I assume this match will end in a draw.
Had Giles caught Ponting on 35 this match would of surely turned Englands way. Where Ponting had bad luck in 2005 this time he is fortunate. Its a fine line between success and failure.
If the series had gone to 1-1 all the pressure would of been on Australia, all it would of take is England to play well the weather to intervene and Australia having to wait 18 months for the Ashes.
Why I say they have got away lightly.
1. They are playing a number of bowlers past their best McGrath and Warne. They even played McGrath not 100%. They do seem incomptent at selection. Also what should be clear is England's batting lineup is pretty useful. So they need to play a five man attack and not play ageing bowlers who are not 100% fit.
2.They are playing batsmen who are their best Hayden and Martyn drop them. They have fallen into bad habits.

So if everyones fit it should be
1.Langer, 2.Jacques, 3. Ponting, 4.Hussey, 5.Clarke, 6. Watson, 7.Gilchrist, 8.Warne,9. Lee, 10, Clark, 11 McGrath

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

If Australia win the series by 1 match then the Giles mistake will be remembered as a key moment much the same as Warne dropping Pietersen was in 2005.I think the Aussies are doing well despite picking the wrong team and may continue to do so throughout the series.

If Flintoff's injury is bad then England may as well come home as there will be little chance of England bowling the Aussies out twice without him.Hoggard can't do it all himself.

If Hayden and Martyn are dropped then surely the opportunity will arise for a far more attractive side than the one you propose:

Jacques
Langer
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Clark
MacGill
Johnson
McGrath

Gilchrist can surely bat at 6... so why bother with Watson? Play Macgill as the 5th bowler... he's got far-greater match-winning potential than Watson!

Moreover... five bowlers would surely allow the selectors to ditch the perennially useless Lee and try Johnson...

Rachael,

That would seem a sensible XI, but I doubt they will go for it...

Gilchrist could easily bat at 6, and would do a far better job than Watson, and that would then open up the possibilities of playing MacGill. But I do find it very odd that for Australia you are now saying they should play 5 bowlers, when you have so often Championed England playing 4??

I'd only ever champion five bowlers if two were spinners: no side should have more than three seamers!

ps. I'd have played five English bowlers in the current Test... with Panesar in for Anderson.

Ok, that makes sense.

I too would have had Panesar over Anderson. I got the feeling that went for Jimmy because they were concerned about Harmy, but I feel Steve has found his form (although still no wickets!!). Consequnetky at Perth (which is rumoured to be as bad as Adelaide) I would hope that England do go down the two spinner route..

That would be Panesar and Pietersen then? (The two who turn the ball)

It was really a very good comeback from Australia and this isn't the first time we're seeing it.Shane Warne's knock was an unexpected jolt to England and Clark's return to form was a good turn.

__________________
Karthik Venkatesan

If only


Both coaches thus far have been ultra cautious, stacking their teams with batting depth rather than risking a weakened batting line-up in order to give more attacking bowling options. It seems to be a question of who will blink first, but I can't see the Aussies taking too many risks when they are one nil to the good.

England's only issue is changing Anderson for Panesar (a no-brainer unless you are a Zimbabwean so don't be surprised if it doesn't happen). The headache for Australia is how to switch to a five man attack and who to leave out. I've a feeling that Watson will play if fit, at the expense of Martin after Clarke's ton at Adelaide (doesn't alter the batting depth to any great degree - I refer you to my point above about taking risks). So MacGill for Lee, Johnson for Lee or Lee keeping his place? From an English point of view I'll pray that Lee remains in situ, although either of the other options would be a better one for the Aussies given Lee's poor efforts so far.

Jacques won't replace Hayden, Rachael, even if he should on merit - Aussie selectors would never make 3 changes for the next match when they are ahead in the series.

What I am looking forward to is McGrath bowling on another likely tame wicket - especially if England win the toss again and bat first. It certainly appears that the English batsmen have him in their sights and it will be fascinating to see if he either bounces back or receives another mauling that may hasten his retirement plans.

I was thinking that for the last few days actually. Here you have a batsman "hiding" at no. 7 when surely his talent and experience could be used at 6 and bring in another bowler. Its not like warne and lee are duffers either! !

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!