Does anyone think Australia's situation is not actually that dire?

[Stapel]

Australia are just as bad as everyone thinks but I agree that their situation is no reason to panic, it happens sometimes. A lot of England's important players were absolute balls at the same stage in their career as the Australians are now.

Only Anderson & Broad, me thinks. Since they are bowlers, the problems are not really easy to compare, I guess.
None of the current England batsmen have ever been so dodgy as the Oz batsmen (apart form Clarke). Not even Ian Bell, though some might disagree. Bell has more fifties than Pietersen or Cook, from fewer innings!

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Still amazed at the people writing off Pattinson based on one or two Tests.

Not writing him off but expected an awful lot more from him. He has to learn quickly from what has happened on tour so far or could end up having one like Johnson did. I think he is much better than that though and has more mental strength.

 

[Stapel]

Still amazed at the people writing off Pattinson based on one or two Tests.

I'm not writing him off! Surely not! But he is not yet where he can, and some day, will be!

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Only Anderson & Broad, me thinks. Since they are bowlers, the problems are not really easy to compare, I guess.
None of the current England batsmen have ever been so dodgy as the Oz batsmen (apart form Clarke). Not even Ian Bell, though some might disagree. Bell has more fifties than Pietersen or Cook, from fewer innings!

Bell only really had problems with Warne and McGrath and he wasn't the only bat in the world to struggle against them.None of the England batting (Bairstow apart) has ever seen their average in the low 30's after a significant number of tests.

This current Aussie lot make the old England line up of Atherton, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash and Hick look good.

 

[morgieb]

Not writing him off but expected an awful lot more from him. He has to learn quickly from what has happened on tour so far or could end up having one like Johnson did. I think he is much better than that though and has more mental strength.

Pattinson wasn't even that bad in the first test.

 

[uvelocity]

Still amazed at the people writing off Pattinson based on one or two Tests.

hadnt noticed. must be from the posters who i routinely dont read

 

[morgieb]

Bell only really had problems with Warne and McGrath and he wasn't the only bat in the world to struggle against them.None of the England batting (Bairstow apart) has ever seen their average in the low 30's after a significant number of tests.

This current Aussie lot make the old England line up of Atherton, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash and Hick look good.

That one actually doesn't look that bad. The two poor ones at least dominated county cricket, and the top 4 were all decent at test level.

 

[Red]

No, the first Test could NOT have easily gone either way. Yeah, in the end it appeared so, But it only became close due to two great 10th wicket partnerships. Though I won't say that was simply good fortunes, it was (and still is) freakishly unlikely to happen!

So the first test could have easily gone either way due to two great 10th wicket partnerships, right? We only fell 14 runs short, right?

 

[Stapel]

So the first test could have easily gone either way due to two great 10th wicket partnerships, right? We only fell 14 runs short, right?

My point is that, if Australia had won, it would have been due to an 80 runs last wicket partnership. By no means would that have been an easy way to win..... I think it was just freakish it got that close! But yeah, it did indeed get very close. Yet, had the Aussies pulled it off, it would, in imho, have been a really freaky win! Not a win the Aussies should draw any conclusion they are close to England anyway.

 

[Stapel]

Bell only really had problems with Warne and McGrath and he wasn't the only bat in the world to struggle against them.None of the England batting (Bairstow apart) has ever seen their average in the low 30's after a significant number of tests.

This current Aussie lot make the old England line up of Atherton, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash and Hick look good.

To add to Bell's defense: Only Pietersen and Collingwood scored more runs than Bell in the 06/07 Ashes.

 

[Spark]

My point is that, if Australia had won, it would have been due to an 80 runs last wicket partnership. By no means would that have been an easy way to win..... I think it was just freakish it got that close! But yeah, it did indeed get very close. Yet, had the Aussies pulled it off, it would, in imho, have been a really freaky win! Not a win the Aussies should draw any conclusion they are close to England anyway.

Er, yes they should, in terms of saying that it was a close Test. 14 runs are 14 runs, Pattinson and Haddin didn't get that close by nicking through the slips.

 

[social]

Only Anderson & Broad, me thinks. Since they are bowlers, the problems are not really easy to compare, I guess.
None of the current England batsmen have ever been so dodgy as the Oz batsmen (apart form Clarke). Not even Ian Bell, though some might disagree. Bell has more fifties than Pietersen or Cook, from fewer innings!

Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Pattinson wasn't even that bad in the first test.

Bowled well first test but was dreadful at Lord's and even bowling a lot better in the 2nd innings when the game was gone he didn't look like the bloke who was supposed to come here and skittle us cheaply that you lot hyped him up to be. Won't write him off though but he has work to do to make this a decent tour personally.

 

[Stapel]

Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen

Agreed.
Yet, I guess it's fine to have one of your top 7 being a young inexperienced lad with a point to prove.

 

[Furball]

Pattinson wasn't even that bad in the first test.

He was rubbish with the new ball day 1.

 

[social]

Not saying that the test team doesn't have major issues but it isn't all gloom and doom as Australia A thrashed England Lions in every match they played last summer whilst our under 19s have finished runner-up and champions at the last 2 WCs

There is obviously talent there but the question remains as to whether the systems are in place to turn that talent into performances at the international level

 

[Justo]

Our batting has been quite poor and I don't think there's any way we could honestly turn it around in a short time without doing unrealistic (for the selectors) moves like dragging Hussy and/or Katich back into the team. Chances are even with them we'd still struggle to forge any real consistency anyway and it'd only be a band aid solution. IMO the best choice we have for the rest of the series is to stick with what we've got and hope that at least one of the young guns can step up if given some faith.

