Ignore the win over the Windies, ignore the old boys in the papers, England will not win the forthcoming Ashes series. Andrew Hughes explains why...

There's nothing wrong with patriotism, indeed some of my best friends are patriots. But when it comes to betting, love of one's country is both useless and dangerous. With an Ashes summer ahead of us, some of you may be tempted to dig out that DVD of the 2005 series and with the words to 'Jerusalem' echoing in your ears, lump on England to triumph over the old enemy. In which case, you should definitely read on before you do your wallet some serious damage. I hate to rain on anyone's open-top bus parade, but take it from me, England will not be winning the Ashes this summer.

For a start, ignore everything you read in the media about the Ashes. Why? Because the cricket media these days is dominated by ex-players. They may be able to tell you how to play the perfect cover drive, but if its objective analysis you're after (and surely a cricket punter looks for nothing else) then you might as well forget it. The Hussains, Bothams, Lloyds and Gowers of this world never quite leave the dressing room behind. There is a part of them that is forever England and when it comes to the Ashes, they are about as objective and clear-sighted as Alf Garnett.

As ever, this renewal of the oldest rivalry in cricket has generated acres of newsprint and much of the analysis is half-baked at best. For example, there are some people who appear to believe that Philip Hughes, Peter Siddle and Marcus North can't be any good because they are newcomers. Have 20 years of being beaten up by Aussies we've never heard of taught us nothing? Australian domestic cricket continually throws up players of talent and toughness. Hughes, we are told, has an iffy technique against swing and is unfamiliar with the Duke ball used in old Blighty. And yet he has already racked up three centuries for Middlesex.

I expect this bunch of Antipodeans will be closest in spirit to Allan Border's grimly determined tourists of 1989 who ground England into the dust with a no frills, no mercy performance. Of all his predecessors, it is grumpy AB whom current captain Ricky Ponting most resembles. After the shock home series defeat to South Africa, Punter changed his laissez-faire captaincy style and set about moulding his new team in his image. When they flew out for the return series, everyone knew their job, their preparation was immaculate and they stunned the Proteas with a gutsy series win.

Meanwhile, England are pinning their hopes on recreating the past. Some people seem to think that the merest hint of a swinging ball is enough to terrify the Aussies and repeat the success of 2005. It isn't going to happen. Yes we will still have Andrew Flintoff (hopefully). But he is the only Englishman capable of bowling reverse swing at 90 miles an hour. James Anderson is neither as quick nor as accurate as Simon Jones and whilst Stuart Broad is getting better all the time, he lacks the menace of Steve Harmison in his pomp. Our attack is fast-medium rather than fast and those few miles an hour make all the difference.

An even greater fallacy is the suggestion that we could regain the Ashes by turning to spin. Now it is true that Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar are both better spinners than their counterpart, Nathan Hauritz. But the question is how are we to make our perceived spin advantage count? If we prepare tracks that turn from day one, we will simply bring the part-time spin of Michael Clarke, Simon Katich and North into the game and find ourselves outgunned. In any case, is there any evidence to suppose that the Australians are particularly vulnerable to finger spin?

As ever then, we go into the Ashes with our usual mixture of old fashioned English complacency, blind patriotism and half-baked theorising. I do not expect us to be steamrollered as we were in 1989, but I am sure we will lose. And it seems I am not alone. A quick glance at the market shows us that Australia are clear favourites to win the series on [1.74] with England on [3.55].

Comments (1)

1. W | 31 October 2010

   Ur wrong

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: