DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Whether Ponting can handle them or not is beside the point, which is that the entire idea is completely insane. Not only is six bowlers pointless when your bowlers are actually any good, but it terminally weakens the batting.

Why six bowlers anyway? We can agree that Warne is likely to bowl well, yes? Given that he is a good bowler? So you're going to want him to be bowling say 20 overs out of every set of 80, at least. This is ignoring the fact that, however, awful you might think the batsmen are, having seven batsmen averaging 30+ is better than having five batsmen averaging 40+, and it's much, much more likely.

 

[Hoggy31]

6 bowlers?! That's just ludicrous.

Anyway,
I'd still say Clark is ahead of Gillespie even with the double hundred and all, Clark took wickets against proven opposition in South Africa. I'd still like to see Australia play 5 bowlers. McGrath, Lee and Warne are probably the integral 3, whereas Clark, MacGill and Gillespie could probably be rotated depending on the pitch conditions. Also if Watson has a good county stint with the ball I'd like to see him play as the fifth bowler. As for the batting, I think the top 5 is pretty much set in Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn and Hussey.

 

[howardj]

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.



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.

Can not understand, if someone watched the last Ashes series, why they would want Australia to play five bowlers this coming summer. In effect, people are saying that they want an already-fading Adam Gilchrist (have a look at his form in South Africa) to bat at number six, against an attack which totally exposed him last time, and which even reduced the great Ricky Ponting to an average of 37. Yet people still want to shorten the batting line-up?

Regarding Australia's bowling, our problem was not the number of overs we took to knock England over last time (I doubt they batted more than 100 overs on two occasions). Rather, it was the number of runs that we conceded in those overs. That is no basis for picking five bowlers - which Australia should only ever do in the most barren of conditions (West Indies 2003 etc) - rather, it demands a better line and length from the four bowlers that are picked, than the fare served up last time by the likes of Kasprowicz and Gillespie.

I'll repeat what I said on another thread that Australia's search for a fifth bowling option only ever came about when one or two of our four bowlers was bowling rubbish in England. Four bowlers, bowling well, more than sustained Australia through our golden period. That at least one of our attack was bowling rubbish, in one series, is no basis for shortening an already struggling batting line-up, and picking five bowlers, and exposing the likes of Warne and Lee at number seven. Nor is it a basis for picking an inadequate batsman like Symonds in the top six.

Regarding Gillespie...I still think Clark is definitely ahead. Against Australia's last quality opposition, Clark excelled and won man of the series. By contrast, Gillespie struggled against England, New Zealand and Pakistan. Gillespie's omission from the team in 2005 was as a result of a gradual decline, not an isolated bad patch of form. Moreover, I think the selectors will find it hard to pick Gillespie, first up at the Gabba, when they haven't seen him bowl to quality Test opponents since he got dropped. And against the very same batting line-up that exposed him last time. Granted, he would be next in line if an injury were to occur.

 

[Richard]

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.

Unless 2 of the seamers bowled a heap of crap a la Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005.

 

[Richard]

Whether Ponting can handle them or not is beside the point, which is that the entire idea is completely insane. Not only is six bowlers pointless when your bowlers are actually any good, but it terminally weakens the batting.

Why six bowlers anyway? We can agree that Warne is likely to bowl well, yes? Given that he is a good bowler? So you're going to want him to be bowling say 20 overs out of every set of 80, at least. This is ignoring the fact that, however, awful you might think the batsmen are, having seven batsmen averaging 30+ is better than having five batsmen averaging 40+, and it's much, much more likely.

How many times?
I don't think it's in the slightest likely - nor did I say it was unquestionably the best strategy.
If I supported Australia I'd want 6 batsmen, 5 bowlers.
Incidentally - WR Warne, yes, he's likely to bowl well, but so were Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005. Sometimes even the most likely of things don't come to pass.

 

[howardj]

Incidentally - WR Warne, yes, he's likely to bowl well, but so were Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005. Sometimes even the most likely of things don't come to pass.

So teams should be picked on the basis that some players may play poorly?

I think, before you start doing that, you should perhaps leave out the players who you think are going to play poorly.

 

[aussie]

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).

I gotta disagree MacGill is better than average, an average spinner would be Giles, Boje & Vetorri (againts most teams other than Australia or in conditions that dont help him), Adams, Karthik etc. MacGill is definately better than all of these bowlers it just that he has been inconsistent. You say he has been poor since the 3rd test vs West Indies 2000/01 to now:

[MacGill from 2000/01 to now]http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=4376;class=testplayer;filter=advanced;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0;startdefault=1998-01-30;start=2000-12-15;enddefault=2006-04-20;end=2006-04-20;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduleddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;result=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_summary;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

He has averaged 29 during this time, i cant see how this has been poor.

No more so than 1998\99 to 2000\01.

Yea i think his form since 2001 has been better since then for the sole reason that he plays spin MUCH better his monumental 178 in colombo proves this. That is an area where he still had problems in between 98/99 to 2000/01

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.

When you talking about him being hit, you talking about over his entire career or recently?

If its over his entire career well i'm not sure if it will seriously affect him since he has always been a tough nut to crack.

If its recently as i said the only time he was hit all season whether playing for Australia or WA was in the Jo'burg test while he has gotten other foolish little injuries.

You had that feeling in 2005, too...

Yea but i was wrong about Hayden then, you & TEC were right. This time i believe the tables will turn.

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).

No i'm talking about in a match where you play 5 bowlers, not have 5 bowlers in your squad. In this case if in a match you have 5 top bowlers in a match in good form the game should not get away from you.

Its an option but Australia are better of playing the extra batsman, especially looking at the fact that Gilly is declining.

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

No I think its close to a certainty given the way he has bowled in the Australian summer & in South Africa.

 

[aussie]

Regarding Gillespie...I still think Clark is definitely ahead. Against Australia's last quality opposition, Clark excelled and won man of the series. By contrast, Gillespie struggled against England, New Zealand and Pakistan. Gillespie's omission from the team in 2005 was as a result of a gradual decline, not an isolated bad patch of form. Moreover, I think the selectors will find it hard to pick Gillespie, first up at the Gabba, when they haven't seen him bowl to quality Test opponents since he got dropped. And against the very same batting line-up that exposed him last time. Granted, he would be next in line if an injury were to occur.

Its true that Dizzy may not have had played againts a top class opponent since he was dropped & coincidentally he will be facing the England who exposed him the last time. But looking back at how Dizzy bowled before the ashes he was losing his zip then & was just accurate without taking wickets vs PAK & NZ, then England saw that & targeted him and he struggled. In Bangladesh on those flat pitches he showed signs that he is getting that zip back since Dizzy is the type of bowler who likes to bowl just short of a lenght & move it of the seam both ways.

I didn't see the pura cup matches he played but by all reports that ZIP seems to have come back. The County standard over here is pretty high especially in the 1st division where Yorkshire are in. So for me if he has a top season plus does well in the two pura cup games in lead up to the Gabba test i'd be hard pressed not to pick him. Plus his lower-order batting is a huge asset as well.

 

[howardj]

Its true that Dizzy may not have had played againts a top class opponent since he was dropped & coincidentally he will be facing the England who exposed him the last time. But looking back at how Dizzy bowled before the ashes he was losing his zip then & was just accurate without taking wickets vs PAK & NZ, then England saw that & targeted him and he struggled. In Bangladesh on those flat pitches he showed signs that he is getting that zip back since Dizzy is the type of bowler who likes to bowl just short of a lenght & move it of the seam both ways.

I didn't see the pura cup matches he played but by all reports that ZIP seems to have come back. The County standard over here is pretty high especially in the 1st division where Yorkshire are in. So for me if he has a top season plus does well in the two pura cup games in lead up to the Gabba test i'd be hard pressed not to pick him. Plus his lower-order batting is a huge asset as well.

Fair enough mate. It would be romantic - in a cricketing sense - and great, to see all of the Old Guard back for one final Ashes assault. They certainly wouldn't be lacking in motivation.

 

[aussie]

word out, that would be great..

 

[Richard]

So teams should be picked on the basis that some players may play poorly?

I think, before you start doing that, you should perhaps leave out the players who you think are going to play poorly.

Well... you can hardly expect everyone to do well all the time.
Yes, obviously you want to leave-out players you think aren't going to do well. However, sometimes people do inexplicably poorly - eg Gillespie and Kasprowicz in The Ashes.

