*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[Maximas]

I still think the Aussie batting isn't that bad, especially with Rogers and Khawaja likely to get a game at some point. Haddin, Warner and Watson will be key names you'd think, because their success or failure could determine how we go.

 

[Furball]

I'm setting myself up for this post being dug in a couple of months time but Australia's batting is ****ing terrible.

 

[Cabinet96]

Tbf, this is a side that scored massive runs against South Africa, who have a better attack than England, in Brisbane and Adelaide. Sure, Ponting and Hussey aren't around anymore, but Ponting wasn't doing much in his last few years anyway. Cowan and Warner both managed to score tons against the Saffa's. Hughes, who had a good home season and went OK against Sri Lanka, and Rogers will definitely be doing better against England than Quiney and Ponting did against South Africa, and while whoever bats at 6 probably won't do as well as Hussey did, they'll probably go OK.

It's like everyone has forgotten this side nearly got to number one in the world not that long ago, and did a whole lot better against South Africa than we did I might add, just because they had a terrible tour of India.

 

[hendrix]

TBF, Peter Fulton scored two centuries against at least half of the likely ashes attack.

In other words, Australia's batsmen are not as good as they used to be, but neither are England's bowlers. Swann and Tremlett back could make a huge difference, but there's still a question mark there. I'm a bit surprised that this doesn't seem to be a big worry for the English fans.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm setting myself up for this post being dug in a couple of months time but Australia's batting is ****ing terrible.

Seems a bit overboard tbh. Mediocre yes, terrible no. Though being an NZer certainly keeps your standards low.

 

[Furball]

Tbf, this is a side that scored massive runs against South Africa, who have a better attack than England, in Brisbane and Adelaide. Sure, Ponting and Hussey aren't around anymore, but Ponting wasn't doing much in his last few years anyway. Cowan and Warner both managed to score tons against the Saffa's. Hughes, who had a good home season and went OK against Sri Lanka, and Rogers will definitely be doing better against England than Quiney and Ponting did against South Africa, and while whoever bats at 6 probably won't do as well as Hussey did, they'll probably go OK.

It's like everyone has forgotten this side nearly got to number one in the world not that long ago, and did a whole lot better against South Africa than we did I might add, just because they had a terrible tour of India.

Nah, their batting has been rotten and prone to enormous collapses for at least 4 years. The only saving grace has been when Michael Clarke's gone into God Mode and made the batting look semi-respectable.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

And what do you do when you discover you only have one Test quality batsman?

Australia's batting is ****.

****. Absolutely ****.

People need to face up to this fact. It means the selectors can't just pick the batsmen in any order they feel like and declare players proven failures willy nilly when they don't perform immediately. Clarke aside, these blokes aren't true Test quality batsmen so the management needs to find them niche roles and hope it all gels together as a unit. The batting order becomes important in this situation.

Great post.Hence why in my opinion Rogers has to open.He is an opener a better one at that than Cowan.Warner has played some great knocks opening.Warner will obviously remain at the top.Rogers and Warner opening combination is the way to go.If Cowan is going to play the first test selectors neeD to ask themselves - Can he bat at 3,4?Is he a bétter fit thAn Hughes,Khawaja and WAtson?

 

[the big bambino]

Its hard but you have to try and guess what the selectors will do. I think they'll stick with Cowan so Warner opens with him. Clarke is at 5 and they'll stick with Hughes and Watson for his bowling. Questions are where to put them and who takes the last spot.

Judging from the unusual pattern of picking Usman for the squad but leaving him out of the team I think they'll pick Rogers as the last batsman. They might take the opportunity of using him as a human shield for Hughes then. I mean they've done it before. So Rogers at 3 and Hughes at 4. Maybe the idea is grooming Hughes for the 3 spot if Rogers does well. That leaves Watson at 6.

Haddin the keep.

Patpat, Sids and Lyon to bowl. I think the selectors want Lyon for the change up. Last bowling spot btwn Starc, Harris and Bird. Harris' fitness being the key. If he's a worry I think they'll pick Starc for his left arm variety and his usefulness with the bat. Therefore;

Cowan, Warner, Rogers, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Starc, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon.

 

[hendrix]

^that's pretty close to Australia's best team IMO.

Starc will likely miss out to Harris or Bird though. Which I think would be a mistake given Starc will probably relish the swing most of all of the bowlers.

A future attack of Pattinson, Bird, Starc is pretty imposing.

