*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[Burgey]

Looks like Bird's head has been stuck on two minutes before the pic was taken.

 

[stephen]

I wonder if the selectors will decide that Rogers is the new Hussey and play him at 6. I could easily see this being the team:

Cowan
Warner
Hughes
Watson
Clarke
Rogers
Haddin
Siddle
Harris
Pattinson
Lyon

Which is probably close to the best side that we can pick at the moment (provided that Watson bowls).

Why are you assuming that Rogers has been picked as a middle order batsman?

Tbh, havent heard anyone, anywhere venture this theory

hmmmm

 

[Ruckus]

Honestly I don't think what bowlers get on the pitch isn't that important for us - within reason, of course - insofar as I would say that Harris is the clear leader, but there's actually not all that much to separate the rest of Pattinson, Siddle, Starc, Bird. They all have their ups and downs and you could make a strong case for playing any of them (though I have my preference, obviously), and I think they'd all go just fine (though Patto and Starc especially might be a bit hot/cold)

It baffles me how someone like Starc consistently manages to rate amongst much better bowlers. There's not that much to separate Starc from Pattinson and Bird? Really? What has Starc actually done of note in his test career so far? He's bowled a few jaffas, with a lot of junk in between. He has a bowling average of 34, and frankly I think that's a pretty accurate picture of how he has bowled so far in the opportunities he has been given. We all know the caliber of bowler Pattinson already is, and, small number of matches aside, Bird has looked far more the part than Starc.

 

[Jnr.]

I'd like a bowling attack of

Siddle
Pattinson/Harris (alternating between Tests)
Bird
Lyon
Watson

I think Starc is too loose with the red ball and prefer bowlers who keep the runs down as this puts pressure on modern batsmen.

 

[social]

It baffles me how someone like Starc consistently manages to rate amongst much better bowlers. There's not that much to separate Starc from Pattinson and Bird? Really? What has Starc actually done of note in his test career so far? He's bowled a few jaffas, with a lot of junk in between. He has a bowling average of 34, and frankly I think that's a pretty accurate picture of how he has bowled so far in the opportunities he has been given. We all know the caliber of bowler Pattinson already is, and, small number of matches aside, Bird has looked far more the part than Starc.

For my part, Starc is all about potential as 6'5", express-paced, left handers who can swing the ball around corners WHEN THEY GET IT RIGHT are almost unheard of.

In India, it;s fair to say that he didnt bowl very well but the ball didnt swing at all except for one over and he took 2 wickets in those 6 balls and could have had 4

Anyway, he has a good action and can learn accuracy but you cant teach anyone the rest

As such, I'm happy to have him in the squad as he could be unplayable with the Duke ball

Having said that, my preferred attack is

Harris
Pattinson
Bird
Watson
Lyon

 

[Burgey]

Bird gonna tear it up over there if he's picked. Deadset perfect method for England.

The new McGrath

#nopressure

 

[Furball]

The last two years, Haddin's batting went to the dogs

See Stats guru

Does your computer not let you look at Watson's statsguru or something?

 

[Woodster]

I think Rogers is an excellent inclusion and for my money should have been included on a consistent basis years ago. He is a proper opener that has the ability to bat long and go big. Watson's flashy half-centuries at the top may have been aesthetically eye catching but won few Tests for his side, despite being very consistent for much of his time up there.

Rogers will graft his way to big scores, just cannot believe he has been given an extended run in the side in the last few years. Think England will find him a more obdurate opponent than any of Warner, Cowan, Watson, Hughes, etc.

 

[BeeGee]

I think Rogers is an excellent inclusion and for my money should have been included on a consistent basis years ago. He is a proper opener that has the ability to bat long and go big. Watson's flashy half-centuries at the top may have been aesthetically eye catching but won few Tests for his side, despite being very consistent for much of his time up there.

Rogers will graft his way to big scores, just cannot believe he has been given an extended run in the side in the last few years. Think England will find him a more obdurate opponent than any of Warner, Cowan, Watson, Hughes, etc.

Where would you bat him / who would he replace?

 

[Woodster]

Where would you bat him / who would he replace?

I don't agree with finding a spot in the middle order for him, not saying it wouldn't work and that he couldn't score runs there, I just think he's best suited right at the top where he can build an innings, is fully aware of the kind of challenges he'd face against the new ball in English conditions, and has got through those tests on several occasions. We are of course talking about him playing at another level here, but I'm pretty convinced he has the game to be a real thorn in England's side.

As for who he could replace, I wouldn't disagree with any of them, but probably alongside Cowan with Warner coming in at three or further down the order.

 

[the big bambino]

Might get a bit stodgy with Rogers and Cowan opening. I see him as probably replacing Cowan as a 32 ave hardly demands tenure does it?

Again lets not get carried away with our pace attack. Yes potential but they are injury prone. It might be we need everyone of them and a fly over replacement by the time the last test is finished. England's attack is better settled and more accomplished than ours. Plus they have the shadow of Tremlett looming. Our boys aren't that good yet.

