The Investec Ashes 2013 June 20, 2013

'I think we're being a little bit undervalued' - Rogers

  shares 33

In the pubs and cafes of England at the present moment a somewhat mocking suggestion can be heard. It goes along the lines that unless Shikhar Dhawan somehow manages to procure an Australian passport in time for the first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge, the high water mark of the summer will arrive on Sunday when Alastair Cook's side face India in the Champions Trophy final at Edgbaston.

Such a conclusion will dent the pride of Australia's Ashes tourists as they draw closer to the official start of their trek around the country for five Tests, but it will also strengthen the one notion that gives a fragmented and modestly performed team hope that better results lie ahead. Could English observers, after witnessing a sickly start to the tour by their visitors, be about to underestimate Australia? Chris Rogers, the 35-year-old opening batsman, reckons so.

"I think we're being a little bit undervalued in many respects," Rogers said on the deck of a barge in the Thames turned into a makeshift cricket pitch to drum up ticket sales for the 2013-14 Ashes in Australia. "We've got a very good side - I've played against all these guys in the Australian side and I know the amount of talent in the squad.

"I've no doubt we can prove a lot of people wrong - if all of us play well together and find form we can shock a few people, no doubt. An Australian with his back to the wall is something to fear."

Rogers knows a thing or two about being undervalued. Ignored for years by the Australian selectors, his unobtrusive but unquestionably effective batsmanship has even been the subject of gentle ribbing from his state team-mates at home in Victoria. As the infinitely flashier and far less consistent Aaron Finch told the Age this week: "Nobody really knows how he does it because his technique is not great to look at."

Having waited so long for his chance, however, Rogers is determined that it will not be wasted, and does not bother whether his mode of batting is enjoyed by the aesthetes. As befits a man who has made more than 10,000 first-class runs on English soil, one of his great batting inspirations is watching Mark Ramprakash churn out a triple-century for Surrey against Northamptonshire, the first of Rogers' three counties.

"What stuck out for me was not the shots he played but the fact it just looked like we were never going to get him out," Rogers said. "That left a lasting impression on me - it wasn't that pleasurable at the time but amazing to watch - and I think that's important to be a top player and one who scores a lot of runs. Hopefully that's one of my strengths."

There is certainly plenty of recent evidence that Rogers has lost none of his ability to stick it out in the middle, having moved into the Australian team bubble after compiling 790 runs in eight matches as captain of Middlesex in division one.

"I've tried hard to put myself under pressure, knowing the intensity that's going to come at Trent Bridge is going to be huge," Rogers said. "So I think it's worked in my favour, and to have a few warm-up games has been good, especially scoring a few runs. I do enjoy playing over here, the conditions are a little more diverse and it helps with your game, so hopefully I've benefitted from it."

Should Rogers follow through on his promise to make this series count, the current idle pub talk about the English summer's high point will turn out to be just that.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY willy_upper on | June 24, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    @Gautuam it has been a fair fall from grace for Australia however there are a few mistakes in your analysis. Ashes in Australia was 3-1 not 3-0. They belted India at home 4-0, drew 1-1 with South Africa away and could have easily won the home series if a whole day wasn't washed out in Brisbane and they werent a bowler short in the 2nd innings in Adelaide. Also beat Sri Lanka and the West Indies away. Funny how you seem to have forgotten all the series they won.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2013, 7:13 GMT

    @ maximum6 - you're right, teams with a handful of good players can still get smashed, but the example you give is poor. The England of the late 90's had to play an Aus team in which the batsmen all averaged very high 40's+ (some well over 50, including the no7) and the bowlers included McGrath and Warne. The current England side, good as they are, do not even come close to that standard. Australia will probably lose the series, but they are good enough to be competitive. New Zealand are not exactly packed with talent, but England had enough trouble with them over the past six tests.

