Ashes Form Watch

[aussie tragic]

Trying to figure which players are in form for the Ashes, I've looked up the stats for each player over their last 10 Tests played.

Australia

Hayden: 944 @ 52.44
Langer: 630 @ 37.05
Ponting: 1130 @ 70.62
Martyn: 452 @ 28.25
Hussey: 1109 @ 85.30
Watson: New
Gilchrist: 352 @ 25.14 and 36 dismissals (31/5)
Lee: 231 @ 23.10 and 44 wkts @ 27.88
Warne: 51 wkts @ 29.94
Johnson: New
McGrath: 43 wkts @ 25.39

England

Trescothick: 619 @ 34.38
Strauss: 837 @ 46.50
Cook: 761 @ 54.35 (Only 9 tests played)
Pieterson: 923 @ 51.27
Collingwood: 732 @ 48.80
Bell: 819 @ 51.18
Flintoff: 486 @ 30.37 and 43 wkts @ 28.04
Read: 287 @ 23.91 and 31 dismissals (27/4)
Hoggard: 38 wkts @ 28.26
Harmison: 41 wkts @ 29.87
Panesar: 32 wkts @ 32.40

I think the above stats show that England has a very good chance to keep the Ashes as Aussie have 2 new players probably coming in (I'm assuming Watson & Johnson), while 2 other players will be under intense scrutiny (Langer and Martyn).

England seem to have the opposite problem of who do they drop if they want Flintoff at # 6 and IMO this approach would give Aussie the edge (as Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson & Panesar is a terrible final 6)

 

[Burgey]

Interesting stats those.

Hayden's return is worthy of note, as it has coincided with his more careful approach.

Hussey and Ponting's numbers are scary. Bell & Collingwood's improvement is also important.

McGrath & Lee continue to have better averages in their last 10 tests than any England bowler, which is interesting.

I wouldn't put my house on Johnson playing - Clark's injury is apparently no where near as bad as first thought - 2 weeks out which will give him some 4 day game time pre-tests. If you add Clark's numbers to the Aussie attack it looks pretty impressive.

Assuming everyone is fit, Watson's role will not be to bowl as many overs as, for example, Freddy does for England.

The pressure on Martyn and Langer (probablyin that order) is a significant issue, but the pressure on Bell, Collingwood and Cook will be just as great, if for slightly different reasons - Langer & Martyn are coming to the end, whereas Collingwood and Cook are unproven vs Australia at test level and Bell still has some demons to exorcise from 2005.

Trescothick's recent run of outs is very concerning. If you wnat to beat Australia you need to win at least one of the new ball battles. If he struggles and lets McGrath & Co have an early crack at the middle order, things might get ugly.

Having said that the same might be said for Langer, though I feel more confident with Ponting at 3 than I do with Cook.

The England side which you have named has an intersting balance - does Collingwood have what it takes to provide adequate back up to a 4 man attack at test level? I think it most likely that he will be left out and Mahmood, for example, given a go, because with Harmison and Flintoff both having had recent injuries, they may not want to risk them with too big a work load early on in the series. Aside from that, the 5 man attack has worked so well for them recently.

Good thread. Thanks for providing it.

 

[GIMH]

Interesting stats, shows perhaps more in form players for England but none as spectacularly in form as some of the Aussies.

It's worth noting as regards Chris Read that 7 of the 10 Tests used came over 2 years ago, he is thought to have imrpoved his batting somewhat since then.

 

[aussie tragic]

The England side which you have named has an intersting balance - does Collingwood have what it takes to provide adequate back up to a 4 man attack at test level? I think it most likely that he will be left out and Mahmood, for example, given a go, because with Harmison and Flintoff both having had recent injuries, they may not want to risk them with too big a work load early on in the series. Aside from that, the 5 man attack has worked so well for them recently.

I also think they will go with a 5-man attack, however note the "last 10 test" stats for the resulting Tail:

Read: 287 @ 23.91
Hoggard: 91 @ 7.00 (why does he bat at # 8???)
Harmison: 158 @ 13.16
Anderson: 73 @ 12.16
Panesar: 63 @ 10.20

That gives about 95 runs from the last 6 when you include Flintoff's 30 so this would be a huge advantage to Australia IMO

 

[benchmark00]

I think you'll see an Australian attack consisting of McGrath, Lee, Warne, MacGill and Watson for more than one test. Interesting you've chosen to exclude MacGill from the synopsis.

Interesting read all the same.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Not sure it matters who is there tail-wise, Warne will clean them up pretty sharpish anyway.

The top order plus Read really have to fire this series.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I think you'll see an Australian attack consisting of McGrath, Lee, Warne, MacGill and Watson for more than one test. Interesting you've chosen to exclude MacGill from the synopsis.

Interesting read all the same.

The selectors never bloody play him do they, therefore it's probably best to exclude him.

