On the eve of the first test in Cardiff, eight of us here at Cricket Web gave our verdict on how the Ashes would go. The results are in, and it’s time to see how we fared. It’s a bit of a mixed bag…

Let’s cut to the chase- who’s going to win, and by what score?

Three out of eight correctly predicted that England would take the series, with Manjunath and Cricket Web owner James getting the 2-1 scoreline spot on. Martyn’s typically optimistic shout of 3-0 to England turned out to be a little too far, but I suspect he’s still too drunk to care. Ganesh and I called 2-1 to Australia and missed out by 200 runs on Sunday, while Martin and Swaranjeet called 2-2 and missed out by Monty Panesar’s wicket at Cardiff. Widest of the mark was Richard, who predicted a comfortable 3-1 win for Australia.

Who will take the most wickets?

Frankly, this question leaves me looking a bit of a prick. While none of us quite saw Ben Hilfenhaus coming, I managed to miss the entire dartboard and hit?? a barmaid in the eye when Stuart Clark managed a measly four wickets in the two games he actually played. Other answers varied between Mitchell J?ohnson, James Anderson and Graeme Swann but Hilfy stumped us all by coming out of the blue to snare 22 wickets at an impressive average of 27.

Who will score the most runs?

Martyn, Richard and Martin share the wooden spoon in this round by incorrectly predicting that Kevin Pietersen’s achilles would stay put long enough to bag him leading run scorer. Manjunath and Swaranjeet nailed it though, with Andrew Strauss dominating the Aussie bowlers with 474 runs @ 52. James and Ganesh came close with their calls of Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting respectively, while I was let down by Simon Katich’s notorious failure to build on his starts.

Who will be the worst player on either team?

Yet again, Richard is the man with egg on his face by claiming that Nathan Hauritz would be the series’ joke-bowler. Never mind. I’m sure if you asked him he’d insist that he really was the worst and it’s just a case of the moons aligning against him.

The undisputed winner here is Martin Chandler who predicted Ravi Bopara’s nightmare series with the bat. My call of Monty Panesar, Steve Harmison or Ian Bell- all of whom somehow got a game at some stage- isn’t too shabby either, nor is Swaranjeet’s controversial prediction that Andrew Flintoff would have a below-par Ashes. James’s somewhat bizarre prediction that Ricky Ponting would have a shocker fell flat, and Brett Lee didn’t even make it on to the field in order to fulfill the doomed prophecy of Ganesh and Martyn.

Which tail-ender will frustrate the opposition most?

Martyn Corrin and Martin Chandler take the plaudits here by correctly predicting Graeme Swann being a thorn in the side of the Australians. His 249 runs @ 35 undoubtedly caused all kinds of swearing amongst the frustrated Aussie bowlers. Manjunath and James named Stuart Broad, whose 234 runs give him the runner-up spot in the “Little ****” competition.

Richard once again missed the mark dramatic??ally, with neither Mitchell Johnson nor Peter Siddle managing to stick around too often, while I was let down by Nathan ??Hauritz only making it out to bat three times.

Who or what will be the Ashes’ surprise package?

Finally some modest success for Richard here, as his prediction that the pitch at Cardiff wouldn’t turn as much as expected held up reasonably well. I’m pretty content with my prediction that Nathan Hauritz wouldn’t be quite as bad as everyone expected, but the best (and bravest) call belongs to Martin Chandler, who told us all seven weeks in advance that Matt Prior’s keeping would be absolutely fine.

James ended up with egg on his face within a couple of days when his “Ponting to not score a single century” bet fell at the first hurdle. Martyn’s patriotism let him down for once as Australia did in fact win a single test. An Australian struggle to take 20 wickets was predicted successfully by Manjunath and James but Swaranjeet and Ganesh were neither here nor there with their predictions of Ponting doing better than expected and Michael Clarke’s left arm nothing-breaks surprising the Poms.

Any other predictions?

A dismal round to finish, with very few of us coming out with any credit. Graeme Swann did not reach his maiden test century by hitting Brett Lee for six (Martyn), Peter Siddle did not injure himself and miss most of the series (Manjunath), Michael Clarke did not become Australia’s front-line spinner after one test (James) and the series was most certainly not boring, one-sided or uninteresting (Ganesh).

