placed? What is the plan for him?

Ed Cowan did all he needed to earn a Baggy Green cap but he just hasn't delivered the goods. He has been consistently mediocre and he must be the most confused man in the side as he show cased all that needed to be at state level. Why can't he bring it together in the Test arena? The same can be said for Usman Khawaja who has been on the sidelines a while but I have read and heard many cricket journalists and past-players mention a lack of determination and eagerness in his attitude. Only Usman can answer this.

We also need to see consistency come in the selection policies. The signs are there that there's enough ability in this teams batting line-up. Most of the players have a Test century coming against strong Test sides. Some have great experience, others are starting to come of age. If this can all click in one series as we saw against India in 2011/12 will this make players at state level work harder to earn a place in the side, to target a specific spot in the team to earn that Baggy Green cap?

Tough times ahead still. It seems whenever we get so close it all goes a few steps back. I do remain confident though we can win the Ashes back this summer.

Why? Read my opening paragraphs in this article. England won the small passages of play which ultimately brought about their series victory. They had a few players, just a few, step up when needed to in order to secure those passages of play. Those passages led them to victory. It comes down to those small moments, small differences between the sides which end up painting a much bigger picture than a scoreline indicates.

If our players can perform to the best of their abilities with synergy and start to win those small moments to ultimately win Test matches again we will get back the urn this summer. Don't stop supporting The Baggy Greens!

Welcome to The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click on the 'Comments' tag at the end of the article.


TWITTER
@BaggyGreenBlog
@Ianbaggygreen
@SylvesterAu
@Dan_Stapo

The Ashes 1st Test, day 4, Trent Bridge

The Ashes 1st Test, day 4, Trent Bridge:

England 1st innings: 215 all out after 59 overs
Peter Siddle 5-50, James Pattinson 3-69, Mitchell Starc 2-54
Jonathan Trott 48, Jonny Bairstow 37

Australia 1st innings: 280 all out after 64.5 overs
Ashton Agar 98, Phillip Hughes 81*, Steven Smith 53
James Anderson 5-85, Graeme Swann 2-60

England 2nd innings: 375 all out from 149.5 overs
Mitchell Starc 3-81, Peter Siddle 3-85, Ashton Agar 2-82
Ian Bell 109, Stuart Broad 65, Kevin Pietersen 64

Australia 2nd innings: 6/174 runs after 71 overs
Chris Rogers 52, Shane Watson 46
Stuart Broad 2-34, Graeme Swann 2-64

Match situation: Australia require 137 runs to win, while England require 4 wickets to win.

The day started off with heads hanging low, with a middle period of extreme optimism only for stumps to be called with mixed emotions.

An outside edge off James Pattinson’s first over of the day against Stuart Broad sailed between Shane Watson and Michael Clarke’s “weaker hands” (Watson’s left, Clarke’s right). It seemed to worryingly set the tone. Ian Bell brought up his second Test century against Australia and as England cheered their middle order batsman on, luck finally came our way as James Pattinson removed Broad, quite a few runs later than what should have been.

Peter Siddle was given the bowling duties after Mitchell Starc was wayward and unable to build any pressure from his bowling end. Starc may find himself making way for Jackson Bird come the Lord’s Test. Siddle was effective in no time with ferocious ambition as he picked up the final wickets of Swann and Anderson.

We’d taken England from 7/356 to 375 all out. Their lead though was intimidating at 311 runs. The highest chase was 284 runs, done so by the home side in 2004. It was a massive target set, but you can’t lose hope until the result is in.

The biggest thing on my mind before the run chase commenced revolved around two factors.
The first is we had time, the second was that although England’s bowlers have great new ball control and Swann for the deteriorating track, it’s not a messy track or a track with lots of life to fret about. Therefore it was all about check points for our run chase and not the overall total. If our top four could get to 150 runs, it would be game on with 8 wickets still in the shed.

James Anderson’s ability to operate under pressure is world class. His first ball was perfectly pitched as Shane Watson (46) lunged and it missed the edge. Watson wants to dominate and wants to attack, but as Chris Rogers (52) calmed him and guided him in the warm up games it seemed to settle the rhythm. After hitting a couple of fours off Anderson an over later he tried it again and nearly found the outside edge. He looked back to Chris Rogers, put his head down and tried to enforce his focus.

Watson and Rogers showcased something good out there. They complemented each other’s natural abilities and seemed to regularly encourage one another with calm composure. Watson struck crisp boundaries, showing off his natural stroke making skills, while Rogers plugged away with tenacity to find his runs. They reached 84 runs by the drinks break and hope was alive in our camp. Sadly, and I truly express the word “sadly”, Watto was dismissed LBW and despite reviewing it, it did look a good decision to me. He fell short of a half-century, which would have been a huge breakthrough for us in confidence. A strong opening stand was brought to an end and the check point of 100 slipped away.

Ed Cowan came to the crease and never looked settled, despite having an understanding of the Trent Bridge conditions. He reached 15 runs but it seemed inevitable he would fall victim to one of the English bowlers. Frustratingly it was to Joe Root, who claimed Cowan as his maiden Test wicket. Cowan is definitely in doubt for the next Test and I think the real issue is that he’s not a number three batsman – rather than his actual batting abilities being brought into question. With David Warner as an opener they were an average pair at best, despite having grafted together for some time with some notable performances.

Number three may be “just a number”, but your character as a player in this role is vital. I have always seen this role suited to an imposing batsman who can take the game by the scruff of the neck to call the game on his own terms. Cowan may have compromised his natural game to pursue this approach.

Ricky Ponting was a classic example. Hashim Amla and Jonathan Trott stand as the best modern day examples. Both have been playing a great deal longer than Cowan, but naturally their temperaments seem better suited. A number three is as good as an opener should one of the top two fall quickly, but it has a different mindset knowing there’s nine wickets in the shed and not ten.  Cowan may find himself being challenged to stay in the side.

Sadly after Cowan’s departure, Rogers logged in his maiden half-century but fell 13 runs into his partnership with Michael Clarke when an English game plan was executed. Rogers had a lapse in concentration and chipped a full delivery to Ian Bell at midwicket. He seemed to lose his composure when Watson departed.

A collapse commenced and it would be a familiar sight for us as Australian supporters to see more than five wickets down with the score below 200 runs, although luck has definitely not been on our side for this match. Reality check is this has been an issue for some time but hurt even more with the knowledge we had a good opening stand.

Michael Clarke’s had a forgettable Test match on a personal note. I do believe he will score plenty of runs this series but this was not his game. Beyond batting, he had a questionable game tactically, mostly regarding a change of ball on day three and a short sighted view in using our decision referrals. His innings brought 23 runs in an oddly conservative manner, and he was dismissed getting the faintest of edges to Matt Prior. Clarke reviewed this decision too and as a result we have lost all our referrals for the innings. It was a small victory to England with our referrals done, but a huge moment of play secured for them with Clarke dismissed.

Steven Smith (17) and Phillip Hughes (0) fell with 161 and 164 runs on the board. It was a nauseating sight seeing we’d lost six wickets for just 80 runs, whereas our openers had given us a foundation of 84 runs to pursue a historic run chase. Hughes was slightly unlucky in his departure. Again, that theme of luck comes up.

Hope is not lost, although history is showing England should win this, along with the obvious factor they won the days play.

Brad Haddin has 11* runs, while Ashton Agar is new to the crease having been moved ahead of Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc and James Pattinson. Each and every one of these guys can bat and with 137 runs required, between the five of them that is a collection of roughly 28 runs each. It is definitely achievable and, as I wrote earlier, chasing down this target is about check points. It still applies for our final four wickets where there is no lack of batting ability, but Graeme Swann will be a handful.

I see the final day of play going one of two ways.

It will either be over quickly and England will take the win with a good margin. We have had an inability to put up a fight with the game on the line and if our team needs a moment of glory to embark on a new legacy, this is it. I reckon if it goes England’s way it will be wrapped up very quickly tomorrow.

The second result is that with some good application and an outlook that these runs are most definitely reachable, I tip our guys to chase down the runs. I still believe we can but the first two sessions will define this. It’s hard to be upbeat after the loss of our middle order yesterday but I have hope with our batting depth and that when broken down in chunks, this target can be achieved and victory can be seen. Optimism at its best, but what other choice do I have as a supporter?

Verdict: England won day four, securing the momentum in the final session of play.

Welcome to The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click on the 'Comments' tag at the end of the article.


TWITTER
@BaggyGreenBlog
@Ianbaggygreen
@SylvesterAu
@Dan_Stapo

Who will be in the starting XI for Trent Bridge?

The Ashes battle is just days away and my levels of optimism were certainly boosted after the team morale - and performances - returned to the squad during the tour matches against Somerset and Worcestershire. England have announced their squad for the first Test at Trent Bridge, while we only have four guaranteed selections at present of our potential starting XI.

A few weeks back I wrote an article that took a look at the conditions that can be expected at each of the venues where the Ashes matches will be hosted.

Trent Bridge is one massive hurdle for batsmen to get over as an opening match. It's a fantastic venue for swing bowling and there were promising signs with our batsmen scoring good runs in the tour matches to suggest there is hope come the battle against James Anderson and his cronies. Having said that, this ground is a whole different challenge come focus, confidence and technique against quality swing bowling.

Here is the report I compiled on Trent Bridge, Notthingham on 01 May 2013:

Briefing: It was encouraging to see both Chris Rogers (Ashes squad member/ Middlesex) and Ed Cowan (Ashes squad member/ Nottinghampshire) showcase form and score some good runs at Trent Bridge in their opening Division One game of the county season.

This is going to be providing a gripping contest between bat and ball, but it is going to be most challenging for our batsmen. An excellent opening venue for the Ashes. It will test all aspects a team and individual requires to survive in a Test match.

We last played a Test in 2005, losing by 3 wickets, but we did take the win in the 2001 Test, which has little relevance at this point in time with it dating back 12 years.

At this relatively low scoring ground, Michael Clarke is the only player in our squad who has been exposed to the challenges presented at Trent Bridge at the elite level. There is validity to look at playing Cowan and Rogers too given their county runs.

The pitch report: As mentioned, Trent Bridge is an ideal arena to kick off the Ashes series in a time where batting dominates the modern game. There is as good a guarantee as any that the ball will swing and should provide for a menacing contest. Trent Bridge has produced more win or lose results than drawn results in recent years, so it is definitely a good place to start a series with an outcome quite likely to occur.

A theory behind the high presence of swing conditions at the ground, which is likely to carry throughout all possible innings in a match, is that the increase in buildings around the ground - notably the Bridgford Road stand - creates an enclosure of sorts, meaning that whatever air enters the arena will circulate and not escape as easily as an open ground, logically. Add a packed crowd attendance and conditions that aren't too chilly, you get an increase in friction resulting from the warmer air, which ultimately leads to a ball that responds greater to swing with greater emphasis needing to be placed on preserving one side of the cherry, while roughing up the other.

Have a read at this article explaining the scientific facts behind swing bowling: Read article on how a cricket ball swings.

Given our batting inconsistencies in recent seasons, England may very well eye an opportunity to have a bowl at us with confidence should they win the toss. Statistically it seems better to bowl first, also assessing your opponents batting line-up (SWOT analysis). The toss will be a massive talking point and it's essential to have that luck go your way.

Even though it is apparent that in any Test match should you get bowled out on the first day you are in trouble, Trent Bridge makes recovery from a poor start in a match hard to come by. This is mostly given the presence of swing bowling, made even harder by good, natural swing bowlers - England have a few of these. Sure, you could try and get one up on the opposition, but if they can handle the conditions slightly better, a deficit of even fifty to one hundred runs could end your hopes.