 

[benchmark00]

The selectors never bloody play him do they, therefore it's probably best to exclude him.

I think their reluctance to play him (stupidly) comes from their lack of trust in a seaming allrounder. They think playing MacGill would mean the attack wouldn't have enough seaming options, but now that Watson has improved in both bowling and batting, there should be no dramas. Having said that, I can see him not being picked for Perth and perhaps Brisbane.

Australia look far more potent with MacGill and Warne, especially against a team which traditionally struggles against quality leg spin bowling.

 

[aussie tragic]

I think you'll see an Australian attack consisting of McGrath, Lee, Warne, MacGill and Watson for more than one test. Interesting you've chosen to exclude MacGill from the synopsis.

I did exclude MacGill as I was only looking at the form prior to the first test and I don't think he'll play in Brissy.

In hindsight, seeing as how Johnson is untested and Clark may be injured, I should have included the following "last 10-tests" stats to scare the England supporters

MacGill: 51 wkts @ 23.09 (and 109 runs @ 27.25)

This makes him the best bowler of both teams, so big mistake on my part.

 

[GIMH]

I also think they will go with a 5-man attack, however note the "last 10 test" stats for the resulting Tail:

Read: 287 @ 23.91
Hoggard: 91 @ 7.00 (why does he bat at # 8???)
Harmison: 158 @ 13.16
Anderson: 73 @ 12.16
Panesar: 63 @ 10.20

That gives about 95 runs from the last 6 when you include Flintoff's 30 so this would be a huge advantage to Australia IMO

hOGGARD'S NEVER BATTED AT 8 i DON'T THINK.

 

[aussie tragic]

Hoggard's never batted at 8 I don't think

Sorry, he's only batted once at # 8. I noted that Hoggard batted above Harmison in the last Ashes, so without Giles and Mahmood I slotted him in behind Reid.

Raises the question, who bats at # 8 if Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson and Panesar play?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Harmison indulges in prodigious thwackery from time to time and from that lot I'd have him at 8, then Hoggy, Monty, Jimmeh. Though I think Fletch would want Hoggy in first to block an end and let a batter score.

Tbh aside from the two spinner Tests, whichever line-up we put out it will have a long tail and that's the end of it.

 

[aussie tragic]

Harmison indulges in prodigious thwackery from time to time and from that lot I'd have him at 8, then Hoggy, Monty, Jimmeh. Though I think Fletch would want Hoggy in first to block an end and let a batter score.

Tbh aside from the two spinner Tests, whichever line-up we put out it will have a long tail and that's the end of it.

For a second or two, I bet McGrath wishes he was born English as he might then get to bat at # 10 or even # 9 with his much improved batting

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Heh, McGrath to bolster the batting.

Good grief.

 

[aussie tragic]

Heh, McGrath to bolster the batting.

Good grief.

Hey, he averages 14.50 in his last 20 Tests

 

[aussie tragic]

Just an update on the "last 10-Test" Stats due to MacGill probably playing and Collingwood probably not.

Australia

Hayden: 944 @ 52.44
Langer: 630 @ 37.05
Ponting: 1130 @ 70.62
Martyn: 452 @ 28.25
Hussey: 1109 @ 85.30
Watson: New (FC Record: 52 Games, 3812 runs @ 50.15; 96 wkts @ 31.03)
Gilchrist: 352 @ 25.14 and 36 dismissals (31/5)
Lee: 44 wkts @ 27.88
Warne: 51 wkts @ 29.94
MacGill: 51 wkts @ 23.09
McGrath: 43 wkts @ 25.39

England

Trescothick: 619 @ 34.38
Strauss: 837 @ 46.50
Cook: 761 @ 54.35 (Only 9 tests played)
Pieterson: 923 @ 51.27
Bell: 819 @ 51.18
Flintoff: 486 @ 30.37 and 43 wkts @ 28.04
Read: 287 @ 23.91 and 31 dismissals (27/4)
Harmison: 41 wkts @ 29.87
Hoggard: 38 wkts @ 28.26
Anderson: 29 wkts @ 34.51
Panesar: 32 wkts @ 32.40

 

[marc71178]

Why do you keep saying Watson is "new" when he has a Test record?

 

[steds]

Hoggard: 91 @ 7.00 (why does he bat at # 8???)

He doesn't.

 

[aussie tragic]

Why do you keep saying Watson is "new" when he has a Test record?

Because the thread is to show the form of each player over their last 10 tests and Watson only has 3 tests (just like why Mahmood would be called "new" if I didn't think Anderson would be ahead of him).

 

[Neil Pickup]

Because the thread is to show the form of each player over their last 10 tests and Watson only has 3 tests (just like why Mahmood would be called "new" if I didn't think Anderson would be ahead of him).

Then why include Read's games from 30 months ago?