*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[archie mac]

I have been waiting for James to start the next Ashes Official thread

Is it too early?

Am I the only one excited enough, who wants to start talking about it now?

Is Ricky going to retire if Aust win?

Is it going to be all over by Melbourne again?

Can this thread be deleted as spam??????????

 

[Streetwise]

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

 

[fredfertang]

Some of us aren't so keen to stop talking about the last Ashes just yet

 

[Richard]

I guess we'll have another Ashes subforum for 2010/11, but we had a "road to" thread in about 2007/08 for the 2009 one, so 8 months before the start certainly isn't too early.

I guess the big question is how badly is England's side going to be disrupted by injuries this time? Last time England had a relatively uninterrupted tour of Australia was 1986/87, when Australia instead were disrupted by Rebel-tour bans. So it has to be regarded as unlikely that England won't suffer, but if they do, it's surprisingly easy to make a confident-ish prediction of what nine of out eleven names will be:
Strauss (C)
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Prior (W) - I'm daring to believe there, but I'm still not absolutely confident yet
Swann
?
Anderson
?

The most interesting thing is that England, essentially, have a single proper Test series between now and The Ashes, and that against the Pakistanis who might well resemble a rabble due to their catching ineptitude and infighting. There isn't much scope for players to lose form. It has to be regarded as likely, too, that Broad and Onions will fill the last two slots, as they have in Broad's case and should have in Onions' case for the last home and away season (Onions has missed 3 Tests, all of which he had a strong case to play, and Broad has played the last 15 in a row).

Australia, too, have just 4 Tests remaining, 2 of which come in England and also against Pakistan (again). Both sides will have seen rather too much of Pakistan recently when they come to Ashes action. Let's hope the catching doesn't rub-off.

 

[GIMH]

Broad is nailed-on for me, Trott not so much

 

[James]

Worth renaming this thread to *Official* Road to the Ashes 2010-2011 guys?

 

[Richard]

Broad is nailed-on for me, Trott not so much

Reckon Trott's had a decent-ish start to his Test career, and can only see him having pretty good figures in the Pakistan Tests TBH, given how many catches they're likely to drop.

Broad is certainly very likely, but if he should return really poor figures against Pakistan it's just an outside bet he'll be dropped mid-series. Even though he's been miles better since the start of 2009 than he was before, his Test bowling average in that time is still just 30.37, and that flatters him a little. In truth, he's bowled that one sensational spell in the first-innings of the Fifth Test of the previous Ashes, a handful of decent-ish ones besides, and been ineffective, still, plenty. The fact that he remains something of a golden-child counts in his favour in selection if not effectiveness.

Onions is of course less so, but he unquestionably should start against the Pakistanis if he comes close to repeating his last 2009's figures early in 2010, and it's then up to him to take it from there. If he plays against the Pakistanis and is ineffective, someone else has to be given a shot.

 

[Richard]

Worth renaming this thread to *Official* Road to the Ashes 2010-2011 guys?

Can't exactly hurt IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Reckon Trott's had a decent-ish start to his Test career, and can only see him having pretty good figures in the Pakistan Tests TBH, given how many catches they're likely to drop.

Broad is certainly very likely, but if he should return really poor figures against Pakistan it's just an outside bet he'll be dropped mid-series. Even though he's been miles better since the start of 2009 than he was before, his Test bowling average in that time is still just 30.37, and that flatters him a little. In truth, he's bowled that one sensational spell in the first-innings of the Fifth Test of the previous Ashes, a handful of decent-ish ones besides, and been ineffective, still, plenty. The fact that he remains something of a golden-child counts in his favour in selection if not effectiveness.

Onions is of course less so, but he unquestionably should start against the Pakistanis if he comes close to repeating his last 2009's figures early in 2010, and it's then up to him to take it from there. If he plays against the Pakistanis and is ineffective, someone else has to be given a shot.

Spell in South Africa to win us the Test was better than 'decentish'. I don't agree that 30.37 flatters him, he was our best seamer in 2009 quite comfortably IMO.

