Do England have a good enough team to win the Ashes next year ?

[tooextracool]

Hayden/Ponting/Clarke/Hussey/Symonds....doesn't look fragile to me mate.

Hayden who has scored how many runs in England? At nearly 38, any dependence upon him has got to be questionable to say the least. Symonds is still unproven in my book and the same goes for Jaques and Haddin.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden who has scored how many runs in England? At nearly 38, any dependence upon him has got to be questionable to say the least. Symonds is still unproven in my book and the same goes for Jaques and Haddin.

I didn't bring up Jaques or Haddin and who knows; they could be good. Jaques has shown his worth in English domestic cricket so it wouldn't be surprising.

The one man I did mention that you bring up is Hayden. Well, Hayden on this form and the transformation he has had since then would suggest, IMO, that he'll do well. Again, not a very fragile batting line-up for mine. Far from that, the best in the world.

The irony is that England has done more regressing than Australia.

 

[Nate]

If Bracken plays, no. (we're all thinking it)

 

[bond21]

What use is Bracken when theres no shine on the ball?

He is more of a stock bowler.

Lee, Clark, Johnson and a spinner is our best attack.

Hell, give Noffke a shot as a bowling all rounder, he deserves it.

Our batting is solid - Jaques, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Symonds and Haddin.

Best top 7 in world cricket. Not the same without Gilchrist but Haddin is a great batsman and wicketkeeper.

Symonds has proven himself, he went from an average of 17 or something to 38-39. Plus hes a useful bowler and the best fielder of all time.

How many tons does Jaques have to get to prove himself to you? Hes cemented in the team.

Hayden has taken a mortgage out as an opener, if he fires, which he will, not many bowlers can stop him, especially not any English ones.

 

[Richard]

EDIT: should have read the rest of the thread before replying as I usually do - tec having said much the same thing as I've done here.

Either way, this series can't hope to live up to the hype of the last one. That was a series against the two very best sides in the world at the time who were strong in both batting and bowling. Both sides appear considerably weakened with many question marks and it'll likely be less of showcase of outstanding skills but looks like it'll be a decent contest.

Not saying that the 2009 series will anything like match the excitement of 2005, but the reason 2005 was so thrilling was because it was contested between two deeply flawed teams. Even throughout 2005, England's batting was poor, but this was cancelled-out by Australia's woeful catching and bowling which, Warne aside and with occasional exceptions from others over very short spells (4 or 5 overs tops), was weak as ninepins in the last 4 Tests. England's bowling in the last 4 Tests, however, was generally superlative, and despite almost equally poor catching cut down one inflated reputation (Hayden) as well as making one excellent player (Ponting) look merely good and some decent players (Gilchrist, Martyn, Clarke, Katich) look wholly ordinary. It was England's bowling that made the series so thrilling, but aside from England's bowling there was much mediocre fare.

I can still foresee a decent contest, if a few stars align, and a series which, by normal standards, is quite some entertainment value.

 

[Richard]

Hayden/Ponting/Clarke/Hussey/Symonds....doesn't look fragile to me mate.

Hayden's always fragile against good seamers, Symonds is always fragile when he's not being given let-off after let-off (which admittedly has been near enough every Test recently), Hussey is still due some downtime, Ponting while still an excellent batsman is now probably pretty much past his prime, and Clarke is an excellent batsman who could probably cope with most of what's thrown at him but like anyone would not be able to average 70 (or whatever he's averaged since 2006/07) against bowling of the calibre Flintoff and Jones could potentially offer.

 

[Richard]

And our chief mint-sucker is gone too, and is now chief ball-polisher at Somerset.

Fully realising that was an ironic post, I don't think Trescothick has any particular skill that no-one else has at ball-shining. And who was supposedly chief mint-sucker BTW? I had the impression that (if it happened at all) they were all doing it, as no-one could possibly pass a rule that stopped mints being sucked at any time.

 

[Richard]

Don't get the Flintoff at 8 thing. Seven would be the lowest I'd play him and that's only if the keeper was a good bat.

Never been enormously keen on five bowlers, especially if there aren't five exceptionally good ones around. Also never been keen on the specialist batting finishing after number-five is out.

