Pressure Mounting

How many times do we hear that a match has saved Test cricket? After the thrilling climax to the 1st Test at Centurion Park last weekend, writers were singing the praises of the longer format and saying that they never doubted its value. Clearly they weren't bashing their heads off the wall for most of the rest of the match as play crawled along at 2 runs an over for what seemed like an eternity. I'm never going to be the man to call for an end to 5-day matches, but let's face it - a decent spell against an English tail isn't going to send T20 packing.

But that's a story for another day...

Let's stick to the series we've got here. It was a dull match until Friedel de Wet came along on Sunday afternoon and gave Graeme Smith hope of pulling off a famous victory. Despite the debutant's heroics, he looks unlikely to feature in tomorrow's starting line-up. If Dale Steyn is returned to full fitness, it's going to be the young man to miss out. Makhaya Ntini, veteran of 100 tests, looks set to hold on to his place. Experience is valuable, but with Jacques Kallis appearing fit to bowl again I'm surprised the selectors have felt the need to hold on to Ntini. I hope there's more than sentimentality behind it, because he was of little use in England's second innings in Cape Town.

However, the return of Kallis certainly makes any South African attack look more balanced. He'll be there to dry up the runs in the middle overs, put pressure on the batsmen, and either lead to wickets falling or take them himself. Paul Harris bowled decently last match, and JP Duminy deserves to be called more than just a part-timer. If Steyn has his full pace with him, England could be in for a rough ride.

England plan to stick with their line-up, meaning a four-man attack and a place for Ian Bell, with Luke Wright missing out again. Bell looked as faltering as ever last match, with his 1st innings dismissal a particularly embarrassing memory as he left a straight ball to crash into middle and off. He's been given yet another chance, and to be fair, Wright isn't exactly the ideal substitute. If Bell plays well he'll score runs and stay at the crease - if Wright bats well he'll probably make a quick 40 and depart. But you get the feeling that England could use another option in the bowling department. Wright may not be the best bowler in the game, but at least he's another man. Even if he goes for a few runs, the South Africans will be getting more variations and will have to play different balls. Smith didn't fire last game, but all that means is that he probably will now, and with a batting line-up of Smith, Prince, Amla, Kallis, De Villiers, Duminy and Boucher you need plenty of wickets.

A word on Amla - he got a lot of stick from a lot of people, and he answered them in the best way possible. When Jacques Kallis fell on Saturday morning, things looked pretty bad for the hosts - would Graeme Swann's magnificent knock the night before turn the game totally on its head? Amla batted calmly and confidently, mixing beautiful shots to the boundary with intelligent defence. He deserves his place in that line-up and, at No. 3, showed himself capable of steadying a wobbling innings.

Kevin Pietersen returned to the Test arena with an excellent innings of 80-odd before taking on a non-existent single. These things happen, but Andy Flower will be delighted to see the big man back on form. He wants centuries in South Africa as much as his rivals want his wicket, and it should make for some exciting battles.

The first match redeemed itself somewhat with some late de Wet magic, but that didn't disguise it as good entertainment for five days. The pressure's building on South Africa as the home side to take a lead in this series, while England will feel that Onions and Collingwood tipped the momentum their way by hanging on grimly. Let's hope for some fireworks at Durban.

Now Is The Winter Of Our...Content?...Discontent?

England are playing cricket. What on earth is going to happen?

As eagerly anticipated as the Ashes, England's tour of South Africa sees Kevin Pietersen's return to test cricket, and to South Africa, alongside fellow countryman Jonathan Trott. It sees South Africa bidding to retake the No. 1 ranking having lost it to India in November. It sees Andrew Strauss take on the best opposition of his captaincy.

England play a topsy-turvy game. In the ODI series, we saw that this could mean a 7-wicket win followed by a 100-run defeat. In a test match, all the swings can happen in the one game. In 2009, we've seen England bat scores of 600 and be dismissed for 52. They've bowled Australia out for 160 and let the West Indies rack up 700. You never know what you're going to get with England, and while agonizing for the Barmy Army, it always provides entertainment to the neutrals.

