*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Ikki]

... and this sort of complacency leads to what we are now seeing

Most our team is full of newbies, they have not achieved much to be complacent about it. That's kinda the point.

 

[PhoenixFire]

**** me I hope we beat Australia so much.

 

[subshakerz]

I think we're widening the definition here too much. By that account, anyone England picks with the hope that they'd be good is equal to our hopefuls simply because they are both hopefuls. Not so IMO. The Aussie team is much harder to get into and any player getting a go is very special.

Yes, I think the difference between the two sides is bench strength. Australia simply have a better standard of players to choose from in their pool than England do, England often pick based on hidden potential/hope & prayer rather than proven performance. Incidentally, Australia made that same mistake in picking Johnson for this test and it cost them. Can you imagine England benching players like Brett Lee and Clark? Having said that, the only easy place to get into in the Aussie side is the spinner position, how many spinners have they tried in the last year?

I think the reason for England's dominance in this series is simply a case of their key players being in good form in home conditions while Australia's key ones simultaneously being in pathetic form. Overall, there is no doubt the Aussies are a better team in all conditions.

By the way, Clarke better than Pietersen? On form perhaps, but only on form. And Watson ahead of Flintoff is simply laughable, sorry.

 

[Ikki]

On that basis then clearly Prior is better than Haddin, Onions better than Siddle, Anderson better than Hilfenhaus, Swann better than Hauritz...

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

You're missing the entire point. Those players like Clarke and Pietersen are established. If Clarke was not at least around averaging near or more than 50, he probably wouldn't be in the squad. We have many alternatives. Yet that will be good enough to start for England.

Likewise, if Siddle does not average sub-30 and strike at sub-60, he is unlikely to be kept. Yet he would probably still play for England. If Siddle was performing as Broad as, do you think we'd keep him? Do you think if he were to perform as bad as him, do you then think it would be accurate to say that Broad would make our team? He wouldn't get a sniff.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You're missing the entire point. Those players like Clarke and Pietersen are established. If Clarke was not at least around averaging near or more than 50, he probably wouldn't be in the squad. We have many alternatives. Yet that will be good enough to start for England.

Likewise, if Siddle does not average sub-30 and strike at sub-60, he is unlikely to be kept. Yet he would probably still play for England. If Siddle was performing as Broad as, do you think we'd keep him? Do you think if he were to perform as bad as him, do you then think it would be accurate to say that Broad would make our team? He wouldn't get a sniff.

You do realise the fact that Broad wouldn't make the Australian team proves nothing regarding Clarke being better than Pietersen, yes? I mean, you've spent an entire paragraph on an utter irrelevance, so I'm compelled to ask.

 

[Jamee999]

If this was the Australian team of the late 90s early 00s losing to England, then it would be under-performing - but it's a different team now - it's not the same bunch of blokes - you've replaced some of the best players ever with far poorer ones.

Being the Australian Test team doesn't automatically make them magically good.

 

[four_or_six]

You're missing the entire point. Those players like Clarke and Pietersen are established. If Clarke was not at least around averaging near or more than 50, he probably wouldn't be in the squad. We have many alternatives. Yet that will be good enough to start for England.

Likewise, if Siddle does not average sub-30 and strike at sub-60, he is unlikely to be kept. Yet he would probably still play for England. If Siddle was performing as Broad as, do you think we'd keep him? Do you think if he were to perform as bad as him, do you then think it would be accurate to say that Broad would make our team? He wouldn't get a sniff.

Given Australia have only two players averaging over 50 with the bat, and none under 30 with the ball, you could be needing an awful lot of bench strength.

 

[Prince EWS]

whatever superiority he has over Hauritz he better show it.

Heh, you're contradicting yourself so badly here. If Swann doesn't show he's superior to Hauritz in this series then he isn't, but if Australia don't show they're superior to England in this series it's because their mindset was wrong or they picked the wrong team.

Frankly, don't know why I'm bothering ITBT.