On the other hand, Richard had some success by saying Australia would call up an unexpected squad reinforcement, the prophecy materialising in the form of Tim Paine. Martin Chandler correctly predicted Steve Harmison’s late-series return but also expected the big man to celebrate with a five-fer which never looked likely.

As much as I’d love to gloat over my prediction that Harmison would be welcomed back into the side then unceremoniously dropped when England remembered he’s no good anymore, the squad for South Africa hasn’t been announced yet. Besides, I may as well have been predicting snowstorms in Alaska. Something which the team at Cricket Web probably wouldn’t even manage.

Andrew Strauss
Strauss captained England to a series victory, topped the runscoring charts, and won the Miller-Compton medal. You might call that a decent series. With a top six faltering all around him, Strauss held the order together and led from the front, like any respectable captain should do. His captaincy came into some criticism for being too negative but he got the results he needed to with his methods, and his man-management seems to be working. The best example is probably the performance of Stuart Broad; he struggled early on so Strauss bowled him out at Edgbaston when the game was gone, allowing him to find his line and length. The result? Eleven wickets in the next two innings.
Grade: A

Alastair Cook
Disappointing. Cook has previously had issues with converting fifties into hundreds, in this series he struggled to get to fifty. Cook is blighted by technical issues and for the first time since he came into the side he finds his place being questioned; he should be relieved that there are no openers making huge waves in the championship. On the plus side of things he did bring the series to a close with his catch of Hussey, so it’s not all doom and gloom!
Grade: D

Ravi Bopara
Bopara had a series that was reminiscent of Ian Bell’s troubled time back in 2005. He will have been devastated to have been dropped for the decider but there was no way he could be retained. The phrase ‘rabbit in the headlights’ has never been more apt. Bopara won’t look back too fondly on this series but hopefully will come out of it stronger.
Grade: E-

Kevin Pietersen
It was pleasing to see Pietersen at The Oval to be with the team yesterday. His fans will say it shows he is a team man after all, his detractors might argue that he just wanted a slice of the glory. Whichever way you look at it, he’ll be devastated not to have been out there for the last three Tests, and he’ll have been disappointed with what he did contribute early on. He looked good at Cardiff before getting out with the oddest shot of the summer, and from there on looked shot to pieces. He hadn’t missed a Test for four years so it was bound to happen sometime, nonetheless Pietersen will be hungry to get back in the runs this winter.
Grade: C

Ian Bell
Bell’s recall was not greeted with delight by England fans, and neither was his retention in the wake of the Headingley fiasco. He rode his luck at Edgbaston where the umpires gave him a couple of lives en route to a 50, and then failed at Headingley – but so did everybody else. He was retained and repaid the faith with the top score of England’s first innings, though he’ll have been mortified not to have scored a century, because it means the same old doubts will hang around. His second innings at The Oval won’t have helped to shut up his detractors either, as when he got out he left England in a spot of bother. He should have done enough to secure a free flight to South Africa, from there, we’ll see.
Grade: C

Paul Collingwood
Collingwood was good at the start of the series, scoring three consecutive fifties. His typically gritty 74 at Cardiff was crucial in the context of the whole series, even if he couldn’t quite see it out. However since Lord’s he has barely scored a run, and serious questions are being asked about his place in the side, although he was still England’s second highest scoring specialist batsman (Matt Prior and Graeme Swann both scored more runs than him, however). To make things a little worse, his fielding seems to have lost a bit of its aura, he dropped a couple in the slips on the final day that you’d normally back him to swallow. Collingwood is a team man and played his part early in the series, but it certainly wasn’t one of his best.
Grade: C-

Jonathan Trott
There are dream debuts, and then there is Jonathan Trott’s debut. You would think that debuting in an Ashes-winning Test would be enough for most people, but Trott anchored England’s second innings with a beautiful and controlled century, this following an impressive 41 in the first innings where he was got out by a magical piece of fielding by Simon Katich. He also took a blinding catch to dismiss Michael Clarke in the first innings. He will learn sooner or later that Test cricket isn’t always this easy, but for now Trott should enjoy being the golden boy.
Grade: A*

