The more things change, the more they stay the same

Now all that’s left is the wait. It’s the same wait we had four years ago. Cast your mind back to 2005 and the lead in was the same in terms of results. England has just completed the most pointless of thumping’s against arguably the most hapless and carefree side in world cricket. Four years ago it was the same story against an equally hapless yet seemingly far more caring Bangladesh outfit.

Australia in 2005 like in 2009 had completed an impressive series victory away from home in the month of March. The anticipation for the Ashes was equally high. But that is where all similarities end.

In 2005 Australia had swept all before them in the previous 12 months, their first under the test leadership of Ricky Ponting. His first series in charge was the only time Sri Lanka have been swept three-nil at home in their three decades of international cricket. They then conquered the final frontier winning in India for the first time in 35 years. After losing the dead rubber on a diabolical surface in Mumbai the ensuring southern summer was almost flawless. Barring two days worth of rain in Wellington Australia would have claimed eight consecutive test wins in five months on either side of the Tasman.

The Australian Ashes squad picked itself. So many stars left no room in the squad for Michael Hussey, or the XI for Brad Hodge, with 20,000 first class runs between them. The anticipation came from the possibility of a fight for the first time since 1986-7.

England’s side was in the midst of a rare period of sustained success. They had won four consecutive test series for the first time since 1971. In doing so claimed two trophies away, in the West Indies and South Africa, achievements sight unseen for any Englishman born after that date.

The English side was settled under the astute, assured leadership of Michael Vaughan, a unique, uniting figure. A thick Yorkshire accent mixed with a game as classy as any oxford scholar galvanised a country still afflicted in a cricketing sense by old-time class structures. Not to mention the international flavour in the form of a Papua New Guinean-born, Australian-raised wicketkeeper, and a larger than life cricketing mercenary from South Africa. The biggest question in the lead-up to 2005 was a selection dilemma between the prolific, bullish, aforementioned mercenary, Kevin Pietersen and a hard-nosed veteran with 100 Tests experience in Graham Thorpe.

Fast forward four years and the form lines are nowhere near as deep, the selection dilemmas are nowhere near as trivial, and yet the anticipation is even more palpable.

Australia’s golden era is over. There is no denying this fact. When you lose the quality of players they have it is inevitable. Yet despite this no one was prepared for it. Australia lost in India, not a heinous crime by any stretch but the manner in which its maligned squad lost was of most concern. Australia had lost series in India before their 2004 triumph. But not since 1986 had they not won a test match there.

A two-test tour at home against New Zealand was about as relevant as England’s recent clash against the West Indies. Australia then lost their first series at home since 1992-93. The unthinkable had finally sunk-in. Australia were no longer the best team in the world, regardless of what the rankings said. Relieved of 205 test matches worth of experience due to the retirement of Matthew Hayden, and injuries to Brett Lee and Andrew Symonds, Ponting took a team of virtual “no-names” to the Veldt and arguably produced one of the greatest modern series wins.

But given the nature of the victory and uncertainty of youth, the jury remains out on this side heading to England, particularly given the speculation surrounding the naming of Australian touring party.

Likewise England’s prospects are equally as shaky. They returned to the bad old days during a winter spent overseas. Like Australia they lost in India, but unlike Australia they were feeble against the West Indies in the Caribbean. Their recent win reveals nothing form-wise. Arguably a month of County cricket may have been more productive.

But consider this, England have just won only their second series at home since beating Pakistan three-nil in September 2006. Those wins came against the might of New Zealand and the West Indies.

In that time six players have played 14 tests or more on home soil. Five of them are batsmen. Only one averages more than 50. No prizes for guessing it is Pietersen. England enter this series with a settled top six. They will agonise over the make up their attack. The questions will come thick and fast. Do we turn to Steve Harmison again? Do we pick Flintoff even if he is not fit?

They have no qualms with batting wicketkeeper Matt Prior at six. They will debate about the run-scoring value of the bowlers who fill spots seven to nine. But does anyone get a sense of déjà vu?

