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

[aussie]

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.

Its not as if Hayden is regressing with age or anything. Regardless of his previous failings over here it is fairly obvious the man has improved on ability to play quality swing bowling (even though some find it hard to admit) since 05. He will be a major wicket for England come next year.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

So you're saying he had a problem with the in-swinger but put down his good knock to the flatness of the deck? How does one have anything to do with the other? From what I remember, both Flintoff and Hoggard swung it plenty. I don't see how you can claim the Oval was flatter than any of the others when Edgbaston had 400+ scored on day 1 either. Anyway, even taking into account the Oval was a fairly true pitch (as they all were, bar Lords), to turn one's series around like Hayden (adjusting both technique and attitude) is as much a function of him as it was the conditions. You can't justifiably claim it was all the pitch; that's unfair on Hayden because he played really well too.

 

[tooextracool]

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

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

Thanks Its good to be back. I should be sticking around the forum for the summer at the very least, unfortunately for those around here.

 

[tooextracool]

So you're saying he had a problem with the in-swinger but put down his good knock to the flatness of the deck? How does one have anything to do with the other? From what I remember, both Flintoff and Hoggard swung it plenty. I don't see how you can claim the Oval was flatter than any of the others when Edgbaston had 400+ scored on day 1 either. Anyway, even taking into account the Oval was a fairly true pitch (as they all were, bar Lords), to turn one's series around like Hayden (adjusting both technique and attitude) is as much a function of him as it was the conditions. You can't justifiably claim it was all the pitch; that's unfair on Hayden because he played really well too.

Both Flintoff and Hoggard got plenty of swing at the Oval, mostly on Day 4 though. As far as the rest of the series is concerned, there was conventional swing on offer for the entire game at Trent Bridge and at Old Trafford IIRC the ball was reverse swinging by the 15th over and had Hayden all at sea in the 2nd innings. Edbaston was the only real ground where there was little on offer in terms of seam or conventional swing. I dont mind giving Hayden full credit for his innings, it essentially saved and prolonged his career. However, I dont think that performance served to indicate that he had overcome his problems combating swing during the course of that summer.

 

[tooextracool]

Its not as if Hayden is regressing with age or anything. Regardless of his previous failings over here it is fairly obvious the man has improved on ability to play quality swing bowling (even though some find it hard to admit) since 05. He will be a major wicket for England come next year.

Yep, I agree that he has improved on his ability to play swing bowling. However, there are certain plans that Vaughan and Hoggard have successfully implemented against Hayden in the past and while he is good enough to beat those plans, it is also likely that at 38 he might be past it in order to do so. For all we know, he might not even make it back from injury at this point.

 

[nightprowler10]

I think many of the games will be close but Australia will end up with a 3-0 win. Hoping for a good contest as I'm thinking about attending at least one match.

 

[Speersy]

If Pieterson and Flintoff get going, i can see the likes of Jaques, Johnson and Casson being overwhelmed by the crowd, and Australia falling apart.
With no Warne or Mcgrath, it will be up Lee and Clark to help them out. Can't really see any current Australian bowler getting 40 wickets tbh, all the pressure will be on Australia.

 

[sanga1337]

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.




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.

How is Symonds unproven at test match level? He's played 26 matches and has an average of 45.96 and has dug Australia out of many bad positions granted with a bit of luck.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Actually, I didn't mention Jaques, you did. After you did, I just said even he could do something.

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.

As I said, we'll see. Right now, previous record or not, I'd tip him to be our best batsman alongside Ponting. It's only a year away so we'll see.

 

[Burgey]

Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. I remember Jaques having a bit of trouble, and not really anyone else. 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. I don't remember Hayden keeping-out any particularly remarkable deliveries, less still ones that swung in. The few occasions the swinging was decent, it was away from the left-hander.

ITSTL.

I thought the view was he struggled vs good seam bowling, not just good swing stuff.

FTR, Hayden wasn't falling to great deliveries every time he got out in 05 either. Half the time he got out to good though not great bowling, and was as often as not a victim of his own poor form rather than the exceptional bowling he faced.

Certainly England executed its plans to him well, but really a short cover or two to a Hayden who's in an sort of form is an irrelevance, and him falling for that trap when all that's thrown up is a wide half volley for him to drive at his hardly anything special (not that it was his onlymode of dismissal, but you know what I mean). I'd say if he's in good nick, he'll go OK, and I'm sure he'll want to make sure he does, being his last tour.

Certainly he will need to be on his guard, so to speak, but if he plays with circumspection I'd back him to score well.

 

[Flem274*]

What I enjoy about Haydens not so good records in England and NZ is that many Aussies like our very own bond21 can't blame good bowling because that would mean admitting that England and NZ have good players.

Or we could just say that Hayden sucks.

Whaddya reckon Kazo?

 

[Ikki]

What I enjoy about Haydens not so good records in England and NZ is that many Aussies like our very own bond21 can't blame good bowling because that would mean admitting that England and NZ have good players.

Or we could just say that Hayden sucks.

