DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[GIMH]

Apart from anything else, Ponting can barely handle 4 bowlers properly. 6 is asking too much of the young fella.

Good point.

Australia were found wanting with 4 bowlers last summer IMO, and it was where having an all-rounder, and the best one in the world at that, really paid off, tail comes in at the same point but you have one extra bowler. But I think it's obvious that Australia don't have an all-rounder good enough to help them beat England. You don't want Warne coming in at 7 do you? It's all well and good against Bangladesh, but you're facing the best attack in the world now! So I think the Aussies will have to go with 4 bowlers, but whatever they do I suspect they will be a little short either way.

 

[James]

are you taking the p!ss?

6 specialist bowlers?? You can only use 2 at a time......what's the point having 6?

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

The filter is there for a reason!

 

[Great Birtannia]

My preferred Ashes Line up at this point in time would be:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Jaques (He only moved to open to get a game at NSW!!!)
Hussey
Gilchrist
Lee
Gillespie
Warne
MacGill
McGrath

Playing Martyn and Clarke is a waste of time. Neither earned their recall to the team and both will fail again against the English attack. We need to take the risk and play 5 bowlers. Symonds failed and Watson wasn't given a proper run and with all the injuries it is too late for him this time around, forget an allrounder completely.

To that end, the Gabba pitch will be far more responsive, and generally I think, in Australian conditions, Clark has his nose in front of Dizzy

Disagree.

Clark has never really excelled in FC cricket in Australia. Remove the last 12 months of Gillespie's test career and it is faultless especially considering the amount of injuries he has had to overcome. He has went back to Pura Cup cricket and done all that he could possibly have been asked to. The selectors would be regretting not taking him to SA ahead of Kaspa, that would have been a much better measuring stick to see where he is at. As long as he averages under 30 for Yorkshire he is a lock for the side IMO.

 

[aussie]

. You got to be mad, there is no way Australia will or should play 6 BOWLERS in the ashes.

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do
I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.

Why? England showed in the Ashes and in Pakistan/India that they still aren't good againts spin especially leg-spinners, so if conditions are helpul you would be foolish to say MacGill wouldn't cause England many problems.

I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.

Langer even though he was hit ONCE still looked in decent form. He may not have had the big socres since the ashes but thats simply because of the injuries he had. Its not as if he looked as if he was losing it at all. I'm very sure if he had an injury free summer, Langer would have had big runs.

I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much..

I'd give you Martyn & Clark (more so) but not Hayden judging on his current batting form. I think it would be tempting fate to judge FOR CERTAIN how Gilly would do, i think he will get one or two big innings though.

So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill.

The idea of picking 6 bowlers in modern day cricket yet alone for the ashes is absolutely absurd. How is a captain suppose to utilize all those bowlers in a match?

As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

This sounds a bit more realistic, but unlikely to happen since Australia need the batting equally as much, so more likely Australia will play 6 bats instead of 5 bowlers.

As i just mentioned the only batsmen in the side that may struggle againts England's pace attack are Martyn, Clarke & Gilly. The rest i'm confindent of doing well

 

[aussie]

Playing Martyn and Clarke is a waste of time. Neither earned their recall to the team and both will fail again against the English attack.

A bit of a over-reaction here i think. Martyn is going down a bit i wont doubt that, but i dont think he will be an absolute waste of time if he plays in the ashes. We MUST not forget that in the ashes Martyn was really worked out by the English bowlers a la Hayden & Gilchrist, he suffered from a lot of bad decision and bad shots. IMO if luck can be on his side this time his experience will be vital.

Clark on the other hand, may fail yes but there is a chance he can make runs. After all he wasn't exactly hopeless during the ashes. All he needs to his adapt better shot selection and he'll be ok. If not Brad Hodge is another option.

We need to take the risk and play 5 bowlers. Symonds failed and Watson wasn't given a proper run and with all the injuries it is too late for him this time around, forget an allrounder completely.

The 5 bowlers policy is an option but as i just mentioned, playing the 6 batsmen is equally as important as that. In Australia's dominace the 4 bowler policy was very successful, in the ashes Australia missed that. Warne was the only consistent treat after lord's to England.

Its a fact that if McGrath could have played 5 test fully fit along with Warne bowling so well the ashes would have still been with Australia. Englands batting has its question marks so IMO the rejuvenated 4-man attack of McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Warne will be enough to beat England.

Also for now until the ashes is over the ``all-rounder`` option should be put on hold. But afterwards it will be definately needed with McGrath & Warne nearing retirement, the need for all-rounder will be vital. Shane Watson is the man wo has showed that promise at FC level so hopefully he will able to fill that role in the near future.

As long as he averages under 30 for Yorkshire he is a lock for the side IMO.

This is for damn sure..

 

[Richard]

My preferred Ashes Line up at this point in time would be:

Hayden
Langer

Just not gonna happen.
Since the first time they opened together, Langer has ALWAYS faced first.

