Ashes 2009 - Predict Today, Laugh Tommorow!

[Scaly piscine]

It'll change a little bit, but realistically I think Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar are all good bowlers and will all be around in 2009 if they are fit. Jones is in the same boat, if he's fit, but he rarely is. It's hard to predict whether or not guys like Broad will be ready in 2009, but I'd guess not, while the selectors love Harmison and he'll have to bowl atrociously for an extended period for them to drop him. There's nothing much wrong with the batting - it's the second best batting lineup in the world IMO and easily the best England have had in some time, so I don't expect it to change much in two years, aside from Vaughan and Trescothick being gone for good. History suggests that successful teams with reasonably young players don't change much over a couple of years, and it'd be a surprise if England aren't reasonably successful in the next two years.

England's batting lineup is pathetic. They were bowled out for 157, 129, 215, 159, 161 and 147 in the Ashes. That's half of their innings scores that are completely inadequate and the 215 wasn't too clever either. Only KP and Collingwood bothered to turn up with the bat. At least in 2005 the batting fired every now and then but it was still on the weak side then.

 

[marc71178]

I'd say that's being generous to Collingwood...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

England's batting lineup is pathetic. They were bowled out for 157, 129, 215, 159, 161 and 147 in the Ashes. That's half of their innings scores that are completely inadequate and the 215 wasn't too clever either. Only KP and Collingwood bothered to turn up with the bat. At least in 2005 the batting fired every now and then but it was still on the weak side then.

Obviously they struggled in the Ashes, but most teams would struggle against that attack in the form it was in. England's batting dominated against Pakistan, who certainly don't have the weakest attack in world cricket, and really against all other opposition in recent times. Pietersen is obviously a class batsman, Strauss has been pretty consistent outside of the Ashes and would make most sides in the world, and Cook and Bell are pretty good prospects, particularly Cook. Bell I don't rate all that highly, but he's done reasonably well against teams other than Australia. Collingwood has generally been pretty good too, though he's not done much on any lively wickets yet. I haven't seen Joyce bat much yet, so I can't comment on him, but he does seem to be rated quite highly by a number of people.

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close, and the various keeping options are in a similar boat with the bat. And England's tail is as bad as the West Indies. The top 5 is probably the best in the business bar Australia though. India and Pakistan are reasonably close, but certainly neither of them are clearly better than England, and Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand are all less consistent and have more weak spots. Anyway, I don't see any particular reason England's batting lineup would change any time soon. Someone might end up being dropped to get Vaughan back in, probably Collingwood or one of the bowlers, but that's it.

 

[marc71178]

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh

I'd question if he were actually the worst number 6 in the Ashes...

 

[BoyBrumby]

Obviously they struggled in the Ashes, but most teams would struggle against that attack in the form it was in. England's batting dominated against Pakistan, who certainly don't have the weakest attack in world cricket, and really against all other opposition in recent times. Pietersen is obviously a class batsman, Strauss has been pretty consistent outside of the Ashes and would make most sides in the world, and Cook and Bell are pretty good prospects, particularly Cook. Bell I don't rate all that highly, but he's done reasonably well against teams other than Australia. Collingwood has generally been pretty good too, though he's not done much on any lively wickets yet. I haven't seen Joyce bat much yet, so I can't comment on him, but he does seem to be rated quite highly by a number of people.

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close, and the various keeping options are in a similar boat with the bat. And England's tail is as bad as the West Indies. The top 5 is probably the best in the business bar Australia though. India and Pakistan are reasonably close, but certainly neither of them are clearly better than England, and Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand are all less consistent and have more weak spots. Anyway, I don't see any particular reason England's batting lineup would change any time soon. Someone might end up being dropped to get Vaughan back in, probably Collingwood or one of the bowlers, but that's it.

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'd say that's being generous to Collingwood...

He averaged over 48 in the series, I don't see how that's being generous.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He averaged over 48 in the series, I don't see how that's being generous.

Scored a double ton on an absolute road and fair play to him for that, but never once got past 30 thereafter. He was our second most effective batsman, but there was a big drop off after KP.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd question if he were actually the worst number 6 in the Ashes...

Err, what? Flintoff scored two fifties in the Ashes. The Australian number 6 across the five tests scored two centuries, one for each of the batsmen who batted there, and Clarke and Symonds together scored 433 runs @ 72.17 batting at 6. Symonds 232 @ 58 and Clarke 201 @ 100.50. It wasn't even close, even given that Australia's bowlers were generally better.

In general I'd say Flintoff is probably a better test batsman than Symonds, but Symonds is really a stop-gap player, selected on his fielding and bowling as much as his batting, and because of injuries and Martyn's retirement. Granted, if he was a long term selection at 6 and didn't improve dramatically he'd probably be worse than Flintoff, but I think Australia could get away with it given the strength of the batsmen below him. Clarke is quite obviously a much better test batsman than Flintoff, so I assume you're talking only about Symonds.

Flintoff simply hasn't been good enough to be a test number 6. An average of 32 from more than 60 tests is horrible for a top order batsman, especially when he's the last recognised batsman in the order. He'd be a pretty good number 7, but it's obvious IMO that the current setup leaves England very weak from 6 and below, and that was a major weakness in the recent series.

 

[Jono]

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.

Good point. I remember a Pakistani forum member labelling it one of the worst bowling line-ups Pakistan ever put out, so I think runs against them is hardly a massive achievement.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.

Yeah, I actually forgot that Asif only played one test in that series. I thought it was Asif and Gul throughout.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Err, what? Flintoff scored two fifties in the Ashes. The Australian number 6 across the five tests scored two centuries, one for each of the batsmen who batted there, and Clarke and Symonds together scored 433 runs @ 72.17 batting at 6. Symonds 232 @ 58 and Clarke 201 @ 100.50. It wasn't even close, even given that Australia's bowlers were generally better.

In general I'd say Flintoff is probably a better test batsman than Symonds, but Symonds is really a stop-gap player, selected on his fielding and bowling as much as his batting, and because of injuries and Martyn's retirement. Granted, if he was a long term selection at 6 and didn't improve dramatically he'd probably be worse than Flintoff, but I think Australia could get away with it given the strength of the batsmen below him. Clarke is quite obviously a much better test batsman than Flintoff, so I assume you're talking only about Symonds.

Flintoff simply hasn't been good enough to be a test number 6. An average of 32 from more than 60 tests is horrible for a top order batsman, especially when he's the last recognised batsman in the order. He'd be a pretty good number 7, but it's obvious IMO that the current setup leaves England very weak from 6 and below, and that was a major weakness in the recent series.

I think in The Ashes itself you're absolutely right, however in fairness to Marc I think he meant Flintoff wasn't the worst batsman to play at number six in The Ashes generally speaking. You said

Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close

& I'd guess most people would take Flintoff as a test batsman over Symonds most of the time.

As I said tho, there's no doubt that Australia's number 6 was more effective than than ours in the series just past.

 

[Langeveldt]

And there is no reason to suggest some Australia's replacement players will be great successes.

Why not? I've grown accustomed to expecting gun replacements from Australia.. I think Jacques has played an ODI already, and looked better than any England ODI batsman for a long time.. Brad Hodge his 200 against South Africa and was deemed to be not good enough.. We seem to be taking Hussey for granted, he hasn't been playing for a long time at all, Clarke has had his blips, but looks to be a class act, and Stuart Clark looks like he's been bowling against the very best for ten years.. Australia produce the best newcomers, and thats why they are the best team, I have little reason to doubt they will continue producing the best