 

[Cabinet96]

Wasn't Johnson ment to relish the swing in 2009, after using it so effectively against South Africa a few months before?

I really don't think Starc is one of Australia best three seamers for a test match at the moment. He has loads of potential, but he just isn't there yet IMO. He's a tad wayward and has never really swung it consistently from the stuff I've seen of him. He's also far too likely to have a meltdown where he delivers nothing but garbage for a long period, such as at the WACA against South Africa.

IMO, he's in the same camp as Finn, where he's his sides best bowler in one day cricket, but not quite there yet with the red ball. I think they'll both probably play the first test as well, but neither would be my first preference for either side.

 

[morgieb]

Starc is our 5th best bowler. Should not play in the first test.

 

[Prince EWS]

Wasn't Johnson ment to relish the swing in 2009, after using it so effectively against South Africa a few months before?

Johnson has never really been a swing bowler though. Very occasionally when all the moons align he does swing it - and even so I think people have sometimes misinterpreted seam movement for swing in his case (lots of deliveries in South Africa being a prime example) - but he's never been a consistent swinger of the ball. Starc on the other hand has always been a swing bowler; it's not something he's had to alter his game to try and add.

I'm not saying Starc should definitely play, but the constant comparisons with Mitchell ****ing Johnson are really beginning to grind my gears.

 

[Dan]

B-b-but Cribb, they're both left armers who can bat a bit called Mitchell. Of course they're comparable in every way

 

[Maximas]

I have to agree with those saying Starc isn't quite there, but he does throw some variety into the attack (genuine swing, left arm, tall). I think the attack always looks a little more imposing with him in it, but I certainly have time for those saying there are better bowlers than him. I'd like to see Bird and Harris come before him.

 

[Cabinet96]

Johnson has never really been a swing bowler though. Very occasionally when all the moons align he does swing it - and even so I think people have sometimes misinterpreted seam movement for swing in his case (lots of deliveries in South Africa being a prime example) - but he's never been a consistent swinger of the ball. Starc on the other hand has always been a swing bowler; it's not something he's had to alter his game to try and add.

I'm not saying Starc should definitely play, but the constant comparisons with Mitchell ****ing Johnson are really beginning to grind my gears.

Yeah, that comment was probably unnecessary, don't really know why I posted it. There were definitely people who thought Johnson would be more effective with a Duke though, and I do have my doubts about Starc suddenly gunning it with a dark red in his hand. I guess that was the comparison I was trying to make.

 

[Cabinet96]

Also, people talk about how the Duke will help the Aussie swing bowlers, but they also seem to forget the fact that the Duke has a much more pronounced seam, which means the seam bowlers will be aided.

Anyway, this would probably be my Aussie seamers pecking order at the moment. Will probably be different after the warm up games, but for now.

1. Pattinson
2. Siddle
3. Harris/Bird
5. Starc
6. Faulkner

The first two are locks for the first test in my eyes. I'd probably give Harris the nod if he's fully fit and has proven himself in the warm ups. If not; Bird. The first five will probably all play a part in the series at some point anyway.

 

[hendrix]

I really don't think Starc is one of Australia best three seamers for a test match at the moment. He has loads of potential, but he just isn't there yet IMO. He's a tad wayward and has never really swung it consistently from the stuff I've seen of him. He's also far too likely to have a meltdown where he delivers nothing but garbage for a long period, such as at the WACA against South Africa.

Yeah I'd agree with this.

On the other hand I haven't seen Harris in forever.

I would be tempted to go Pattinson, Bird, Siddle, but I imagine Harris will get in there ahead of Bird.

The main reason I want Starc in there is variety.

 

[hendrix]

also, if there was a test not to play Lyon, it would be on this tour (not ****ing India)

 

[Adders]

Does anyone know what the broadcast rights to this will be and what sort of coverage will we get in Oz??

Obviously it will be on Sky, any FTA coverage??

The past 2 Ashes in England SBS have had re--broadcast rights and have done a bloody great job with it. I "think" I heard a while back that Sky Sports have sold re broadcasting rights over here to Channel 9?? Anyone confirm this??

And if Channel 9 do have it, what would be the chances of those muppets showing every session?? I fear they wont show it in prime time (play will start at 8pm Aus Eastern time) even though they do have the extra digital channels now.

Anyone got any insight or ideas??

 

[morgieb]

I find it pretty lols that Australia get the Ashes on FTA whereas the English don't.