For mine, it has to be Ambrose (if he keeps his start up, which isn't certain at all no) and Flintoff at seven and eight. You can put them in whatever order (and personally I simply think Ambrose looks a more skilled, more classy batsman than Flintoff and pretty much always have) but that's where I'd have them.

If Broad should manage to become a Test-class bowler quickly (which yes, I do think unlikely) then that's one hell of a batting-line-up. Six batsmen, Ambrose seven, Flintoff eight, Broad nine.

 

[roseboy64]

Bowling wins you matches though. Can't but not help to have Flintoff, Panesar, Sidebottom and two other pacers rather than lessening your bowling options and having to go with Vaughan and Collingwood.

 

[Richard]

If you've not got good bowlers, two poor ones is no better than one poor one. Right now, the only bowlers I'd be wanting to see playing in all five Tests are Sidebottom, Flintoff and Jones - though obviously MSP will play in all of them too, fitness permitting in all four cases.

I don't want to see Anderson (or Broad, or anyone else) playing ahead of another batsman, if I don't think that bowler will perform well. Another batsman is much preferable.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you've not got good bowlers, two poor ones is no better than one poor one.

Hmm. It depends exactly why they are poor bowlers, for mine. Your statement would be true if you assumed that all poor bowlers bowl poorly every time, but that's not the case. Someone like Broad for example is just plainly not much chop in any circumstances at the moment and is highly unlikely to cause many problems even if he's at the top of his game. I don't think he'd add much as the fifth bowler picked at all other than reducing fatigue of other bowlers.

However, there are other ways in which a bowler can be poor. I'm sure you'll agree that Jimmy Anderson is a pretty poor Test bowler, but he's poor for significantly different reasons to Broad. He just can't consistently get his accuracy together. Some days, though, he can turn up, get it spot on and absolutely blitz a team - having two bowlers who can do this > having one bowler who can do this even if all concerned are poor overall, as you increase your chances of one of them paying off by having two of them.

This doesn't mean he'd add more than another batsman would in his place if you had four bowlers better than him in your team already, of course, but it does mean he'd add something to the team as a fifth bowler, even though he's poor overall.

 

[Burgey]

Hayden's always fragile against good seamers, Symonds is always fragile when he's not being given let-off after let-off (which admittedly has been near enough every Test recently), Hussey is still due some downtime, Ponting while still an excellent batsman is now probably pretty much past his prime, and Clarke is an excellent batsman who could probably cope with most of what's thrown at him but like anyone would not be able to average 70 (or whatever he's averaged since 2006/07) against bowling of the calibre Flintoff and Jones could potentially offer.

Then why did Hayden score a ton in every test he played against an Indian attack this summer that was swinging it around and troubled all other Australian batsmen?

It's such a sweeping statement, and it's often made based upn Hayden's failure in 05, ignoring of course he'd been diabolical for 12 months before even going to England. I mean, if we're all happy to ignore certain parts of one bloke's career coz he was either in a trot or injured but played through it, why don't you apply the sam rationale to Hayden?

Symonds has been lucky to be sure, but every player rides their luck mae, it's part of the game.

Hussey's having his down time right about now. I suspect and hope that will be over by next year. The fact he played a lot of his career as an opener will, I think, be a big advantage to Australia if England swing the ball around consistently.

Ponting is still class. He'd walk into most any side still, even if he's not as prodigious as he was say 18 months - 2 years ago ATM.

Clarke has improved his technique IMO, but the English conditions will robably test that improvement most.

Of course, Haddin's still an unknown.

Should be interesting.

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't bring up Jaques or Haddin and who knows; they could be good. Jaques has shown his worth in English domestic cricket so it wouldn't be surprising.

Jaques may have proven his worth in domestic cricket, but so did Ramprakash and Hick and so did Brad Hodge. Jaques is still unproven in my book, his domestic success in England may show that he is likely to succeed but as of this moment I do not think he has done anything to suggest that he is a regular in the side.
From what I have seen of Haddin, he seems to have a relatively tight technique. However techniques have been broken in the past, and he is still unproven at the test match level.

The one man I did mention that you bring up is Hayden. Well, Hayden on this form and the transformation he has had since then would suggest, IMO, that he'll do well. Again, not a very fragile batting line-up for mine. Far from that, the best in the world.

