Aussies To Edge It

The English media are confident we'll win, but as the eternal pessimist I really don't see it happening. The same media were equally presumptuous that the football team would brush aside Germany five months ago, the same media also built up Haye-Harrison to interminable amounts and the same media nailed their colours to either Denman and Kauto for the Gold Cup decider.

So why are England so strongly fancied, well it appears to be more to do with Australia's decline than are own good form. Having scrapped a share of the series against South Africa last winter we brushed aside Bangladesh away and at home before facing Pakistan. The Pakistan batting line-up was weaker than Bangladesh and in a favourable summer for bowlers, England's made hay while the cloud loomed. Contrastingly Pakistan bowlers are a decent rabble, when not bowling no balls, and in the conditions they gave England's batsmen a thorough test that none passed with top marks. That to me leaves me with question marks not only against a batting line-up who had a poor previous series but against bowlers who've had an easy life recently. Particular concerns about how an inexperienced Steven Finn in a four-man attack would be able to cope if one of Australia's top order gets after his bowling. Earlier in the summer there was a feeling that a four-man attack wouldn't be enough to combat the Aussies, but whether through that gentle Pakistan warm-up or the watching of Australia deterioration from afar it has been moved to the back of the mind.

Since I began following cricket in 1997, I've always seen Australia as the best around and even the loss of the Ashes in 2009 I put down to a statistical freak of lighting that would never happen again. Australia were six runs per wicket better than England yet lost, how? I told myself that Australia were just damn unlucky in an attempt to convince myself that this country could not be beaten in a straight fate-free fight. Since 2009 I have been able to convince my brain that India, South Africa and maybe Sri Lanka are better than Australia, but England?

The teams that will line-up in a hour or so will be pretty similar to those of the 2009 Ashes, England have no Flintoff or Onions while Trott since replacing Bopara has cemented his place in the side. For Trott read Watson for Australia, since Shane replaced Australia's bright young thing in the last Ashes he too has done all that's asked of him. Australia's only change from 2009 is Xavier Doherty for Hauritz/Clark. So virtually the same teams from 2009 where as I've said Australia were statistically dominant but England won the "big moments" to take the series. England have improved since the last Ashes but their summer stroll gave little indication of by how much, that six run per wicket advantage Australia had may have been made up but in the Aussies backyard I still fancy they will take the urn back. 2-1 to Australia, you heard it here last minute.