The Ashes

June 21^st

The day may not have any special meaning for most nor would it send a tingle of excitement up most people’s spines. But it does for me.

I think it also does for the millions of Australian and Pom cricket fanatics around the world and it also would for any true follower of cricket in the world.

Come june 21^st and I, like millions of others will be tuned into my television set watching the first ball of the 2005 Ashes series being bowled.

What are the Ashes and why do they mean so much to any cricket lover?
Read the history and tradition here

So the debate has begun to rage. In cricket magazines, blogs, portals, TV shows et al…previews and analysis on the forthcoming Ashes where Australia look to keep the little urn for 19 consecutive years playing against one of the strongest, most confident English sides in recent memory.

So I’ve decided to add my two bits to this debate. My views on the forthcoming 6 match series are, to say the least, extremely controversial and bound to warm the cockles of any Aussie heart.

Lets get to the debate: every analysis I read, every TV show I watch…all the talk is about how this Ashes is going to be the most closely contested series between England & Australia ever since Allan Border and his merry men decided to dominate world cricket with a ruthlessness that is only being matched by successive Australian captains (Waugh, now Ponting) and successive Australian geniuses (first it was the Waugh twins, then came Warne & Mcgrath and now we have Clarke)

But I digress. Lets get this out of the way first: I think the question/debate is not how close an Ashes series this is going to be or how England is finally going to win this series etcetera; according to me the question should be, “Will England be able to win even a single game out of the 6 to be played?” Yes yes…I can already hear the outraged screams of all the Poms and many other cricket lovers in the world who have been so recently enamoured by Flintoff’s flair, Strauss’s form and Harmison’s destructive spells. Make no mistake; I have rabidly gone through a lot of facts, figures and recently played matches by England before coming to my conclusion on what the debate should be.

Now that the hue & cry has abated, let me try to put forth my theory with logic:

• My fundamental foundation in challenging whether England would win even one test lies in the simple rules that govern test cricket. For a team to win a test match, yes they need to get plenty of runs but more importantly and critically, a team needs to take 20 wickets in the space of around 3 days or 9 sessions of cricket (as each day comprises 3 sessions) So if England were to win a test match, they will need to take 20 Australian wickets in the space of 2 ½ to 3 days. When I am confronted with this question (can they or can’t they?), it immediately appears to me that England have already lost the Ashes. Let me explain further
• We all know the notorious seaming conditions English cricket has to offer so taking 20 wickets should not be a problem with the likes of Harmison, Hoggard & Flintoff. My first argument against this point of view is that this year, the Ashes are being played toward the end of the English cricket season. This means that ALL the pitches on which the tests are played on would already have been played on by various county teams. Playing late in the summer means that there is less moisture, less rain and hence less for the quick bowlers off the wicket and in the air. What we are likely to find as the Ashes begin are pitches that have something in it for the bowlers but if a batsmen were to get in, there were runs to be had.
• So that’s the first factor against England being able to capture 20 Oz wickets. Second and I think as critical is the lack of bowling variety in the England team. Yes you have 4 good quick bowlers but who’s going to provide the variety? All the bowlers are right handed, all bowl at a similar pace with Harmison maybe being a bit quicker on a good day? The answer I hear the Poms shouting is “Ashley Giles” This suggestion is so ridiculous that I will not even bother to elucidate my reasons as to why I think Giles is at best a good defensive bowler, at most times cannon fodder, especially for the likes of Ponting, Hayden and Clarke, not to bring in the AG factor!
• So late summer, no out & out assistance for the quicks, no variety in bowling. Hmmm. Thirdly, we come to batting depth. Here I must say that England seem to be better off than they have been in a long time. No denying that. But here I would like to point out one reality that is not restricted to England alone….any team that plays Australia is up against the best bowling line up since the West Indies teams of the 1970’s. There is no respite here: Mcgrath & Lee with the new ball (yes I think Lee should make the 11 ahead of Kasprowicz), Gillespie coming on after that and then that magician, the greatest bowler of all time, Warne to follow. We all know how susceptible English batsmen are against spin and Warne has been a huge bogeyman for them over the last decade. One can never, ever overestimate the impact Warne can have in an Ashes test and I think this time around again Warne will prove to be a decisive factor in the equation. So now, if England were to win a match, they would need at least 2 ½ days to bowl Oz out twice correct? If so, they would need to bat for 2 ½ days as well and get at least 500 on the board. That seems like a task which is achievable but only if Mcgrath AND Warne both have terrible days together. I highly doubt If that will happen

• I will not get into rhapsodies about the Australian batting line up. Merely stating it like it is is adequate. In order of appearance on the wicket look at the Oz batting: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Katich, Gilchrist

• Finally, all has been said, much has been argued, many objections have been vehemently shouted, I have been denounced for my brazen opinion. Finally, I would like to say…England can win a test…heck..England can even win the Ashes, all other things being equal. I say all other things being equal because there is one factor none can account for, one wildcard in this fray. A joker you can call him. A card that turns up, has indeed turned up many a time in the past to shatter dreams, hopes, expectations….of the opposition that is. That factor is Adam Gilchrist. Many a label are put on this individual but all metaphors aside, he, to put it plainly, possesses the genius that one sees once in the lifetime of a game. Only once. Australia have 2 such players…incredibly so. Gilchrist is the more dangerous. Warne is not far behind. Both are players of the type who have never been seen and will never ever be seen again. So Gilchrist. Yes...Australia have Gilchrist and England and anyone else don’t and never will.
  

There. I have made my prediction, stated my opinion and given reasons for it. Shoot me, denounce me, call me what you will: only Time will decide.

Oh and as for the other debate…will England win the Ashes? Need I answer that…?