  • POSTED BY on | June 22, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    Undervalued? Aussies in recent times: Lost Ashes series in Australia- 3 innings losses, no wins. Lost series against SA at home without a single win. Whitewashed in India on pitches where Indian batsmen were making 600+ The only series win in between was against a struggling Sr Lankan outfit in Australia. The same sri Lanka that struggled to beat Bangladesh in a test series in Sri lanka. The name "Australia" used to command awe and fear of defeat when the team was great. But a team of Cowans and Hughes and Lyons is not going to be taken seriously even if it plays under the name "Australia" in the same uniform.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | June 21, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    Rogers at least knows what is going on here so has a degree of realism in what he says which is much more down to earth than what Mickey Arthur says when hyperbolising the skills of his bowlers,though he too does not make pronouncement on the batting. It may be exaggeraiting when Beefy says England will 5-0 and 10-) over the two series, but I am sure we can scrape together 6/7-1 over the 2 series without leaving my realism zone. One has to look at 10/15 years ago to look at the hopes which precedes every series if you are underdog, and only in '97 and 98/9 did we seem to have a clue. You can go onto the field with 5 or 6 top players and still get hammered. The likes of Srewart, Atherton,Thorpe, Fraser, Gough, Hussein and Caddick were all good players, but we never had a sniff. How many players of that calibre do Australia possess? Clarke, Watson if he has some form, Haddin( questionable),Siddle? Pattinson? Maybe Beefy is not so far wrong after all.

  • POSTED BY bumbles11 on | June 21, 2013, 13:39 GMT

    Rogers has missed the boat, he should have played 3 or 4 years ago but selectors insisted on playing Huhges, Khwaja, Warner.

    England should win 3 or 4 nil.....I can't see where the aussies will score runs against Anderson, Broad and Finn. Also with mutiple lefties Swann will have a field day as they can't play spin. The aussie batsmen average 30, Clarke apart, the bowlers look strong but they tend to break down (Harris, Cummings, Starc).

    Ashes in Australia will be harder but England won 3-1 in 2010 and don't see aussies improving on the score much.

  • POSTED BY Essex_Man on | June 21, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    Wake up and smell the coffee, son!

  • POSTED BY sharidas on | June 21, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see Michael Clarke as a great motivator. He certainly does lead by example, but , he is no motivator. The Aussies have lot of good bowlers and could pose a lot of problems for the English. Why isn't Adam Voges not in the team ?

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | June 21, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    Go show 'em Chris. 5 years ago I was one of your doubters (preferring Jaques), but I long ago became an avid fan! Got he hunger and temperament - just do it! Aus certainly needs a lot of things to go right to be truly competitive, but rather than bet on Hughes, Warner, etc. I'd go go for Chris to have a good series alongside some others who can chip in here and there.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | June 21, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    rogers is wrong here. first sl beat aus at tgeir home in t20 .before that sa beat them at home. then 4-0 india loss then winless in England. so this shows the quality is missing.still best bet for ashes is aus as they have better record than other team. go aus win b2b ashes.

  • POSTED BY Harlequin. on | June 21, 2013, 10:52 GMT

    Agree with Ant Podean, it is mostly the journalists who are coming up with this talk, and the disappointing thing is that if the Aussies win a few tests, draw the series or even narrowly lose then the same journalists will be pointing fingers at England claiming they were being complacent. I can't imagine any of the England team taking this series for granted, or underestimating the Aussies; there is talent in the Australian team, and if the management work out how to get that talent onto the park then it could be a close series.

    I can't wait though, the highlight of the cricketing calender and it's happening twice! I'm going with England 3-1 in UK, and 2-2 in Australia.

  • POSTED BY willy_upper on | June 24, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    @Gautuam it has been a fair fall from grace for Australia however there are a few mistakes in your analysis. Ashes in Australia was 3-1 not 3-0. They belted India at home 4-0, drew 1-1 with South Africa away and could have easily won the home series if a whole day wasn't washed out in Brisbane and they werent a bowler short in the 2nd innings in Adelaide. Also beat Sri Lanka and the West Indies away. Funny how you seem to have forgotten all the series they won.

  • POSTED BY on | June 23, 2013, 7:13 GMT

    @ maximum6 - you're right, teams with a handful of good players can still get smashed, but the example you give is poor. The England of the late 90's had to play an Aus team in which the batsmen all averaged very high 40's+ (some well over 50, including the no7) and the bowlers included McGrath and Warne. The current England side, good as they are, do not even come close to that standard. Australia will probably lose the series, but they are good enough to be competitive. New Zealand are not exactly packed with talent, but England had enough trouble with them over the past six tests.