I like Trott, and like you expect him to do well this summer - but if he doesn't then I think his place will be under threat. He never exactly set the world on fire in South Africa.

 

[Richard]

Spell in South Africa to win us the Test was better than 'decentish'. I don't agree that 30.37 flatters him, he was our best seamer in 2009 quite comfortably IMO.

One could argue that he was the best; one could also argue that Anderson was better. I certainly don't think there's a comfortably about it. Certainly, though, neither of them were outstanding. As I said, Broad bowled decently-ish against West Indies away and home and dreadfully in the first four Tests of The Ashes and brilliantly in the first-innings of the Fifth (pretty poorly again in the second-innings). In South Africa he bowled well in the one Test and pretty moderately in the other three.

I like Trott, and like you expect him to do well this summer - but if he doesn't then I think his place will be under threat. He never exactly set the world on fire in South Africa.

For a first series, I thought Trott did decently enough in South Africa, and bearing in mind his batting game and his domestic record I have about as much confidence in his ability to carve-out a decent Test career in the foreseeable future as I do of anyone. You can never say absolutely for sure - any of Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and certainly Bell could crash and burn, never being the same again, starting from the next Test, but I'm pretty confident in all seven batsmen in the side presently, something that hasn't happened... well, ever, in my time. Came very close in 1998 (Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Russell almost happened but not quite) and 2001 (Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash looked like it was going to happen then didn't), but never quite happened.

 

[pasag]

Not pumped at all.

 

[King Pietersen]

As I said, Broad bowled dreadfully in the first four Tests of The Ashes and brilliantly in the first-innings of the Fifth (pretty poorly again in the second-innings). In .

Don't think he bowled dreadfully in the 4th Test. Was England's best bowler in the innings at Headingley, picking up key wickets and a decent haul. He didn't bowl as well as he did in that spell at Lords, but he certainly wasn't dreadful. Do agree with the analysis of the rest of his series though, was surprised he kept his place after his performances in the first 3 Tests.

 

[slowfinger]

I think Trott has shows his capability when he first joined the scene last summer, getting a good start . But not he has stumbled a little bit but really it's early days and anything can happen.I think you can trust him and his figures show it:
Trott
and his consistency has been impeckable and he pretty much saved England in the Ashes a couple of times.

This is his career so far with a flying start but then stumbling against SAfricans:
Batting record

And as for Stuart Broad, I think he has established himself as a medium pace bowler-mabe fast medium. The last few months his bowling has been really good and against Pak yesterday he proved it. He needs to learn to pitch it a bit fuller but I think he hasn' done badly, I mean, he is improving.

He also struggles desperately on flat wickets but when it comes to a nice greener wicket then he really can put on pressure with his height and bounce.

Stuart Broad Bowling analysis

With his batting though, he isn't really sparking with me, stubborn and just hangs around and really doesnt know what he's doing, which compliments his 26 and 14 average, but he is only 24 and can still improve so I would keep him in the team because he ripped OZ apart in the last test and he can do it again if he wants, methinks.

Lets see anyways...

 

[GIMH]

One could argue that he was the best; one could also argue that Anderson was better. I certainly don't think there's a comfortably about it. Certainly, though, neither of them were outstanding. As I said, Broad bowled decently-ish against West Indies away and home and dreadfully in the first four Tests of The Ashes and brilliantly in the first-innings of the Fifth (pretty poorly again in the second-innings). In South Africa he bowled well in the one Test and pretty moderately in the other three.

Nah - in the Ashes, he bowled well in the second innings at Edgbaston and was our best bowler by a MILE at Headingley. I know he got a couple of 'gimmes' at the end, but he took a Test 6fer, hardly bowling 'dreadfully'. Agree with your assessment of him in South Africa -had a quiet time aside from his magic spell, but certainly didn't look like a bowler who'd be dropped after an isolated stinker anytime soon, which was my main point.