England's bowling attack has performed well this year, but is still missing that one danger- man. I don't know who he is, because he might not exist. They don't have a Dale Steyn, a Brett Lee, a Fidel Edwards. They don't have that man who will make even the best batsmen quake in the first 15 overs. James Anderson is a very good bowler, and can bowl excellent economic spells. He can take wickets, and is a decent leader of the attack. But he's a fast-medium bowler. As is Stuart Broad. As is Graham Onions. Broad can bowl great spells - we saw that at the Oval this August - but he's not a man you want running in and bouncing short balls at the batsmen. He'll be taken apart. Sajid Mahmood was included in the ODI squad - maybe he needs to be worked on to become a test bowler - he has genuine pace.

England's bowlers, I have no doubt, will take wickets in this series, and will bowl good spells, but you just get the feeling that if Graeme Smith and AB de Villiers are on a 100-run partnership and facing Broad and Wright that they'll take them to town.

What of the batsmen? On paper, Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior, Wright, Broad, Swann - it's a good, strong, long batting line-up. But I predict - and it's a nasty prediction - that if England bat 8 innings this tour, Cook will be dismissed for less than 15 in at least three of them. In which case, Trott is your opener - maybe he can deal with it, but it's a different role.

KP will deliver some fine innings in the series, but he's still making his first test appearance in some time, and every bowler in the South African team wants his scalp more than anyone else's. It's vital that Strauss does what he did in the Ashes and leads from the front - England more than any other team take such great heart from his good starts, and you get the feeling that he's going to need a few tons if England are to have a chance of victory.

I can't get past the belief that Luke Wright is a major weak link - if the team's on a score of 350 when he comes in he might well make a quick 30 or 40 runs to boost the total, but he's not the man to rescue you when you're in trouble - in England are languishing on 180-4/5 you need a guy who can steady things down and bat through a session. Wright isn't that player. He's shown promise in the shorter format but I just don't think he's ready for Test - I think his batting will be exposed and his bowling preyed upon.

South Africa have had good news in that Jacques Kallis will play in the opening test. However, his role will be limited to batting, and the Proteas arguably would miss his prowess with the ball to a greater extent. In the same way that Collingwood will temper the English attack with economical and often wicket-taking spells, so Kallis steadies the South Africans. Steyn and Morkel will power in and deliver some frightening pace to the English, but if they start to go awry the English batsmen can fill their boots, and you need a miserly bowler to dry up the runs. Without Kallis, the South African bowlers could be either brilliant or distinctly lacking, and hopefully we'll see the big man fully fit in time for the second match.

South Africa's batting is superb - Ashwell Prince makes a return to the team for the Centurion match to open alongside the simply awesome Graeme Smith - those two are well capable of setting up a score of 280-0. Add AB de Villiers, Hashim Amla, JP Duminy and Mark Boucher to the team and you just sigh with pleasure.

Makhaya Ntini returns to make his 100th Test appearance for the home team, and perhaps he can keep the runs away from Cook long enough to pressure him into falling to Steyn at the other end.

England are unpredictable. So, in a way, are South Africa, particularly without Kallis holding the ball. However, I can't see England threatening to take the series, and if they got out of it at 1-1 they'd be over the moon. I'm going to go for a 2-0 win to South Africa over the four games; I think England will bat long enough to draw at least one if not two games, but I think they'll always struggle to take 20 wickets.

Rollercoaster Ride

English cricket is ridiculous.

This South Africa tour has been as nervously anticipated as the Ashes, but as the Test series draws closer, and the ODI matches bump to a close, we are left with yet another English series to squint at in confusion.

No one can deny that the current English team has a lot of talent - led by Andrew Strauss, in the form of his life, their batting includes a steady newcomer in Jonathan Trott, a scintillating Paul Collingwood, a returning Kevin Pietersen, and a host more. James Anderson and Stuart Broad are a good frontline attack, ably backed up by Tim Bresnan, who's proving himself as an international player, while Graeme Swann's off-spin is always a danger to opposing teams.

And yet, the team cannot seem to perform for two games in a row. Look at the Ashes - Cardiff, Lords, Edgbaston, Headingley, The Oval. The momentum swung terrifyingly to and fro like Mike Gatting on the end of a rope. Australia then ripped them to shreds in the ODIs. The English then took on the Champions Trophy and were unlikely semi-finalists. And now this.

South Africa have been shown up in this as much as England. Without Jacques Kallis, one of the finest cricketers in the world with bat and ball, they looked dangerously balanced to start with. Hashim Amla showed good form and deserved his opening spot alongside the wonderful Graeme Smith , but JP Duminy, although a fantastic player, isn't a typical number 4. AB de Villiers, arguably in the top 3 batsmen on the planet, was elevated to number 3, and then came the 5-6-7 combination of Alviro Petersen, Ryan McLaren, and Albie Morkel. Herschelle Gibbs was another absentee for the first match.

