*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Pothas]

"Lack of alternatives" is often a deliberately negative way of looking at "the best players are currently in there". Apart from the fact that the latter is just about all any cricket supporter has any remote right to ask of selectors, the instance where you can look at the seven best players to bat in the top seven and say that, in a Test starting tomorrow, you could have reasonable confidence in them all is very rare - for England or anyone else. Even West Indies between 1976 and 1986 and Australia between 1989 and 2006/07 (two of the best sides the game has seen, which current-England are not remotely close to being) had such a thing only for a season at a time, absolute maximum.

And BTW, currently England have in the way of batting alternatives Carberry, Shah and Joyce (and, maybe, whisper it, Morgan). None of whom are write-offs with no realistic chance of Test success - if any was brought in in place of one of the top seven tomorrow I would believe it possible that they could succeed. You can never, ever know with an untried player, but all of them have something going for them.

Can see what you are saying but there are problems here, you say that the thing England have at the moment is very rare but is it really? Think you can argue that Australia have the same thing right now, they are ALL proven test performers apart from North who has done exactly the same thing as Trott, scored an excellent hundred on debut, (plus two a couple more) followed by some unconvincing performances.

As for those England alternatives well obviously there might be some potential players yet to surface but what I meant was that unlike in the past with England there is not a player with previous test experience that is really pushing for a place.

 

[pasag]

People can go on with this fable about Hauritz outbowling Swann last summer until the cows come home, fact is Swann bowled us to victory on the final day twice (bit of help from Freddie the first time ) and that's what spinners are for. We do have the spin advantage as far as I can ee but as you and Burgey have said, it's not likely to be a factor this time out.

I think people are overstating it by saying Australia's bowling is more better than ours. More consistent, definitely, but on a good day I'd take ours, quite easily. Only Jimmeh is heavily reliant on swing, Broad much less so - with him, if he gets his line and length right, he'll take wickets, and Onions isn't an out and out swing bowler at all.

Whilst it's often said we struggle on flat decks, the making of Broad was the Carribean last year, you'll never see flatter pitches.





must-try-harder

You're missing the point though and that's that who has the better spinner isn't really a factor and even though it gets mentioned time and time again before Australia play. We saw in the last Ashes that it had very little bearing and it hasn't in most series we've played post-Warne tbh.

 

[four_or_six]

You're missing the point though and that's that who has the better spinner isn't really a factor and even though it gets mentioned time and time again before Australia play. We saw in the last Ashes that it had very little bearing and it hasn't in most series we've played post-Warne tbh.

'Who has a better spinner' may not have been an issue, but 'who didn't even bother to play a spinner at all on a turning track' may well have been. And surely if Australia had a better spinner they would have played him then.

Not that I think this will be an issue this time around, there's surely no way Australia will go into one of the tests without a spinner, especially if Watson is in the team.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

How is Siddle better than Broad?

Siddle is better then Broad by a fair distance. I don't know where you are getting at with that comment. Siddle has averaged under 30 with the ball for the better bit of his career whilst Broad has averaged over 40 until just recently. Even after a poor few matches, Siddle averages something like 5-6 runs better then Broad does and Broad supposedly bowls in more friendly conditions. Broad isn't even England's best bowler and Siddle's taken more match-winning 5fers then Broad.

 

[age_master]

Siddle is better then Broad by a fair distance. I don't know where you are getting at with that comment. Siddle has averaged under 30 with the ball for the better bit of his career whilst Broad has averaged over 40 until just recently. Even after a poor few matches, Siddle averages something like 5-6 runs better then Broad does and Broad supposedly bowls in more friendly conditions. Broad isn't even England's best bowler and Siddle's taken more match-winning 5fers then Broad.

5wi - Siddle has 2, Broad 3. I dont really rate either of them though. Siddle might not be there either depending on how his back recovers.

 

[GIMH]

You're missing the point though and that's that who has the better spinner isn't really a factor and even though it gets mentioned time and time again before Australia play. We saw in the last Ashes that it had very little bearing and it hasn't in most series we've played post-Warne tbh.

I'm not missing the point - I acknowledged that spin might not be a big factor, but as I said I'd disagree that it wasn't a factor last time. The two matches we won both features big roles from Swann in the second innings, especially at The Oval. I don't know how that is 'very little bearing' given that we won the series 2-1. Hauritz did a decent job on the last day at cardiff, but couldn't bowl his side to victory, at the death. That's the difference, for me.

 

[Richard]

Can see what you are saying but there are problems here, you say that the thing England have at the moment is very rare but is it really? Think you can argue that Australia have the same thing right now, they are ALL proven test performers apart from North who has done exactly the same thing as Trott, scored an excellent hundred on debut, (plus two a couple more) followed by some unconvincing performances.

North was only unconvincing in the most recent home summer TBH, but should he turn-out Test-class long-term (which I certainly wouldn't be amazed at) then Australia's three-to-seven is indeed of rare strength and something they only very briefly enjoyed in their heydays. But both of their current openers are manufactured, and neither is likely to enjoy a lengthy productive spell in the role.

Anyway in case anyone was doubting I'm not for a second saying that England's batting-line-up > Australia's because I don't believe it is. Just that England right now are somewhere that they've not often been.

As for those England alternatives well obviously there might be some potential players yet to surface but what I meant was that unlike in the past with England there is not a player with previous test experience that is really pushing for a place.