Expect plenty of deliveries with the new ball to be pitched up on a line that will create some fearful uncertainty. I'd be ready in the slips and gully regions. (END)

So, with this analysis concluded let's take a look at our potential candidates for the starting XI come the opening Test of the Ashes. I have not listed my side as I am eager to hear your opinion.

Before I do so, here's the tour batting stats thus far.

Batting:

Michael Clarke: 2 matches, 4 innings, 257 runs, HS 124, Avg 64.25, 100s (1), 50s (1)
Phillip Hughes: 2 matches, 4 innings, 231 runs, HS 86, Avg 115.50, 50s (3)
Shane Watson: 2 matches, 2 innings, 199 runs, HS 109, Avg 99.50, 100s (1), 50s (1)
Ed Cowan: 2 matches, 4 innings, 141 runs, HS 58, Avg 35.25, 50s (1)
Steven Smith: 1 match, 2 innings, 111 runs, HS 68*, Avg 111.00, 50s (1)
Chris Rogers: 1 match, 2 innings, 101 runs, HS 75, Avg 50.50, 50s (1)
Usman Khawaja: 1 match, 2 innings, 100 runs, HS 73, Avg 50.00, 50s (1)
Brad Haddin: 2 matches, 2 innings, 90 runs, HS 52*, Avg 90.00, 50s (1)

Michael Clarke is a vital component to our side. Besides his sublime form dating back to 2011, he is the anchor of this side and a century in the final innings of our tour match against Worcestershire highlighted this. Ricky Ponting was targeted in the 2010/11 Ashes series and we saw how it put us into ruins with a leader not performing and being picked out innings in, innings out by the opposition.

Graeme Swann - an outspoken but well grounded spin bowler - has made a public statement of this common knowledge regarding Clarke. It will be immense pressure for Clarke in the middle, so Darren Lehmann's tactical move to pull Clarke away from a number of duties required during Mickey Arthur's time as coach is brilliant to say the least.

Clarke had a lack of competitive cricket heading into our preparations after his back ordeals, which also brought about a very real and serious leadership crisis in our team. Despite the frustrations being off the field and the burden of exhaustive leadership responsibilities, he came out strongly with gradual signs of improvement with additional time in the middle. Clarke is our key player, but this can be further emphasised and enhanced should our opening duo of Chris Rogers and Shane Watson come out tops.

For too long Clarke has fought a lonesome battle. The change up the top of the order will be a massive boost in terms of experience and technique both Rogers and Watson can deliver, beyond that of Ed Cowan and David Warner. Rogers and Watson have been confirmed and have both looked good so far as a unified opening duo.

Miracles cannot be expected from Rogers and Watson, but there is a good dynamic at play between the two batsmen and it will bring a similar characteristic to the successful partnership Watson had with Simon Katich. One player the crisp attacker, the other the cautious traditionalist.

With Clarke at number four, this brings me to the all important number three role. This is essential for the Ashes in the likely event our opening duo will have one or two short-lived stays. Clarke needs someone to help see off the new ball, but impose himself upon the English attack. This is something Ricky Ponting was able to do so unbelievably well. Hashim Amla (South Africa) and Jonathan Trott (England) have this ability too and it is something we lack.

Ed Cowan is not, in my opinion, the ideal guy for this job but is one of the main contenders for it. Performances from him in the middle may tell a different story in the unforeseen future, but right now his temperament, character with the bat in hand and form doesn't suggest he has that ability to impose himself or be bold enough at the number three position, but he could certainly try and reinvent the role to his own style.

True, it is just a number and this position can be just like an opening role if an opener falls in the first over or two (something Cowan has done), but it does carry a psychological tag players are aware of. The scoreboard only enhances it.

Phillip Hughes, David Warner and Usman Khawaja stand out to me as the obvious other players for this role. There is a catch for each of them though, which does boost Cowan's case given the amount of cricket he has been playing, along with experience in an opening capacity.

Hughes has had a brilliant start to his tour following a shocking Champions Trophy. This is the form that counts now though and it is encouraging to see how he held his own in a middle order position. Therefore, would it make sense to get him into the number three role? Hughes has said he will bat anywhere and adapt to the role, expected words from a confident batsman but is this best for the team given his impression has been notable in the middle order capacity?

David Warner has been given time in the middle outside of match hours due to a ban until the first Ashes Test. Darren Lehmann and Michael Clarke have sounded keen to give Warner a run due to his confidently aggressive temperament with the blade in hand, but is that fair on the players who haven't lacked discipline off the field and have put in performances during these warm-up matches?

The Root incident is now a thing of the past though, and since Lehmann stepped in Warner has reportedly been showing up to practices on time and working hard. The discipline is there, the fierce determination is there but will that alone be enough? He is a strong candidate to play in the number three position as he can definitely make a massive impression, mostly that imposing impact Ricky Ponting mastered!

Usman Khawaja's half-century against South Africa in 2011 at The Wanderers is still fresh in my mind and I admired his application during that innings - a reason I believe he is good enough to develop into a specialist role.

His move to Queensland would have boosted his ability against swing bowling but even now he's only had one warm-up match this tour, which reports state did showcase some good form. Is he fully match fit for the number three role? I don't mean "match fit" as in physical fitness, but will he be psychologically prepared for the taunts and pressure in this role in an Ashes clash in England? This fear will either drive him or defeat him. Lehmann will have a gut feeling on this and only Khawaja will know if he can perform under these challenging circumstances well before his technique is tested.

Steven Smith has likely secured a middle order role either with Hughes, Khawaja, Cowan or Warner. The likelihood of him taking the number three role is unlikely, so the chance to work in the middle order and team up with Brad Haddin should be good. Smith has definitely come a long way since his torrid Ashes series in Australia and his performances in India showcased the growth of a young man stepping up when the team was in a shambles. I am backing his selection for the first Test. He will face the same big stage battle Khawaja may endure.