  • POSTED BY on | June 22, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    Undervalued? Aussies in recent times: Lost Ashes series in Australia- 3 innings losses, no wins. Lost series against SA at home without a single win. Whitewashed in India on pitches where Indian batsmen were making 600+ The only series win in between was against a struggling Sr Lankan outfit in Australia. The same sri Lanka that struggled to beat Bangladesh in a test series in Sri lanka. The name "Australia" used to command awe and fear of defeat when the team was great. But a team of Cowans and Hughes and Lyons is not going to be taken seriously even if it plays under the name "Australia" in the same uniform.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | June 21, 2013, 14:58 GMT

    Rogers at least knows what is going on here so has a degree of realism in what he says which is much more down to earth than what Mickey Arthur says when hyperbolising the skills of his bowlers,though he too does not make pronouncement on the batting. It may be exaggeraiting when Beefy says England will 5-0 and 10-) over the two series, but I am sure we can scrape together 6/7-1 over the 2 series without leaving my realism zone. One has to look at 10/15 years ago to look at the hopes which precedes every series if you are underdog, and only in '97 and 98/9 did we seem to have a clue. You can go onto the field with 5 or 6 top players and still get hammered. The likes of Srewart, Atherton,Thorpe, Fraser, Gough, Hussein and Caddick were all good players, but we never had a sniff. How many players of that calibre do Australia possess? Clarke, Watson if he has some form, Haddin( questionable),Siddle? Pattinson? Maybe Beefy is not so far wrong after all.

  • POSTED BY bumbles11 on | June 21, 2013, 13:39 GMT

    Rogers has missed the boat, he should have played 3 or 4 years ago but selectors insisted on playing Huhges, Khwaja, Warner.

    England should win 3 or 4 nil.....I can't see where the aussies will score runs against Anderson, Broad and Finn. Also with mutiple lefties Swann will have a field day as they can't play spin. The aussie batsmen average 30, Clarke apart, the bowlers look strong but they tend to break down (Harris, Cummings, Starc).

    Ashes in Australia will be harder but England won 3-1 in 2010 and don't see aussies improving on the score much.

  • POSTED BY Essex_Man on | June 21, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    Wake up and smell the coffee, son!

  • POSTED BY sharidas on | June 21, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not see Michael Clarke as a great motivator. He certainly does lead by example, but , he is no motivator. The Aussies have lot of good bowlers and could pose a lot of problems for the English. Why isn't Adam Voges not in the team ?

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | June 21, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    Go show 'em Chris. 5 years ago I was one of your doubters (preferring Jaques), but I long ago became an avid fan! Got he hunger and temperament - just do it! Aus certainly needs a lot of things to go right to be truly competitive, but rather than bet on Hughes, Warner, etc. I'd go go for Chris to have a good series alongside some others who can chip in here and there.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | June 21, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    rogers is wrong here. first sl beat aus at tgeir home in t20 .before that sa beat them at home. then 4-0 india loss then winless in England. so this shows the quality is missing.still best bet for ashes is aus as they have better record than other team. go aus win b2b ashes.

  • POSTED BY Harlequin. on | June 21, 2013, 10:52 GMT

    Agree with Ant Podean, it is mostly the journalists who are coming up with this talk, and the disappointing thing is that if the Aussies win a few tests, draw the series or even narrowly lose then the same journalists will be pointing fingers at England claiming they were being complacent. I can't imagine any of the England team taking this series for granted, or underestimating the Aussies; there is talent in the Australian team, and if the management work out how to get that talent onto the park then it could be a close series.

    I can't wait though, the highlight of the cricketing calender and it's happening twice! I'm going with England 3-1 in UK, and 2-2 in Australia.

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 10:21 GMT

    Lots of talk! Aussies are rubbish! English are world class! Aussies should not be under edtimated! The series could be closer than people expect! It's all talk! Nobody knows what is going to happen until it is happening. This is the beauty of sport! It's unpredictable and people are passionate about the outcome! Bring on the ashes! Can't wait for some late nights on the couch yelling at the TV like a crazy person.

  • POSTED BY Tom_Bowler on | June 21, 2013, 10:13 GMT

    Chris Rogers is a smashing player who has scored buckets of runs in English domestic cricket but, at nearly 36 and five years after his only international, you have to ask why now? Have the Aussies previously overlooked a great talent or are they possibly a bit desperate? With Rogers in the squad I also wonder why David Hussey isn't, they are a similar age, Hussey has been similarly dominant in County cricket but has a great deal more international experience. I've heard a rumour that Hussey is felt to have too dominant a bottom hand for Test cricket but a team that regularly picks Warner and Hughes can't be overly worried about text book technique.