Warne and are disappointed, England compare Swann to Giles and Panesar and are somewhat pleased. In reality, they are about as good as each other with Hauritz outperforming him in this series.

...

And neither of these players are strong points. The difference is, if Swann were to perform this way England would be ecstatic, yet Hauritz is just a few beltings away from being replaced. I keep trying to infer this to you.

The funny thing is, for all intents and purposes I follow both teams in question. I certainly do whenever they aren't paying each other - with roughly equal interest - so if you're going to use this "fans' expectations" argument, I'd possibly be one of the most relevant people to ask to compare the two bowlers. Might want to stray away from that one in future.

I'd compare their First Class records but knowing you, you'd almost certainly just say something as asinine as "County Cricket is roughly the equivalent of Sydney 5th Grade cricket where Hauritz recently spent some time due to his rank ineffectiveness anywhere higher and averaged a respectable 35". The standard of cricket is higher in Australian First Class cricket, but certainly not a 15 run bowling average difference no matter how you try and spin it.

That even if, now, some of our players are not as good as our other players, WE expect MORE from our players and even the English player in comparison to our player will not do (other than I suspect Pietersen) and would not actually get into our side if they were Aussie. Whilst they may start for England, they'd be replaced for Australia if they continued at that level.

Agree, but don't really see how it's relevant to anything I've said. Australia has a better team and Australia has more depth.. I understand this. This doesn't mean England can't win the Ashes though as the difference between the two teams isn't England isn't that great anymore. Form can easily overthrow the gap that exists, much as it did in the second and (so far) third Tests. It's unlikely but most certainly possible.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, I think the difference between the two sides is bench strength. Australia simply have a better standard of players to choose from in their pool than England do, England often pick based on hidden potential/hope & prayer rather than proven performance. Incidentally, Australia made that same mistake in picking Johnson for this test and it cost them. Can you imagine England benching players like Brett Lee and Clark? Having said that, the only easy place to get into in the Aussie side is the spinner position, how many spinners have they tried in the last year?

I think the reason for England's dominance in this series is simply a case of their key players being in good form in home conditions while Australia's key ones simultaneously being in pathetic form. Overall, there is no doubt the Aussies are a better team in all conditions.

Great, that's pretty much my take on it.

By the way, Clarke better than Pietersen? On form perhaps, but only on form.

On form and possibly continuing into the future. Clarke has matured a lot whilst Pietersen is the same old batsman.

And Watson ahead of Flintoff is simply laughable, sorry.

Puh-lease, it's laughable that you've boiled my choice so simple-like.

I said, if Watson were to stay fit, I would pick Watson over Flintoff. If tomorrow I had the choice of Freddy in his current form, and the prospect of Watson (who would stay fit) I would pick Watson for sure. He has everything to be better than Flintoff and hasn't been able to show it due to injuries. I know how good Flintoff is, but I think Watson can be even better so I would take that choice. Not that as it is, I actually think Flintoff is inferior to Watson. Nope.

 

[Prince EWS]

Most our team is full of newbies, they have not achieved much to be complacent about it. That's kinda the point.

Then you clearly have no right to be so damn arrogant about them all.

 

[Ikki]

Given Australia have only two players averaging over 50 with the bat, and none under 30 with the ball, you could be needing an awful lot of bench strength.

Given that most our line-up is new, that's not surprising. Yet do you think if they were to stay that way we would actually keep them? Like England might?

 

[PhoenixFire]

On form and possibly continuing into the future. Clarke has matured a lot whilst Pietersen is the same old batsman..

Yeah, the same old batsman that smashed Warne and McGrath in 05 and smashed the South Africans in 2004. Wish he would hurry up and become a good player.




Oh wait....

 

[91Jmay]

That's exaggerated to be honest. I actually would pick Watson over Flintoff if he were to stay fit. And it's not like Watson is being picked as an all-rounder. The closest all-rounder we have is Johnson, and IIRC people we already had a poll on this and Johnson came ahead. And I would actually pick Hauritz over Swann even now. Look at the figures, Hauritz has done better than Swann this series.

