2010/11 Ashes XI

[Spark]

Not a whole lot of chances tbf.

didn't say there was a huge gap, just enough to bridge the gap between their batting - which I don't think is enormous.

 

[Burgey]

Would have Johnson in ahead of Swann, frankly. Yeah Swann was the best spinner in the side, but he's hardly done that much. It's a personal thing of course, but I would like to see Johnson operate in that 3rd-4th quick role behind two blokes bowling well, rather than trying to lead the attack.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think Swann's been serviceable rather than super, but he's played a big holding role down one end whilst still applying pressure, which is more than you can say for pretty much all of our quicks. He's probably still going to average better than Johnson for the series, and he's been a massive partnership bowler for them.

Especially with Watson missing out on the team, you need him being able to churn through large numbers of overs down one end into the breeze.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah fair points. He keeps the overs ticking by too.

 

[Furball]

Would have Johnson in ahead of Swann, frankly. Yeah Swann was the best spinner in the side, but he's hardly done that much. It's a personal thing of course, but I would like to see Johnson operate in that 3rd-4th quick role behind two blokes bowling well, rather than trying to lead the attack.

There's not much of a difference between them, they've each bowled their side to victory in one Test and been fairly innocous for the series, if Swann snares a couple tomorrow then they'll end up with pretty similar series figures.

The crucial difference between them IMO is that when conditions haven't been in Swann's favour he's held up an end and built pressure by bowling pots of overs economically whilst prising out key wickets at key times. Outwith Perth, Johnson has bowled rubbish.

edit: or, basically, what Jack said.

 

[four_or_six]

There's not much of a difference between them, they've each bowled their side to victory in one Test and been fairly innocous for the series, if Swann snares a couple tomorrow then they'll end up with pretty similar series figures.

The crucial difference between them IMO is that when conditions haven't been in Swann's favour he's held up an end and built pressure by bowling pots of overs economically whilst prising out key wickets at key times. Outwith Perth, Johnson has bowled rubbish.

edit: or, basically, what Jack said.

Economy rates:

Swann - 2.7
Johnson - 4.1

 

[Furball]

Economy rates:

Swann - 2.7
Johnson - 4.1

Which I pointed out in my 2nd paragraph. In terms of 5fors, matchwinnimg performances, wickets taken and average they're both pretty similar.

 

[four_or_six]

Which I pointed out in my 2nd paragraph. In terms of 5fors, matchwinnimg performances, wickets taken and average they're both pretty similar.

Except Johnson's had matchlosing performances too. Plus he was dropped for the pitch he'd probably have gone worst on.

 

[MW1304]

Strauss *
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Prior †
Swann
Siddle
Tremlett
Anderson

 

[Howe_zat]

Except Johnson's had matchlosing performances too. Plus he was dropped for the pitch he'd probably have gone worst on.

Or was he rested?

I think that you have to compare the players based on their roles in the side, and so you can't really compare Swann's holding role and partnership bowling to Johnson's mercurial strike bowler role. Tremlett and Anderson have been the best aggressors by far.

So while I would hear an argument regarding Siddle in the side ahead of Swann I wouldn't take Johnson. Bresnan would get in but questions remain over whether he could have done better all series.

For similar reasons, you have to compare Strauss to Ponting and not Watson, and you would go with the better captain's performance.

Prior vs Haddin is closer. Keeping was fairly even - both missed simple chances - though Prior's footwork has really improved. I wouldn't mind either being picked, Haddin for being tough at the start of the series or Prior pushing the advantage at the end. I'd take Haddin for batting against the better attack.

Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Hussey, Bell, Haddin, Swann, Siddle/Bresnan, Tremlett, Anderson.

 

[zaremba]

Watson out, unless you want half the batting order run out.

Yeah fair point. But he's scored more runs than Strauss and his bowling is very very handy.

 

[Furball]

Yeah fair point. But he's scored more runs than Strauss and his bowling is very very handy.

He's also had 3 more innings than Strauss in which to bat, his bowling has largely been innocuous and wouldn't be needed in England's side (and this isn't really an Ashes XI, it's a "which Australians would get a game for England" side), and he's played no innings of any real substancein the series, save maybe for his 95 at Perth if you're being generous. Strauss on the other hand has hit a 2nd innings ton to help save a Test in Brisbane and 1st innings 50s at Melbourne and Sydney to help put England in a position to win both Tests.