They made 250, which is a modest score in Centurion today, with Petersen Duminy and Amla contributing decent knocks. England were able to chase it down without too much problem, Jonathan Trott making 87 (he also bowled 7 overs for 21 runs) before Collingwood finished them off with a superb 5th one-day ton.

Once bitten, twice destructive. The second game displayed the potential of that South African side - Smith and Amla got the Proteas off to a hundred-run partnership before handing the reins to de Villiers, who cracked a rapid-fire century to boost South Africa to 354. England never believed a chase possible, with both openers falling for 24, and Collingwood's 86 would prove far too little in the end, with the away team falling 111 runs short.

But it wouldn't be an England tour without a turnaround. Having brought Gibbs into the squad but not started him, South Africa elected to bat in Port Elizabeth yesterday morning, and stumbled to a record-low home total of 119. James Anderson was simply fantastic, collecting career-best figures of 5-23, and showing a welcome return to his destructive pre-Ashes form. Trott and Strauss set the visitors off nicely and they completed the job efficiently.

So what happened? It's no coincidence that South Africa's triumphs on the tour have coincided with Graeme Smith having good innings, and their disasters have seen him make an early exit. It seems that without Kallis at the top to steady things, the team tends to panic after the captain falls. The lower order are fine when building on a big total and they can let loose, but put more responsibility on them and it's a different story. Ryan McLaren may call himself an all-rounder, but 11 runs in 4 innings is a stat that needs to change quickly.

South Africa have little choice but to bring back Gibbs for the next match; having brought him into the squad and then capitulated as they did it seems ridiculous to overlook him. The problem is that Kallis has not only weakened their batting, but their bowling as well. His 8 or 10 overs are extremely valuable as a steadying influence while Morkel, McLaren, and van der Merwe are bowling the rest. He hopes to be back for the Test series, but South Africa need to start finding options for when the big man can't make it. With him they appear almost impenetrable; without him there's a nerviness and precipicial element that they could do without.

So what's going to happen on Friday? I'm going to go the usual way - England dominated the last match, so South Africa will blow them away.

A Step In The Right Direction

Whether as a player or a supporter, cricket in Ireland can easily frustrate. We go out there, play some great matches, take some great scalps, and then, back home to work.

Some of our strongest players head across the water; while infuriating for Irish fans, you can see their point: they want to play cricket at the highest level; they want it to be their career. It hasn't worked out for Ed Joyce yet, and although Eoin Morgan has had a promising start he's going to find it difficult to hold down a regular place, especially with Kevin Pietersen back.

If the situation stays the same in Ireland, with a glass ceiling stopping us from progressing any further, and limiting the professional contracts available, it’s going to continue.

The move this week from Cricket Ireland to apply for Full Member status from the ICC, allowing them to play Test match cricket, is a hugely positive move. But will it be crowned with success?

Ireland’s performances on the pitch have certainly given them a good platform for application: unbeaten in first-class matches since 2004, Super-8 qualification in both the ODI and Twenty20 World Cups, victory in the 2011 World Cup qualifying tournament, and three Intercontinental Cup wins in a row. No one can say that we don’t have a competitive, passionate, and ultimately successful team. The performance against Bangladesh in the World Cup this year was composed under pressure, and a perfect example of how to pace a run chase.

So what are the problems?

Cricket is about money. The ICC and he national boards are money mad. Whether it’s their association with Allen Stanford or the scheduling of endless ODI series, so much of world cricket seems to be about the next dollar. If Ireland want to break into the top flight, they’ll need to show that they can bring money to the game, and not just be a drain. Ireland need to show that they can get their matches on TV, and Warren Deutrom, Cricket Ireland CEO, identified this as key. England, South Africa, and India matches were all shown in 2006, but this year Ireland haven’t been on the screen except in the World Cup.

Bangladesh were the last team to be elevated, back in 2000. However, they have a much larger population to draw from, and are helpful to India as a voting partner. The politics of cricket are finely balanced, and don’t be surprised if the subcontinental teams vote against the application.

Commentators have also pointed to Ireland’s facilities – can we host Australia in test matches? The ground in Stormont is a good ground, and is fine for ODIs, but it will need work if top-class cricket is to be played. Given the importance of getting fans to the matches from a commercial point of view, we’re going to need bigger stands that we can fill. I can’t see Brian Lenihan’s budget sending a lot of money Ireland’s way, but at the same time, Irish cricket does receive sponsorship from various source.