 

[Richard]

You're unbelievable! I dub this the unfortunate six-bowler theory.

How in the world do you expect Australia to utilize 6 front-line bowlers in a Test innings against any opposition in this day and age? Even with 5 bowlers there tends to be one or two who don't get much of a bowl, and I'm wondering how exactly they justify their place if they bowl just a handful of overs.

Unbelievable!

You think after the Gillespie-Kasprowcz horror-story that many Australians wouldn't have been greatful for 6 bowlers last summer?
As I said, though - I wasn't being entirely serious.

 

[Richard]

So you want six bowlers when one of them (Warne) is going to bowl at least one third of the overs?

You know that for fact, do you?

 

[Richard]

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

I hardly think they're not.
There's no reason to presume it's less likely than more.

 

[Richard]

Good point.

Australia were found wanting with 4 bowlers last summer IMO, and it was where having an all-rounder, and the best one in the world at that, really paid off, tail comes in at the same point but you have one extra bowler. But I think it's obvious that Australia don't have an all-rounder good enough to help them beat England. You don't want Warne coming in at 7 do you? It's all well and good against Bangladesh, but you're facing the best attack in the world now! So I think the Aussies will have to go with 4 bowlers, but whatever they do I suspect they will be a little short either way.

As I say - the fact that they're facing the best attack in The World (hopefully, of course) means that batsmen and bowlers-who-bat are not as different as otherwise.

 

[Richard]

. You got to be mad, there is no way Australia will or should play 6 BOWLERS in the ashes.

Err, no, I haven't got to be mad, as I said I think there's no chance whatsoever of it.

Why? England showed in the Ashes and in Pakistan/India that they still aren't good againts spin especially leg-spinners, so if conditions are helpul you would be foolish to say MacGill wouldn't cause England many problems.

Err, England showed they aren't that good against GOOD spinners - we've handled average spinners like MacGill perfectly well - such as on the last Ashes tour.

Langer even though he was hit ONCE still looked in decent form. He may not have had the big socres since the ashes but thats simply because of the injuries he had. Its not as if he looked as if he was losing it at all. I'm very sure if he had an injury free summer, Langer would have had big runs.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. Langer has never scored runs infinately, he's not that good. I reckon he was due an average patch.
I also think that no-one can simply keep being hit and coming back from it forever.
In any case - the latest blow was even worse than anything yet.

I'd give you Martyn & Clark (more so) but not Hayden judging on his current batting form. I think it would be tempting fate to judge FOR CERTAIN how Gilly would do, i think he will get one or two big innings though.

And I was very careful not to say "I'm near enough certain we'll have the wood over Gilchrist"; I do, though, back us to expose Hayden again, regardless of his form a year before the event.

The idea of picking 6 bowlers in modern day cricket yet alone for the ashes is absolutely absurd. How is a captain suppose to utilize all those bowlers in a match?

Err, if 2 of them have absolute horror-stories it's kinda useful.

This sounds a bit more realistic, but unlikely to happen since Australia need the batting equally as much, so more likely Australia will play 6 bats instead of 5 bowlers.

As i just mentioned the only batsmen in the side that may struggle againts England's pace attack are Martyn, Clarke & Gilly. The rest i'm confindent of doing well

As I said, Australia don't have enough good batsmen - they don't have 7 who I'd say are likely to score runs against the English seam-attack. Their best chance would be to try to fight back by having the strongest attack possible - and we all know that McGrath, Gillespie and Clark can be absolutely lethal on a seamer, and Lee of late has bowled well on 2 or 3 of them, too.

 

[Richard]

Its a fact that if McGrath could have played 5 test fully fit along with Warne bowling so well the ashes would have still been with Australia.

In cricket there is no such thing as a fact and that's not even close.

 

[TT Boy]

My preferred Ashes Line up at this point in time would be:

Hayden
Langer

Just not gonna happen.
Since the first time they opened together, Langer has ALWAYS faced first.

How pedantic can one be.

 

[luckyeddie]

How pedantic can one be.

Much more so than that

 

[aussie]

Err, England showed they aren't that good against GOOD spinners - we've handled average spinners like MacGill perfectly well - such as on the last Ashes tour.

First of all MacGill is a bit better than ``average``. Also i think MacGill's control has improved a great deal since the 2002/03 series judging by seeing him bowl this summer i.e he has bowled MUCH less short balls & full tosses. So dont be surprised if he causes England problems if he gets a chance in the ashes.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. Langer has never scored runs infinately, he's not that good. I reckon he was due an average patch.

Well since the 2001 ashes Langer has been super consistent.

I also think that no-one can simply keep being hit and coming back from it forever.
In any case - the latest blow was even worse than anything yet.[/QUOTE]

Langer was only hit once in the Jo'Burg test, he has just had some unlucky injuries, if it was affecting him you would have saw it in how he batted. He didn't show any signs that he was declining at all. So once he has a injury free start to the pura cup this year, i expect buisness as usual from JL.

