Since the First World War England have won only six out of 19 series in Australia, either when England have had a great fast bowler - Harold Larwood, Frank Tyson or John Snow - or else Australian cricket has been moribund. Judging by the scores from Pakistan, neither circumstance would appear to apply now.

Australia's batting is so strong, moreover, that even if Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne don't deliver a ball between them, England have only a minimal chance of a series win. Starting with England's last tour of 1994-95, Australia's first-innings total at home has been 379 on average; only once a year has it been less than 260. Should the ball move around, as it might at the humid Gabba, they aren't so clever; but on true pitches any team which can afford to leave out two from Justin Langer, Ricky Ponting, Greg Blewett and Darren Lehmann will give you a hard time.

Only West Indies have won a series in Australia since England did so in 1986-87, when South Africa had poached some of the home players. Besides their batting, Australia's fielding has become institutionalised as excellent. Fitter bodies brought up in a more competitive society, and blessed with everything that a fine climate and sports science can offer, brought Australia 80 gold medals in the Commonwealth Games to England's 36. In Test cricket Australia strut as world champions, while England, for all their victory over South Africa, still aspire in mid-table.

So if this were a traditional Ashes series, spread out from November to February, Australia would be overwhelming favourites. But it isn't: the five Tests are to be packed into a little under seven scrambled weeks, with two lots of those passion- killers known as back-to-back Tests. Channel 4 is welcome to screen home Tests in future, and good luck to them, but please spare us ads between every over, six-Test series and back-to-back Tests, which are the equivalent of having your soup and main course at the same time.

Less than a year ago Australia played back-to-backs against South Africa, in Melbourne starting on Boxing Day and in Sydney at New Year, just as they will against England. By the opening day at Sydney, McGrath and Warne were so exhausted that Mark Taylor could hardly use them. He only got away with it because South Africa batted as dourly as they did at Old Trafford, more intent on avoiding defeat than on winning.

Since then both of Australia's match-winners have had another operation, McGrath to his groin, Warne to his over-taxed right shoulder. If both were to be fully fit throughout, a rule of thumb would be that Australia would win by a margin of two Tests; if only one were fit - McGrath more likely - then a margin of one Test. But the nature of the race - not 800 metres but 110m hurdles - might just do for them both.

Not only do the pair of them give Taylor almost 10 wickets per Test, they also give him complete control from one end as McGrath goes for little more than 2.5 runs per over and Warne for a little less. Though Warne is the best spinner since the war, talisman and crowd-puller, the fact that McGrath is actually the more important was proved when he missed the spring tour of India and Warne for once in his life had to come on against well-set opening batsmen. Warne's 10 wickets cost 54 runs each and much of his aura ended up over the long-on boundary.

The gruelling nature of back-to-back Tests with too little recovery time will stretch Australia's next most threatening bowler as well, Jason Gillespie: the analysis of England's bowling coach Bob Cottam is that Gillespie will be susceptible to back injury so long as he fails to use his back leg to drive through the crease. For England's bowlers, on the other hand, 10 days of cricket out of 12 or 13 is normal fare: in late August, Dominic Cork had 10 out of 10, including a Test and a cup final.

England also have a deeper reserve of experienced pace, even if they have given up on Andy Caddick a little prematurely. They may not have that one great fast bowler who can win the series, though Darren Gough will strive to be the Larwood he met on his last visit. But the four pace bowlers they plan to play will keep the Australians honest (or as honest as their historical background will allow), especially if Cork can swing the new Kookaburra and reverse-swing the old ball as he did in South Africa three winters ago.

We should be able to take for granted the contributions of England's senior players: Alec Stewart and Mike Atherton, although theory would have Stewart opening to avoid Warne, and Atherton batting at three to avoid McGrath; Nasser Hussain, though he has yet to play in Australia, and Graham Thorpe; Angus Fraser, especially if he can dismiss Taylor cheaply and revive last year's debate about the captain's place in the side, and Gough, whose reverse-swing will have to make good England's lack of a penetrative spinner in dismissing tails.

But for England to share the series, their junior players will have to step up as well in the following ways:

Mark Butcher must not succumb to trend-setting soft dismissals perhaps lying back to cut too hard - but stay in until Warne or his understudy, Stuart MacGill, comes on, as he and Graham Thorpe are England's only left-handers. If a right-hander goes after Warne, he just switches to containing from round the wicket.

Although Mark Ramprakash will probably start the series, John Crawley is the right-hander most likely to take on Warne or MacGill, with the legside assault he displayed in the Oval Test.

Cork has to score runs at seven (England's last six wickets yielded an average of 76 paltry runs against South Africa) with the back-foot shots he has learnt in the indoor nets at Derby. His batting and bowling have recently become mixed up: it should be the former which is adventurously aggressive.

Alan Mullally will have to swing the ball like an up-dated Bruce Reid, and not under-perform at crucial times as he has before.

Apart from using Mullally's footmarks, Robert Croft will have to use the wind - before the Australian fast bowlers put it up him.

All the remaining squad players will have to stay cheerful without much cricket and keep the same hours. Nothing cheeses off a team like tales of nocturnal derring-do in the honey-pots of Oz.

Yet even if every England player rises to the occasion - and Australia always exposes the character and cricket of at least one tourist - an England series win remains by far the least likely outcome. This team now wins more than their share of low-scoring scraps. They have yet to win conventionally, by scoring large first-innings totals quickly enough to dismiss opponents twice.

In England, too, the Ashes have become little more than just another series, especially after five consecutive defeats, though each one has been closer than the last. But in Australia the national cricket team is still the chief manifestation of national identity, and anyone who loses the Ashes damages Australia's virility. At the crunch Australia will have keen eyes on the prize, while England are all likely to be content with the knowledge that they have competed.