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

[roseboy64]

WI are currently being comptetitive so we'll see...

 

[aussie]

Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. I remember Jaques having a bit of trouble, and not really anyone else.

Am, Sharma to Pontinng?.

The calibre of Indian swing-bowling last summer was highly praised, but it was far from top-notch. It was simply better than the mundane rubbish that's mostly been served-up in recent times, so naturally it seemed quite special.

Same could be said about the current WI bowling attack vs AUS. Just because a bowling attack fantastic on paper doesn't mean it can't produce top-quality efforts regardless of the inconsistenties they may be known for. The Indian swing bowling was very testing & are rightly credited for that (even if they might never produce it consistently or again) but fact is they tested all of AUS batsmen & onky Hayden looked untroubled.

It's made based upon nothing of the sort, it's made based upon failures throughout his entire career. Both 1993/94-2001, and 2004/05-2005. Yes, Hayden had indeed been poor the previous SH summer too - that was because he was worked-out there as he was worked-out in England. Of all people, Kyle Mills has always had the measure of him, and of course so did Shoaib. Then it was Hoggard (and Flintoff, and Jones). Hayden was not out of nick in that time but simply came-up against something he had never had the power to resist. .

It was more of a mixture of being out of nick & that since after his back to back centuries vs SRI. He went to IND and definately didn't look himself.

From 2005/06 onwards, he came-up against more of the sort of stuff he'd faced 2001/02-2004, and went back to prolific ways.

Utter ignorance. You post that again dawg i'm gonna have to get you whacked.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

simple answer: NO!

 

[Richard]

Am, Sharma to Pontinng?.

Sharma is hardly a swing-bowler, he's a seamer.

Same could be said about the current WI bowling attack vs AUS. Just because a bowling attack fantastic on paper doesn't mean it can't produce top-quality efforts regardless of the inconsistenties they may be known for. The Indian swing bowling was very testing & are rightly credited for that (even if they might never produce it consistently or again) but fact is they tested all of AUS batsmen & onky Hayden looked untroubled.

Yeah, they tested most of the Australian batsmen, but plenty of them still scored plenty of runs. The Indian swing-bowling in 2007/08 was OK, nothing more.

It was more of a mixture of being out of nick & that since after his back to back centuries vs SRI. He went to IND and definately didn't look himself.

In India, yeah, I'll give you that. But against NZ and Pak, he was simply worked-out by superior bowling from Mills and Shoaib Akhtar.

Utter ignorance. You post that again dawg i'm gonna have to get you whacked.

OK. But that's precisely what he did, I watched near enough every innings of his in that time, even though the temptation to switch-off was great.

 

[DaRick]

In India, yeah, I'll give you that. But against NZ and Pak, he was simply worked-out by superior bowling from Mills and Shoaib Akhtar.

IIRC, he was dismissed by Kyle Mills precisely once - citing him is misleading when asserting that Matthew Hayden got figured out by superior bowling, particularly when Mills in question took 1/99 during that Test match. (I'll assume that you're talking test matches, not ODI's).

Also, you cannot state categorically that a player got 'worked out' by a certain group of bowlers if he was in poor form to start with, which Matthew Hayden most definitely was. If he came into England in good form and then did poorly, then I could understand your argument.

 

[Prince EWS]

IIRC, he was dismissed by Kyle Mills precisely once - citing him is misleading when asserting that Matthew Hayden got figured out by superior bowling, particularly when Mills in question took 1/99 during that Test match. (I'll assume that you're talking test matches, not ODI's).

Did you see that game, though? Hayden looked all at sea against Mills throughout the whole innings - he was rapped on the pads repeatedly and incorrectly given not out lbw when Mills was bowling.

 

[Richard]

IIRC, he was dismissed by Kyle Mills precisely once - citing him is misleading when asserting that Matthew Hayden got figured out by superior bowling, particularly when Mills in question took 1/99 during that Test match. (I'll assume that you're talking test matches, not ODI's).

I know that, but in the Tests and ODIs that season, Mills got Hayden out lbw at least 4 or 5 times, and only got the decision on 1 occasion. He clearly had his measure IMO.

Also, you cannot state categorically that a player got 'worked out' by a certain group of bowlers if he was in poor form to start with, which Matthew Hayden most definitely was. If he came into England in good form and then did poorly, then I could understand your argument.

I don't think Hayden was in poor form though. He wasn't exactly scratching around against all bowlers, simply beaten by the inswingers (and sometimes the short stuff) from these bowlers.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I thought Hayden was very scratchy in England '05, he never looked comfortable at the crease, or that he was ever "in". Some of this had to do with the plans, and more importantly how well they were executed, but also they had to do with Hayden having been in a fair slump. Making those 30's that he did, he never looked like he was in control, which is often a bigger sign of being out of form than being nicked off early all the time.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, and I simply felt the bowling was too good for him the vast majority of the time.

But then again, there's almost never going to be any agreement on the matter.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, and I simply felt the bowling was too good for him the vast majority of the time.

But then again, there's almost never going to be any agreement on the matter.

Well I agree. I thought England were superb and Hayden while out of touch, couldn't get back into form because the bowling was just too good for him.

England in England is basically Hayden's last frontier.. He's done well everywhere else.

Note: I haven't used statsguru, but pretty sure about this.

 

[Richard]

Never done much in NZ either from memory, which unfortunately for him is the other place which fits the stereotype of "swing-friendly".

 

[DaRick]

Did you see that game, though? Hayden looked all at sea against Mills throughout the whole innings - he was rapped on the pads repeatedly and incorrectly given not out lbw when Mills was bowling.

Oh, I saw the game alright. How could I forget that knock by McGrath?