Whaddya reckon Kazo?

LOL, well with regards to that: Hayden has to finish off his career and fix his away record. It's not upto the standard of Sunil and co. If he is to ever be respected universally this is one of the main reasons. Richard's usual crap about quality bowling is non-sense; a poor generalisation.

 

[Flem274*]

LOL, well with regards to that: Hayden has to finish off his career and fix his away record. It's not upto the standard of Sunil and co. If he is to ever be respected universally this is one of the main reasons. Richard's usual crap about quality bowling is non-sense; a poor generalisation.

Haha, pretty good reply. I am disappointed you didn't take the bait though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If Pieterson and Flintoff get going, i can see the likes of Jaques, Johnson and Casson being overwhelmed by the crowd, and Australia falling apart.
With no Warne or Mcgrath, it will be up Lee and Clark to help them out. Can't really see any current Australian bowler getting 40 wickets tbh, all the pressure will be on Australia.

I can't see any current English bowler getting 40 wickets either though really. Australia will be weaker than last time out here, unless a couple of decent bowlers develop between now and then. England aren't any great shakes either though, despite the traditional excitement that rolls around whenever a series is won against anyone. They have a good enough team to win though if things go well for them, considering Australia isn't as strong in the bowling department as they were at the last start. If England get a bowling attack on the field like 2005 then they're in with a great chance.

 

[Richard]

ITSTL.

I thought the view was he struggled vs good seam bowling, not just good swing stuff.

FTR, Hayden wasn't falling to great deliveries every time he got out in 05 either. Half the time he got out to good though not great bowling, and was as often as not a victim of his own poor form rather than the exceptional bowling he faced.

Certainly England executed its plans to him well, but really a short cover or two to a Hayden who's in an sort of form is an irrelevance, and him falling for that trap when all that's thrown up is a wide half volley for him to drive at his hardly anything special (not that it was his onlymode of dismissal, but you know what I mean). I'd say if he's in good nick, he'll go OK, and I'm sure he'll want to make sure he does, being his last tour.

Certainly he will need to be on his guard, so to speak, but if he plays with circumspection I'd back him to score well.

The short cover thing was so hopelessly overrated, he was out there a whole once. Mostly it was lbw and catches in the slip - the outswingers and inswingers - that were the problem. I am still completely confident that such measures would have the measure of him if employed to the standard of 2005 once again.

 

[Richard]

If Pieterson and Flintoff get going, i can see the likes of Jaques, Johnson and Casson being overwhelmed by the crowd, and Australia falling apart.

Don't see Australia in general or Jaques being overwhelmed or falling apart, they're far too good for that.

I think it's silly to make any presumptions about participants - Casson especially - as with any luck for all concerned poor performers will have been axed by then. Certainly there's no way Casson should play, hopefully he might be a one-Test wonder. So, so fortunate to get picked for this game ahead of McGain ITFP.

 

[tooextracool]

Actually, I didn't mention Jaques, you did. After you did, I just said even he could do something..

Yes but since he is part of the Australian batting card i dont see why he shouldnt be included. I suggested that the Australian batting is precarious because they have unproven players like Jaques, Symonds and Haddin. They might all end up being good players but the point is that there are holes to exploit at the moment.

 

[Top_Cat]

The short cover thing was so hopelessly overrated, he was out there a whole once. Mostly it was lbw and catches in the slip - the outswingers and inswingers - that were the problem. I am still completely confident that such measures would have the measure of him if employed to the standard of 2005 once again.

Missed the point; that a catch actually went to short cover was a bonus. He was just there to get in Hayden's eyeline to induce tentative prods which, as you nicely pointed out, result in nicks behind, which there were plenty of, but not that many went to hand. He was bowled more often than any other dismissal I reckon; I can remember twice at Lords, dragged on to Freddie and around his legs later in the series. The tentative shots which resulted in those dismissals you could put down to the short-cover too; it rarely is a genuine catching position for quick bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

The short cover thing was so hopelessly overrated, he was out there a whole once. Mostly it was lbw and catches in the slip - the outswingers and inswingers - that were the problem. I am still completely confident that such measures would have the measure of him if employed to the standard of 2005 once again.

Nice little out you're setting up there - if he gets rolled it's coz he can't handle good bowling, but if he's prodigious you'll be able to say "oh well, the standard wasn't up to 05, the bowling was poor and that's why he made so many runs".

 

[tooextracool]

Missed the point; that a catch actually went to short cover was a bonus. He was just there to get in Hayden's eyeline to induce tentative prods which, as you nicely pointed out, result in nicks behind, which there were plenty of, but not that many went to hand. He was bowled more often than any other dismissal I reckon; I can remember twice at Lords, dragged on to Freddie and around his legs later in the series. The tentative shots which resulted in those dismissals you could put down to the short-cover too; it rarely is a genuine catching position for quick bowlers.

Im glad you brought it up. I think the point was to try to get Hayden to drive square earlier on in his inning rather than play straight which automatically brings lbw into the equation.