Road to the 2017-18 Ashes in Australia

[Tom Flint]

Australia's batting looks just as weak as one would expect, with England's not much better, so it is the bowlers that must decide it. Australia, even with a couple of injuries have the better line up.

An Aus XI I'd pick:

1. Warner
2. Marsh (who else can open?)
3. Khawaja (I guess he could switch places with Marsh)
4. Handscomb
5. Smith c
6. Bancroft
7. Paine wk
8. Starc
9. Lyon
10. Bird
11. Hazlewood

That is possibly the weakest Aus side for a test against a major nation in 20 years.

England might not fare better with the following looking the most likely -

1. Cook
2. Stoneman
3. Ballance
4. Root c
5. Malan/Vince
6. Bairstow wk
7. Ali
8. Woakes
9. Broad
10. Overton
11. Anderson

Barring playing 2 spinners or Stokes making a come back.

???
There is so much wrong with your team predictions its laughable. From the warm ups what on earth makes you think ballance is gonna play?

 

[S.Kennedy]

Handscomb is completely out of nick also. Warner is averaging in the bog-standard 30s. Come on Cricket Australia, ''England's 12th man'': you know you want to?

 

[Prince EWS]

Any chance of Shaun Marsh opening?

Nah.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How many of Renshaw's play and misses are him actually playing and missing and how many of them are Renshaw withdrawing his bat inside the line of the ball?

One of the things that impressed me about him was his lack of chasing balls outside off.

That's exactly the point. People were giving him way too much credit for "not chasing the ball" in instances where he was simply just playing and missing and would easily have just knicked it had he been seeing the ball a bit better.

 

[the big bambino]

Well he's seeing the ball real well now.

 

[Spark]

This isn't even the weakest Aus side in the last five years. We've rolled out some seriously mediocre lineups, especially in the time when we were relying on Siddle and Hilfenhaus as our attack leaders.

 

[GotSpin]

Handscomb is completely out of nick also. Warner is averaging in the bog-standard 30s. Come on Cricket Australia, ''England's 12th man'': you know you want to?

Yeah Warner really struggles at home. Youve hightlighted a real weakness there

 

[S.Kennedy]

The bowling is certainly a million times better now than when you had Beer, Hilfenhaus and Ager and all these guys who nobody had ever heard of. The batting is weaker now; at least in those days you had a Hussey, Clarke or Haddin.

 

[Red]

Well he's seeing the ball real well now.

Haha

 

[Spark]

The bowling is certainly a million times better now than when you had Beer, Hilfenhaus and Ager and all these guys who nobody had ever heard of. The batting is weaker now; at least in those days you had a Hussey, Clarke or Haddin.

Right, but bowlers are, man-for-man, more important.

 

[Tom Flint]

Right, but bowlers are, man-for-man, more important.

But agar got 99 on debut so counts as a batsman too!

 

[Starfighter]

The batting is weaker now; at least in those days you had a Hussey, Clarke or Haddin.

Is it? We've got a few players who are very good at home, and no Watson or out of form Ponting. I'd say they're equal, maybe?

 

[wpdavid]

Is it? We've got a few players who are very good at home, and no Watson or out of form Ponting. I'd say they're equal, maybe?

Very dependent on the obvious two, I suppose. Although granted they are more than capable of batting us out of the match anyway. Perhaps the biggest difference in the batting between now and last time is not having Haddin to rescue the innings if England do make some serious inroads.

 

[MW1304]

Hilfenhaus and Siddle were perfectly good bowlers, I don't see how they count as a significant detriment to those teams. I feel like it's a fairly easy way of downplaying the 2010/11 success when really they bowled well in the years around that series.

 

[social]

That's exactly the point. People were giving him way too much credit for "not chasing the ball" in instances where he was simply just playing and missing and would easily have just knicked it had he been seeing the ball a bit better.

Nope

Takes real discipline not to chase it

 

[S.Kennedy]

Even if he was missing the ball, it reminds me of that old Napoleon quote about preferring a 'lucky general' over a 'good general'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hilfenhaus and Siddle were perfectly good bowlers, I don't see how they count as a significant detriment to those teams. I feel like it's a fairly easy way of downplaying the 2010/11 success when really they bowled well in the years around that series.

At his best Hilfenhaus was an acceptable test bowler, and he wasn't often at his best during his career. This was the leader of the attack. They also had Siddle who was an acceptable test bowler as well, but not much else. Mitchell Johnson played a fair bit who most of the time was not an acceptable test bowler

Nope

Takes real discipline not to chase it

Nope.

He might have "not chased" a few but for the most part he was just playing and missing. Listening to people try to explain why his innings on debut with 30 play-and-misses was actually really good was cringeworthy.

ftr I like him as a batsman, but he has serious issues outside off and he will play and miss, and knick out, a lot.

Even if he was missing the ball, it reminds me of that old Napoleon quote about preferring a 'lucky general' over a 'good general'.

very true. Luck plays such a huge part in cricket as well, more so than in most sports.

 

[Gnske]

Even if he was missing the ball, it reminds me of that old Napoleon quote about preferring a 'lucky general' over a 'good general'.

A quote from the same book that has a chapter called "Why Russia was actually a good thing for my career"

 

[Spikey]

never pick shaun marsh a good chance to replace the adage of never fight a land war in asia

 

[stephen]

Hilfenhaus and Siddle were perfectly good bowlers, I don't see how they count as a significant detriment to those teams. I feel like it's a fairly easy way of downplaying the 2010/11 success when really they bowled well in the years around that series.

Exactly.

Hilfenhaus and Siddle both have a bowling average under 30. That means that they have been very good for a period of time. They weren't up to Australia's usual 22 average leading fast bowler, but both were very good bowlers.