The Ashes are over for this edition, England has handed them over. However, try telling the packed house at the MCG on Boxing Day that this is a dead rubber. So what should the two teams look like going into this match?
The Aussies
The Aussies are unlikely to change a winning formula, unless there is an injury. Gone is the rotation policy that might have cost Harris a game or two. As it is, he has made it through seven consecutive tests- a minor miracle- and while a little sore seems likely to be picked for an eighth.
This is not to say that the Aussies don't have issues, particularly with the batting. Rogers is constantly playing for his place, and Bailey is far from confirming himself as a long term test prospect. Watson, in spite of doubling his tally of centuries this year, still looks a bit fragile at three. However there is no one making an undeniable case to unseat any of them. Of concern is the fact that all three are over 30 (as are Harris, Haddin, Johnson and Clarke- though their current form gives them plenty of breathing space).
At least Smith seems to be showing a bit of promise, and some substance (there is no way I would have believed I would write this a year ago). The Aussies will be hoping that this continues, and he is joined by a few more.
So basically stick with the same team, and hope that a few of them consolidate their place. And hope that Silk and/or one of the other batsmen in the Shield will start piling on the runs and putting pressure on them.
England
Having unexpectedly lost the Ashes, in the face of 10-0 predictions to the contrary, the English have several questions regarding their team. Like the Aussies, they have a few ageing players, though none of these have the protection of form that some if the Aussies have.
Cook: has had a couple of very average series against the Aussies so far. However he has a lot of selection credit to use up before he gets dropped, having been perhaps the key batsman over much of the last four years. He will be back, it is just a matter of time. His captaincy is more of a question. It is generally conservative, defensive and unimaginative on the field, and does not seem to have inspired his team off it. However, only Bell has the form and standing in the team to take over at this stage. Cook will stay for the foreseeable future. After all he has only lost four of the 19 tests he has captained, winning 9.
Carberry: has been fairly impressive, first at getting in, and then at finding a way to get out when set. Still early in his career, but he is over 30 already. He will need to prove himself soon.
Root: is also new(ish) in his career, and very new at the number three slot. He is however, the wrong person for the job. The Aussies tried Warner at six and quickly corrected that mistake. So too, the English need to get Root out of three. While he did make a reasonable 87 (until Stokes, the biggest English score for the series), he has batted so slowly that it has not really hurt the Aussies that he has survived for a while. He is averaging 157 balls a match, but it is only costing the Aussies about 51 runs. His strike rate is the lowest for the series apart from Tremlett and Panesar. Meanwhile, the pressure is on his partners to score, the Aussies get the English on the back foot, and the rest is history. He seems to be the future of English batting (though if you take out his 180 at Lords when the Aussies were at their worst, he is averaging 24 in Ashes cricket), but three is not his cup of tea. The English need to decide whether to put him in in place of Carberry, as everyone expects him to open eventually, or to have him serve his apprenticeship at 5 or 6.
KP: Has had plenty of people calling for his head. I can understand that. He is extremely frustrating the way he gets out sometimes. In many ways he is like Watson with the bat- you expect him to deliver far more often than he does. However, unlike Watson, KP generally gets a good innings or two a series. And those innings generally shift the match, if not the series his team's way (more often than not it is in the second test of a series). The fact that he is quite human the rest of the time is not usually noticed because players like Cook, Trott, Bell and Prior have covered for him. It is noticeable now mainly because the others have failed too. He is still a very good player having a bad run. Unless he fails in the rest of this series and the next one or two, I would keep him. His experience and occasional brilliance is going to be required going forward.
Bell: is still the backbone of the side. Having carried them to victory in England, he is having a far more modest series this time. He has however still out scored every one of his teammates. He needs to move to three unless and until Trott returns. He has the technique and temperament to do well there. He can also set the tone for the team- likely to be a much more positive one than Root has set so far. As it is, England are usually already in trouble by the time he gets in.
Stokes: shows promise, but it is early days yet. One century does not make a test match batsman, though you have to start somewhere. His bowling is also useful. He can't be dropped for a while yet.
Prior: has had a lousy series with bat and gloves. He is really low on confidence. He is perhaps the ripest candidate for being replaced.
Bresnan: had an average return in his first test back from injury. The most conservative of the third seamer options on tour, and so will probably stay. Needs to step up a notch with the bowling to fill a Siddle-like role for England.
Broad: if fit he has to play as he has shown the most fight out of all his team. However the news was not very good a few days out.
Swann: can't have had too many worse runs of three matches. He has been thoroughly out bowled by Lyon, and on occasions Root. However he brought a lot more to the team than Panesar (his likely replacement), so the Aussies will be happy about his retirement. Panesar bowled slightly better than Swann in Adelaide, but his batting and fielding are a class below Swann's so it is a loss to the team overall. A better choice may be Scott Borthwick, the young leg spinner added to the squad on Monday. Not sure how well he bowls (there must be something to his being picked as a bowler), but sounds like he can bat, and he gives them a view to a longer future than Panesar.
Anderson: like Swann is struggling, but he has been struggling for longer, most of the last seven matches. He looks like he needs a rest. He is too good a bowler not to come back from this, unless he has all enjoyment of the game ground out of him. Rest him for a test or two. Let him get back on his feet again. He is too proud to be happy about this, but then again, England are too conservative to be likely to drop him.
So I would keep Cook, KP and Bell as the experienced batsmen, with Bell moving to three. I would probably open with Root, bringing Ballance in at five (though if you think Compton is a better medium term prospect as an opener, then keep Carberry and put Root at five so you don't have to move him again). Stokes stays at six. Bairstow can't do any worse than Prior, so he would come in. The bowlers would be Bresnan, Broad, Borthwick (or more likely, Panesar, or Rankin if England go for four quicks) and Finn (though Anderson will probably still be picked by the English). Finn would be told that he has two tests to justify his place on the tour, and have instructions to bowl fast. Rankin or Anderson would replace Broad if he is still hobbling. In all probability: Bairstow for Prior, Panesar for Swann, the rest of the team unchanged.
Prediction:
Before Swann's retirement, I suspected that this match would be the closest yet in the series. The English have nothing to lose, and the Aussies will have their fire dampened a little by having already won the Ashes. However, Swann's retirement may galvanise the English (in which case my prediction holds) or it might totally shatter them, in which case Aussies all the way. I am hoping for the former, leading to a hard fought Aussie win, unless the weather intervenes in which case a draw is likely.