Let’s be honest – the odds are that Ireland will be refused. However, even the application process is a big move in the right direction. It shows the world that we have ambition and drive, that we want to play with the big boys. It may not happen straight away, but we’ve shown out intent, and no one can deny that Irish cricket has a bright future ahead.

Ashes to Ashes

Ashes to Ashes

It all ended so quickly. After 6 weeks, 5 matches, 5755 runs, 155 wickets, and a whole host of injuries, it all ended in a flurry of wickets to leave Andrew Strauss holding the earn aloft.

 Australia never quite got going in the last match. Admittedly, we didn't know that England's first innings of 332 would later be so strong, and at 73-0 Ponting's men looked comfortable, but from then on the game just eased away from them. Early wickets in the second innings gave them hope, but a fantastic ton on debut by Jonathan Trott left them chasing a mammoth total. It says something about the public's belief in England that everyone still faintly believed/feared that 546 was chaseable, although quite a few records needed to be shattered. The highest winning chase at the Oval for a Test victory was a mere 263, and while Mike Hussey pushed Australia bravely to that score and beyond, the margin of victory was still comfortable.

From first light on Thursday morning it looked like a good toss to win. This was borne out quickly, as any runs put up on the board became increasingly valuable as the game progressed. The lack of a full-time spin option undoubtedly hurt Australia's chances, although Marcus North, to his credit, showed himself to be a very competent player with the ball, having already performed heroics with the bat. In Ponting's defence, no one could have predicted the extent and immediacy of the pitch's deterioration. "Dust bowl" doesn't describe it - it was more like the Atacam desert during a dry spell, just after a herd of whatever is heavy and lives in the Atacama had had a bit of a shuffle around.

Jonathan Trott deserves an honourable mention. All of the doubts surrounding his inclusion will be forgotten; the name of Ramprakash will be recalled only with a laugh. His 41 in the first innings, despite being a trifle lower than Strauss would have liked, showed England that they had what they wanted: a middle-order batsman who was calm and collected under the very greatest of pressure. He consolidated this in his second knock, where he showed maturity and coolness far beyond his experience, and hit a glorious hundred to take England home.

A performance like that pretty much guarantees him a place in the team for life, although I'm glad to see him fall to Trent Johnston for a duck against Ireland as I write.

England deserved the victory, both in the Test and in the series. The fact that they only had one of the top seven run-scorers (Strauss at No. 1) and none of the top three wicket-takers only serves to underline this. It shows an ability to dig their feet in, take wickets when it counted, and scrap an important few runs at the death. Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, and James Anderson (sadly out for his first Test duck at the Oval) contributed so much more to the team than their wickets. How many times were England floundering at 250-7, only to climb past 320? England's tail in the 2007 drubbing did well to make it out to the crease - remember Giles, Harmison, and Panesar flolloping around? England now have a long and determined batting line-up, and there's no wicket that spells the end prematurely. Mind you, they needed it here. Cook (apart from a 90 at Lords), Bopara, and Collingwood (after the all-important innings at Cardiff) failed to get going throughout the series, and the bowlers were sorely needed to prop up Strauss's scores.

As for the Aussies. The fact of the dominance in the statistics shows a failure to strike while the iron was hot, a failure to finish off a team in its death throes, a failure to bowl at Monty Panesar at Cardiff. They showed brilliance in their batting in Cardiff and throughout the whole match in Leeds, but aside from that they were lacklustre. Michael Clarke deserved more than 3 runs in the last match, but when it came to it, the visitors showed their inexperience and, dare I say it of an Australian side, killer instinct. They also played some downright terrible cricket.

Ricky Ponting is the first Australian captain to lead his team to consecutive Ashes losses in England in over 90 years. Will he be back? It's difficult to say, but you get the feeling he'll want one more go. Will he be captain? Still more difficult - Michael Clarke can't be too far off taking up the mantle - a wonderful batsman, fielder, and decent bowler, Pup is definitely the next skipper - his cool and calm, combined with his popularity in the team, speak for themselves.