In 2006-7 they came to Australian shores certain of their fast bowling artillery and unsure about the depth of their batting, hence the return to Geraint Jones and Ashley Giles for the incumbents Chris Read and Monty Panesar.

In the end they could not buy a wicket and their batting depth became irrelevant.

In 2009 it seems the opposite is the case. They are unconcerned about their batting. Much like the South Africans they are underestimating the ability of one of the most inexperienced attacks Australia has ever sent.

England’s batsman folded under the pressure of two Indian left-arm swing bowlers in 2007, and last year stood no chance against a venomous and versatile South African attack. If they do not get enough runs it will not matter how well they bowl against an Australian batting line-up that is arguably the most vulnerable to travel to the UK in two decades.

England’s bowlers were lauded in 2005. It was their batsman who gave them something to bowl at and pressured an Australian line-up into deficits they had never conceded.

England’s batsman combined to total 400 or more in the first innings of three straight test matches during that epic series. A similar group has toppled 400 only four times in the last two northern summers, three of which came against insipid West Indies attacks.

This is what makes parts of Australia’s chosen squad puzzling. They know if their batsman fire they cannot be stopped. Even when they struggled in 2005 they still scrapped to semi-competitive scores. But Australian batsmen are the best frontrunners in the world. Give them a lead they will build a mountain. Their young firebrand quick’s gave them a lead in South Africa. The feats of Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus were phenomenal. Andrew McDonald filled an admirable holding role, but given he could conceivably bat behind Johnson, a fit Stuart Clark could round out a superb pace quartet.

The fifth pace-man in the squad was chosen out of loyalty. Of that there is no question. Brett Lee has been an outstanding servant over many years for Australia in all forms of international cricket. He is lion-hearted. But who in their right mind would select a player who has not bowled in a first-class fixture this year, and who has the worst bowling average of any Australian fast-bowler to have delivered an over on English soil since Allan Border retired? Lee has 29 Ashes scalps at 45.44 apiece in England. Only Brendon Julian and Greg Campbell, of all specialist pace-men, have bought test wickets in England at a higher price in the last 20 years.

They are staggering figures. To think that the likes of Shaun Tait, Michael Kasprowicz, Jason Gillespie, Paul Reiffel, and Merv Hughes have better English records reveals much about Lee’s value in arguably some of the most favourable fast bowling conditions in the world.

Lee’s place has come at the expense of Doug Bollinger. The New South Welshmen could get not win a start during the tour of South Africa, after bowling so well without luck in his first test in Sydney, and before bowling exceptionally on flat slow wickets in the United Arab Emirates. Given England’s struggles against Zaheer Khan and RP Singh two summers ago, another left-armer with the ability to bring the ball back to a middle order dominated by right-handers could have been invaluable.

Instead Lee gets his chance, and he will almost certainly play at some stage.

Another curious anomaly in Australia’s squad of 16 is the lack of a specialist back-up batsman. Three all-rounders have been chosen if you include the incumbent number six Marcus North. But clearly the Australian selectors did not learn anything from the third test in Cape Town in March when North was confined to a hospital bed, and he was replaced by a specialist leg-spinner who conceded 149 in 18 wicket-less overs after Australia, without a specialist number six, slumped from 5-158 to be all out for 209. In the first test in Johannesburg they had been 5-182 before posting 466, with North scoring a debut-test century.

The more things change the more they stay the same. Without Lee, Shane Watson, and Symonds Australia took a risk and played six bats, a wicketkeeper and four bowlers. Each bowler as unique in style as the next, McDonald included.

Now with Lee back in the fold and Siddle as a walk-up start Australia’s variety becomes merely variations on a theme. Lee and Siddle have played in the same side three times. Australia lost all three, and the pair combined for six wickets between them in total.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Fourty-eight days out there is still much water to go under the bridge before the first ball is sent down in Cardiff.

But even at this early stage it is clear many believe like 2005 it will be a battle between England’s attack and Australia’s run-makers. But like 2005 the key will rest with England’s batsman and Australia’s bowlers.