 

[GIMH]

I think Swann's been serviceable rather than super, but he's played a big holding role down one end whilst still applying pressure, which is more than you can say for pretty much all of our quicks. He's probably still going to average better than Johnson for the series, and he's been a massive partnership bowler for them.

Especially with Watson missing out on the team, you need him being able to churn through large numbers of overs down one end into the breeze.

Agree with all of this except Swann is averaging quite a few higher IIRC

 

[Howe_zat]

Agree with all of this except Swann is averaging quite a few higher IIRC

Johnson 37, Swann 42. But it's not all about stats.

 

[GIMH]

Yep, hence why I said I agreed with everything else he said

 

[Prince EWS]

The fact that Doherty and Beer have played three Tests between them is a great example of why Swann has to be picked. Johnson may have technically had a more effective series but Swann performed his role to a much better standard and I don't think the difference between Johnson and Swann is anywhere near big enough to ignore the variety Swann gives. Expanding on that - unlike someone a Hauritz/Harris who offers variety only in changing the pace of the attack and can't really take advantage of a turning surface, Swann offers variety in being able to perform in a way others can't when the pitch is in a different condition - and he demonstrated within the series too, so it's a valid point for a series team.

 

[Furball]

Or was he rested?

I think that you have to compare the players based on their roles in the side, and so you can't really compare Swann's holding role and partnership bowling to Johnson's mercurial strike bowler role. Tremlett and Anderson have been the best aggressors by far.

So while I would hear an argument regarding Siddle in the side ahead of Swann I wouldn't take Johnson. Bresnan would get in but questions remain over whether he could have done better all series.

For similar reasons, you have to compare Strauss to Ponting and not Watson, and you would go with the better captain's performance.

Prior vs Haddin is closer. Keeping was fairly even - both missed simple chances - though Prior's footwork has really improved. I wouldn't mind either being picked, Haddin for being tough at the start of the series or Prior pushing the advantage at the end. I'd take Haddin for batting against the better attack.

Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Hussey, Bell, Haddin, Swann, Siddle/Bresnan, Tremlett, Anderson.

IMO you have to rate players based on what they've done, rather than what they might have done. Bresnan strung two excellent performances together, which is more than anyone not named James Anderson or Chris Tremlett managed.

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Prior
Bresnan
Swann
Anderson
Tremlett

12th man: Siddle

 

[zaremba]

He's also had 3 more innings than Strauss in which to bat, his bowling has largely been innocuous and wouldn't be needed in England's side (and this isn't really an Ashes XI, it's a "which Australians would get a game for England" side), and he's played no innings of any real substancein the series, save maybe for his 95 at Perth if you're being generous. Strauss on the other hand has hit a 2nd innings ton to help save a Test in Brisbane and 1st innings 50s at Melbourne and Sydney to help put England in a position to win both Tests.

Well yes he's had more innings than Strauss but he also averages 48 to Strauss' 43.

As to whether he's made a substantial contribution, although he's not made a big score, he has been freakishly consistent in getting good starts, as that average of 48 shows.

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler. And I also disagree that he wouldn't be needed by England's team. The greatest weakness in this England team is the lack of a 5th bowler. Colly isn't really up to the task, his 2 wickets in this series notwithstanding. That weakness has not been costly because the Aussies have rarely managed to put a lengthy innings together and because the 4 England bowlers have rarely had an off-day. But the lack of a 5th bowler would be a problem in different circumstances, and a player like Watson balances the team very nicely.

Having said which, there are other factors that need to be taken into account such as Strauss' catching and Watson's running between the wickets and haircut and nationality.

 

[GIMH]

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler.

Damning with faint praise indeed

 

[Howe_zat]

Well yes he's had more innings than Strauss but he also averages 48 to Strauss' 43.

As to whether he's made a substantial contribution, although he's not made a big score, he has been freakishly consistent in getting good starts, as that average of 48 shows.

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler. And I also disagree that he wouldn't be needed by England's team. The greatest weakness in this England team is the lack of a 5th bowler. Colly isn't really up to the task, his 2 wickets in this series notwithstanding. That weakness has not been costly because the Aussies have rarely managed to put a lengthy innings together and because the 4 England bowlers have rarely had an off-day. But the lack of a 5th bowler would be a problem in different circumstances, and a player like Watson balances the team very nicely.

Having said which, there are other factors that need to be taken into account such as Strauss' catching and Watson's running between the wickets and haircut and nationality.

Strauss was captain. Every side needs a captain, literally has to, and we have to judge on who played better this series, not who might have done okay.

Picking a composite XI without a captain is like picking one without a keeper.