Matt Prior
The doubts about Prior before the series were over his glovework, so it is very pleasing to note that there were no clangers from Prior. He kept well, most notably dismissing Marcus North with a fine catch at Edgbaston and stumping the very same batsman on the final day of the series from Graeme Swann’s bowling. He will probably be a little disappointed with his batting performances, batting at six you need to make centuries, especially when supported with a lower order as strong as England’s. He didn’t disgrace himself but will need to score more runs if he is to remain in the top six – of course, he might well move to seven anyway, given Flintoff’s departure. He can be very satisfied with his contribution to the series and should find himself awarded a central contract next month.
Grade: B

Andrew Flintoff
As an England fan it has been emotional to wave farewell to Andrew Flintoff from our Test side, but it is perhaps slightly comforting to do so in the knowledge that he wasn’t going to be able to do the magic anymore. Flintoff provided a world-class bowling performance in both innings at Lord’s (the second will always be remembered but the partnership with James Anderson in the first innings was probably more important in the context of the result) but it took its toll and his body clearly wouldn’t allow him to do so again. With the bat, he played with more freedom than he had done recently and the result was that he looked a lot better than in previous years. He played an enthralling innings at Edgbaston to set up a remote chance of victory for England but will have been disappointed to get out when a farewell century was there for the taking. Flintoff had a quiet career finale at The Oval but his run out of Ricky Ponting eased growing doubts in the England fans and was a fitting way to finish off.
Grade: C

Stuart Broad
Broad had a shocker early in the series, most notably at Cardiff. He improved at Lord’s but still appeared to be the weak link in the attack, and only when, as mentioned above, Strauss bowled him out at Edgbaston did he seem to find his groove. He was England’s best bowler by a country mile in the Headingley horror show, and clinched the series for England at The Oval with the finest spell of his career to date, winding up England’s top wicket-taker in the process. He contributed with the bat as well and will now cope with the tag of being the new Freddie Flintoff, but Broad won’t mind that. If people didn’t think that the progress made against West Indies didn’t really count for anything, they should take notice now.
Grade:: B

Graeme Swann
It was a strange series for Swann; he took a respectable 14 wickets overall, yet went wicketless in two matches, and took eight in one. He stepped up on the final day of the series, bowling unchanged most of the day except for when England took the new ball, and even then he was back on after eight overs. He also played an understated role in the second innings at Lord’s, taking four wickets but being overshadowed by the Freddie Flintoff show. When he was good he was good, but when he was bad he really was pretty bad. That being said, his contributions with the bat were massive, only two of England’s top six scored more runs than him and his runs were never more significant then when he rammed home England’s advantage at The Oval. Swann is a great character to have in the team, the best spinner England have and a fine lower-order batsman; he will have better series than this one with the ball but he seemed to enjoy himself and will certainly not be disappointed with himself.
Grade: C+

James Anderson
A strange series for Anderson. Disappointing at Cardiff, sublime in the first innings at Lord’s but subdued in the second. Immense in the first innings at Birmingham, but disappointing in the second. Poor at Headingley, and inoccuous at The Oval, going wicketless in both of the final two Tests. Anderson was so good when he was good that there won’t be too many questions about him yet, but he will know that he should and could have done better. Handy in the lower order with the bat, never more so than when he was an absolute star at Cardiff. He did lose his duckless streak though, sadly.
Grade: C-

Monty Panesar
Shocking with the ball but utterly heroic with the bat. It is tempting to give Panesar an A*. He probably shouldn’t have been anywhere near the squad, but nobody expected him to stick out eleven overs yet he did.
Grade: N/A

Graham Onions
Onions was hugely unfortunate to miss out on the series decider, he acquitted himself very well in the three Tests he played, most notably at Edgbaston where, in tandem with Anderson, he helped to skittle Australia out, with seven wickets lost in one session. It seemed that a fall guy was needed from the attack following Headingley so as the junior member of the attack it was Onions, but he will be back in the side soon enough. A decent contribution.
Grade: B-

Steve Harmison
Another player whose place in the side was questionable at best, Harmison might well have played his last Test. He bowled a very good spell at Headingley, but unfortunately went to pieces from there. He worked that way in reverse at The Oval, where he wasn’t used all that much but cleaned up the Australian tail to get his own slice of glory; it is hard to begrudge someone who, for all his faults as a cricketer, is such a genuine and honest person. He never had a horrow show, nor did he bowl particularly well; probably what you would expect.
Grade: C-

So, there you have it. No doubt plenty of you will disagree with the way we have rated the players; why not come and discuss it in the Ashes Forum?