Perhaps that's a good thing - however many times Crawley, Hick, Ramprakash and the likes kept pushing for Test places and (understandably) got many chances, none of them managed more than very brief spells where they actually made use of their chances.

With hindsight it might well have been better for the likes of Bailey, Maynard, Morris (Hugh, not John), James and Habib to have had more chances. We'll never know if any of them would've made Test-class cricketers but none of them ever got a remotely fair crack of the whip, because their good domestic performances were outshone by the brilliance of Hick, Crawley and Ramprakash (and because they were sometimes stupidly ignored in favour of average county pros like Larkins, John Morris, Lathwell, Gallian, Alan Wells, Irani, Adam Hollioake, Maddy, Adams, Ian Ward and Ed Smith; and, even more ridiculously, Afzaal who at the time he was selected wasn't even that). Shah looks like he's going to go the same way, and Joyce might well not even get a crack at all - like Loye didn't.

TBH, I'd prefer having someone pushing for a Test place who's never or hardly played than someone who's played lots and failed lots (because by definition someone who's played and succeeded isn't going to be out of the side for long).

 

[Furball]

But both of their current openers are manufactured, and neither is likely to enjoy a lengthy productive spell in the role.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Good call.

 

[Richard]

Not entirely sure what that set of stats has to do with the quoted selection.

 

[Furball]

Not entirely sure what that set of stats has to do with the quoted selection.

Australia's openers are manufactured and unlikely to go on a run of success.

I'd say over 2,000 runs in your last 25 Tests at an average of 52 is a pretty good run.

 

[Richard]

Watson and Katich have opened together only in 7 of Australia's last 8 Tests.

 

[Furball]

Watson and Katich have opened together only in 7 of Australia's last 8 Tests.

Thought you were referring to them individually rather as a pairing, which is why I didn't use Watson's opening stats, because he's only been doing it for a couple of series.

 

[Richard]

The openers used before Watson and Katich (Hayden, Jaques, Hughes) aren't manufactured openers - well, one could argue that Jaques is actually but I don't know his full story so don't want to comment too favourably.

Certainly Jaques is far more of an opener than either Katich or Watson, neither of whom are first-choice openers for their states even. They're mirroring Wavell Hinds, except that both are technically far more sound than he is.

 

[zaremba]

Ach Richard, let's not get into that Manufactured Openers nonsense again, or I shall wheel out the old examples of middle-order biffer Graham Gooch and specialist No.3 Mike Atherton. If playing as an opener from an early age is a prerequisite then the only true opening batsmen I can think of who've played for England in recent years are Alistair Cook, Phil Tufnell and Stuart Broad. Tufnell was an opening bowler and batsman and a manufactured spinner and prank tailender. Stuart Broad is a lapsed opener and manufactured bowler. Etc etc etc

 

[Richard]

As I said - you might be right about Gooch but Atherton was unless I'm very much mistaken always an opening batsman through youth cricket. He only batted three for Lancs early on because they had the established pair of the Lankan Mendis and Fowler when he came into the side and he was too good to sit on the bench, even in his teens.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh so youth cricket counts now? Mark Waugh was a manufactured middle-order batter then.

 

[pasag]

I'm not missing the point - I acknowledged that spin might not be a big factor, but as I said I'd disagree that it wasn't a factor last time. The two matches we won both features big roles from Swann in the second innings, especially at The Oval. I don't know how that is 'very little bearing' given that we won the series 2-1. Hauritz did a decent job on the last day at cardiff, but couldn't bowl his side to victory, at the death. That's the difference, for me.

But at times he was rubbish and at times Hauritz was really good and contributed well to the Australian cause which evened it out. But that's not here nor there - the point is that with these two mid-level spinners they're really not worth discussing in the lead up. It's like saying Australia has the advantage because they have the better all-rounder, or the better wicketkeeper bat. They're just minor things that only add fluff to the main argument.

 

[zaremba]

But at times he was rubbish and at times Hauritz was really good and contributed well to the Australian cause which evened it out. But that's not here nor there - the point is that with these two mid-level spinners they're really not worth discussing in the lead up. It's like saying Australia has the advantage because they have the better all-rounder, or the better wicketkeeper bat. They're just minor things that only add fluff to the main argument.

Ironically it was the minor things that gave England an edge in the 2009 series and which kept them afloat against SA. In particular lower order batting ability which has now become a real strength and which can turn games. As we all know England's front line batsmen were outplayed by their Crim counterparts.

 

[GIMH]

But at times he was rubbish and at times Hauritz was really good and contributed well to the Australian cause which evened it out. But that's not here nor there - the point is that with these two mid-level spinners they're really not worth discussing in the lead up. It's like saying Australia has the advantage because they have the better all-rounder, or the better wicketkeeper bat. They're just minor things that only add fluff to the main argument.

Okay, I see what you mean, and though I disagree that Hauritz's contributions evened anything out, that's not really the direction we want to be going in.

Ironically though, I'd say having the better all-rounder does give a side an advantage, as zaremba said out all-round depth was hugely important last year and Watson having a summer like the one he's just had would be huge to the cause. Personally, I think every bit of a side is worth discussing in a series this big - they all add to the overall bigger picture.

I think bowling is the most interesting part because I do genuinely believe that Broad could do some serious damage over there, we'll see though. God I can't wait already.

 

[Burgey]

Can't believe there's aggro already between UK and Aussie posters on some of these points. Why can't we all just get along?