 

[Richard]

I gotta disagree MacGill is better than average, an average spinner would be Giles, Boje & Vetorri (againts most teams other than Australia or in conditions that dont help him), Adams, Karthik etc. MacGill is definately better than all of these bowlers it just that he has been inconsistent. You say he has been poor since the 3rd test vs West Indies 2000/01 to now:

MacGill from 2000/01 to now

He has averaged 29 during this time, i cant see how this has been poor.

Oh, come on! Bangladesh are NOT Test-class - he's averaged 33 without help from them.
MacGill, meanwhile, might be better than the average fingerspinners in some conditions but he's certainly not in others.

Yea i think his form since 2001 has been better since then for the sole reason that he plays spin MUCH better his monumental 178 in colombo proves this. That is an area where he still had problems in between 98/99 to 2000/01

He is still plenty weak against spin. I don't see how the change against spin could possibly have happened in 2001, maybe he's slightly better against spin now than he used to be, but that change certainly didn't happen in 2001. Probably more like 2003.

When you talking about him being hit, you talking about over his entire career or recently?

If its over his entire career well i'm not sure if it will seriously affect him since he has always been a tough nut to crack.

If its recently as i said the only time he was hit all season whether playing for Australia or WA was in the Jo'burg test while he has gotten other foolish little injuries.

I'm talking about over his career - and I think eventually getting hit and being badly injured enough will take it's toll on any player, however spaced-out.

Yea but i was wrong about Hayden then, you & TEC were right. This time i believe the tables will turn.

And I believe they won't.

No i'm talking about in a match where you play 5 bowlers, not have 5 bowlers in your squad. In this case if in a match you have 5 top bowlers in a match in good form the game should not get away from you.

Err, obviously...

Its an option but Australia are better of playing the extra batsman, especially looking at the fact that Gilly is declining.

There are no batsmen who are clearly better options than Gilchrist.

No I think its close to a certainty given the way he has bowled in the Australian summer & in South Africa.

Nothing regarding Brett Lee is ever close to a certainty.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough mate. It would be romantic - in a cricketing sense - and great, to see all of the Old Guard back for one final Ashes assault. They certainly wouldn't be lacking in motivation.

I'd like little more than to see both teams fielding virtually the same line-ups as in 2005.

 

[howardj]

I'd like little more than to see both teams fielding virtually the same line-ups as in 2005.

So, we've found something that would satisfy you, and shut you up?

Just kiddin' mate.

 

[Richard]

It's easy to get the impression I'm rarely satisfied, I suppose...

 

[andyc]

Can not understand, if someone watched the last Ashes series, why they would want Australia to play five bowlers this coming summer. In effect, people are saying that they want an already-fading Adam Gilchrist (have a look at his form in South Africa) to bat at number six, against an attack which totally exposed him last time, and which even reduced the great Ricky Ponting to an average of 37. Yet people still want to shorten the batting line-up?

Regarding Australia's bowling, our problem was not the number of overs we took to knock England over last time (I doubt they batted more than 100 overs on two occasions). Rather, it was the number of runs that we conceded in those overs. That is no basis for picking five bowlers - which Australia should only ever do in the most barren of conditions (West Indies 2003 etc) - rather, it demands a better line and length from the four bowlers that are picked, than the fare served up last time by the likes of Kasprowicz and Gillespie.

I'll repeat what I said on another thread that Australia's search for a fifth bowling option only ever came about when one or two of our four bowlers was bowling rubbish in England. Four bowlers, bowling well, more than sustained Australia through our golden period. That at least one of our attack was bowling rubbish, in one series, is no basis for shortening an already struggling batting line-up, and picking five bowlers, and exposing the likes of Warne and Lee at number seven. Nor is it a basis for picking an inadequate batsman like Symonds in the top six.

Regarding Gillespie...I still think Clark is definitely ahead. Against Australia's last quality opposition, Clark excelled and won man of the series. By contrast, Gillespie struggled against England, New Zealand and Pakistan. Gillespie's omission from the team in 2005 was as a result of a gradual decline, not an isolated bad patch of form. Moreover, I think the selectors will find it hard to pick Gillespie, first up at the Gabba, when they haven't seen him bowl to quality Test opponents since he got dropped. And against the very same batting line-up that exposed him last time. Granted, he would be next in line if an injury were to occur.

