Australia's test side for the Ashes in Australia

[Maximas]

He maybe wanted to wind us up a bit but he believes what he is saying, I'm not convinced there is a huge gap between the batting and I think our seamers are slightly better, should be pretty close

 

[uvelocity]

Lyon 16 wickets at 75.6 sr = 201.4 overs
Swann 40 wickets at 60.2 sr = 401.2 overs

not a great deal of difference considering opportunity and experience. lyon has been sold short at times in trying to close out games

Get a calculator. Multiply the strike rate and the wickets he has given for each bowler. And divide it by 6. You get the answer.

Edit: Just saw Adub's post. Simple. See his post then.

thanks pythagoras

 

[uvelocity]

There is no evidence or rational process to explain the optimism of Aussie supporters. Australia will lose this series due to their weak batting. How you can lose 3-0 in England and 4-0 in India and think that this test series will be drawn or won by Australia.

England Last 9 Tests: DWDWWWWDD
Australia Last 9 Tests: DLDLLLLLL

The likelihood of an England whitewash is more likely than an Australian victory. The batting has alway been a problem for Australia as the bowling it par with England. That gulf in skill with the willow will surrender all chance of Aussie regaining the Ashes.

We were without our key swing bowler MJ for large parts of that tour. Anyway as Virat said in the UAE, England struggled against spin on wickets that did not spin much.

You will be playing us on rank turners there is no doubt about that, frankly after what happened last year we are all on board to give England an absolute whipping to be quite honest.

 

[marc71178]

The likelihood of an England whitewash is more likely than an Australian victory.

Is it bollocks.

I do think England are a stronger side and would expect that at the minimum the series is drawn but there is no way on earth that they will win the series 5-0 and if I had to predict I'd say a 2-1 win or 2-2 draw would be the likely result.

 

[Cabinet96]

He maybe wanted to wind us up a bit but he believes what he is saying, I'm not convinced there is a huge gap between the batting and I think our seamers are slightly better, should be pretty close

The Australia seamers were definitely better in the 13 series, but with the injuries I'm not so sure. Harris and Siddle are about Anderson and Broad's level IMO, so it comes down to Johnson v Tremlett. Tremlett is somewhat of an unknown quantity, although I guess Johnson is as well.

If Patto was fit then the Aussies would definitely have the stronger attack. Any injury updates on him?

 

[Tangles]

A bad MJ can release pressure very easily. All Tremlett has to do is not concede a 4 every over. Swanns the better spinner but how he fares will depend on the wickets. My suspicion is that we will produce batting tracks where possible to cover our weak batting. Off spinners on flat Aussie decks tend to have a low impact.

 

[watson]

The Australia seamers were definitely better in the 13 series, but with the injuries I'm not so sure. Harris and Siddle are about Anderson and Broad's level IMO, so it comes down to Johnson v Tremlett. Tremlett is somewhat of an unknown quantity, although I guess Johnson is as well.

If Patto was fit then the Aussies would definitely have the stronger attack. Any injury updates on him?

Anderson is a class above any of the Australian bowlers, and if England win the series then he will be the main reason why.

 

[Burgey]

Anderson is a class above any of the Australian bowlers, and if England win the series then he will be the main reason why.

He's not a class above Harris. Not by any measure.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He's not a class above Harris. Not by any measure.

Only thing Anderson has over Harris is a career where he has been fit not injured. Harris is a quality bowler and if he breaks downs then Australia are in serious trouble with so many bowlers already out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

He's not a class above Harris. Not by any measure.

Points to Anderson

1. Greater number of test wickets
2. Fewer days of test match time lost to injuries

Points to Harris

1. He's not Lancastrian

 

[Burgey]

Only thing Anderson has over Harris is a career where he has been fit not injured. Harris is a quality bowler and if he breaks downs then Australia are in serious trouble with so many bowlers already out.

How do you reckon England would go if Anderson was injured? I don't think they'd comsistently bowl Australia out twice, and that's accounting for our less than stellar batting line up and for the fact I rated Tremlett enormously in his last visit here.