For a first series, I thought Trott did decently enough in South Africa, and bearing in mind his batting game and his domestic record I have about as much confidence in his ability to carve-out a decent Test career in the foreseeable future as I do of anyone. You can never say absolutely for sure - any of Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and certainly Bell could crash and burn, never being the same again, starting from the next Test, but I'm pretty confident in all seven batsmen in the side presently, something that hasn't happened... well, ever, in my time. Came very close in 1998 (Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Russell almost happened but not quite) and 2001 (Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash looked like it was going to happen then didn't), but never quite happened.

He had some silly dismissals and perhaps looked a little out of place at 3. I'd loathe to put Bell back there though, especially in Australia, so I dunno. The most comfortable 3 we've had aside from Vaughan in recent years was Cook, and that's not really an option.

 

[Neil Pickup]

As excited as I am about the prospect of flying halfway round the world for this one, let's worry about the three series we have beforehand first.

Losing to Bangladesh if we don't focus.

 

[Richard]

Don't think he bowled dreadfully in the 4th Test. Was England's best bowler in the innings at Headingley, picking up key wickets and a decent haul. He didn't bowl as well as he did in that spell at Lords, but he certainly wasn't dreadful. Do agree with the analysis of the rest of his series though, was surprised he kept his place after his performances in the first 3 Tests.

I wasn't really surprised he kept his place, I was expecting him to play the full series if fit almost regardless of the figures returned in the first four Tests. Maybe, just maybe, his place might've been under threat in the Fifth Test with the score at 1-1 if someone other than him had been gifted the wickets he was gifted in the Australian innings at Headingley - because that's what happened, let's be honest. None of the wickets were key either - England were dead-and-buried after their first-innings performance.

Which spell at Lord's are you talking about BTW, the one against West Indies?

 

[Jono]

Fair few tests to come before this series for both teams right?

 

[King Pietersen]

I wasn't really surprised he kept his place, I was expecting him to play the full series if fit almost regardless of the figures returned in the first four Tests. Maybe, just maybe, his place might've been under threat in the Fifth Test with the score at 1-1 if someone other than him had been gifted the wickets he was gifted in the Australian innings at Headingley - because that's what happened, let's be honest. None of the wickets were key either - England were dead-and-buried after their first-innings performance.

Sure we were pretty dead and buried before he got most of those wickets, but the ones of Ponting and Hussey gave us some hope, and reduced Australia to 151-4, which really gave us a chance of not going into the 2nd innings with too much of a deficit. The Clarke and North partnership basically ended any hopes of us winning, but Broad's spell before then which resulted in the wickets Ponting and Hussey was genuinely good and did give us a glimmer of hope. The tail-end wickets were gimme's though.

Which spell at Lord's are you talking about BTW, the one against West Indies?

That was a mistake, meant The Oval.

 

[Richard]

Nah - in the Ashes, he bowled well in the second innings at Edgbaston and was our best bowler by a MILE at Headingley. I know he got a couple of 'gimmes' at the end, but he took a Test 6fer, hardly bowling 'dreadfully'. Agree with your assessment of him in South Africa -had a quiet time aside from his magic spell, but certainly didn't look like a bowler who'd be dropped after an isolated stinker anytime soon, which was my main point.

Well I disagree with your assessments of him at both Edgbaston and Headingley, but I doubt either of us will change our viewpoints so best leave it there.

He had some silly dismissals and perhaps looked a little out of place at 3. I'd loathe to put Bell back there though, especially in Australia, so I dunno. The most comfortable 3 we've had aside from Vaughan in recent years was Cook, and that's not really an option.

Three is a notoriously difficult position. There are two viable options, Trott and Pietersen, either of whom might be fair enough - if England's management put Bell back there YET AGAIN (it'll be about the 5th time if so) I might be forced to hunt down the person responsible. For the 3rd time he's looking relatively comfortable at six and if they move him again it might just be the end of his prospects. England managements have wrecked enough players by vainly trying to make them something they're not rather than accepting the best they have to offer.

 

[Richard]

Fair few tests to come before this series for both teams right?

Nah, as I said - 4 for England (all against Pakistan) and 4 for Australia (2 against Pakistan, in England).

Well, England also play 4 games against Bangladesh but especially the ones in England are unlikely to be of any use to anyone and of course none of them really deserve Test status.