Not the Hayden innings, however. IIRC, I was at school at the time.

Besides, Hayden looking all at sea against somebody like Mills (who was nowhere near Test-class in 2004/05) indicates just how out of form he was (this statement is aimed more at Richard, FWIW).

I thought Hayden was very scratchy in England '05, he never looked comfortable at the crease, or that he was ever "in". Some of this had to do with the plans, and more importantly how well they were executed, but also they had to do with Hayden having been in a fair slump. Making those 30's that he did, he never looked like he was in control, which is often a bigger sign of being out of form than being nicked off early all the time.

I'm inclined to agree with this. His 138 at the end of the tour was infinitely more cathartic for him than usual - a sure sign of leaving a form slump, IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm inclined to agree with this. His 138 at the end of the tour was infinitely more cathartic for him than usual - a sure sign of leaving a form slump, IMO.

Yup. Check most of his dismissals in the series - generally to attacking strokes. He was trying to hit his way out of his slump and that Jones and Flintoff had the better of him. When he tightened his defence and played more within himself, was a far better player as that knock showed.

 

[Richard]

Besides, Hayden looking all at sea against somebody like Mills (who was nowhere near Test-class in 2004/05) indicates just how out of form he was (this statement is aimed more at Richard, FWIW).

I don't neccessarily think it was. Woeful as Mills normally was around that time (conceded 150 before he took his 2nd Test wicket or something) he had Hayden's measure in pretty much every game they played. He couldn't do much, but he could exploit Hayden's weakness, unlike most other bowlers around that time.

Of course, Hayden's far from the only batsman to be outdone by Shoaib Akhtar as he mostly was in 2004/05, but Shoaib used the same flaws that most bowlers had up to 2001/02 and Hoggard did in 2005 and 2006/07 (not that Koertzen gave him the dismissals in the MCG Test).

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Tbf, Jones has just been plain unlucky. While Flintoff has essentially been out with the same injury(ankle), Jones has been cursed with every possible injury under the sun. Its got to end sometime in his case, one can just hope that that end is right now. I dont harbor much hope for Flintoff playing for more than another year or 2 at best, but then again, many were saying the same thing about Vaughan 2 years ago and he hasnt missed a test since his return last summer so you never know.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Indeed, but to suggest that Jaques presence in the team somehow makes the Australian batting appear stronger for the Ashes next year at this point is based on a very flimsy argument.

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.

Well lets just remember that we are talking about a player who is currently out injured. Yes he is a good player, but his future prospects at age 38 in a country he has been a distinct failure in doesnt look too promising in my book. If Australia are still dependent upon him in 2009, then that in itself should suggest that England do have a chance in the Ashes next year.

 

[tooextracool]

Got a question for England supporters. What has Monty done in England to deserve a spot? Hoggard/Sidebottom/Flintoff/Jones is their best attack right?

It is. Monty is seriously overrated by members on this forum and by commentators alike. He is not a bad bowler, but those suggesting that he is in the same class as Vettori are seriously mistaken. Vettori provided a real masterclass of classical finger spin on his tour to England while Monty had one spell that was much lauded despite the pies that he tossed up for the rest of the series.

 

[tooextracool]

Australia undoubtedly have the better batsmen.
Hayden
Jacques
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Symonds
Haddin

v

Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Colly
Ambrose

Please there is no argument there. THe Australians are far superior in their top 6..

Its difficult to judge given that many of those Australians (Symonds, Jaques, Haddin) are completely unproven at the test match level. And that is the point IMO, only Ambrose in the England side is a newcomer, the rest have been around for a while. And yes, I do think the current England batting lineup is as good as the current Australian lineup. That is because it is overdependent upon Ponting, Hussey (who has been struggling for a while) and Hayden.

And a bowling attack of Clark, Lee, Johnson, <spinner> or one out of Noffke, Bracken etc. is better than Panesar, Sidebottom, Anderson, Broad. Flintoff and Jones may increase England's strength in that dept depending on their fitness/form but I don't see England having a decisive edge in that department.

Well I do not disagree with the Australian bowling being better than Englands. But my point was that if Jones and Flintoff return Englands bowling will be far superior largely because Johnson is for all uses and purposes absolutely pathetic and so is the <Spinner>. One thing that you have also not considered that is a pretty big deal is home advantage and IMO that gives England as long as they get the right side on paper, a decent chance of winning.

 

[tooextracool]

Yup. Check most of his dismissals in the series - generally to attacking strokes. He was trying to hit his way out of his slump and that Jones and Flintoff had the better of him. When he tightened his defence and played more within himself, was a far better player as that knock showed.

And the reason why he attempted to tighten his technique was because his weakness to the inswinger had been exposed by Matthew Hoggard and occasionally Simon Jones, both inswing bowlers. His supposed improvement in that series was not just down to his change of approach, it was the fact that he played on what was the flattest pitch of the series before the rain came down. That he did well was not surprising, that he had solved his weakness is surely erroneous at that point and the fact that his weakness followed him all the way into the Ashes of 2006/07 where Hoggard once again posed serious problems suggests that his ability to play swing is newly found.

 

[archie mac]

And the reason why he attempted to tighten his technique was because his weakness to the inswinger had been exposed by Matthew Hoggard and occasionally Simon Jones, both inswing bowlers. His supposed improvement in that series was not just down to his change of approach, it was the fact that he played on what was the flattest pitch of the series before the rain came down. That he did well was not surprising, that he had solved his weakness is surely erroneous at that point and the fact that his weakness followed him all the way into the Ashes of 2006/07 where Hoggard once again posed serious problems suggests that his ability to play swing is newly found.

Good to have you back, hope you stay around this time

Matt the Bat may retire before the series if he keeps hurting himself