  • POSTED BY Shridharan.S on | June 21, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    Chris Rogers will be the key player for Australia if they are win the Investec Ashes Series.I respect his record and the way he has played in England.Expecting 2-1 Series Win for Australia.

  • POSTED BY MartinC on | June 21, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    As an Englishman who watched England sides get walloped by Australia from about '98 through to 2005 (and then again in 2007) I will never take an Australian team lightly. England though start as strong favourites home and away against Australia though. Just compare the sides.

    England have 3 world class batsman in Cook, Trott and Pietersen and an emerging class batmsan in Root. Australia have Clarke and not a lot else in terms of proven International class batsman. If Cook fails in the series for England we have cover, if Clarke fails for Australia its probably all over.

    In seam bowling Australia look stronger than their batting but the attack lacks experience and is unproven. If they struggle early heads could go down. The lack of a quality spin bowler is obvious - rushing a 31 year old Pakistani with very little first class record speaks volumes. England have Anderson and Swann who are match winners and very good back up with Broad and Finn.

  • POSTED BY SDHM on | June 21, 2013, 9:23 GMT

    I think Aussies and this Australian side are looking for arrogance to be honest - it is there, but when it comes to Australia, the English public and media will NEVER be 100% confident we will beat them. We've got too many scars, we carry too much baggage from previous thrashings. So whilst most pieces I've seen or read will say that England are indeed the better side (which they are currently, blip in NZ aside) they will also quantify it by saying Australia are not to be underestimated which, of course, they're not. NZ taught England that if they didn't already know it. One thing the press here seems to be outlining is that this is an Aussie side that can't bat for toffee but could bowl out a side of 11 Bradmans, but I think the truth is somewhere in between.

  • POSTED BY Matt. on | June 21, 2013, 9:20 GMT

    @ramonster you are clearly just making that up, or basing it on the India tour alone. Look at Australia's test results for the last two years. Don't get me wrong, Australia are a shadow of their former selves, but they are being seriously undervalued based on India and the Champions Trophy. India was foreign conditions for a young team and the Champions Trophy is different format. Remember it wasn't long ago that the might England were whitewashed by Pakistan

  • POSTED BY Nigels on | June 21, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    England are just going to whitewash this Aussie team...no batting spin at all, you target Michael Clarke and the whole team will fold like a deck of playing cards.....weak is an understatement

  • POSTED BY JF19 on | June 21, 2013, 8:46 GMT

    Chris Rogers, you are very lucky to get a ticket to England...Your comments on being "undervalued" I don't agree with. Look at Australia's overall on field performance and off field disgraceful behavior and what do you expect. You are not a bunch of match winners like before where you could perform to the highest standard. The behavior of some of your team mates is a disgrace. Especially when you are representing your country, your family and your self... You may earn back some respect from home before you are respected overseas.

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 8:46 GMT

    It's the journos talking smack. The England team know a wounded Aussie side will play for it all in the Ashes. The fact that Aus are trotting out a nearly 36 year old in Chris Rogers does reflect a dearth of consistent top order players. I do think there is a lack of patience with the newer batsmen these days with cricket becoming such a results driven 'business model' in most countries. Aus have the bowlers to really test England and I have seen some chinks in the armour, exposed by my kiwi lads recently. Looking forward to the ashes, it is going to be a real test series. Eng 3-2.

  • POSTED BY ScottStevo on | June 21, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    I don't really get how we're performing modestly? Against what benchmark, England's record since the last Ashes?? They've won one more test match than us in that period, yet they're so superior to us? Based on one very poor tour of India, where historically Australia have always been pretty poor, the Aus side are judged. Forgetting that prior to that tour our record since the last ashes was a lot better than Englands - and we didn't get trounced by SA in our own backyard. The reality is that England have been mediocre (at best) pretty much since the day the ICC handed them the #1 ranking...and they've not been improving.

  • POSTED BY Jayzuz on | June 21, 2013, 8:14 GMT

    I have to say it is England that is on a hiding to nothing here. Basically, if Australia plays to full ability they will be very competitive, and England will fold for a few low scores here and there, given Australia's attack. Then, if just a few of the AUS batsmen hit a purple patch, this could end up being quite embarrassing for England.

    The way I look at it, Vaughan, Botham and co are shooting their mouths off, predicting a worst-case scenario performance from Australia. That's not very smart. Remember, just a few weeks ago England failed to win a test in NZ, avoiding a series loss by 1 wicket. Now some of the Poms are talking the ENG team up like it is invincible.

    I don't think so.

  • POSTED BY soumyas on | June 21, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    While emphasizing on preparation against England's pace attack Aussie batsmen shouldn't forget they are very weak against spin bowling and Swann,panesar are very dangerous even in England conditions. Yesterday in cardiff seaming and swinging pitch conditions helped spinners too. I think more than Anderson and Finn, Aussies face major threat from Swann and other spinners of England.

  • POSTED BY ramonster on | June 21, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    My predicción si 4-0 to England. The reason why I say that is because the Aussies can bearly win a Test match, they have forgotten how to win and England will prey on that. It really is simple. We were all expected a titanic battle, even myself, but what I think we're going to get is a one-sided contest. The Aussies have very little fight in them. They remind me of the touring Indians in 2011.

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 6:05 GMT

    If England keep their feet on the ground and don't do anything stupid then Australia are in big trouble. Make no mistake, England are an excellent test team and talking about their limited overs ability will do you no favors against them in tests as India has found out. Australia doesn't have a bowler of the quality of Anderson or Swann and they still have weaker batting than England. In England Australia have no chance. If the Aussies can make anything happen it'll be when they go to Australia later on. Even then its a long shot. My prediction...3-1 to England in England and 2-1 in Australia.

  • POSTED BY SamRoy on | June 21, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    If both teams play to potential then England will win comfortably. If weather is more or less fine I can see England winning 3-0, 4-0 or 4-1 or 3-1. If England take Australia lightly then they may be in for a rude awakening as Australia's bowling is still very good. Their batting is very poor though (except Clarke and when Watson and Warner doesn't lose their minds which is happening extremely frequently nowadays).

  • POSTED BY android_user on | June 21, 2013, 5:12 GMT

    Well said harry93, this seems to have become an unknown art with the Aussies of recent times, lack of patience. Everyone's in such a hurry.

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 5:05 GMT

    I don't think the Aussie batting will be too bad If Rogers, Clarke and Haddin can all continue their very good form. Throw in the odd cameo from the rest and we'll put on enough runs in some of the matches to give our bowlers something to defend.

  • POSTED BY class9ryan on | June 21, 2013, 4:23 GMT

    Such a lot depends upon Clarke, if somehow a few batsmen with the likes of Hughes, Rogers, Watson can stand up I don't think Australia will be underdogs there after.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | June 21, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    @Landl, spot on, I think 99% of England cricket fans think it will be a tight series, and that a lot will depend on weather, and the stamina of the australian bowling unit, which has broken down more often than an Alfa romeo.

    Batting is a concern, and will be strengthened if Clarke is 100%, if hes not 100% then there are some serious concerns, especially with the the top 3 who will be critical to seeing off the new ball and prevent exposing the middle order, and i dont see any permutation of Warner, Cowen, Rodgers or Hughes doing that for a prolonged time.

  • POSTED BY Shaggy076 on | June 21, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    I recckon it should be to our advantage - the English media and past players ie Vaughan, Flintoff and Botham that they will win 5-0. Must be putting a lot of pressure on an English team that really hasnt been all that impressive with test cricket in recent times. As there tours of Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand and home series to South Africa indicate. You would've have thought with how the English are treating the Aussies that they were far superior to the South African side which we had a great series with. But we all know that is not the case. So much pressure and hype for an average side to pull off, are they up to it.

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | June 21, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    Someone making runs at the top of the order for Australia could be the difference. It can mean scores of more than 400 instead of less than. Rogers could be the one to do that, and what's more, I think he would be a good influence on Watson if he's also opening, and help him stay out there longer.

    Australia's danger, as always in England, will be those sessions when the English bowlers have the ball on a string. Sessions where 2/280 overnight, becomes all out 320 by lunch.

    We've just got to hope that Anderson doesn't have the ball when conditions favour him.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | June 21, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    Just think, if Rogers can emulate Mark Ramprakash, he'll have a test average of.... 27.

    Seriously, those of us who have been around a while know that the Aussies should never, never be underestimated. I've always admired the Aussie ability to take the punches and come back fighting harder than ever and I fully expect this Aussie side to do just that. If England for a moment think that this series is in the bag they'll lose it faster than you can say Adelaide 2006- you know, the test where England made 551-6 dec. in the first innings and lost.