Andrew Strauss deserves this victory. He came into the captaincy at a difficult time, after the Pietersen/Moores debacle; despite struggling against the West Indies in March, he showed himself up to the task. He's also enjoyed his best batting in his career since he took over. Lest we forget, this is a man who endured a significant break from international cricket only 18 months ago, with many questioning his recall when it came. He was tactically astute in this Ashes series, no more so than at the Oval, where he used his bowlers to the full and led from the front in the field. There seems to be a great team spirit in the England camp, and Strauss must take the credit. His batting was strong all series, discounting a couple of soft dismissals at Headingley, and provided just what was required from a captain and opener. He deserves his spot at top of the runs board, and few will deny his place as man of the series.

Until December 2010.

Super Bowls

With only hours to go to the start of the 2009 Ashes decider, all await the announcement of the Australian team. In the enviable position of having everyone in pretty good form, Ricky Ponting's side will remain unchanged as far as the batting is concerned, but the bowling still appears to be up for grabs.

Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson, and Peter Siddle seem assured of their places; the fight for the final spot is still raging. Stuart Clark will feel justifiably disappointed if he's dropped after his stellar return to Ashes cricket in Leeds, while Nathan Hauritz is confident that spin will be important enough at the Oval to give him a start. And, of course, Brett Lee, the man himself, out himself back into contention in the tour match with a solid bowling performance, but can he break in?

Ben Hilfenhaus: He's been the stand-out bowler for the Aussies all tour; coming into the series, he was unlikely to get his place, but an injury for Brett Lee turned into Gentle Ben's gain. He's been the one Aussie bowler who's consistently taken wickets, bowled economically, and managed to swing the ball from day one. He'll be straight into the attack at the Oval, and there's no question it's the right choice.

Mitchell Johnson: Unlike Hilfenhaus, Johnson was tipped from the start as the spearhead of the attack, and didn't quite get off the runway. When on form, he's the type of bowler who might go for 4.50 an over, but it's well worth it - he'll take plenty of wickets and break a few hands for good measure. We didn't really see any of that until the second innings at Edgbaston, and since then he's got his act together. The over to Paul Collingwood culminating in his wicket in the second innings at Headingley was pure Johnson class. He's back, and he's scary.

(Although, as an Irishman, it was a delight to see Niall O'Brien of Northhants hit him around the place in the tour game.)

Peter Siddle: Siddle came out of Africa, like Johnson, with great reputation. He was economical and accurate. Like Johnson, he started poorly in the UK, spraying it around, bleeding runs, and not taking too many wickets. While he's steadied the ship somewhat, emphsized by a maiden Ashes 5-for in the 4th test, I'd make the controversial call to drop him. There's no way it will happen, because of those five wickets, but his performace in the last game was helped no end by having Stuart Clark building the pressure for him, and in the end he mopped up a pretty shell-shocked tail. Clark does the same job as Siddle (accurate, economical, consistent) only better. Take Siddle out and there's room for Brett Lee, which might be just what Australia need to take back the urn.

Stuart Clark: He played brilliantly at Headingley. However, for Stuart Clark, this means doing his job quietly, keeping the runs down, building pressure, and allowing the other quicks to blast into glory. He went for a few too many to Broad in the last hour or so, but that shouldn't keep him out of the final test. He's taken 29 Ashes wickets at about 15, and did anybody notice the first test he played they won?

With a nervous England batting line-up, Someone like Clark will make them bite their nails a little more, before Mitchell and Brett knock them off.

Nathan Hauritz: Spin may well play a part in the last test. There hasn't been much for Hauritz and Swann so far (obviously not Panesar), but the Aussie spinner will be hoping to get another chance. The negative is that, while he's taken 10 wickets, he's been quite expensive, and if the quicks are on song Ponting and Nielsen will be tempted to leave him out again. Don't forget, Australia have Marcus North, Simon Katich, and Michael Clarke who can take care of a bit of spin when necessary.

Hauritz will unlucky to miss out, as he hasn't done a lot wrong, but surely the selectors won't drop Clark at this stage.

Brett Lee: He's Brett Lee. His injury was a major blow to players and fans alike, and everyone's been waiting impatiently to see him have a go at the Poms. He bowled well in the tour matches in which he's featured, and you feel that a bit of Brett Lee intimidation is just what the Aussies need to attack a wobbling Ian Bell, a tentatively pushing Paul Collingwood, and a total newbie Jonathan Trott. He'll send rip snorters down their throats, and with Mitchell Johnson will remind them what good old-fashioned pace is all about.

