Too old - but also too good

This is it. This is when all the words, all the quotes, all the expectations, all the hype, all the memories vanish, and what is left is the blank page, the next chapter. Cricket’s oldest saga is about to resume.

Australia may no longer be the holders of the Ashes, but they are still the favourites. They have more experience, more local knowledge, more batting depth, more bowling genius. They had the edge in some of those departments last year too, but there are crucial differences this time: Australia have fewer injuries, they have home advantage, and they surely have a greater hunger.

If they lose again, a defeat that they have tried to dismiss as a blip will become the end of an era. There will be a big clear-out: at least four players will be pensioned off, and for all the glittering performances of the past, they will leave the stage as losers. The captain – still, after a hundred Tests, one of the younger players in his team – will be sacked.

For England, the stakes are not quite so high. Most of their players have made their names as Ashes winners, and if they lose, it will take only some of the gloss off that achievement. It will be like when Moore, Hurst and Charlton lost in Mexico in 1970: bitterly disappointing, but not legend-shattering. And they will know that just as Australia are favourites this time, despite not being the holders, so they will be favourites in 2009, whether they are the holders or not.

England have a chance of winning this series, perhaps a better one than they had, on paper, 18 months ago. But they have some fairly basic problems, They don’t have enough batsmen. At no.3 for the first Test, they will have either a man who is heavily bruised in Ian Bell, or one who is seriously green in Ed Joyce. The folly of not picking a proper top-three replacement has been exposed.

Nor do England have a settled side. The spine of the team shows several changes from the victory over Pakistan: different captain, different keeper, different first slip, one different opener, different no.3, different third seamer, and perhaps a different spinner. The side will have a different balance – better, as balance goes, but weakening the batting.

Duncan Fletcher, who led England to the promised land of consistency, has now taken them some of the way back. They are repeating old mistakes, chopping and changing, picking the infirm, playing favourites, and giving their captain three roles, as in 1998-99. It didn’t work then for Alec Stewart and only a superhuman performance from Andrew Flintoff will make it work now. Last time he was Herculean; this time he is being asked to be Achilles and Agamemnon, the star warrior and the cool strategist, at the same time. And Brisbane is as much a fortress as Troy.

To find weaknesses among the Australians, you have to look harder. They have gone back to too many players who were dropped after the last Ashes. Their selectors have become conservative to the point of recklessness. By normal standards, they are too old to win a world title fight, but then England, deprived of their two senior players from last time, are too young.

The Aussies may not have quite the unity of their opponents. They may rue the lack of a fifth bowler and wonder why they replaced Shane Watson with a batsman. And their hunger could tip over into desperation. If England can hang in there and get to Christmas at 1-1, the Ashes will be in the balance all the way and the pressure will pile up on Ricky Ponting. Since the Barmy Army sang their first chant in 1994, England have always won one of the last two Tests, when their support is at its peak. Add that to 1-1 and the Ashes will be retained. So Australia are firm favourites, but not certainties.