benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It depends on the conditions. And just confirm for me, is it the team I would pick or what the team will most likely look like?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Can't read too much into a side they put out against a minnow
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Ha, a quiet but genuine lol there.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Going with the assumption Watson isn't going to bowl and the conditions are typical English conditions and everyone is fit (unlikely):
Watson
Warner
Hughes
Doolan
Clarke
Khawaja/Marsh(yep)/Henriques (if Lyon plays)
Haddin
Starc
Pattinson
Harris
Bird/Lyon
I'll post what I think we'll play later.
Watson
Warner
Hughes
Doolan
Clarke
Khawaja/Marsh(yep)/Henriques (if Lyon plays)
Haddin
Starc
Pattinson
Harris
Bird/Lyon
I'll post what I think we'll play later.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
As I said during the last test, god knows what their selectors will do as a kneejerk reaction if they get hammered in India (which could easily happen)
It would be stupid to rip it up and start again but they may do as they seem totally confused as to what they should be doing of late.
It would be stupid to rip it up and start again but they may do as they seem totally confused as to what they should be doing of late.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I suppose Hussey's retirement caught them out, and there's always uncertainty about which of their quicks will be available; neither of which helps the selectors.
I'd be surprised if they read too much into losing in India, assuming that happens. As you say, it would be stupid to start again, especially as conditions in England will be very different, and I'm guessing that they aren't really that dim. Their aim should be to provide as much stability as possible to support Clarke so they can at least stay reasonably competitive with the bat, knowing that their first choice quicks are capable of inflicting some serious damage on the English line-up. I think they'll play a sixth batsman ahead of Wade in England to help achieve that, but otherwise the side won't look too different.
That being said, I don't get Hughes at 3 at all.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
From an Aussie selector's perspective, if Wade is such a good bat shouldn't he playing as a specialist at least given how ****e the other options are?
LongHopCassidy
International Captain
RAWTA. You never know, might do a Sangakkara without the demons of three dropped catches in the previous innings haunting him every time he bats.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Given the lack of competition and the fact that Wade averages above 40 in both tests and fc already, it might be worthwhile retaining Wade as a batsman if the selectors decided to ditch him as a keeper
Having said that, PEWS makes a good comparison between Wade and early-Prior in another thread and I think that is a more likely outcome
Anyway, 6 is not the problem for Oz as there are a number of players that could potentially bat in that position.
The problem is in 3 of the top 4 (Warner aside)
One of the most remarkable aspects of the run-spree that Clarke has been on since becoming captain is that it was something like 17 tests before he came to the wicket with at least 100 on the board
That is a disgraceful statistic and it wont change until the selectors deem that 30s are not good enough and make a change
Last edited:
theegyptian
International Vice-Captain
meh for all that australia are unsettled if England lost Anderson they'd be in pretty big trouble. Probably still win at home but lose away imo.
From England's so called quality attack of a couple of years ago there is no guarantee Bresnan, Broad and Tremlett are going to be anywhere near the peaks they've reached in the past. All 3 have had pretty serious injury problems. Yes the aussies have plenty of injury problem but they're bowlers are less than 25 and are still developing their bodies for fast bowling and more likely to recover fully with no impact on the future; the england bowlers problems are more long term as I see it and could impact the rest of their careers.
Swann is another who is bowling a reduced number of overs because of his elbow and his influence seems to be waning.
Australians reserve of fast bowlers seems pretty exhaustive even with all the injuries. Englands isn't quite so. Onions is still a very good bowler (NZ tour match doesn't look good but he's basically played no cricket all winter and is an aggresive bowler. This has happened before) but is now 30 and as an attacking bowler (and poor tailender) he doesn't fit too well into England's expectations of a 3rd seamer. Woakes is still untested but it doesn't look like there is any great potential there. Finn is decent but not particularly skilled.
So I think it's pretty damn vital that Anderson stays fit. He's pretty near his peak right now.
Of course so much for England will rely on Cook and Trott laying a foundation. If Aus can knock these two over regularly England have real problems.
blah blah blah.
From England's so called quality attack of a couple of years ago there is no guarantee Bresnan, Broad and Tremlett are going to be anywhere near the peaks they've reached in the past. All 3 have had pretty serious injury problems. Yes the aussies have plenty of injury problem but they're bowlers are less than 25 and are still developing their bodies for fast bowling and more likely to recover fully with no impact on the future; the england bowlers problems are more long term as I see it and could impact the rest of their careers.
