Tim De Lisle: England offer reasons for Ashes optimism... and pessimism

It must be something to do with the football World Cup. In 1990, 1994, 1998 and now 2002, England's cricketers have had a sufficiently successful home season to dare to be optimistic about the following winter – when they climb the game's north face, playing Australia on their own turf. In 1990, 1994 and 1998 the hopes soon turned to dust. Here are six reasons why England could finally win the Ashes this time – and six reasons why they won't.

Reasons to be cheerful:

1) A winning habit. All sportsmen will tell you that winning is a habit. England have just won three successive Tests, something they haven't done in a home summer since mythological times (1981). Two of the three wins were conjured out of nothing, against strong batting sides on flat, dry, unEnglish pitches. And they have been achieved despite injuries.

2) New Zealand. Last winter New Zealand rattled the Australians and had arguably the better of a 0-0 draw. They did it by bowling with discipline and batting with nous and guts, but above all by using their brains, devising individual gameplans to spike the Aussies' big guns (don't touch Glenn McGrath outside off stump, so he is forced to bowl at your legs). This is exactly how England have been operating against Sri Lanka and India.

3) The captain. Got some sows' ears, and need a silk purse? Nasser Hussain is your man. In partnership with Duncan Fletcher, he has consistently got modest players to do a job at Test level. Australia, by contrast, don't even know who their captain will be.

4) Fast bowlers. England have their strongest hand of seamers for 20 years. Darren Gough has had two good tours of Australia already, and Alex Tudor one. Andy Caddick has never toured there, owing to an oversight by Alec Stewart last time, but his height and length are made for the place. Matthew Hoggard, Andy Flintoff and Simon Jones, although all young, have shown what they can do, even when the pitch is not as green as they are. And all six of them are in position already. There need be no late call-ups this time, no wild grabs for a Martin McCague or a Joey Benjamin.

5) The batsmen. A settled, balanced line-up, producing the goods consistently: for a long time this happened only in England's dreams, but there it is, for real. Three assertive left-handers, Marcus Trescothick, Mark Butcher and Graham Thorpe; three more sober right-handers in Michael Vaughan, Hussain and the new-look Stewart; one big hitter (Flintoff); and three century-makers in reserve – John Crawley, Mark Ramprakash, Craig White.

6) The all-rounders. England's Ashes fortunes can be measured in all-rounders, from Basil D'Oliveira in 1970-71 to, er, nobody in 2001. The last one to make a significant contribution was You Know Who in 1986-87 – the last time England won. Flintoff isn't Ian Botham, but he is an effective stock bowler, an excellent second slip and a sporadically devastating batsman. With Stewart above him and White or Tudor below, England have their best 6-7-8 since the days of Greig, Knott and Illingworth.

Reasons to be fearful:

1) A losing habit. Again and again, England have made progress against other countries only to fall apart against Australia. Stewart has played in six Ashes series and England have lost the lot, by a total of 20-6. Since England were last there four years ago, Australia have not lost a home Test. Are they realistically going to lose three in one series?

2) New Zealand. They didn't win a Test on their Australian tour last winter, and that 0-0 draw had a lot to do with the weather. And in any case, in the great family of cricket, New Zealand are the irritating little brothers who know exactly how to rile the Aussies. Whereas England are the poor parents who the kids run rings round.

3) The captain. Under Steve Waugh, who is still their Test captain, Australia have won four Ashes series and lost none. Last time England met him, he made 150 not out on one leg. He suffered for it, contracting deep-vein thrombosis and losing the one-day captaincy, but he still eats Englishmen for breakfast. This time, if selected, he will have a burning point to prove. He will not be so easily outwitted as Sanath Jayasuriya or Sourav Ganguly.

4) Fast bowlers. Four of England's six have injury issues. Caddick was taken apart by Australia a year ago. Gough was expensive. Hoggard bowls hot and cold. Tudor seldom plays two Tests in a row. Jones is a novice. Flintoff is picking up niggles and will only suffer more wear-and-tear. They are not exactly McGrath, Jason Gillespie and Brett Lee, are they?

5) The batsmen. Only two contemporary England players average 40 against Australia, and it's possible that neither will be there: Thorpe because of his family troubles, and Ramprakash because the rest of his statistics – poor performances against most-comers – are deemed more relevant than his ability against the Aussies.

6) The bogeymen. Shane Warne and McGrath have the odd bad series – against the Kiwis, they both did. Against England, neither of them ever has. When they smell the blood of an Englishman, these great bowlers become even greater. And as for Adam Gilchrist...

Verdict: the result will be the same as usual – 3-1 or thereabouts. But the matches will be closer.

Tim de Lisle is editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2003.