The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[Uppercut]

nah

AWTA. Hayden>Jacques/Katich>Strauss/Cook

 

[Richard]

nah

Given that we simply don't know where Hayden will be at in 8 months' time (he could have retired, and obviously a playing player > a retired one), and given that Strauss' skill at combating the moving ball is obviously considerably better (though both have gotten better in recent times), I'd say if Hayden were to play the full series I'd back Strauss to do better. I'm presuming the ball will swing and there'll be something in the pitches for the seamers, which is admittedly not a given, but it's certainly possible.

And BTW, you took that out-of-context. It's not as simple as the way you made it look with that quote and you know it, what I posted around it which you omitted in the quote makes that clear.

 

[Uppercut]

Given that we simply don't know where Hayden will be at in 8 months' time (he could have retired, and obviously a playing player > a retired one), and given that Strauss' skill at combating the moving ball is obviously considerably better (though both have gotten better in recent times), I'd say if Hayden were to play the full series I'd back Strauss to do better.

The ball won't move all the time though. Strauss will probably see off the new ball more often, but Hayden will surely score more runs- unless there's a drastic swing in form for both of them in the next 8 months.

 

[Richard]

The ball won't move all the time though. Strauss will probably see off the new ball more often, but Hayden will surely score more runs- unless there's a drastic swing in form for both of them in the next 8 months.

None of the grounds that next summer's Tests are scheduled at are grounds which swinging the new ball has proven especially difficult. I hope we'll see the new ball swing every innings.

If the balls are of good quality, Sidebottom, Flintoff and whoever else is playing are more than capable of sorting Hayden out - if Hayden plays, which is not a given.

 

[four_or_six]

Given that we simply don't know where Hayden will be at in 8 months' time (he could have retired, and obviously a playing player > a retired one), and given that Strauss' skill at combating the moving ball is obviously considerably better (though both have gotten better in recent times), I'd say if Hayden were to play the full series I'd back Strauss to do better. I'm presuming the ball will swing and there'll be something in the pitches for the seamers, which is admittedly not a given, but it's certainly possible.

And BTW, you took that out-of-context. It's not as simple as the way you made it look with that quote and you know it, what I posted around it which you omitted in the quote makes that clear.

I'd be really surprised if Hayden jacks it in before the Ashes next year (fitness permitting). A big series over here is kind of his final frontier. Plus he's now a senior team-member.

 

[Richard]

He might not retire, but if New Zealand and South Africa sort him out (which they also are more than capable of doing - Kyle Mills has already done it before now) he could be dropped for Rogers or (heaven forbid) Katich.

 

[four_or_six]

He might not retire, but if New Zealand and South Africa sort him out (which they also are more than capable of doing - Kyle Mills has already done it before now) he could be dropped for Rogers or (heaven forbid) Katich.

He can't be dropped for Katich though, he's already in the team and pretty firmly so given Jaques is racing against time to bat again this season, and also the series he's just had.

And I get the feeling they don't fancy Rogers.

 

[Prince EWS]

Clarke > any England batsman except Pietersen

Bell > Clarke IMO.

There, I said it.

 

[Prince EWS]

He might not retire, but if New Zealand and South Africa sort him out (which they also are more than capable of doing - Kyle Mills has already done it before now) he could be dropped for Rogers or (heaven forbid) Katich.

This post shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding the pecking order of Australian openers.

Whether or not you agree, it currently stands as

1. Hayden
2. Katich
3. Jaques
4. Marsh
5. Rogers

I disagree with it quite a bit really but that's the reality of it.

 

[Richard]

He can't be dropped for Katich though, he's already in the team and pretty firmly so given Jaques is racing against time to bat again this season, and also the series he's just had.

And I get the feeling they don't fancy Rogers.

Katich could be dropped before Hayden, is the line of thinking I was employing, but I thought Jaques was going to be ready before that.

As for Rogers, he's played a Test, and there's certainly no-one else opening better than him out there apart from Jaques, though Shaun Marsh could make a case for himself with a really good season as of now. Whether he has that in him we wait to see.

 

[GIMH]

As it stands,

Strauss vs Hayden
Cook vs Katich
Bell vs Ponting
Pietersen vs Hussey
Collingwood vs Clarke
Flintoff vs Watson
Prior vs Haddin
Lee vs Anderson
Johnson vs Harmison
Clark vs Broad
Krezja vs Panesar

I make it 8-3 to Australia, with Harmison, Flintoff and Panesar being the positions England have better players for.

Head-to-head doesn't give you an accurate idea IMO, better to rank the respective components IMO. BTW, my tipped English XI has Sidebottom in place of Broad.

So, here it is

Batting
Ponting
Hussey
Pietersen
Hayden
Clarke
Katich
Cook
Collingwood
Strauss
Bell

Aussie take the batting comfortably

All-rounders
Flintoff
Watson

Wicket-keepers
Haddin
Prior

Bowling
Clark
Anderson
Lee
Sidebottom
Harmison
Panesar
Johnson
Krezja

This gives us a bowling edge, IMHO. My rankings are completely adhoc, basically combined recent form with overall class - Anderson has come off a really good year, Harmison's form for England at the end of the season was impressive. Sidebottom lower than he would have been but for recent fitness troubles, so obviously this can change a lot between now and 09.