While Burgey's politics is demonstrably toilet I agree with him about Bird. I have the sort of warm feelings for him over there as I did for Alderman in 81. He could be our surprise for England. Ironically he is low in the pecking order atm and I'd go in with 4 pace men for the 1st test. Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Harris being preferred. I've been hearing the 1st test pitch favours pace so I'll go along with that. If anyone has to go out for Bird from then on I'd bench Siddle or Starc though Harris getting injured is a more likely scenario. Or even Patpat.

 

[Woodster]

Might get a bit stodgy with Rogers and Cowan opening. I see him as probably replacing Cowan as a 32 ave hardly demands tenure does it?

Again lets not get carried away with our pace attack. Yes potential but they are injury prone. It might be we need everyone of them and a fly over replacement by the time the last test is finished. England's attack is better settled and more accomplished than ours. Plus they have the shadow of Tremlett looming. Our boys aren't that good yet.

While Burgey's politics is demonstrably toilet I agree with him about Bird. I have the sort of warm feelings for him over there as I did for Alderman in 81. He could be our surprise for England. Ironically he is low in the pecking order atm and I'd go in with 4 pace men for the 1st test. Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Harris being preferred. I've been hearing the 1st test pitch favours pace so I'll go along with that. If anyone has to go out for Bird from then on I'd bench Siddle or Starc though Harris getting injured is a more likely scenario. Or even Patpat.

I'm not suggesting England should be used as a template for success at the top of the order, but Strauss, Cook, Trott and now Compton are hardly guys to take the game to an attack. In English conditions I don't think a careful and watchful opening pair is necessarily a bad thing, and you can be sure if Rogers does get through those testing early overs he has the capability to bat for a very long time.

 

[uvelocity]

in a four man pace attack for the 1st test i'd have harris, pattinson, bird and starc
in a three man i'd go harris pattinson siddle with lyon
they will all get a go across the five tests, even injuries in the trial matches wouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[adub]

It baffles me how someone like Starc consistently manages to rate amongst much better bowlers. There's not that much to separate Starc from Pattinson and Bird? Really? What has Starc actually done of note in his test career so far? He's bowled a few jaffas, with a lot of junk in between. He has a bowling average of 34, and frankly I think that's a pretty accurate picture of how he has bowled so far in the opportunities he has been given. We all know the caliber of bowler Pattinson already is, and, small number of matches aside, Bird has looked far more the part than Starc.

Yep clearly No.5 in our squad for mine. Has that beautiful inswinging yorker that gets everyone's hearts racing and makes him such a threat in the white ball stuff. But apart from a couple of overs with the (generally second) new ball he doesn't really do enough over and above that to trouble good bats. LA variety etc is over-rated, team balance only comes into it when you're picking between roughly equivalent options. 4 RA quicks worked fine for Lloyd and Richards' teams and if our three best bowlers are RAF then that's what we should pick. No problems with Starc coming in if we have a couple of injuries, but he's not one of the best four Test quicks in the squad and should be there for back up and development only.

Like others Bird is the guy that excites me. His accuracy can help wickets fall at the other end as well as picking up plenty himself. I know it's unlikely, but I'd love to see him starting in front of Siddle.

 

[GotSpin]

Best squad we could have hoped for IMO. Excellent job. Wade out as keeper. Johnson left back in Australia. No Maxwell and a serious bowling attack!

 

[adub]

I'm not suggesting England should be used as a template for success at the top of the order, but Strauss, Cook, Trott and now Compton are hardly guys to take the game to an attack. In English conditions I don't think a careful and watchful opening pair is necessarily a bad thing, and you can be sure if Rogers does get through those testing early overs he has the capability to bat for a very long time.

That's why I think he'd be brilliant at 3 for us. Warner getting a push on early is a massive boost for us when it comes off so I'd stick with that. He can dominate an attack right from the get go better than anyone else in our side including Clarke. Cowan and him have a bit of a thing going so he holds his place too. Cowan needs to go on with it more often, but the partnership is worth perservering with for a bit longer.

Rogers at 3 means if Warner does go cheaply you've got the careful watchful guy experienced against the new ball to come in to reduce the chances of one wicket becoming a collapse. If Cowan goes early it's a like for like. He's clearly good enough to make a big score coming in at 1/100 as well so he could tick a lot of boxes in a way that Hughes hasn't been able to do enough at Test level yet.

 

[the big bambino]

I had a wistful thought last night that Rogers would somehow get in the team and prove as big a nuisance to them as Trott was to us when picked.

 

[howardj]

I think Rogers will bat at first drop, and that they prefer Usman over Smith and Hughes in seaming conditions (they really rated his knock at Bellerive this Summer, and the fact that the Gabba is his home ground) - making the order for the 1st Test as follows:

Cowan
Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Usman
Haddin

Moreover, given Hughes' modest record, I think it's tiime Usman is given a shot.

 

[GotSpin]

Lyon has probably been celebrating all night

 

[howardj]

Lyon has probably been celebrating all night

Yeah getting out of SA must be great