Bowling:

James Pattinson: 1 match, 29 overs, 7 wickets, Avg 16.71
Mitchell Starc: 1 match, 29.1 overs, 6 wickets, Avg 12.33
James Faulkner: 2 matches, 57.1 overs, 6 wickets, Avg 28.66
Jackson Bird: 1 match, 43 overs, 4 wickets, Avg 25.25
Ryan Harris: 1 match, 40 overs, 4 wickets, Avg 31.25
Nathan Lyon: 1 match, 42 overs, 4 wickets, Avg 37.00
Ashton Agar: 1 match, 50 overs, 3 wickets, Avg 55.00
Peter Siddle: 1 match, 27 overs, 1 wicket, Avg 117.00

The bowling line-up will depend whether Lehmann takes in a heavily loaded bowling attack, which would likely include all-rounder James Faulkner, or whether it will be a higher concentration of batsmen, therefore making it three pace bowlers and a spinner, with Watson or Faulkner in for bowling duties.

James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc seem to be certainties for the match. Starc, while erratic at times, does give the left arm option to vary it up. He can swing the ball but hopefully not too much too soon, something which handicapped Ben Hilenhaus. If Starc gets his line right with the swing in a controlled capacity he will be a handful for the English batsmen.

James Faulkner's position will depend as to whether the extra bowling all-rounder is needed. Therefore the battle will be between Ryan Harris and Jackson Bird for the third place I reckon. Harris has the experience, Bird has the height and made a slightly greater impression in the warm-up matches. Harris' fitness for a full game continues to be a worry but I am tempted to be boosting for him to be in there for that experience.

Peter Siddle is a great bowler on tracks which have the opportunity to exploit good bounce through hard work. For these English conditions though I don't see him making the starting XI, especially Trent Bridge. Tall, natural swing bowlers with express pace will be better suited. Nathan Lyon deserves his place in the starting XI and will play ahead of Ashton Agar, who is getting good exposure to all things Test cricket this tour.

It's going to be a tough decision to name this starting XI for the opening Test of the 2013 Ashes, but the good news is that strong performances leading up to this match has increased the competition and with Lehmann on board performances will be everything. There will be no passengers and this should ensure that whoever puts on the Baggy Green cap for this match will be ready to play with immense determination, focus and pride to perform and stay in the side as they graft to win back the urn.

What is your starting XI for Australian the first Test?

Welcome to The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click on the 'Comments' tag at the end of the article.


TWITTER
@BaggyGreenBlog
@Ianbaggygreen
@SylvesterAu
@Dan_Stapo

Opinion: Where do we go from here? Australia's leadership issue

As Australia lost possession of the Champions Trophy and exited the tournament before the semi-finals for the first time since 2000, it also highlighted something worrying amidst some internal dramas dating back to the Indian tour in March.

Michael Clarke was ruled out of the Champions Trophy campaign due to a degenerate back condition he has. He also missed the 2009 edition of this tournament and, for the first time in his career, missed a Test match. The match he missed was the final Test of the forgettable Border-Gavaskar Trophy, but something major was noticeable. The lack of leadership in the Australian camp is obvious. 

- If you missed the Ashes squad analysis article, you can read it via this link.
- Who is in the battle to open the batting for Australia in the Ashes? Read it now to find out!
- What conditions can be expected at the Ashes venues? Look into the analysis.
- Our 2013 Champions Trophy squad and the SWOT analysis? Catch up on it via this link.

Last night I watched a show on Fox Sports. It was an hour long feature with Clarke in an exclusive interview with Eddie McGuire, which also took an up close and personal look into a day in the life of Clarke prior to a big series. I have never doubted how hard an Australian sportsman works and have witnessed the Australian Cricket team train in the most challenging of circumstances. Lead by Ricky Ponting – although no longer the captain at the time - the players worked like dogs and systematically ensured each player was doing their part but there was a strong, pure sense of support.

On his own Clarke is highly motivated, positive and focused on his duties as a professional sportsman. He is a good captain and is the best man for the job with all the qualities needed. His application to the game can never be questioned and this feature on him made this apparent, especially with the steps he takes to ensure his body is strong and in the best possible shape. This is now more important than ever due to an injury he has kept at bay for the better part of his career, but now it’s becoming a challenge to overcome series in, series out.

Clarke has tried to be a leader on a mission to make his own legacy, stamp his own authority while also attempting to find a balance between his style and what he was exposed to when he was a member of the greatest Australian team of the modern era. It is proving to be even more difficult and this is becoming clear with the lack of leadership personalities coming through the current crop of players.

I have always written objectively and constructively where possible. I respect our players and have always avoided “trash talking” or being overly-critical, especially if it may be seen as a personal criticism of a player’s character. If you couldn’t say it to the person, don’t say it at all, or in this case write it. However, for this article I will be coming through perhaps as less reserved than previous years, always backing our team through thick and thin.

George Bailey’s attitude is refreshing. In Clarke’s absence he was seen as the best option. Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting have departed, while Brad Haddin is now a Test specialist for what’s left of his career. The option is limited to Bailey who is now an experienced leader of the Tasmanian Tigers. He seems a happy-go-lucky chap, who has a smile or a grin on his face most of the time, but he also seems handicapped in his efforts with a side that has a long way to go to find a sense of unity on the playing field to establish a winning culture. His grin during the Champions Trophy seemed to be more of a mask to hide the embarrassment and possible frustration at the side’s lack of venom.

Bailey is a suitable ODI leader, but who backs Clarke for Tests? ©PA Sport

Despite criticism he has taken for not being a specialist limited over’s player, it would seem his average and consistency begs to differ. Besides being the best suited player to lead in Clarke’s absence, he’s also proving to be one of the few batsmen to show consistency and aggression with the bat in hand. This just adds proof that while he may not be the long term solution, he is at least showing leadership credibility and maintaining his form.

I just mentioned Bailey isn’t a long term solution. Who will be the next guy then? It’s always the million dollar question and foresight is a difficult thing in the game of cricket.

Michael Clarke is, in my opinion, not going to be playing cricket for much longer.

Sure, he may be 32 years of age, but his back is flaring up more than ever and cricket schedules are not becoming easier to manage. He is the leader of the Test and ODI squad and a replacement to take the weight off his shoulders isn’t becoming a clear vision at this point.

Clarke has also made mention that he will most probably not play into his late thirties as most players have been able to do so, not just because of the three degenerative discs in his back, but also a change of opinion. He’s a married man, a family man, and has the entrepreneur drive in him, probably enhanced through his relationship with James Packer. He has a future beyond the game and this game carries enough pressures.

In an interview he gave last year, Clarke stated the following:

"Unfortunately degeneration, it can't improve, so it's about now managing my condition.
"I'd love to see this team have success, achieve everything it wants to achieve. And then I think that is time for me to give the reins to somebody else and go and start the other side of life I guess - get involved in some sort of business and have a family and do all the things that are special to me and I still want to do when my cricket career is over."

Perhaps a miracle performance from his Test squad may see back to back Ashes victories leave one final task – to win the 2015 Cricket World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. In the exclusive interview with Eddie McGuire, at the end of the interview when asked what is left for Clarke he pointed these three objectives out. To me, that would indicate that come 2015 Clarke will be calling it a day. He will be 34 years of age.

By this stage we may have seen younger emerging players such as; Joe Burns, Nic Maddinson, Pat Cummins, Ashton Agar and Chadd Sayers become centered within their career progression and potential leadership abilities. Our current crop of players may have found success to find an unsourced sense of inspiration to become leaders in the Australian Cricket landscape. It is a big dream at the moment, but I’d like to believe Michael Clarke can do something to reel in a group of leaders, just as Shane Warne did so when he earmarked Clarke as something special for the game.

Leading up to Steve Waugh’s retirement, Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist and Shane Warne were all potential leaders to take over. Amongst them were strong minded individuals who could have also chiselled those characters into larger than life players. In fact, this is what happened. Besides being a group of unbelievable cricketers, they also had a bond on the field to tap into each other’s skills with deep insight and a surreal self-belief in any situation. It was a winning culture, groomed through leadership.

This year’s back-to-back Ashes series is quite possibly going to be one of the most important chapters for Australian Cricket looking ahead. A winning culture creates winning personalities, but to get there is another battle many sides just don’t achieve. Victory and self-belief is in the Australian sporting culture, so no excuses should be made up that these players don’t have it if this culture still exists.

This is an optimistic appeal, but in the present sense it’s a tunnel with little light. In my Ashes preview I maintained that we can most definitely win back the Ashes urn, and still do. My doubt however is regarding leadership.

David Warner was backed by Michael Clarke as a competitive bloke with definite leadership qualities. Unluckily, or possibly fortunately, Warner has cracked under pressure for a place in the Test side and a series of poor decision making dating back a few months now has put his leadership future under serious question. He could turn it around like Ricky Ponting did, but that’s speculation. In the present, he is not looking like a leader of the Australian team, especially with his inconsistent performances in all forms of the game at the elite level.

Clarke (left) with David Warner, who is losing grip to be a leader © Getty Images

The problem with the Warner incident in England is that several players were alongside him, out at an early hour and in a situation with the opposition that leaders like Allan Border or Steve Waugh would have been nauseated by. Clarke strongly opposed the situation and when I read his opinion over the matter I felt for him. He’s leading a side in a challenging enough time for our team and now has to deal with players not only finding themselves in questionable circumstances but also not ticking the leadership and responsibility boxes next to their names – despite Clarke believing at the same time that Australian Cricket is in a fantastic place. It also just puts a dent into Clarke's efforts to be the best captain possible with players behaving this way in a professional setting.

Phillip Hughes is battling for consistency four years following his Test debut series in South Africa. Despite Clarke’s admiration for Hughes, I have had three encounters with Hughes that gave me the impression he is anything but a leader based on his public profile. Sometimes a player has a personality that screams “leadership” or there is a sixth sense that they could be the next leader. Hughes doesn’t have this and while it is my opinion, I feel strongly about this.

Ed Cowan is pushing his case with dedication to his game and he’s also taken the initiative to work hard in the County circuit to ensure he is ready for the Ashes to take guard against the new ball. This is something I respect and wish to see him flourish this series in the absence of Simon Katich. Cowan has definitely pushed his case to be a leader but he has come across as being a “teacher’s pet”, or as some may say in a cheekier way, a “brown noser”. His close relationship with his media mates gives him leverage and is a fairly smart tactic. Keep the journalists and media opinion makers close to you! Cowan isn’t the long term solution and even if he is to get an opportunity following consistent performances.

Shane Watson is at the same career stage with Clarke and has many more battles regarding his body. Having stepped down from the vice-captaincy role after the horrid Indian tour, it’s a closed door for Watson to lead Australia. His personal game requires so much attention and focus that this burden would be too much to handle.

Bowlers rarely get considered for captaincy roles. Daniel Vettori of New Zealand is a rare candidate in this regard and learnt from Stephen Fleming, one of the best of the modern game.

Peter Siddle has so much heart and passion for this game. It is a reason that makes him so hard to leave out of a starting XI. How good is his cricketing mind? I am not certain but I am not sure he’d be the captaincy material to do what Clarke does. Of all the bowlers he is the best pick.

Matthew Wade has been boosted by Clarke as a young man with a strong personality. Despite being the second keeper of choice for the Ashes, he understood the reasoning and has an objective now. He needs to become a better wicket-keeper and has the opportunity to hone in on his leadership qualities. Is he the best solution though and a realistic one to take over from Clarke? He’s had an inconsistent entrance into the elite level. Then again, who is being consistent?

George Bailey is the only player that comes to mind with regards to consistency. It is a worrying sign looking ahead. It is also a big reason why Chris Rogers was called into our Ashes squad.

Tim Paine was being groomed with leadership duties, having also lead Australia A. He still has a way to go with his return after a finger injury kept him out for the majority of last season.