That said I'd still be dropping Watson. He's a poor test bat (I'd rather a guy who gets fewer starts but actually converts them than what Watson produces) and his fielding is IMO quite poor (the comms always seem to talk him up as a slipper but I don't think I've seen him do anything exceptional there while dropping some catches while day dreaming). IMO the only asset he really brings to the team is his bowling which I think is generally underrated but given he can't be relied upon to bowl a useful number of overs there's no way he can make the team as 3rd seamer. He also obviously has the whole cancer effect happening as well. Personally I seem to generally think Australian batting seems more fragile with Watson than without and our performances generally seem to coincide with him not being in the team.

For the rest of the Ashes in England I'd run with the below (based on the current squad).

Hughes
Rogers
Khawaja
Warner
Clarke
Smith
Haddin

For the medium/longer run obviously depending on form or w/e I'd go with.

Hughes
Warner
Khawaja/Doolan
Voges/Bailey/Burns
Clarke
Smith
Hartley/whoever

Hughes - His primary issue is getting starts. Regardless of his technique once he passes 10 he's seemingly impossible to dislodge and he's not going to be able to start well against spin so he should be opening. So far this series he hasn't looked particularly troubled by pace (1 terrible shot aside) and at the very least you know you've got someone who can go long if he does get in.

Warner - Similar to Hughes in some ways. Obviously if he does well in the middle order he could stay there. IMO his key issue is temperament but he's also shown he can play some brilliant innings.

Khawaja - Not really a big fan of Khawaja but do believe he should be given a decent run now that he's in. The number of left handers at the top of the order does become a concern with his inclusion and his form in recent times hasn't been all that great.

Doolan - I'm not as big a fan of Doolan as many around here. He's made 5 centuries in 45 games at an average of 38.6 but most of those have come recently. His main advantage is that he's one of the few batsmen with recent form on his side. I do believe he's also quite a decent fielder which is a plus.

Voges/Bailey - to me both are in the same category of middle aged batsmen without the recent first class form to justify their inclusion. Both however have made runs in ODI's and are reasonable fielders. If selected either would most likely be a short-med term option until Burns or someone else forces the issue. I'd personally go with Voges myself.

Burns - I've followed Burns' career since he's started and I'd have to say he's probably one of the more rounded bats in the country when it comes to facing pace and spin (of course he still only faces domestic spin so who knows how well that will work out at international level). He's scored 5 centuries in 32 games at an average of 39.5 so he's got one of the best conversion rates out of our young batsmen but he does tend to struggle with getting starts. I personally see him as our long term 4 or 5 depending on how long Clarke hangs around for. From what I know he's also a decent fielder which is a plus.

Smith - Quite good against spin as we all know but significant weaknesses against pace. 6 centuries in 46 matches would seem reasonable (compared to the other options) but 4 of his tons were scored early in his career. If he could resolve his weakness against pace I actually think he could be quite a good 5 or 6 in the longer run.

Hartley - IMO he's a better keeper than anything else we've got and we can't keep giving away chances like we are. His batting is IMO also not much worse than Haddin or Wade.

Maddinson - Wouldn't have him near the side for several years. At the moment his runs either come in short time or not at all and I don't think he's done much when the going gets tough. Definitely one to keep watching though.

Henriques - Shouldn't be in the Test side IMO. If he can get his batting to click he could be an asset but he's also quite injury prone.

Cosgrove - Would probably be my reserve bat and could be a good replacement for Watson since he bowls using medium pace.

Silk - Early days but could be a batsmen for the long term as well.

As to the main question asked in the title I don't personally think we're that dire and at the very least things can only really get better from here. The fact of the matter is that we have 1 settled batsmen in the team (Clarke). Other poor batting teams generally have at least 3 guys who've been part of the team consistently for ages (E.G. WI, NZ, PAK). Watson's the closest we have to stability outside of Clarke and he's pretty much always injured. IMO build a bit more stability and things will start to turn around.

Short Term = 1 Year
Medium Term = 2 Years
Long Term = 3 Years

 

[social]

Agreed.
Yet, I guess it's fine to have one of your top 7 being a young inexperienced lad with a point to prove.

Therein lies Australia's problem and one of the reasons why Watson has been such a major disappointment

If he had done justice to his talent, Oz would have a dominant opener, world-class middle order player (Clarke) and you can work around that

Instead we have world-class middle order player who is permanently facing the new ball, 3 Bairstows, a mental midget and a 35yo who is basically a debutant

 

[Uppercut]

Bell only really had problems with Warne and McGrath and he wasn't the only bat in the world to struggle against them.None of the England batting (Bairstow apart) has ever seen their average in the low 30's after a significant number of tests.

This current Aussie lot make the old England line up of Atherton, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash and Hick look good.

It was a much easier era for batting, though. Cook and Bell were criticised constantly for years, I doubt there's anyone on the site who didn't call for them to be dropped at least once. Prior started off as a bad joke of a wicket keeper, Anderson was very bad a lot more often than he was very good, Broad was a clear weak link and hate figure, Swann was a county-standard tweaker that everyone in the team hated, Bresnan was a fat bits and pieces dobbler. Only Trott and KP looked the goods from the start and KP has his own tiresome back story while Trott has regressed quite a lot in the past couple of years.

The point is, you have to start somewhere and every team goes through transitional periods. This is a particularly painful one for Australia but it's never quite as bad as it looks after a heavy defeat.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Says the man from the country who have a new spin hope from Pakistan.

I think our new refugee policy is indicative of the way we're heading - if you can't play cricket then welcome to PNG sunshine! It's really got nothing to do with boat people, we're just shoring up our stocks for the 2019 Ashes.