Ashes 2015: 5 key battles that will decide the fate of the series

With another Ashes series looming, there is an immense amount of scrutiny on the players involved. The Ashes isn’t just any cricketing contest, it is more akin to an opera. It is as much about the theatre of the moment as it is about the actual contest between bat and ball.In the 1974-75 series, a famous sign sprung up. I will now paraphrase it; Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, if the hype doesn’t get you the media must. It is the price you must pay to be part of an Ashes contest; the deeds of this iconic series live long in the minds of the public, it is a time where legends are born and reputations maligned. This article explores 5 key Ashes battles that could shape the course of the series.

#1 The number 3 Position

Smith is expected to win this battle

Cricketing lore is full of myths, none more egregious than the notion that the best player must bat at first drop. For Australia, it gets all the more confusing and murky for this Ashes series. Their best player just so happens to be batting at number 3, but there are those that feel that batting at 3 will nullify the Steven Smith effect. They say he’s too fidgety. They say his technique isn’t good enough.

Essentially, the theory is that Smith will struggle against the swinging, new Dukes ball but not the swinging not-so-new Dukes ball. The man himself had this to say “The thing for me is my defence: as long as my defence is in good order then I feel the rest of my game can expand from there. Particularly over here I think your defence is key against the newer ball.” Shot selection and circumspection early on will be the buzzwords for Smith as he goes into bat.

Jonathan Trott succeeded with an idiosyncratic technique in the same conditions from the same position. There’s no reason Smith cannot follow suit. Furthermore, Australia’s only real options to replace Smith are Shane Watson and Shaun Marsh. It would be madness to replace the number 1 ranked Test batsman in the world with either of them. Expect Smith to stamp his authority on the series.

England are in a not dissimilar position. Pundits want their number 3 batsman to bat down the order as well. Gary Ballance may not be the best player in the team, but he has had a stellar 12 months.

Having said that, this writer agrees with the general consensus; Balance’s predominantly back-foot game, exaggerated shuffle across the stumps and minimal footwork early on are all better suited to a gig lower down the order.

Ian Bell could move up a spot to number 3, with Joe Root coming in at 4, leaving Ballance to slot in at 5. This allows England’s best technician to cope with the new ball while allowing Ballance to accumulate at number 5.

Most importantly, Joe Root moves up a spot while still being shielded from the new ball to an extent. England are right to back their players, but batting Ballance at 3 does not make much cricketing logic. He may still dominate the series from number 3, but that will be despite his position in the batting order; not because of it.

Number 3 batsmen have the ability to shape the game. In order to do that, they must have the necessary tools to cope with any situation. Although both seem technically limited for the role at hand, Smith has proven himself to be the sort of player that transcends surfaces and techniques. He has been the closest thing to a cricketing spoiler in these last 12 months, in the sense that he infallibly scores runs.

Unless England change their batting order, Australia will emerge victorious in the battle of the number 3s. It won’t even be close.

Score: Australia 1, England 0

#2 Captaincy

Clarke is probably the best Test captain in the world at the moment

It seems almost unfair to list this as a battle. By definition, to battle means to “struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something”. Unfortunately for England, Michael Clarke couldn’t be more out of Alastair Cook’s league as a Captain if they played different sports. Cook is outmatched, outclassed and outside the running when it comes to this particular head-to-head.

Michael Clarke grabs the game by the scruff of its neck. Sometimes, he jumps on it while doing that just to shake things up. He has won a Test match by declaring while still trailing in the first innings. He makes things happen. He is proactive rather than reactive. And most importantly, he knows how to get the best out of his men by accentuating the positives and hiding the negatives.

Alastair Cook’s captaincy is a bit like his batting; obdurate and stolid. He eventually gets where he wants to be, but is reactive rather than proactive. While these are admirable-even desirable- qualities in an opening Test batsman, especially in English conditions, they are less than ideal for a Captain.

Cook looks as though he wouldn’t know a game-turning situation if it got up and smacked him in the face. He also faces the added challenge of taking over from Eoin Morgan who had England play as if they had ingested adrenaline cocktails before the start of play. Cook doesn’t do high-octane. Cook doesn’t know high-octane.

Head chefs are like good Captains, they inspire their underlings, maintain order and dish out masterpieces all at once. There is the possibility that Alastair Cook’s captaincy thus far has all been part of a master plan to lull the Australians into a fall sense of security, but the overriding feeling is that Cook will never morph into the Chef that England need him to be.

Score: Australia 2, England 0

#3 Fast Bowling

Jimmy is once again expected to stamp his authority

This is a tricky one. On paper at least, Australia have an almost scary pace attack. They have the pace, bounce, moustache and psychological advantage of Mitchell Johnson. They have the pace, swing and potential of the enigmatic Mitchell Starc.

