Two days out from the 2010-11 Ashes series Hughesy's a bit more upbeat than he was a week ago, to the point where I can express the hope that we end up with a series that's the cracker that 2005 could and should have been.

Now, I know that I'm running directly against the current of conventional wisdom that considers that series the best in decades, and possibly (yeah, I know I'm exaggerating) the greatest thing since they came up with sliced bread, but that's not how I saw things.

After the First Test that year, I recall labelling the game as a case of the Poms sticking their heads up while we banged them back down again. I was sure the heads were going to be protruding again, so it was a matter of seeing whether the hammer was in operation again.

History, however, will document the fact that Glenn McGrath stepped on a cricket ball that shouldn't have been where it was, Ponting won the toss and elected to bowl, Brett Lee delivered a performance that should have had him lined up against a wall and shot and the Poms suddenly had the momentum, that allowed them to play at around 120% while we were managing somewhere between 75 and 85.

And yet the series still went right down to the wire.

The 2006-07 whitewash was a suitable return of the universe to its correct orientation, but I've frequently remarked that the actual standard of Australian cricket is nowhere near as high as we think it is. There are a few promising signs on the horizon, but more of that later.

2009 saw another close series skewed towards England after we consistently failed to score enough runs batting first and regularly failed to take twenty wickets.

At this point I ought to differentiate between what I'd like to see and the sort of result that would attract significant interest in the general public, since those two things are pretty much discrete sets.

I've frequently stated that the only truly satisfactory result is 100% success, because that's the only environment where you won't be tagging aspects of the performance as could have been better.

At the moment I have a real dread that anything like that score line this time around would prevent some serious issues being tackled, and had been expressing the opinion that a 5-0 score line in England's favour might be necessary to ensure that those matters are addressed.

A few recent developments suggest that there's a hint of light on the horizon.

As far as the general public is concerned, I suspect that they want a series that goes down to the wire with fortunes fluctuating through each of the five games.

And possibly that 5-0 score line, but not quite the same dominance that was on display last time they were out here.

Now, the first exciting prospect that's being touted around the traps is the possibility that the curators have been instructed to deliver playing surfaces with significant local variation. Good.

That means we have the prospect of having the two teams' skill sets tested under conditions that won't be consistent through the series, which also means that there'll be the horses for courses question, and issues with reading the pitch that's been served up for each game.

More of that later as well.

The second factor that has me a tad more upbeat is the fact that the selectors have bitten the bullet and dropped Nathan Hauritz. You can, and should, feel for Hauritz, but he has arguably benefited from a lack of serious alternatives for the spin bowling spot.

Now, I should point out that I first saw Hauritz in action as an eleven-year-old middle order bat who bowled little right arm darts. At least that was the way it looked at the time. He wasn't able to bowl Wide Bay into the winners' spot against my NQ side in 1992, and he didn't do it the following year either in a game where a kid named Shane Watson made big runs for the side one of my colleagues tagged West Mortein (actually, Metropolitan West).

He did, however, make a State Primary Schools’ side, largely, from what I can recall, as someone who’d send down ten overs that it’d be difficult to score off.

Hauritz, however, was rated as a prospect and through Mark I of his career seemed to maintain that minimal risk darts approach, without much in the way of flight, turn and variation.

I suspect that he had been very badly advised, and seem to recall that the move to Sydney was prompted by the desire to add a few of the missing ingredients by working with the likes of Greg Matthews. To an extent, that seems to have worked.

At least it worked well enough to get him back into the side and delivered reasonable results. But, seriously, is he a bowler in the same bracket as, say Tim May? To me he’s always been a container who delivers the occasional healthy return rather than a real and regular threat on turning tracks.

Selecting Xavier Doherty ahead of him is seemingly prompted by the fact that an orthodox left armer is a better prospect against a right-hand dominant English middle order. In cricketing terms that makes sense, and suggests the possibility of an actual horses for courses policy rather than statements of intent that fail to morph into reality.

There's also the question of Michael Clarke's fitness and I've put a big tick beside the news that they've flown Usman Khawaja in to cover for him. I'll be happier when I hear that Clarke's on the plane back to Sydney and we've made the hard-nosed decision not to risk playing a bloke who is an obvious candidate for further injury.

Possibly they'll go as far as really biting the bullet and making the right selection in the Number Eight slot in the batting order. On revealed form, you'd expect it to go to Xavier Doherty. Hughesy's preference would be to move Haddin down from seven, and include Smith in that spot.

A batting order with someone of Haddin’s (or Smith’s for that matter) class at eight with Johnson at nine is a fairly awesome prospect.

Now, if the Gabba wicket lives up to the advance publicity there's not going to be a whole lot of spin bowling in the First Test. Maybe later on, but not in Brisbane.

On a surface likely to be pace bowler-friendly there should be no problem taking twenty wickets. If there is, serious questions will need to be asked and heads should roll.

On that basis, I'd like to see a bolstered batting order, with any spin bowling being shared around between Smith, North and Katich behind a pace attack of Johnson, Hilfenhaus, whoever gets the nod between Siddle and Bollinger with Watson being expected to chip in with his share of the load.

Adelaide will be a different kettle of fish, and Doherty may well be back in the picture then.