Simon Jones is a bad loss for England because he was in such good rhythm. He was in the middle of one of those purple patches of form where line and length are a natural product of the run-up and action, and take little thought.

This allows a bowler to concentrate more on his art, which in Jones' case is making the ball swing both ways at a full length. Because he bowled a full length the Australians have gone too hard at the ball, something that has been their biggest flaw against swing.

It has made for attractive cricket but has cost them dear. Dearly enough for Jones to have taken 18 wickets at 21 apiece, better figures than any other England bowler.

The loss of Jones is evident in those figures alone. But he was also part of something and now somebody else must fill that role at short notice, without the confidence that Jones would have brought to it. Whoever plays will be apprehensive and it's for that reason that I lean towards Paul Collingwood. The essential thing is to play XI against XI and, were James Anderson to play and be off colour his tendency to retreat within himself, and become a meek cricketer rather than the magical one we have seen at times, could lead him to a limited role in the match.

Collingwood would play a fuller role whatever and his bustling energy in the field would bring the sort of contribution that Jonty Rhodes brought to South Africa in the 1990s, when he was always referred to as an allrounder. So I don't see the choice of Collingwood as a negative one but as a necessary one.

However there were one or two clues to the way Michael Vaughan is thinking in his comments after Trent Bridge, where he explained how difficult it had been to take 10 wickets with only four specialist bowlers in the second innings. He felt that four bowlers had to be used in roles to which they were not ideally suited, rather than in roles that had made them successful all summer. In playing four bowlers Australia are in a different position because of Shane Warne, who can be all things to all men. Few bowlers in history have had that skill.

So Vaughan may feel that since England's success this summer has been based on taking 79 out of 80 Australian wickets in four Tests with a mainly five-man attack, they should stick with that. Anderson is able to swing the ball late and naturally pitches it full so, as long as Vaughan has not seen the cricketer who needs nursing during these three days of practice, he may well go with him.

My gut feeling is that it will not make a lot of difference to the result. England are playing such good cricket that it is hard to see them being beaten in a match into which they will throw all their mental and physical resources. They also have the advantage of knowing there are no demons in the pitch and are therefore able to confront Glenn McGrath (if he plays) and Shane Warne on an even footing. At Lord's these great bowlers had a pitch tailor-made for their skills, though even in that first game Australia were being put under a lot of pressure.

My hunch is that Steve Harmison will return to his Lord's form and bring Australia the most headaches while bringing England the Ashes.

7 Sep, 2005