Tomorrow, we look at Australia.

I first took?? a look at how much home advantage plays into it. Here are the results of the deciding Tests:-

HOME TEAM WON: 8
AWAY TEAM WON: 6
DRAWN: 4

So not really that much of a home advantage. How about the favourite – surely they win most of the time in these situations? I used the historical ICC team ratings to determine the favourite for each series, with the following results:-

FAVOURITE WON: 9
UNDERDOG WON: 5
DRAWN: 4

As we would expect, the favourite is more likely to win, but there have been sufficient underdogs who have won to make it less than a foregone conclusion. So is it more of a combination of the two – have more home underdogs won? Of the five underdogs who won, three were at home, two were away, so not really much to conclude from that.

So could it be, as we alluded to earlier in the series, that momentum plays a part – how many of the teams who won the penultimate Test to square the series went on to win? There were twelve series which produced a result in the penultimate Test; here are the results of the final Test in each case (two Tests were drawn):-

WON 4TH TEST: WON – 3
LOST 4TH TEST: WON – 7

This is somewhat surprising – history seems to favour the loser of the penultimate Test, and hence the team you would think had lost the momentum, going on to win a tied series. Why should this be? One explanation could be that, in the majority of cases, the better team had been more successful in the earlier Tests, lost a little focus, then re-grouped to win. This has proven largely to be the case – in fact, in five of those seven cases the team winning the fifth Test and thus the series had won both the first two Tests, only to lose the next two. In this case, however, it’s fair to say that England has not been dominant to that extent.

Considering the above and looking closely at the particular case of England and Australia going into this weekend’s decider, the situation we have is a home underdog facing an away favourite which has the momentum – in those cases, the home underdog is successul only 20% of the time.

So it seems England has a one in five chance of sending Freddie out on a high note – if England is to wrest the momentum away from the Aussies, it most likely will require a performance of “Flintoff-like” proportions.

Six weeks and four tumultuous tests later, we’re no closer to knowing where the Ashes are going than we were that morning in Cardiff. From Monty Panesar saving England at the Swalec stadium, to Flintoff’s triumphant re-emergance at Lord’s, all the way to Clarke and North’s stubborn last-day defiance at Edgbaston and Stuart Clark’s incredible comeback in Yorkshire, it’s been a wildly unpredictable series (if not always a high-quality one).

None of what has gone before is of any relevance though, because the Ashes will be decided over the next five days at the Oval. England will desperately try to shore up a shaky middle order, hoping that the pitch and weather don’t hinder their chances of winning back the Ashes. Australia meanwhile are looking to somehow maintain the quality of play seen at Headingley two weeks ago and scramble over the finish line one way or another.

For players on both sides, the final test of a level Ashes series is the most high-pressure scenario imaginable. A match-winning performance in this match will make up for an entire career of underachievement, while a dropped catch or poor shot will haunt them for the rest of their lives. The big??gest five days of cricket for many years starts at 11 tomorrow.

Leaving aside the fact that, really, every Test should be about that (A team tours, domestic cricket, Academies and the like are the places to concentrate on the future, not the highest level itself), some people – and England supporters in particular – seem to take “pick the best team available to win this one Test” to mean “let’s go for someone we’d never normally consider”. It’s been difficult to keep track of the names which have been flying around in the days since defeat at Headingley became obvious (let’s be honest, it was near-certain after the opening session), so obscure have some been: Mark Ramprakash, James Foster, Robert Key, Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan, Michael Carberry… and some have responded by saying “how about Graham Gooch or Chris Tavare?”

Let’s just get one thing straight here: England’s philosophy going into The Oval is no different to that which it was going into Swalec Stadium, or Lord’s, or Edgbaston, or Headingley. Well, at least, it shouldn’t be – if, at any point, the selectors were thinking anything other than “let’s pick the team we think gives us the best chance to win this Test”, they need to be swiftly handed their P45s. The question of whether Ravinder Bopara has been poor enough in the opening four Tests to change his position from “among the best XI cricketers in the country” to “not among the best XI cricketers in the country” is a fair one, as is an answer in the affirmative. But the question of whether the reasons for ignoring Ramprakash are weaker now than they have been at any point in the last seven-and-a-bit years is an absurd one. Ramprakash is no different a player now to what he was when he was dropped (some might argue – with hindsight, no-one did at the time – harshly) in 2002, that much is pretty obvious. He is still supremely physically talented, but his frailties of mind remain. If you believe he can overcome these frailties of mind to come good at Test level, as he did in 1998, and against all-comers, not just Australia, then he should not have been being constantly ignored over the past seven years. If you do not, then he should not be recalled now as he should not have been recalled at any point in the last seven years. Personally, I’m disappointed Ramprakash was axed in 2002, but I’d not be keen on his recall now