    Australia has a good seam attack and some batsmen with the ability to make runs fast. They also have Australian pride. That's enough to beat any side that thinks it only has to turn up to win.

  • POSTED BY harry93 on | June 21, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    We certainly have our work cut out. All I would like to see is some concentration - no loose shots. Forget T20 and ODI and concentrate. Play solid defence and punish bad balls. Some things we don't seem to be able to do anymore. No worries with the bowlers, just the batters.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY harry93 on | June 21, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    We certainly have our work cut out. All I would like to see is some concentration - no loose shots. Forget T20 and ODI and concentrate. Play solid defence and punish bad balls. Some things we don't seem to be able to do anymore. No worries with the bowlers, just the batters.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | June 21, 2013, 1:02 GMT

    Just think, if Rogers can emulate Mark Ramprakash, he'll have a test average of.... 27.

    Seriously, those of us who have been around a while know that the Aussies should never, never be underestimated. I've always admired the Aussie ability to take the punches and come back fighting harder than ever and I fully expect this Aussie side to do just that. If England for a moment think that this series is in the bag they'll lose it faster than you can say Adelaide 2006- you know, the test where England made 551-6 dec. in the first innings and lost.

    Australia has a good seam attack and some batsmen with the ability to make runs fast. They also have Australian pride. That's enough to beat any side that thinks it only has to turn up to win.

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | June 21, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    Someone making runs at the top of the order for Australia could be the difference. It can mean scores of more than 400 instead of less than. Rogers could be the one to do that, and what's more, I think he would be a good influence on Watson if he's also opening, and help him stay out there longer.

    Australia's danger, as always in England, will be those sessions when the English bowlers have the ball on a string. Sessions where 2/280 overnight, becomes all out 320 by lunch.

    We've just got to hope that Anderson doesn't have the ball when conditions favour him.

  • POSTED BY Shaggy076 on | June 21, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    I recckon it should be to our advantage - the English media and past players ie Vaughan, Flintoff and Botham that they will win 5-0. Must be putting a lot of pressure on an English team that really hasnt been all that impressive with test cricket in recent times. As there tours of Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand and home series to South Africa indicate. You would've have thought with how the English are treating the Aussies that they were far superior to the South African side which we had a great series with. But we all know that is not the case. So much pressure and hype for an average side to pull off, are they up to it.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | June 21, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    @Landl, spot on, I think 99% of England cricket fans think it will be a tight series, and that a lot will depend on weather, and the stamina of the australian bowling unit, which has broken down more often than an Alfa romeo.

    Batting is a concern, and will be strengthened if Clarke is 100%, if hes not 100% then there are some serious concerns, especially with the the top 3 who will be critical to seeing off the new ball and prevent exposing the middle order, and i dont see any permutation of Warner, Cowen, Rodgers or Hughes doing that for a prolonged time.

  • POSTED BY class9ryan on | June 21, 2013, 4:23 GMT

    Such a lot depends upon Clarke, if somehow a few batsmen with the likes of Hughes, Rogers, Watson can stand up I don't think Australia will be underdogs there after.

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 5:05 GMT

    I don't think the Aussie batting will be too bad If Rogers, Clarke and Haddin can all continue their very good form. Throw in the odd cameo from the rest and we'll put on enough runs in some of the matches to give our bowlers something to defend.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | June 21, 2013, 5:12 GMT

    Well said harry93, this seems to have become an unknown art with the Aussies of recent times, lack of patience. Everyone's in such a hurry.

  • POSTED BY SamRoy on | June 21, 2013, 5:15 GMT

    If both teams play to potential then England will win comfortably. If weather is more or less fine I can see England winning 3-0, 4-0 or 4-1 or 3-1. If England take Australia lightly then they may be in for a rude awakening as Australia's bowling is still very good. Their batting is very poor though (except Clarke and when Watson and Warner doesn't lose their minds which is happening extremely frequently nowadays).

  • POSTED BY on | June 21, 2013, 6:05 GMT

    If England keep their feet on the ground and don't do anything stupid then Australia are in big trouble. Make no mistake, England are an excellent test team and talking about their limited overs ability will do you no favors against them in tests as India has found out. Australia doesn't have a bowler of the quality of Anderson or Swann and they still have weaker batting than England. In England Australia have no chance. If the Aussies can make anything happen it'll be when they go to Australia later on. Even then its a long shot. My prediction...3-1 to England in England and 2-1 in Australia.