In any event, I hope they both stay fit for the whole series because nothing blows more than having good players miss through injury. I know several England fans on here (not you btw) were hoping for injuries for some of our blokes last series, bit that's just ****ed, and those fans deserve to be driven to an assisted suicide.

 

[GIMH]

He's not a class above Harris. Not by any measure.

Have to agree

 

[Furball]

How do you reckon England would go if Anderson was injured? I don't think they'd comsistently bowl Australia out twice, and that's accounting for our less than stellar batting line up and for the fact I rated Tremlett enormously in his last visit here.

In any event, I hope they both stay fit for the whole series because nothing blows more than having good players miss through injury. I know several England fans on here (not you btw) were hoping for injuries for some of our blokes last series, bit that's just ****ed, and those fans deserve to be driven to an assisted suicide.

England would be absolutely ****ed without Anderson.

 

[adub]

The comparison isn't between Broad and Siddle, it is between Broad and Johnson.

Broad is essentially Johnson without the extremes. Not as devastating when on song, but not as gash on a bad day. MJ shades him for sr, SB wins on economy rate, and in the end they end up pretty square averaging 30-31. I'd take Broad before Johnson for sure, but there isn't a massive amount in it (which is not a ringing endorsement of Broad).

 

[steds]

The comparison isn't between Broad and Siddle, it is between Broad and Johnson.

Broad is essentially Johnson without the extremes. Not as devastating when on song, but not as gash on a bad day. MJ shades him for sr, SB wins on economy rate, and in the end they end up pretty square averaging 30-31. I'd take Broad before Johnson for sure, but there isn't a massive amount in it (which is not a ringing endorsement of Broad).

Agree to an extent. Don't entirely agree that Broad can't be as devastating as Johnson, though. After all, six of Broad's 10 Test five-fors were 6 wickets or more, compared to Johnson's 3 of 7. Suggests Broad runs through teams more often.

 

[hendrix]

Australia will lose this series due to their weak batting.

The likelihood of an England whitewash is more likely than an Australian victory.

These are the only somewhat reasonable sentences you've posted. The second one is a little dubious, but i'll give it to you.

Honestly, I find it very surprising how far you're willing to go to overrate the English batsmen. Trott's poor form is now at the point where we must start to consider whether his 2 excellent years were an outstanding peak, rather than a true indication of how he is likely to perform for the rest of his career. This is a massive issue, IMO. He is probably just not that good.

There is still KP and Cook, but they will be relying on the likes of Root for partnerships. Don't get me wrong, I rate Root very highly, but that's a huge amount of pressure on a young player against what will be a very determined attack.

We've also seen that England's bowling attack can have off days. If they let Australia's batsmen score in excess of 400 (like they have done against NZ, one of the worst batting lineups in world cricket), they will be in serious danger of losing tests.

 

[adub]

Stat of the Day (crossing fingers and hoping for the best edition)

Despite his comically awful performance the last time the Ashes came to Brisbane, the Gabba remains one of Mitchell Johnson's most productive test venues.
His 17 wickets in 4 matches @ 26.17 with a sr of 46.8 looks pretty damn good when you consider he took 0/170 in his last test there. The caveat of course is that he took all those wickets in tests against NZ, WI and SL.

 

[Cabinet96]

Broad is a clear level or two above Johnson IMO and has been for a few years. He's closer to Siddle's quality and is similarly assure of his place in the test team for a long period even if he were to have a bad series. Just as good on his day, but has "his day" far more regularly. He doesn't usually leak runs when he's bowling badly like Johnson as well, just looks flat and unthreatening. But those days are rarer and rarer anyway.

Overall averages are complete meh. Compare records this decade or since the last series in Australia and they're streets apart.

 

[wiff]

If I was a betting man, I'd put it on England. Aussie batting lineup too fragile. England showed that they can rebuild an innings better. Bowling attacks are fairly even. Hope to be proven wrong of course!

 

[dermo]

broads a **** but so much better than **** johnson