And those are the most contentious positions. Yes, teams will have 1-2 players here or there that can get into other sides but the Australian side is by far tougher to get into. As decent as Strauss is doing at the moment, looking at his career he would not play for Australia even long enough to accumulate those runs. Not good enough. Yet this is besides the point, because we are talking about the prospects. Neither Broad, Cook, Bopara or Bell would be near contention for the Aussie side and that's the truth.

That is just hilarious. Hauritz wouldn't be considered for an English squad either. A fully fit Flintoff >>>>>> Watson with ball and in terms of proven test ability Flintoff clearly has the edge with the bat. So Katich having nearly the same average as Strauss (infact actually lower) clearly shows how this amazing Australian team doesn't allow sub 50 averaging batsmen in. Cook is = to Katich when you consider the near 10 year age difference and Cooks superior number of 100's, runs and average. Hughes has had 5 good innings on pitches that suit him and 3 bad innings on pitches that don't - totally unrateable so far in his career (not to mention a duck on the pitches that favour him).

Lets look at the Australian team as a whole:
Hughes - Can't rate him yet
Katich - Above average at his best
Ponting - World Class
Hussey - Above average at best, not scored consistent test runs for his last 21 tests (averages less than 30).
Clarke - Very good player, will be World Class with a two more years of consistent scoring.
North - Technical issues seem to plague him. Not really proven at test level - worked out by any kind of swing bowling.
Haddin - Good lower order bat, but keeping leaves something to be desired.
Johnson - At his best world class, at his worst barely Test class
Hauritz - Sub-standard test spinner, shouldn't make a top test side.
Siddle - Great trier, is a decent test performer - but doesn't have the potential to ever be a top class performer.
Hilfenhaus - A good swing bowler, but was poor in South Africa. Will be a solid player for awhile though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Given that most our line-up is new, that's not surprising. Yet do you think if they were to stay that way we would actually keep them? Like England might?

Brett Lee's had a long trial then, eh? 300+ wickets' worth.

A team picks the best bowling talent available, whether the talent averages over or above 30 is dependent on the quality of that generation of players.

 

[Wiglad]

From what i've seen the aussies bowling looks dire, england have more strength and more depth in that department.

 

[Prince EWS]

Great, that's pretty much my take on it.

Mine too, funnily enough.

If England win it'll be because the conditions and player form eclipsed the gap in quality between the two teams, IMO. I don't think many would actually claim that England were, in fact, the better overall team. I certainly wouldn't.

That doesn't mean they can't play better in the series though. All I'm saying is that the gap is small enough for precisely this to happen without Australia having actually done much wrong other than have a few players fall out of form.

 

[PhoenixFire]

91Jmay..

Mate, I'm going to have to disagree with you about Flintoff having the edge over Watson in the batting depo. Reckon Watto is properly good top order batsman, Flintoff a good middle order hitter.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Mine too, funnily enough.

If England win it'll be because the conditions and player form eclipsed the gap in quality between the two teams, IMO. I don't think many would actually claim that England were, in fact, the better overall team. I certainly wouldn't.

That doesn't mean they can't play better in the series though. All I'm saying is that the gap is small enough for precisely this to happen without Australia having actually done much wrong other than have a few players fall out of form.

No, quite. But it's far from obvious that it must be Australia underperforming that makes the difference. It might be, but, as Ira Gershwin would have it, it ain't necessarily so.

 

[91Jmay]

91Jmay..

Mate, I'm going to have to disagree with you about Flintoff having the edge over Watson in the batting depo. Reckon Watto is properly good top order batsman, Flintoff a good middle order hitter.

So having a test average in the low 20's in Test matches is better than having a low 30 test average?

Just because Watson has batted well in this Test doesn't mean we should discount his prior exploits in Test Cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, quite. But it's far from obvious that it must be Australia underperforming that makes the difference. It might be, but, as Ira Gershwin would have it, it ain't necessarily so.

Yeah, agree completely.