Ponting has said he'll play if there's a chance of reverse swing, which doesn't appear to be likely, but if there is he'll knock Stuart Clark out of the team. Lee at one end and Clark at the other could be a finely balance attack for 20 overs, but unless Tim Nielsen reads this and is convinced to drop Siddle, we'll only have one of them, at most.

Going into the series the Australians' bowling was criticized, and there was nothing to change this view for the first two and a half tests. At Headingley, we got a glimpse of what this new-look team could do, particularly when it had a touch of the old about the edges.

The Ashes can only go to the team who takes 20 wickets, and right now, only one side looks like achieving that.

Rain, Rain...Don't Stop The Cricket

We could have it all at Edgbaston. Centuries and five-fors, heroics and disasters, an Aussie resurgence or another bout of England dominance.

What we're probably in for though, is a whole lot of rain and a drawn match.

With a strong history of draws at the venue already, Ricky Ponting isn't getting any better news from the weatherman. There's rain forecast for the next week in Birmingham, and even a hope for an on-schedule start looks optimistic, with groundsmen working through Wednesday night to try and get the pitch dry.

The English won't be too concerned about it, given their position, but the way Andrew Strauss has played since he's become captain you get the feeling he's just really enjoying his cricket.

a 160 in the last match to set up a historic win for his team will certainly leave him feeling good, and tactically speaking - well, whatever people say about his follow-on decisions and declarations, he won the game. A W's a W.

Strauss has told the world that Monty Panesar won't be taking part in the match (one feels Monty might have to settle for his 7 not out in Cardiff as the extent of his Ashes contribution this summer) but is still confident that Andrew Flintoff will be back and ready to play.

Flintoff, who's been sleeping with an ice-pack this last week - never one to avoid controversy - ripped through the Aussies at Lords, and is determined to play out the remainder of the series, even if he never walks again. Backed up by James Anderson and Stuart Broad, the England attack is looking stronger every game.

It's not so simple for Australia. Mitchell Johnson, undoubtedly their best bowler over the last 18 months, has yet to rediscover his form with the ball. A single wicket against Northants last weekend didn't raise anyone's confidence in him at all, but it seems that Australia are going to stand by him, at least until Brett Lee is back on his feet.

Ben Hilfenhaus has bowled beautifully so far, and Peter Siddle has showed guts and determination, but the Aussies need someone else in the pace attack, and hopefully it means that Stuart Clark will get the nod. He bowled well in Northants, taking 4-74 in his 23 overs, and he's the sort of unerringly accurate bowler who could prove a good foil to Hilfenhaus swinging it at the other end.

If Mitch manages to stay in, Nathan Hauritz is favourite to go. He's bowled pretty well on the tour so far, to be fair, but Edgbaston doesn't seem to be the place for spin, particularly if the rain keeps up, and Ponting might be content to rely on his part-timers, Marcus North and Michael Clarke.

That's not to say that North's position isn't under threat as well - Shane Watson and Andrew McDonald both put in strong performances at the weekend, Watson making a couple of quick half centuries and McDonald taking 4 wickets along with a 60 of his own. If they do get a look in, it would probably be Watson, whose batting has looked convincing and who's had a bit more experience. If Hauritz goes, however, North is probably safe and, let's not forget, he had a fantastic unbeaten 125 in Cardiff - he's not in the team for nothing.

Phil Hughes has had a troubled time so far on the tour, and murmurs of Shane Watson partnering Simon Katich at the top of the order might have got him a little twitchy. He did make a 60 at the weekend though, which will probably be enough to keep his place - he's a player with great class, and if he has a little more patience in the first ten overs, we could see him make a really big score.

That seems to be about every possible permutation of the Australian team. Not much needs to be said about Michaels Hussey and Clarke, and no one doubts Ponting's going to hit back hard this match. He's only 25 runs short of beating Allan Border's Australian Test runs record, but you have to feel he'll put a few more on than that.

Brad Haddin is in superb form with the bat, and don't think he'll let those few blips behind the stumps deter him - he's always a fighter.

The biggest change for England is obviously that Ian Bell will be taking Kevin Pietersen's place. Aside from a duck and a 7 in his last outing, he's been scoring very solidly this summer, and he's told the press he's confident of a good game. On the other hand, it's almost cruel how much the Australians are looking forward to playing him. They've figured him out in the past, and if he wants to try and get his place back he'll have to try something new. He's got a history of playing fluently to get to 30 or 40, and then giving away his wicket.