If we are honest with ourselves, we should realise that ten players simply must play at The Oval, barring some mishap over the course of the next week: Andrew Strauss and Alastair Cook to open; Ian Bell and Paul Collingwood to bat four and five; Matthew Prior to bat six and keep wicket; Andrew Flintoff to bat seven and bowl (the whole country who cares in the slightest for cricket will be crossing everything they can find to cross over this week that he is fit enough to play a substantial part); Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann to bat eight and nine and bowl; James Anderson to bat ten and bowl (presuming he can conquer his mysterious injury which caused him to interpret “full” as “short” at Headingley… and yes, I am joking there – I’m a bowler and I know only too well that one of the first things that happens when something’s not right is that it’s difficult to pitch properly full however hard you try); and Graham Onions to bat eleven, for what little that’s worth, and bowl.

Bell has been far less than impressive since returning, but why that surprises anyone I don’t know, because it was clear that little to nothing had changed when he was recalled a couple of weeks back. If you believed he was among the best eleven players then then you should believe it still now. Owais Shah probably had a stronger case before Edgbaston and he probably still has it now, but the chances of him superseding Bell are remote. Quite why anyone should want anyone other than Prior keeping wicket is beyond me – yes, we know that he usually has one shocking game per series, but if you pre-empt a wicketkeeper doing that, and risk bringing in someone effectively to play as a specialist lower-order batsman, then you’re making one of the most foolish decisions one could wish for in a must-win game. No-one should be convinced of Prior’s long-term credentials yet, but he’s kept wicket quite acceptably this series and to play him as a specialist bat for this final match would weaken the side beyond measure. Cook may have largely disappointed this series but can anyone seriously be confident that, on a one-off basis, Trescothick would do better? No, of course they can’t. Same thing applies to Key, and Carberry. So there’s no point changing for change’s sake.

Anderson and Onions were dreadful at Headingley, there’s no disputing that. But both have shown plenty enough earlier in the summer (and in Anderson’s case over the previous year as well) to make it quite obvious that there’s no-one around currently who has a strong chance of doing better. Yes, even Ryan Sidebottom – if you’d asked me this April (before the season’s opener) who was better out of Sidebottom and Onions I’d have said the former without a backward glance, and I challenge anyone to seriously contend they’d have done otherwise. But Sidebottom has, quite simply, not bowled anywhere near as well as Onions this term, and this time next week it would be a very long shot indeed to back Sidebottom to out-bowl Onions. If Anderson is not fit, then Sidebottom should be the first man called-up, but not otherwise. The idea that a spinner will be jettisoned completely is one that no-one should have the remotest of expectations of, however much it may have going for it, and the idea that any spinner should be preferred to Swann right now, however ineffective he’s been for most of this series, is plain madness. And if Broad could not be dropped after the utter nonsense he bowled for the vast majority of the opening three Tests, he certainly cannot be dropped after taking 6 for 90-odd in his most recent bowl.

The one serious question that should be asked is of who should bat three. So far as I can see, there are two sensible possibilities: Bopara, the incumbent (I personally have left my jury out on Bopara as a Test batsman since I first saw him, and it remains firmly there as of now); and Ed Joyce. Jonathan Trott is a fine batsman and has had a stunning season, but so has Shah, and so has Bell. Until this season, Trott was presumably several miles down the pecking-order for reasons of personality rather than skill (as demonstrated by the fact that he can’t even get in ODI squads despite being very probably the second-best one-day batsman in the country) and why this has changed recently is beyond me. Joyce, however, is the same thing now as he was when he was so incredibly unlucky not to get a Test in 2006 or 2007 – a good, solid, compact batsman, who has done about all that could be asked of a domestic cricketer, and has waited seemingly forever for his chance. By all accounts, this season he has prospered in the toughest situations. If Bopara is to be replaced, then for me, Joyce should be the man.