Basically, Aussies batting is much better and I think they have a better keeper (haven't seen a lot of Haddin tbh), but we have a stronger all-rounder (IMO, & Watson is one player who gets injured more than Fred) and a slightly better bowling line-up.

Where Aussie are stronger, they are much stronger, but England have plenty of strengths, much as Goughy said.

 

[pup11]

As it stands,

Strauss vs Hayden
Cook vs Katich
Bell vs Ponting
Pietersen vs Hussey
Collingwood vs Clarke
Flintoff vs Watson
Prior vs Haddin
Lee vs Anderson
Johnson vs Harmison
Clark vs Broad
Krezja vs Panesar

I make it 8-3 to Australia, with Harmison, Flintoff and Panesar being the positions England have better players for.

I would have McGain ahead of Krezja tbh, and hopefully by the Ashes series Johnson would have lost his place in the side, so either Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, or Noffke might be playing instead of him, the rest of the side looks fine.

 

[Richard]

This post shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding the pecking order of Australian openers.

Whether or not you agree, it currently stands as

1. Hayden
2. Katich
3. Jaques
4. Marsh
5. Rogers

I disagree with it quite a bit really but that's the reality of it.

I'm not really trying to comment on the pecking-order, we know from the Australian selectors' general cluelessness that this changes minute by minute. Katich should not be in line to open in Tests, at all, and I hope he might one day get back in the middle-order, but he's not getting any younger, so that may not happen.

However, what makes you say that Marsh is ahead of Rogers? Australia A picks?

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not really trying to comment on the pecking-order, we know from the Australian selectors' general cluelessness that this changes minute by minute. Katich should not be in line to open in Tests, at all, and I hope he might one day get back in the middle-order, but he's not getting any younger, so that may not happen.

However, what makes you say that Marsh is ahead of Rogers? Australia A picks?

Marsh replaced Jaques in India when they sent him home.

 

[Richard]

Bell > Clarke IMO.

There, I said it.

Interested to hear why.

Both have flattered to deceive hugely, to probably equal degrees, but Clarke's merely had outstanding things expected and has merely delivered middling performance (since 2006/07 anyway - he was poor before that) and Bell has had pretty high things expected of him and delivered not that much at all.

I still have more hope for Clarke becoming a top-shelf player than I do Bell, and as I say, there's absolutely no doubt for mine that Clarke has accomplished more to date and were both to fall to career-ending injuries tomorrow I'd say Clarke's was the better career, no questions asked.

 

[Richard]

Marsh replaced Jaques in India when they sent him home.

Haha, did he? Sheesh, that's appalling.

Can only hope that's rectified this season. Rogers > Marsh currently, no questions asked. Obviously Marsh is much the better long-term prospect but there's no way he's better now. Not in several million years.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, Prince is right, Rogers is out of the picture and Marsh is now ahead of him in selectors eyes. Doubt we'll see Rogers again personally.

 

[Richard]

Bowling
Clark
Anderson
Lee
Sidebottom
Harmison
Panesar
Johnson
Krezja

This gives us a bowling edge, IMHO.

I'd compare, say, England's top six bowlers with Australia's. On what I expect to be the case in 8 months' time, not now. I don't expect Harmison to still be in the frame, and I don't have a clue what will have happened to Anderson. It'll be very interesting to see how he fares in India, if conditions are similar to what Australia just experienced (which is admittedly not a given). I also under no circumstances expect Krejza to either be in the frame to tour England nor do remotely well if he does, so he's counted-out. Hoggard is still one of the best bowlers in the country IMO but it's very clear he's never going to play again so there's no point talking about him. And unless Broad makes serious changes to his game, even the idiot England selectors will surely have dropped him come next summer.

England's best six bowlers I'd have as:
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Simon Jones
Anderson
Panesar
Tremlett

Australia's:
Clark
Lee
Hilfenhaus
Noffke
Bollinger
Johnson

Who's better out of that lot? England have the edge in seam IMO and are obviously far better in spin - as I say, MSP is clearly superior to any spinner Australia currently have (probably even McGain), and given a turning pitch England are at a big advantage.

The seam is the really interesting one though. There's several potentially high-class operatives there (Tremlett, Hilfenhaus, Noffke, Simon Jones, Sidebottom, even Anderson and Johnson) but most are unknown either in that they've yet to play much or any Test cricket, or have injury clouds over them, or have struggled to turn promise into figures.

Only Flintoff, Clark and (more likely than not but not by any means certain) Brett Lee are bowlers you'd be really backing.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Prince is right, Rogers is out of the picture and Marsh is now was ahead of him in selectors eyes. Doubt we'll see Rogers again personally.

Crying shame if you're right. Buck deserves better than that.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm almost 100% certain that if they lost Hayden and Marsh tomorrow, Hughes would play ahead of Rogers.

It isn't right, but I think that would happen.