Swann is another who is bowling a reduced number of overs because of his elbow and his influence seems to be waning.
Australians reserve of fast bowlers seems pretty exhaustive even with all the injuries. Englands isn't quite so. Onions is still a very good bowler (NZ tour match doesn't look good but he's basically played no cricket all winter and is an aggresive bowler. This has happened before) but is now 30 and as an attacking bowler (and poor tailender) he doesn't fit too well into England's expectations of a 3rd seamer. Woakes is still untested but it doesn't look like there is any great potential there. Finn is decent but not particularly skilled.
So I think it's pretty damn vital that Anderson stays fit. He's pretty near his peak right now.
Of course so much for England will rely on Cook and Trott laying a foundation. If Aus can knock these two over regularly England have real problems.
blah blah blah.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They don't help themselves by creating a fair bit of uncertainty themselves. If the goal is a settled team, then stop deliberately unsettling it for ****s and giggles. And I disagree that Hussey's retirement should've caught them out to the extent that they have no idea who is capable of replacing him. They've had a least a couple of years since other big names stepped out of the game, and yet they have no idea who they can pick that would be suitable to fill the void. They drop Katich when he's still doing a reasonable job because he's too old, and then are shocked when Hussey retires at 38 years of age. Then replace an aging wicketkeeper with a bloke who struggles to catch (but who can hold the willow half-decently).
As it is, we've got guys who can bowl who aren't because they need to be rested, so they're trundling away out the back in the nets (presumably, and not just sitting with their feet up actually resting for a week). Then we've got a bloke who we've persisted with as a spinner for a while, only to ditch him and go with a debutant and a guy who has never proven he can be relied on in tests ever.
And the selectors can't work out why the team feels a bit unsettled. How about creating an environment where players and staff feel like you know what the **** you're doing? Maybe that would go some way to getting a bit of stability back into the team. Sure, we don't have a long list of players who can seemingly step in and fill the void. But when you combine that with what seems to be ****ing around for ****ing around's sake then you're weakening the stocks even further. We keep talking about what might happen if we get our strongest team on the park (at least bowling-wise), but will that ever happen with all the other 'advancements' that seem to dictate what happens with our team at the moment? They'll never be on the same team sheet as they'll either be resting, injured, tired, feeling a bit lackadaisical, lactose intolerant, suspected of having a peanut allergy, or receiving a dose of lavender treatment from an aromatherapist due to a perceived inability to relax their sphincter muscles sufficiently during their morning ablution.
If Doherty and Maxwell take 15 wickets amongst them for the match and we end up with a settled team for The Ashes, which we then win, I'll take this back
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think they will do that. The selectors should know subcontinental cricket doesn't count.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
yeees
pup11
International Coach
Tbh... Wade is basically a batsman who took to keeping just to break into the Victorian set up, so if he is picked purely as a batsman in the Australian side then that won't be a big deal, but the problem is there really isn't a neat keeper in Australia atm who could hold his own with the bat too, Neville looked good for a season but Haddin coming back has put a pause on his FC career.
The lack of options that you talk about are also somewhat self created, the selectors rather than picking players with some amount of pedigree just tend pick whoever is scoring runs or taking wickets at the time of selection, so its hardly surprising to see so many mediocre players getting their hands on the baggy green.
I agree with some posters who have said that England might be tempted to prepare dry pitches for the Ashes, infact it would be madness not to do so especially after seeing the way we have played in India so far, because not only would it expose our weakness to play and bowl spin but it would also blunt our fast bowling attack, which probably is our biggest strength as a team atm.
1.Warner
2.Burns/Watson
3.Hughes
4.Ferguson/Uzi
5.Clarke
6.Bailey
7.Wade
8.Faulkner/Starc
9.O'keffe
10.Siddle/Coulter-Nile
11.Pattinson
12.Hilfenhaus
13.Lyon/Boyce
14.Henriques/Mitch Marsh
That's my squad for the Ashes series, covers most bases and provides the skipper good variety, we shouldn't repeat the mistake we committed while selecting squad for the Indian series by picking too many green batsmen, hence selection of Ferguson and Bailey, also taking too many left hand bats to England won't be a bright idea, given how well they bowl to left handers.
Last edited: