The Ashes: Australia are formidable but England can beat them

From England's point of view, let's hope that is the one and only time Pat Cummins lifts a trophy at The Oval this summer.

Australia were deserved winners of the world Test Champions final, thoroughly outplaying an India team whose fightback came too late.

For the first two days in particular, Australia were awesome, giving a demonstration of just how terrifyingly good they can be at their best.

Steve Smith and Travis Head gorged on some below-par bowling before the Aussie pace bowlers thundered into a shell-shocked India top order. The off-spin of Nathan Lyon came to the fore late in the game and the Aussies caught flies in the slips.

But anyone thinking that what Australia have done over five days at The Oval makes them more dangerous in the Ashes hasn't been paying attention. Australia were already by far the most significant threat posed to England in the Ben Stokes era. Red alert reached long ago, warning lights flashing and sirens blaring.

Australia wiped the floor with England down under 18 months ago. Their Test Championship schedule had them on subcontinental tours of Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India, but they still reached the final and won it. They should have won on their last tour of England four years ago.

They possess the world's number one Test batter in Marnus Labuschagne and, in Smith, a player who could well end his career as the most prolific Ashes run-scorer since Don Bradman. Since the beginning of the last Ashes, Head and opener Usman Khawaja average more than both Labuschagne and Smith.

runs an over - pretty pedestrian by England's standards - and Australia were ruffled, going on the defensive with their field settings.

Three catches went down, Cummins frittered away a review then had Thakur lbw off a no-ball (the skipper overstepped a lot at The Oval). At the end of the session, Cummins booted the ball away.

How will the Aussies cope if Harry Brook and Jonny Bairstow get going in the first Test in front of an Edgbaston crowd that will pounce on any sign of baggy green weakness?

The following day, Australia found themselves under pressure with the bat. Their lead was in excess of 300, but there was an opportunity for India to run through the lower order and keep their chase to something manageable. Batting was difficult.

In that scenario, England would have attacked, trying to extend their advantage as quickly as possible to negate any threat carried by the conditions. Australia did the exact opposite, going into their shell and bringing the game to a standstill.

It ultimately worked, but was far from England's "run towards the danger" mantra. If, later in the summer, a Test is in the balance, with the stakes high and pressure turned up, which team will blink first?

Whether England have noticed these potential Australian vulnerabilities is debatable. The final was played in prime golfing hours and little drags Stokes and McCullum from the fairways.

Besides, even if England had watched, it will not change the way the play. They will go hard. If it works, they will go harder. If it doesn't, they will go harder still.

Before his own team's Ashes tune-up against Ireland, Stokes said he has repeatedly faced the same question regardless of the opponents his team have been due to play - that of whether or not their devil-may-care attitude will work. It has.

For his part, Smith was all too keen to remind England "they have not come up against us yet". They haven't.

Soon it will be time for the talking to stop.

Australia have improved from four years ago, but England have improved more. The question is, have they improved enough?

Only five more sleeps until we find out.