Callum Ferguson struck me as a player who could have been groomed into a Michael Bevan/ Michael Hussey player of sorts with a capacity to become a senior in the side. He has become a bit of an outcast though for selection, much to my mixed feelings of disappointment and anger as a result.

Michael Klinger has lead South Australia, won the State Player of the Year award twice at the Allan Border Medal Awards, but never received the opportunity to represent Australia. His time is far gone despite doing a good job in the County circuit. Cameron White was even in the waiting seat with his leadership of Victoria, but sadly inconsistency has been an issue with him (a recurring theme of our current setup) and he’s far from top of the picking list regarding Sheffield Shield performances.

For a short while I thought Victorian batsman Michael Hill may have been a future prospect after leading the Australian u19 Squad a few years back. He has recently started to show class with Victoria. He’s got a bit of work to still do in order to get onto the radar with the selectors.

So, where do we go from here in terms of leadership?

Fortunately Michael Clarke should be ready for the Ashes. Not only is he a leader but he’s also our best batsman. He’s our most consistent performer in both Test and ODI cricket and has so many achievements to his name that come the day he walks away from the game he will be an accomplished cricket, having also been a member of the greatest Australian side.

Given this we are fortunate. We also have a good Ashes squad and the sooner the off-field dramas of recent months and the Champions Trophy exit get put behind us the better it will be for all in the Australian Cricket family.

However, the question of leadership is tough as leaders are generally naturally born but there’s always going to be grooming. Who is that natural born leader in our ranks that hasn’t been identified?

Welcome to The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click on the 'Comments' tag at the end of the article.


TWITTER
@BaggyGreenBlog
@Ianbaggygreen
@SylvesterAu
@Dan_Stapo

Opinion: Australian Opening Duo for the 2013 Ashes Series

What will Australia's best opening combination be for the 2013 Ashes series?

Click on the image to enlarge it for some quick facts and stats regarding our Ashes opening contenders.

This is a trending topic of debate I picked up over the last few weeks, especially after David Warner's Twitter outburst, Shane Watson's return of confidence and all-rounder duties, and lastly Chris Rogers and Ed Cowan's involvement in the County circuit.

Phillip Hughes has been used in the number three to middle order role is recent times so I don't see him being relevant to the topic of debate. After 2009 I also don't see him being used in an opening role capacity for the sake of psychological safety.

Sylvester and I will be presenting a combined effort to share our analytical views as to which way the selectors may go and what we see as a possible "best fit" for the Ashes opening duo. His is up first, so grab a cup of coffee and perhaps a meal to get through mine too.

This Ashes series isn't about players necessarily writing their own stories for longevity. It is a short-term objective to win back the urn and out batting is the identified weakness. If the batting clicks we will win. Based on this all that should be taken into account is come each Test is; which batsmen will have the most confidence, and tactically/ strategically based on the conditions, results and performances what is the best side for each Test. As a result a set in stone side is not a logical motive.

If the selected opening duo fall in line for at least the first two Tests then that combo may stand, but the gut feeling is that a set duo may not be the logical/ traditional option given this is a short-term side picked to balance experience with enthusiastic emerging campaigners, whilst trying counter-attack testing conditions and high quality English bowlers. Variation is just an aspect of the mix and may be so come the starting XI throughout the series to try get back that urn.

Have a read and have your say! Catch up on related articles below in case you missed them.

- If you missed the Ashes squad analysis article, you can read it via this link.
- What conditions can be expected at the Ashes venues? Look into it via this article.
- Our 2013 Champions Trophy squad and the SWOT analysis? Catch up on it via this link.

Sylvester's view: Twitter profile

Ed Cowan:
There has been no doubt about the type of player Cowan is, but "starts" should be his middle name. His big problem to date has been converting his starts not only into 100s but lately 50s. He only has six fifties from 30 innings of which he has 12 scores between 20 and 49. He does one job of the opener very well in seeing off the new ball but his conversion rate leaves a lot to be desired. 

One con for players in the Ashes squad playing County cricket instead of playing IPL - or resting - is what Cowan is experiencing at the moment. Cowan's form in County cricket has been average to say the least. He has played 5 matches so far averaging 34 with two fifties from 9 innings. It would be harsh to drop a player based on County form but with Rogers banging the wall down something might have to give.

Strengths: Gets a start and chews up a lot of deliveries to wear down that new ball.
Weakness: Appears to lack concentration at vital stages of both his innings and the team innings and, as a result, ends up getting out softly. While he chews up the deliveries there always appears to be a ball with his name on it. 

David Warner:
David Warner is an interesting case, as he started his career in Marcus North fashion as a rocks or diamonds player but by the start of the Windies tour he became more star orientated. Within 5 matches, Warner had made two hundreds both in very tricky conditions. His maiden hundred came against New Zealand in the Hobart mess where he was the only batsman that stood tall. The other was in Perth again in tough conditions which he made look very easy. Other than fellow opener Cowan, no batsmen made runs in that match.

Those two matches show Warner has the ability to bat in tough conditions but many people have been suggesting he will struggle against the swinging ball. The Ashes was always going to be the litmus test for that theory, I am slightly leaning towards him struggling against the swinging ball but the memory of those two matches give me hope.

Strengths: Can turn a match in Australia's favour with his raw power.
Weakness: Looks suspect against swing bowling and can struggle against spin - exposed in India. Can get out in a very soft manner. 


Chris Rogers:
Chris Rogers may well reap the rewards for extensively playing County cricket. On the back of his surprise call up he has smashed County bowlers around the park amassing 552 runs at an average of 61 with 4 fifties and a massive double hundred. While his conversion rate could be better, it is hard to say anything bad about his form to date. This comes on the back of his excellent Shield season where he scored 742 runs at 49.5 with three hundreds and a fifty showing converting 50s is not a major issue for him.

The only thing going against Rogers would be the unknown factor. It will be a risk throwing Rogers to basically be making his test debut on the biggest stage of them all. He does has the one advantage of being vastly experienced, especially in English conditions, over a younger guy who might have been in the same position. 