And apart from Flintoff returning to the place he only lost to Stephen Harmison thanks to his injury (whether he believed it was severe enough or not), that should be the only change in the England team. England cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the best team doesn’t change based on how big the occasion is.

Flintoff explains the Australian Koala box is tough, tiny, and made of titanium to protect the Australians from “people like me”.

You can watch the video below.

For England, the main doubt, as it has been all series, is the one cast over Andrew Flintoff’s fitness. Andrew Strauss seems set to take a hard line, and will be making absolutely sure that the all-rounder is completely fit to go the distance, but you just know that Flintoff will want more than ever to be on the field for this game. Whilst the prospect of ensuring he is fit for a sentimental finale at The Oval may seem appealing initially, Flintoff will not, under any circumstances, want to miss out on the game where England regain the Ashes, which of course is what will happen should England emerge victorious at Headingley.

Replacing Flintoff is no mean feat but it seems that the selectors will do so if necessary by picking Warwickshire’s Jonathan Trott, who would potentially slot in at six, thus bumping Matt Prior down to seven. England’s bowling cannot afford to carry any passengers if they pick just four bowlers, though, which means that Stuart Broad will probably miss out if Flintoff does. Ryan Sidebottom and Steve Harmison wait in the wings. If the ball swings like it often does at Headingley, Sidebottom would be the best man for the job, and him and James Anderson could cause huge damage to Australia given the right conditions. If it doesn’t swing, though, then Harmison’s pace, bounce and aggression would be much preferred tools. The selectors will be ruing the fact that they don’t know what the ball will do until the game starts, alas I would therefore expect them to not take the risk, Harmison will probably come in for Stuart Broad, with Graeme Swann and James Anderson moving up a spot each in the batting order.

Regardless of Flintoff’s fitness, questions are being asked about Stuart Broad anyway. With Flintoff seeming to be in good nick with the bat after a fine innings at Edgbaston, Broad’s batting may be seen to be needed less than it once was, especially with Graeme Swann sitting at nine anyway. Therefore, if Flintoff plays, don’t be surprised if Sidebottom comes in for Broad, although he does seem to have the backing of the coach. Ravi Bopara is another player who has had the axe wildly thrust in his direction by could-be selectors across England, but Andy Flower has confirmed that Bopara will play.

As for Australia, they have a couple of fitness worries. Michael Clarke sat out training yesterday with an abdominal strain but should be fine to take his place in the side tomorrow. The other main doubt is Brad Haddin, who of course missed the previous Test with a broken finger. He has been able to bat and keep in training today, but will still need to do more to prove his fitness to his captain. Don’t expect a decision on that one until tomorrow morning.

Another man whose fitness is under scrutiny is express pace bowler Brett Lee. He has been bowling at full pace in the nets though it remains to be seen whether that will be enough. The big question is who does he replace? Peter Siddle seems to be the man most unlucky to miss out, and it does seem unfortunate. The paceman has impressed with his aggression in the series but failed to take too many wickets and if Lee is recalled, expect him to miss out. Mitchell Johnson should have done enough at Edgbaston to keep his place, England will certainly be hoping that he returns to his Lord’s form if they are to regain the Ashes in Leeds!

A man who has missed out so far and may well find himself in the mix is Stuart Clark. He is the man that many Australia supporters want in the team, but for whatever reason the selectors don’t seem to share their desire. Still, don’t rule out the prospect of him coming in for Siddle, or even Nathan Hauritz if Australia decide that spin isn’t required.

There are many permutations and possibilities for tomorrow’s line-ups. For what it’s worth, and I’m gambling on certain players being fit for this (perhaps a little too optimistically in a certain case!), here are my predicted line-ups:

England
Strauss*
Cook
Bopara
Bell
Collingwood
Prior+
Flintoff
Swann
Anderson
Sidebottom
Onions

Australia
Watson
Katich
Ponting*
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin+
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Hilfenhaus

Finally, let’s hope for a bit of better weather this weekend! It promises to be the most exciting stage yet, in this enthralling series.

On the contary, England’s success further ushers in an impending era of competitive cricket worldwide. For all their success, the current crop of players don’t appear to have the consistency nor the talent to dominate the game having lost their previous three series. Australia meanwhile might just about retain their status as the world’s number one team but will struggle to convince anyone they’re really the best side around.