Top post, Howard. I don't see any problem in playing just the four bowlers, and I definitely agree with you on Symonds. In my mind, the best four would be McGrath/Lee/Warne/MacGill. Unfortunately, we'll probably end up with three seamers and Warne.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

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.

Really?

 

[Richard]

That was clearly TWO tours ago, and I quite clearly said the LAST tour - ie this.

 

[aussie]

Oh, come on! Bangladesh are NOT Test-class - he's averaged 33 without help from them.
MacGill, meanwhile, might be better than the average fingerspinners in some conditions but he's certainly not in others.

ok leave Bangladesh out, since the 2000 adelaide test vs West Indies i would'nt say he has been generally POOR at all as you are implying, he has jus been very inconsistent. In various conditions he has bowled in he has done well in it i.e turning tracks at the SCG in almost every test he has played (except 2003/04 vs India) & in Pakistan 98/99. While he has wasted some e.g SRI 2004.

Or flat tracks vs West Indies 2003 he did well & vs India 2003/04 he was poor.

He is still plenty weak against spin. I don't see how the change against spin could possibly have happened in 2001, maybe he's slightly better against spin now than he used to be, but that change certainly didn't happen in 2001. Probably more like 2003.

No i wasn't saying he became better vs spin in 2001 exactly. I meant since the 2001 ashes test to now he has proved he is better againts it.

I'm talking about over his career - and I think eventually getting hit and being badly injured enough will take it's toll on any player, however spaced-out.

Well yes thats true, but as i said JL is a tough nut to crack and i wont be surprised if he comes back well.

And I believe they won't.

Unlike 2005 when you and TEC rightfully & in my opinion sometimes overexaggerated his weaknesss againts swing bowling & said it would lead to his downfall. This time however he has proved in conditions he has faced like that that he is an improved player in that area. So if you can still be so arrogantly sure that he will fail againts England again, thats a bit foolish and you may very well eat your words.

There are no batsmen who are clearly better options than Gilchrist.

I didn't say they were..

Nothing regarding Brett Lee is ever close to a certainty.

before the ashes that was true but looking at how consistent he was for this summer i think one can assume with some degree of certainty how he will do.

 

[Richard]

ok leave Bangladesh out, since the 2000 adelaide test vs West Indies i would'nt say he has been generally POOR at all as you are implying, he has jus been very inconsistent. In various conditions he has bowled in he has done well in it i.e turning tracks at the SCG in almost every test he has played (except 2003/04 vs India) & in Pakistan 98/99. While he has wasted some e.g SRI 2004.

Or flat tracks vs West Indies 2003 he did well & vs India 2003/04 he was poor.

At The SCG after his 1st Test there he's done little, as shown.
Between Adelaide 2000\01 and Kandy 2003\04 MacGill had a sum-total of 1 good Test out of 16. He then had 3 good Tests, thanks to dismissing a load of tailenders.

No i wasn't saying he became better vs spin in 2001 exactly. I meant since the 2001 ashes test to now he has proved he is better againts it.

He only had the chance to prove it in 2003\04. So what you mean is that he's been super-consistent since 2003\04. Even that's not totally true, since he was hardly magnificent in SL and Ind, with 1 really good innings (at the last possible moment) in 14.

Well yes thats true, but as i said JL is a tough nut to crack and i wont be surprised if he comes back well.

I won't be surprised as such, but I don't take it for granted the way you seem to.

Unlike 2005 when you and TEC rightfully & in my opinion sometimes overexaggerated his weaknesss againts swing bowling & said it would lead to his downfall. This time however he has proved in conditions he has faced like that that he is an improved player in that area. So if you can still be so arrogantly sure that he will fail againts England again, thats a bit foolish and you may very well eat your words.

I'm not sure - I just think it's likely.
I rarely eat my words.

before the ashes that was true but looking at how consistent he was for this summer i think one can assume with some degree of certainty how he will do.

I don't. All it takes, as we saw even this summer, is someone to get after him and he can lose it completely.