Strengths: Vastly experienced in English conditions, converts well and has very good application.Weakness: I admit I haven't seen enough of him to point out technical flaws but the main weakness (or question) would be can he deliver if thrown into the deep end?

Shane Watson:
Shane Watson...probably the most debatable player currently in the Australian team. Should he play as a batsman only, should he play as an all rounder, should he open, should he bat lower so he can bowl?
These are just some of the questions you get when talking about Watson. 

The people on the "Watson should be opener camp" have been harping on about his average of over 40 while opening and that he is most comfortable opening. While the stats do suggest this, he has played most of his career at 3 or 4 so I really don't see why he can't bat in either of those positions at the top level - despite the statistics. 

Form wise Watson has had a shocker since the last Ashes in 2010/11. His series averages read 17.4, 23.8, 32.2, 17.5, 39.3 and 16.5. If this was the statistics review of a pure batsman he would be cut in a flash. 

If Watson were to be moved back to the top then obviously the more successful numbers at the top will work in his favour, on the back of English experience. He is probably more likely to get a 50 plus score in comparison to our current openers, which also works in his favour. However his much talked about hundred tally works against him as an opener should be converting his 50s as well. Of the players mentioned Watson would be the least of the must be opener, in my opinion.

Strengths: Did alright in the last Ashes series in England as opener and showed character in 2009. Recently scored a big century for Australia in our first warm-up game. 
Weakness: Suspect against the swinging ball and prone to LBWs. Poor conversion rates to date.

Conclusion:
I am sitting on the fence a bit as I won't be too unhappy with whoever the selectors pick as our openers. Rogers would be one of my picks as his best position is opener in the swinging conditions and you need a guy that can confidently handle these conditions but also leave the good balls.
The next position is a bit trickier. If Cowan was showing better form I would have no hesitation in picking him. I am tempted to leave Warner at top to see how he goes against the swinging ball so we can prove once and for all how he copes against Anderson and company. For me a lot will depend on the warm up games as it is that close the grand contest.

Ian's view: Twitter Profile

Ed Cowan:
Ed Cowan's fought hard to try take guard in the Ashes. With David Warner, a naturally aggressive batsman, at the other end it can't be easy for Cowan to stick to his guns with his defensive, steadily cautious nature. An average that has the critics pointing fingers and an approach that is seen as being "too slow" may be unfair. However, despite my viewpoint as "only being fair" to see Ed play from the get-go in the Ashes, it's no guarantee any of these four players will open.

Ed has also taken initiative to get English experience behind him, playing for Notthinghamshire in County cricket - Division one. As of 1 June, he's scored 254 runs at an average of 36.28. He's found difficulty in converting his starts into bigger scores, something that's handicapped his performances for Australia.

It has been reported though that in the tougher conditions he has shown impressive application and a determination to succeed. This was most evident during a game against Middlesex at Trent Bridge in April, where Ed scored a hard-fought half-century. His opposite number though was Chris Rogers who notched up half-centuries in both innings (50 and 51*).

Given Cowan's likelihood to play in the Ashes and the warm-up games being the ultimately decisive factor in his selection, it would be wise to explore the Ed Cowan and David Warner duo.

They have a combined average of 43.03, with 1,291 runs scored from 30 innings. Of these 30 innings they've gone beyond a fifty run-partnership 9 times (30% conversion rate). This isn't too bad by any means.

30 innings may also not seem like much, but Simon Katich and Shane Watson partnered at the top of the order 29 times with better results. Australia - when we're in better shape - will in time need to find a duo with enough long-term focus to develop something as prolific as the Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer duo. 122 innings with 6,081 runs at 51.53. Quite remarkable.

Some might say don't break it up if there's no need to fix it.
I don't think it's a valid statement heading into the 2013 Ashes series as although they've steadily built a foundation of sorts, my opinion is that the opening duo this Ashes is about the best tactical choice to combat the new ball. Ed Cowan has a good case for himself come this dynamic.

Consistency has been an issue with Australian selection, but this side wasn't selected for the objective of consistency and stability. Unity for this squad must come with the desire to win, not to form an all-boys club in the long run with the hope that the most seen players in recent times will succeed.

David Warner:
Given Rogers' current form and experience, Watson's average in Ashes contests with all-rounder duties returning, along with Cowan's recent experience that has greater relevance than IPL or limited overs cricket; David Warner appears to be far from a certain starter for the Ashes - at least in terms of opening the batting.

His aggressive nature and confidence, which may be leveraged through from a strong ICC Champions Trophy campaign (dismissed for a duck in our warm-up game), cannot be underestimated. However, against a swinging ball sent down by high quality bowlers in their home conditions, this nature may prove to be a downfall with a lack of First-class/ Test cricket exposure in English conditions. As much as I support Warner, I see risk in his selection for the opening Tests.

Cowan has a lower average than Warner's 39.46, but appears to have better application and focus to combat tougher bowling attacks. Cowan's got the current edge with an immediate understanding of current English condition.

The last time I saw Warner bat with mighty impressive application beyond his natural game in very testing conditions was against New Zealand in Hobart, as mentioned by Sylvester. The ball was swinging, the Black Caps were hitting their lines and Warner was a man on a lonesome mission. If he could show this sort of determination in England and hold back from an overly-aggressive drive it will serve him well. The catch is this approach will be required for a longer period than an innings in Hobart.

Matthew Hayden was aggressive though? Yes, but Hayden had experience in England by the time his natural game had reached its greatest heights and he'd been through some grueling trials and tribulations to earn that reputation that still resonates with any aggressive Australian top order batsman.

Having thought about this particular comparative for some time, nestled down the order Warner may bring about that Adam Gilchrist X-factor. Would be the greatest thrill seeing Warner belt England's bowlers about!

I would enjoy seeing Warner moved into a middle order role. He could be the firepower in the shed that never allows the opposition to relax even once they've worked through the top to middle order.
If Watson is set to play as an all-rounder, this middle order position may be occupied by him (keeping in mind Watson's stats are poor below a number one role) and should Warner not make an impression in the warm-up games, he may find himself not playing until a later stage.