Looking on from the sidelines is the world number two side, South Africa. Graeme Smith’s side has a winning mentality missing from the country’s previous sides, but struggle to dominate at home and missed a clear shot at stealing the world number one ranking from Australia earlier this year. Meanwhile, India are looking particularly strong on paper but still have something to prove- particularly away from home. Sri Lanka, meanwhile, find themselves dominating at home with a young, promising team but still struggle to take on the other sides everywhere else.

Should Australia come back and win this series, it will undoubtedly rival 2005 as the greatest Ashes series of the modern era. If England hold on for victory the cricketing world looks even more intriguingly poised than be?fore with five teams all capable of beating one another on a regular basis.

It’s hard for fans of the two sides to look beyond the most important event in the cricketing calendar, but everyone else should be tingling in anticipation. For all I complain about flat pitches, umpiring errors and increasing commercialism, it’s really great to be watching one of the most competitive eras of cricket ever. The conclusion of the Ashes is only the beginning.

Yes, Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen are not, perhaps, all that alike. So you would think that Bell goes into Thursday’s third Test feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders. But he might not, you know. Because, all things considered, there has never been a better time to be stepping in for Pietersen. And as far as Bell is concerned, there has never been a better time to come up against the Aussies.

Pietersen, of course, looked a shadow of himself at Lord’s, and it was no great shock when he was ruled out for the rest of the series. This works in Bell’s favour. Can you imagine if Pietersen had hit two centuries in the first two Tests, and then injured his achilles and got ruled out? Now that would be pressure that you’d imagine Bell would struggle with. Instead he comes in with England one up and with no real weight of expectation on him. And on top of that, Pietersen didn’t look in form, he didn’t look set to plunder the Australian bowlers to all parts of England. If Bell does his usual, get in-look good-get out routine, it won’t really result in much difference in terms of output from what Pietersen has done in the series so far.

The previous occasion that we saw Bell return from being dropped was back in 2006, when he replaced Andrew Flintoff, so he’s not exactly unaccustomed to stepping into the big guy’s boots in the England team. That summer, he scored three centuries in three matches, albeit against distinctly average bowling. What’s that you say? No, I dare not suggest such a thing!

Thursday will be Ian Bell’s eleventh Ashes Test match, yet you would expect he feels more relaxed than he ever did in the previous ten. Aside from the aforementioned factors, there is no Shane Warne tormenting him with the ball, and with verbals. Though I did hear a cheeky mention of the nickname ‘Sherminator’ during the last Test! Expectation has never been lower for Bell, it seems most England fans are resigned to him doing very little, and Australians are somewhat optimstic about his apparently inevitable failure. This is a great opportunity for him, he would do well to take it.

The first, most obvious problem for the Aussies is their star bowler, Mitchell Johnson, emphatically failing to fire. With the rest of the bowlers often struggling to find a threatening line to left-handers, England’s all-southpaw opening partnership has caused all kinds of problems- as has their all-southpaw “closing partnership” at Cardiff. The tour match is absolutely essential in finding some form for Midge.

If he plays, a lot of attention will go to Stuart Clark- the man who took an incredible 26 wickets @ 17 in the last Ashes but hasn’t even played this time round. He seemed to have lost a bit of nip against England Lions, understandable after a long injury lay-off. He’s now had months to recuperate, and if he’s back to his effective best England’s opening partnership- who Clark dismissed four times each in 2006/07- could be conquered. On the other hand, if he’s still looking a bit stale, Australia will be concerned that the 33-year-old may never be the same again. It’s only a three-day warm-up, but for Clark’s career, it’s a massive game.

In order to accommodate either Clark or Andrew McDonald, Australia look set to play a five-man attack with Brad Haddin, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke all staying in London. This could spark a change in tactics for Edgbaston- I suspect Marcus North, if he fails to score here, could be the man to miss out. On the other hand, if the lower order capitulates in either innings, a u-turn could be on the cards with any bowler who fails to perform likely to miss out. It’s quite possible that Australia could send out a completely unchanged lineup for the third test, but if certain players aren’t performing, the side could also undergo a massive overhaul.

There’s a lot more riding on this match than seemed the case three weeks ago. The events of a three-day game with little press coverage, and in particular the performance of Mitchell Johnson, could determine the course of the rest of the series.