The irony is that England has done more regressing than Australia.

As i mentioned earlier, Hayden will be almost 38 at the time. Yes he has improved, I do not doubt that. Nor do i doubt that he is the best opener in the world at this moment. However, his past failures against England especially in England in combination with the likelihood of him being way past it at that point makes it increasingly likely that he will struggle.
England may have done some regressing. I do not see the likes of Panesar, Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad being able to dismiss Australia cheaply during the Ashes if it were to start tomorrow. However, I do think an attack of Sidebottom, Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard and Panesar will take 20 wickets fairly consistently.

 

[tooextracool]

How many tons does Jaques have to get to prove himself to you? Hes cemented in the team.

How about 1, away from home that is. I do not doubt that every Bob Smith from Australia can manage to easily score runs in Australia on a consistent basis largely because the wickets there are the flattest in the world and they are very used to them. However, scoring runs against decent bowling in England is likely to be very different.

 

[Burgey]

How about 1, away from home that is. I do not doubt that every Bob Smith from Australia can manage to easily score runs in Australia on a consistent basis largely because the wickets there are the flattest in the world and they are very used to them. However, scoring runs against decent bowling in England is likely to be very different.

Your comment pre-supposes their bowling will be decent. It's not a given.

 

[tooextracool]

Your comment pre-supposes their bowling will be decent. It's not a given.

It isnt given. However, I did state that if Jones and Flintoff were fully fit i would expect that along with Sidebottom that the bowling should fairly decent if not beyond exceptional. If, however, Anderson plays and Broad makes no improvement in about a year I expect it to be dire.

 

[pasag]

Will be so, so surprised if both, in fact either of them will be there next year. I know they aren't doing too badly at the moment but both have just had so many set backs, one after another after another over the past few years that I think for anyone to get their hopes up for either of them to be there come 2009 would be foolish, to say the least.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden's always fragile against good seamers, Symonds is always fragile when he's not being given let-off after let-off (which admittedly has been near enough every Test recently), Hussey is still due some downtime, Ponting while still an excellent batsman is now probably pretty much past his prime, and Clarke is an excellent batsman who could probably cope with most of what's thrown at him but like anyone would not be able to average 70 (or whatever he's averaged since 2006/07) against bowling of the calibre Flintoff and Jones could potentially offer.

And you're always due to give your bent two cents.

 

[Ikki]

Then why did Hayden score a ton in every test he played against an Indian attack this summer that was swinging it around and troubled all other Australian batsmen?

It's such a sweeping statement, and it's often made based upn Hayden's failure in 05, ignoring of course he'd been diabolical for 12 months before even going to England. I mean, if we're all happy to ignore certain parts of one bloke's career coz he was either in a trot or injured but played through it, why don't you apply the sam rationale to Hayden?

Amen. People seemed to miss the Cricket whilst arguing about dropped catches/spirit of cricket on that tour. Hayden simply owned when everyone else was shaky at best.

 

[Ikki]

Jaques may have proven his worth in domestic cricket, but so did Ramprakash and Hick and so did Brad Hodge. Jaques is still unproven in my book, his domestic success in England may show that he is likely to succeed but as of this moment I do not think he has done anything to suggest that he is a regular in the side.
From what I have seen of Haddin, he seems to have a relatively tight technique. However techniques have been broken in the past, and he is still unproven at the test match level.

Unproven is right. But I am just weighing the odds of his possible success. There is a reason people expected things from Hick, just because he didn't succeed doesn't mean those assumptions were falsely founded.

As i mentioned earlier, Hayden will be almost 38 at the time. Yes he has improved, I do not doubt that. Nor do i doubt that he is the best opener in the world at this moment. However, his past failures against England especially in England in combination with the likelihood of him being way past it at that point makes it increasingly likely that he will struggle.
England may have done some regressing. I do not see the likes of Panesar, Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad being able to dismiss Australia cheaply during the Ashes if it were to start tomorrow. However, I do think an attack of Sidebottom, Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard and Panesar will take 20 wickets fairly consistently.

His fitness will diminish and we'll only know how much, and how much that will effect him, till he plays. However, Hayden does seem the type of bloke to keep ticking as he is a very fit lad.

As for the English bowling: we'll see.