It's a personal opinion, but while Warner's outburst on Twitter was valid given the constant negativity the high profile writers harp on about, I do think he knows his place is not a guarantee. A bit of pressure?
The opening paragraph for the Warner analysis shows exactly why and I feel if he doesn't get sufficient runs behind his name, it wouldn't be wise to play him as a certain opener. If he does show confidence and form, get him in the side! If that's to play as an opener...well, that is up in arms. 

Chris Rogers:
In 2012 Chris Rogers wrote a guest piece for ESPN Cricinfo regarding Australia's emerging batsmen's technical flaws. Sylvester covered this shortly in an article titled 'The Technical Failings of the Younger Generation'. A year later, Rogers is in the Australian squad with a chance to showcase his knowledge and skills on the elite stage.

It would be potentially daft not to play Chris Rogers. It would also be harsh to an extent.
A man who scored 1,086 runs at 40.22 last year in the County first division, 742 runs at 49.46 in Sheffield Shield (second most behind Ricky Ponting) and 552 runs for Middlesex at 61.33 (as of 1 June) with a personal best of 214, it's hard to find reason not to play him.

The opening game for his division was at Trent Bridge and he scored back-to-back half-centuries. This is also the venue for the opening Ashes Test. His home ground is Lord's whilst playing for Middlesex, the venue for the 2nd Test. Recently between England and New Zealand batting conditions at Lord's seemed the toughest I have seen in sometime. It's another advantage to play Rogers.

Rogers' selection has put pressure on the Cowan/ Warner duo and for good reason. This Ashes is about winning back the urn to defend it back in Australia soon after. It's healthy competition and given his selection is a short-term one, if he is better ready than the rest he must be playing as the best.

The statistics back Rogers' form in both Australia and England. He has sufficient experience in English conditions and has fought like a dog to have this opportunity. If anything, one of the oldest men in our Ashes squad will have the most hunger. The warm up games and what lies ahead for his Middlesex duties will be the final tick to the box to ensure we get this experienced campaigner in our starting XI.

Shane Watson:
For the record, I really like Shane Watson and support him with every aspect of his career. I rate his game.
Having said that, if Watson cannot bowl, he shouldn't play simply based on his form in Test cricket. His lack of runs in recent years does not warrant default selection. An average of 25.35 is deemed not good enough.
When he's performed bowling duties he's contributed with immense value and seemed far more confident as a team player. A good memory is his bowling performance against Pakistan in the two Test match series in England a few years back, especially at Lord's. As an all-rounder he has value, and if he continues to score big runs in the build up he can't be overlooked.

The biggest thing to consider is Shane Watson's average of 48.21 in the Ashes.
This is higher than that of Cowan and Warner's collective average and personal averages. Watson had to step up big time in 2009 when Phillip Hughes was dropped. Watson then partnered up with Simon Katich and, in my opinion, there hasn't been an opening duo as good since then.

Together they averaged 52.72 from 29 innings and the left hand/ right hand combo was a fit. Watson's aggressive nature with Katich's cautious approach worked like a dream. Cowan and Warner have a similar characteristic with just as many innings as a duo but the impression left is far from that Katich and Watson achieved.

Wait on, Watson didn't convert enough innings of fifty plus into centuries!
I'd rather have a guy scoring 80s and 90s, than 30s and 40s and Watson's history opening the batting showcased high individual scores falling short of a century on numerous occasions. I'd also be happy to see him in our side if he is performing as an all-rounder and hits good enough batting form to warrant his selection. Should he not be used as an opener, where he has been best suited statistically and personally, a middle-order role could put Warner under pressure for a spot if Cowan and Rogers get the nod to open.

Watson's recent debacle in India didn't help his public profile too much but as soon as he dropped the vice-captaincy he was scoring good runs in the IPL, along with a dashing 135 runs 98 deliveries in a warm-up game against the West Indies for the ICC Champions Trophy. He has some hard work ahead to make the starting XI but Ashes experience and an improvement in form is boosting his case.

Conclusion:
Between Warner and Cowan there is a history with a fairly competitive average. Collectively they may struggle as a duo in the Ashes against high quality swing bowling in their debut Ashes series, especially for the first two matches. Cowan has the edge with recent County experience, good control over his temperament and technique, and was reported to have shown solid application against the moving ball at Trent Bridge.

Watson has a personal Ashes batting average that is better than that of Cowan and Warner's collective and personal averages. He has sound experience and with a return to all-rounder duties he will have big value. His downfall is a poor Test average in recent times without bowling duties. Fact is if it weren't for his unquestionable talent and being one of our few all-rounders, his recent Test form wouldn't see him selected.

Rogers has the experience and has been scoring the runs for Middlesex, notably at Trent Bridge and Lord's (21/ 214 vs Surrey), where the first two Tests will be played. England's bowlers put New Zealand in turmoil with excellent bowling conditions and the history of Trent Bridge is one of the toughest conditions to bat in if a player cannot handle swing bowling. This may give Rogers a massive advantage with the selectors.

Chris Rogers, Ed Cowan and Shane Watson stand tall as the three in front for the 1st and 2nd Tests.
David Warner, while not in my opening spot from the go, will have unquestionable value in the middle order for additional fire power should he not open, possibly putting Shane Watson out of the picture if he cannot bat and bowl for Australia.

Come the announcement of our Ashes squad I was confident with this side. I will support whoever gets selected one hundred percent, but it's good to form an opinion and look at the options. Spare a thought for the selectors!

*All statistics courtesy of ESPN Cricinfo.com

Welcome to The Baggy Green Blog!
Thanks for reading this article written by Ian.
To comment on this article, click on the 'Comments' tag at the end of the article.


TWITTER
@BaggyGreenBlog
@Ianbaggygreen
@SylvesterAu
@Dan_Stapo