They have the control and reliability of Josh Hazlewood. Their first choice attack is so good that they were even set to leave the now retired Ryan Harris out of the first Test. Mitchell Marsh or Shane Watson will likely play a holding role. However, for all of Johnson’s machismo malevolence, England will probably be better equipped to handle him; due in large part to the fact that the pitches for this series will not resemble trampolines.

He is still likely to be a threat; but not the rabid dog he was in the 2013-14 series. Mitchell Starc for all of his white ball prowess has not yet mastered Test cricket. There is the possibility that he will get carried away with the swing on offer and spray it around the place.

While he undoubtedly has great potential and could yet wreck England, he is not yet the bowler he will morph into. Australia will also miss out on the services of the reliable Ryan Harris; while he was going to miss the first 2 Tests, it would have been a great advantage to be able to call on the man who took 24 wickets in 4 Tests in the last Ashes series in England were any of the first choice attack to misfire. Australia look great on paper. But Cricket matches are not played on paper.

England’s attack appears to be in better shape in the sense that there are less variables. James Anderson seems to have the ball on a thread; manipulating it the way he wants to. He is always a threat in English conditions, no matter who the opposition are.

Stuart Broad has gone missing in action for a while, but the Australians always seem to get the best out of him. Mark Wood provides the pace and bounce while Ben Stokes provides a fiery edge while at the same time allowing England to play four fast bowlers.

For their experience and proven track record in English conditions, England edge ahead on the fast bowling front.

Score: Australia 2, England 1

#4 Using the conditions

Rogers has plenty of cricket in England, but how about the rest?

The England Cricket Team plays all of its first class and most of its Test cricket in England so they obviously know exactly how to use the conditions to their advantage. As discussed earlier; the Australian first choice attack is largely unproven in these conditions and their best batsman has had his ability to handle the swinging ball questioned. Logic dictates that this be a walkover. However, Cricket matches never did follow logic, so why start now?

First of all, members of the Australian team do have experience in English conditions. Michael Clarke is on his fourth Ashes tour and has an excellent track record in England. In 2009 he was the best batsman on either side as England claimed the series.

Chris Rogers has been scoring runs for fun in County Cricket; so many that he was picked specifically for the 2013 Ashes because of his experience and record in England. For Rogers at least, this may as well be a home series. Adam Voges has also scored heavily in County Cricket. With 3 of Australia’s top 6 boasting such records; England’s home advantage has been neutered to an extent.

Furthermore, England have quite the dilemma on their hands with regards to the pitches. In 2013, they prepared low and slow surfaces secure in the knowledge that they had Graeme Swann in their team. This time, the spin cupboard is decidedly barer. Do England prepare low surfaces and thus reduce the effectiveness of their own pace attack, or do they risk getting outgunned by Australia’s faster attack on quicker pitches?

England will be wary of visitors using conditions better than the hosts to win the series; they memorably did so in India in 2012. Expect England to edge ahead on this count.

Score: Australia 2, England 2

#5 X Factor Players

Can Stokes repeat what Flintoff did in 2005?

This is probably the battle that will define the series. Cricket may be a game of runs and wickets, but it is at its very heart a game defined by moments. In 2009, Australia scored 7 100s to England's 2 but still lost. Both teams have players that can change a match in a session; England have Ben Stokes, Jos Butler and Stuart Broad while Australia have David Warner, Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc.

Stokes and Butler provide the lower order ballast while Broad has shown himself to be capable of running through teams when the mood strikes him. Australia have experienced Broad ambushes at the Oval in 2009 and Durham in 2013; there are few more thrilling sights in world cricket than Broad with mojo back and tail up.

Unfortunately for England, Australia have the two Mitchells lurking in the shadows. While Starc does spray it around; one could argue that his unpredictability will make it tougher for batsmen to judge his line and length. Lastly, Australia have their battle-axe wielding warrior David Warner in the role of “enforcer” at the top of the order. On his day, he can destroy any bowling attack in the world.

Australia’s X Factor batsman will aim to dictate the course of a match while England’s will attempt to change the course of a match. Because of the versatility that accords them, England are in a better position to maximize the effect of their X Factor players.

Also, the thing with these players is that they can win and lose a match in a session. Because a bad bowling performance has more of an impact on proceedings than an individual bad batting performance, Australia clearly have more to lose with their Mitchells. When they’re good they’re unplayable, but when they’re bad the faster they bowl the faster it will reach the boundary.

England win this one, not because they have more match-winners; but because Australia’s players can do more damage to both the English and their own team. While that is the calling card of a true enigma, following that logic, Australia will win the battle but England will win the war.

Score: Australia 2, England 3