Strauss seems to have been trying to stir up the Aussies in his interviews, suggesting that their "aura" is gone (pretty mystic stuff for a tough lad like him) - you get the feeling that Ponting, Clarke and the boys are just lapping it up - they love a challenge.

The first two tests have been reminders of what a great game Test cricket is, in these days of Twenty20 and Stanford Challenges (oops). England are deservedly 1-0 up in the series, but it would be a huge disappointment to have a rain-forced draw here. With the Aussies riled, and England nervously looking a couple of rungs below them on a tottery ladder they're not used to climbing, we could be in for one hell of a match.

So please don't rain.

No Way A Flop, But Not Quite A Top

"Who is England's best player?"

Few people even think of another answer. Maybe they'd have picked Freddie Flintoff in 2005. In the last 9 months, Graeme Swann's become a crucial team member. Andrew Strauss has taken on the captain's role superbly. Paul Collingwood's a fighter who'll never give up.

But no.

The answer's always Kevin Pietersen.

True, on his day, he's spectacular.He can play shots all around the park, he scores quickly, and strikes anything from trepidation to terror in the hearts of oncoming bowlers. He's exciting to watch, and you know you could be about to see something special.

On the other hand, there are the bad times. Look at the short and troubled captaincy, the undoubted ego, and, arguably, a lack of team play at times.

He's scored 15 test centuries, and close on 4,000 runs, at an average of just below 50. No one can argue with those figures.

So what's the problem?

Pietersen's scores seem to have declined almost without anyone noticing. True, he had a century in the West Indies in March, and a couple of semi-tons since then, but he also seems more prone to the single-figure dismissals than the other great batsmen. Everyone has their bad days, but with Pietersen it seems to be either very good or very bad.

More frustrating than his recent lack of converting good scores into 100s is the manner of his dismissals.

Remember his 97 in the first test in the Caribbean this year? 97 not out, doing plenty to help set up a strong first innings total. However, a century wouldn't have been enough, apparently; it had to be reached in style. A six may have been what he had in mind, but a massive top edge to Denesh Ramdin later and England were another wicket down. In Cardiff this year, we saw a similarly rash stroke.

Is it understandable, just a rush of blood to the head? Maybe, for a 20-year old on debut, looking to impress the world. Pietersen did that years ago. This is a former captain, a man with 46 test matches to his name, and allegedly his country's greatest player.

Look at the other top batsmen playing today - Sachin Tendulkar, Kumar Sangakarra, Jacques Kallis, Ricky Ponting, Shiv Chanderpaul - that's not an act you'd see from them. A great player knows when to wait, and knows when to pounce.

Having happened on more than one occasion, it shows KP for what he is - a player's who's more concerned with serving himself than the team.

Lee Trevino, golfing legend of the 1970s, and 6-time major winner, famously remarked to his caddy on the 18th fairway of his first major victory that he didn't want to be known as the guy who laid up to win. Only needing a bogey, he took on thew water and the green. All ended happily, but what if? We could have had another Jean Van de Velde.

In the West Indies, on his way to his 15th test match ton, with England on the brink of a crucial declaration, Pietersen was keeping his eyes firmly away from the dressing room. Strauss was going to have to drag him off the field, and let's remember, Straussy was only recently put in the awkward position of leading a team that had just given KP a vote of no confidence.

He made his hundred. Congratulations. England then declared, and failed to bowl the West Indies out again, leading to another draw.

Look at other captains, other batsmen. Maybe Ricky Ponting isn't too popular outside Oz, but no one can deny that he puts the team first. A master of the tight declaration, always judged to give a chance of victory, even if it brings with it a risk of defeat, Ponting would be prepared to declare on 98 not out, rather than waste precious minutes to boost his own stats.

Pietersen is never going to be dropped. He's achieved hero status, and the English are slow to take such a man off a pedestal, even without his sort of talent (just ask Tim Henman).

However, there are younger players, the future of English cricket, who need some air time. Alistair Cook and Ravi Bopara, to name but two, both hugely talented and still young men, need to be given the help to become the game's greats.

Consider the best batsmen of the last 10 years: Lara, Waugh, Kallis, Ponting, Jayasuriya, Tendulkar. It's not all about physical skill. It's about class, calm, strategy, and selflessness. Pietersen doesn't make it on to that tier. Not yet.

Let's see how England do in the Ashes without the big man. If Strauss gets to lift the urn on August 24th, maybe there'll be a few new heroes