And I was very careful not to say "I'm near enough certain we'll have the wood over Gilchrist"; I do, though, back us to expose Hayden again, regardless of his form a year before the event.

I have a feeling you will eat your words about Hayden. November 23rd can't come sooner

Err, if 2 of them have absolute horror-stories it's kinda useful.

Well probably, but once you got 5 VERY GOOD bowlers like the options like Australia would have not many batting sides would be making big runs againts you. Its better to pick the next batsman.

As I said, Australia don't have enough good batsmen - they don't have 7 who I'd say are likely to score runs against the English seam-attack. Their best chance would be to try to fight back by having the strongest attack possible - and we all know that McGrath, Gillespie and Clark can be absolutely lethal on a seamer, and Lee of late has bowled well on 2 or 3 of them, too.

Its an option, but looking back at the ashes Warne caused England much headaches, during Australia 10 years plus of dominace the 4 man attack of McGrath/Gillespie Warne & Lee, Kasper, Fleming has done the trick. So once the current 4 are bowling well i think that will be enough to counter England.

 

[aussie]

In cricket there is no such thing as a fact and that's not even close.

Judging by the ashes i think it is. England had the measure of Australia's batting, but when Australia bowled after the lord's test the only consistent treat England got came from Warne & even with that the Test England won were tight contest.

Look at how McGrath bowled at Lord's, all Australia & Warne needed was his champion partner fully fit for all 5 test & England definately would not have made 3 consecutive 400 totals batting 1st which put Australia back a lot.

I admit it probably isn't a FACT that if pigeon had played all 5 test fully fit Australia would have had the ashes.But in most cases i think if that were the case one would have to assume that with those 2 bowling well together that Australia would not lose a series.

 

[Richard]

How pedantic can one be.

Very.
For some reason it always annoys me when people get opening-pairs which are always the same the wrong way around.

 

[Richard]

First of all MacGill is a bit better than ``average``. Also i think MacGill's control has improved a great deal since the 2002/03 series judging by seeing him bowl this summer i.e he has bowled MUCH less short balls & full tosses. So dont be surprised if he causes England problems if he gets a chance in the ashes.

No, he hasn't, he's just been punished less for them. I've watched pretty well, and I've lost count of the number he got away with.
I find it near enough impossible that MacGill could be average for so long then become good at 35 or however old he is.
MacGill is no better than "average", and has been poor since 2000\01 (Third Test).

Well since the 2001 ashes Langer has been super consistent.

No more so than 1998\99 to 2000\01.
Langer has ALWAYS had fallow periods - he's not good enough not to.
He is good enough, though, to cash-in big-time when he's going well.

Langer was only hit once in the Jo'Burg test, he has just had some unlucky injuries, if it was affecting him you would have saw it in how he batted. He didn't show any signs that he was declining at all. So once he has a injury free start to the pura cup this year, i expect buisness as usual from JL.

You expect a lot, then.
Tough a WAn as he is - being hit on the head 5 or 6 times (may be more - it's certainly 3 just while batting) will inevitably eventually take it's toll.
Whether that time will be now I'm not sure - something simply tells me it might be.

I have a feeling you will eat your words about Hayden. November 23rd can't come sooner

You had that feeling in 2005, too...

Well probably, but once you got 5 VERY GOOD bowlers like the options like Australia would have not many batting sides would be making big runs againts you. Its better to pick the next batsman.

It generally is, but if you had 5 VERY GOOD bowlers and 2 of them had horror-stories (happened with Kasprowicz and Gillespie in The Ashes - both are undeniably VERY GOOD bowlers, though with Tait and Lee in there with them it reduced Australia's stocks to 3, with Warne).

Its an option, but looking back at the ashes Warne caused England much headaches, during Australia 10 years plus of dominace the 4 man attack of McGrath/Gillespie Warne & Lee, Kasper, Fleming has done the trick. So once the current 4 are bowling well i think that will be enough to counter England.

It's a guess to think Lee will bowl well.

 

[Richard]

Judging by the ashes i think it is. England had the measure of Australia's batting, but when Australia bowled after the lord's test the only consistent treat England got came from Warne & even with that the Test England won were tight contest.

Look at how McGrath bowled at Lord's, all Australia & Warne needed was his champion partner fully fit for all 5 test & England definately would not have made 3 consecutive 400 totals batting 1st which put Australia back a lot.

I admit it probably isn't a FACT that if pigeon had played all 5 test fully fit Australia would have had the ashes.But in most cases i think if that were the case one would have to assume that with those 2 bowling well together that Australia would not lose a series.

The Lord's pitch was quite unlike the middle 3 pitches.
Yes, it's quite likely had McGrath played England wouldn't have made so big scores, but it's far from certain.

 

[Jono]

Ponting doesn't know how to handle 5 bowlers properly Richard, I hardly see how Australia picking 6 would work. You'd just have MacGill doing nothing for 80 overs.