Chappell: "Monty Panesar has said that he wants to go back to being the bowler that he wanted to be. And I think that is a sensible move" © Getty Images

Alex Brown: Ian, I'm wondering: how much, if anything, can you take out from the practice games so far?

Ian Chappell: I think the big thing is that Australia didn't have a clue who their attack was before the tour started. Generally you have a pretty fair idea - there might be one guy or two at the most who would slip in - but apart from Mitchell Johnson, Australia weren't too sure who was going to be in the attack. I think that was the most damning feature of the start of the tour. I guess it is a little feature because you had Brett Lee and Stuart Clark coming back after fairly serious operations, which probably threw a spanner in the works. But in general you would have a pretty fair idea by this stage, and the fact that it has taken Australia so long to settle on who their attack will be and the fact that it will not be a balanced attack, will be the biggest concern for me going into this first Test.

AB: Just carrying forward from that - can Australia afford to go in with Nathan Hauritz? He has obviously struggled in the tour games, but if you play four quicks there is the issue of balance. Do you think they can afford to go with Hauritz?

IC: I just don't believe that part-time spinners can do the job for you. They should have learnt the lesson after what they tried in India. That was an abject failure. You might get away with it on occasions, but not over the long-haul. Having been a part-time spinner myself, the thinking behind being a part-time spinner and a full-time one is poles apart. You shouldn't win Tests against teams by relying on part-time spinners, in my book.

I think the selectors have made an absolute of nonsense of what they have done with spinners. I am not just talking about Beau Casson; it goes back as far as when they didn't take Stuart MacGill to India as the second spinner - that was a ridiculous non-selection. I would have wanted to have Bryce McGain in England on the basis that England are renowned for trying to read things into legspin that sometimes aren't there. To pick him in the final Test in South Africa, when it is his first Test… there is always a chance that things can go wrong in a guy's first Test, which it did, but McGain is a better bowler than what he showed in South Africa. I think they have messed Jason Krejza around, and I think there has been poor selection as far as spinners are concerned.

AB: If Australia do go in with a all-pace attack, do you fear for their chances?

IC: Yes. I have never believed that you need four quicks. I have always felt that a balanced attack is the way to go. If you are looking for clues as to who might win a series, I always look at the bowling attack, and as a general rule of thumb you go with the team that has the better attack. And at the moment I would have to say that England - if Andrew Flintoff is fit for all five Tests - have got the better attack. They certainly have a more balanced attack, and on that basis I would have them as slight favourites. Australia are probably stronger in batting, but the general rule of thumb is to go with the team that has the better bowling attack, and that is England at the moment.

AB:Reading between the lines here, do you look at Graeme Swann as being one of the critical figures in terms of bowling stakes in this series?

IC: It was a surprise to me and a lot of other people to see the amount of success that Paul Harris had against the Australians. He is a much improved bowler. When I first saw him, he was used basically as a guy who plugged up an end and was used to give the fast bowlers a break. But he was used in attacking vein in both Australia and South Africa and he certainly benefited from that. The fact that Harris had good success against Australia suggests there is an opportunity for Swann to do well. Historically Australians have struggled against offspin, and Swan is a decent bowler. If England want to get a real advantage in this series, they would produce dry, spinning wickets and go in with two spinners, and they would have a huge advantage over Australia.

AB: Who would you fancy as the second spinner for England, then - Monty Panesar or Adil Rashid?

IC: I think they will go for Panesar. Some of the things that Panesar has said recently make sense to me. He feels like he had tried to be a bowler that other people wanted him to be and he now wants to go back to being the bowler that he wanted to be. And I think that is a sensible move. You can learn and improve, but you can get yourself into a hole if you try and be something that you are not. He has said that he wants to go back and bowl the way he bowls best and bowl naturally; I notice that he had some success in the trial games and is on the right track. So I think he should be the second spinner, at least in my book.

AB: You touched on the Australian selection policy before; what are your thoughts on Australia not taking a specialist spare batsman on tour? I guess that was magnified with Marcus North's struggles in the early tour game - do you think going with three allrounders and no spare batsman, they have left themselves a little exposed?

IC: I thought it was ridiculous. Certainly, not going with a reserve opening batsman is asking for trouble in my book. There seems to be this widespread feeling that Philip Hughes will be fine and will be a star in Test cricket. Well, he has only played three Tests; he has got a very unorthodox technique that could come unglued any time. If it happens to be a wet summer in England and the ball is moving around, he could be in trouble. If he fails a couple of times early on, suddenly there will be some doubts in his mind.

Up the other end you have Simon Katich, who has had success as an opener, but you have to remember that he has been made into an opener; he is not a natural opener. Here you have a situation where you have a made opener and a young guy who everyone thinks will be okay, but he may not be okay. If they have problems at the top of the order early in the series, they have no one to fall back on. I guess they might turn around and say they have Michael Hussey there. But the last thing that Hussey would like to hear now are the words "You are opening", because he has been struggling for form in Test cricket. So I think that's pretty ridiculous.

AB: It's probably too late to do anything about that now; perhaps it's only if there are some injuries that will determine whether somebody comes in or out?

IC: I guess as a selector if you have picked a squad and you haven't played a Test as yet - unless there are injuries - you don't want to be saying that you need to add to the squad, because that immediately provokes the question: didn't you get it right in the first place? I don't think there will be too many changes unless there are injuries, but they could well regret the fact that they didn't have a spare batsman - in particular, a spare opener.

AB: Could I ask you for a series prediction?

IC: At this stage I don't think there will be much in it. Both teams have holes that could show up during the series. As I said earlier, when you are looking for a clue as to who might win a series, in general I go by the bowling strength, and at this stage I think England are better placed in bowling than Australia. Though Australia are better placed with their batting, I don't think the margin is enough to cover for what problems they might have with their bowling. So at this stage I would have to say, in a very tight contest I would favour England.