Group A - India, England, Australia, West Indies

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Haha, glossing over things a bit there aren't you? They had an alright time of it in India and 1-1 is a respectable result, but they lost 2-0 in Pakistan and then drew 1-1 with Sri Lanka (who aren't the most fearsome test side away from home) in England. England have had a pretty rough time of it in test cricket in the last year, and there's no way they are in "top form". Australia's had some problems, but 11 wins and a draw in 12 tests is a pretty damn good record nonetheless, and half of those tests were against South Africa who are a solid side.

England on the other hand have won 4 tests since the Ashes (excluding the forfeit), drawn 4 and lost 4. They've had harder opposition, but Australia have certainly had a much better run in both forms of the game in the last 12 months.

Granted, Australia had a largely fit unit and took 5 of their 11 wins off the West Indies (away) and Bangladesh, not to mention the farce that was the SuperTest.

England may not be in top form, but it's a bit harsh to say that they've slipped so far over the past year, given that they've missed key personnel and still only lost one series, whilst achieving a very admirable 1-1 result in India.

The best team that Australia played in the last year - South Africa - was also beaten 2-0 by the team that competed so well with England - Sri Lanka. South Africa have also only beaten the New Zealand (in SA), West Indies (in SA) and Zimbabwe (in SA) in their last 10 Test series, so it's not as though they've had any powerhouse form of which to speak.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Thats a bit harsh even if the recordbooks says it.

Even if Pakistan went on to win the last Test, it would still be a fairly resounding series win for England. They were the dominant party.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Granted, Australia had a largely fit unit and took 5 of their 11 wins off the West Indies (away) and Bangladesh, not to mention the farce that was the SuperTest.

England may not be in top form, but it's a bit harsh to say that they've slipped so far over the past year, given that they've missed key personnel and still only lost one series, whilst achieving a very admirable 1-1 result in India.

The best team that Australia played in the last year - South Africa - was also beaten 2-0 by the team that competed so well with England - Sri Lanka. South Africa have also only beaten the New Zealand (in SA), West Indies (in SA) and Zimbabwe (in SA) in their last 10 Test series, so it's not as though they've had any powerhouse form of which to speak.

Not arguing with any of that, though I do think you're underestimating the significance of 11 wins in 12 tests, but I was responding to the claim that England were in "top form" in tests, which is surely not the case when you're losing as many tests as you're winning as the #2 side in the world.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not arguing with any of that, though I do think you're underestimating the significance of 11 wins in 12 tests, but I was responding to the claim that England were in "top form" in tests, which is surely not the case when you're losing as many tests as you're winning as the #2 side in the world.

I think the crux of it all is that the England team that has been playing over the past year is not the number 2 side in the world. Yes, there's an argument for depth needed to be a great side, but neither England nor Australia have any great depth behind their first team (though Johnson is a bright sign). The gap between the England 1st XI and the 2nd XI is immense. The England first XI hasn't played since the Ashes last year.

 

[marc71178]

So you class him as one of the best allrounders in one day cricket?

Scores runs at a fast rate.

Takes wickets whilst keeping the run rate down.

What else does he need to do?

 

[marc71178]

Poor tactics by England imo, sides know as soon as Flintoff and Pietersen are back in the hutch that they can contain the rest of the batsmen pretty easily, both aren't in the greatest form, so we shove them both up the order.

With the batting line up in place, who exactly should've been at 3 and 4 then?

 

[marc71178]

they do they just dont use him though his names Matt Prior

Apart from the keeping and batting part you mean?

 

[marc71178]

I've seen Watson plenty of times, he's straight up and down - which is toothless at international level

Sounds a bit like Flintoff at a similar age...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That's actually a very good comparision. Flintoff had a little more pace, I'd say, and hit the deck harder, but still.

Watson's started to move the ball a bit these days, that ball he got Gayle with last week as well as the ball that bowled Hinds in the DLF cup both had some good movement on them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I think the "straight up and down" claims are a bit unfair now, though he certainly was that last year. Nobody was moving the ball in the 5-40 over period on saturday, with the exception of Johnson who bowled some great cutters, so you can't really judge Watson on whether or not he was getting significant movement. He was accurate, bowled quick and had good variations, and that's the main thing.

He certainly has taken a few wickets with movement in recent times, like the two Smith mentioned. Besides, he's getting two wickets a match on average in the last year, so he's obviously causing a few problems.

We'll get a better idea of what he can do with the ball once he's bowling over 5 days with the red ball, or preferably over a whole series.

 

[sideshowtim]

I want people to start giving Ponting some credit for his captaincy of late. It's been nothing but spot on. If you dish it out to him you've got to be willing to give him credit where it's due.

He got the 2 dangermen for England (Flintoff and Pietersen) out by telling his bowlers to start bowling tactically short, and his bowling change to give Symonds the one over really broke the game open for us. Same could be said against WI where he bought on Clarke to get a vital breakthrough. Seems everyone is quick to rush to criticise but when he does something well no one says anything.

 

[Mister Wright]

I want people to start giving Ponting some credit for his captaincy of late. It's been nothing but spot on. If you dish it out to him you've got to be willing to give him credit where it's due.

He got the 2 dangermen for England (Flintoff and Pietersen) out by telling his bowlers to start bowling tactically short, and his bowling change to give Symonds the one over really broke the game open for us. Same could be said against WI where he bought on Clarke to get a vital breakthrough. Seems everyone is quick to rush to criticise but when he does something well no one says anything.

Bowling short is less of an on field decision, that would have been discussed by Ponting, Buchannan, Nielsen and Gilchrist before the game started. But you're right his bowling changes have been a lot better. But it also helps that he hasn't had someone like Lewis going for 36 an over and all his bowlers have been doing their jobs.

 

[Poker Boy]

Someone I support played BRILLIANTLY this week..but it was tennis player Daniela Hantuchova (I love you!) NOT England. OMG, where do we start? The batting: if we start well we collapse. If we start bad, we don't fight back. Two poor innings by Read, how long before the "bring back Geriant Jones" campaign starts? Good points: 1. Strauss and Bell started well. 2. Mahmood got wickets. 3. Erm...pass. Wait, I've thought of something. The Aussies might think that the Ashes will be easy and get complacent. Well, let's hope so...

 

[Poker Boy]

About England's Test record. 0-2 in Pakistan was a kick-up-the ass thy needed after the Ashes.1 -1 in India and 2-0(forget the forefit) at home to Pakistan would have been good results with the Ashes team never mind with the injuries we had. And about SL - but for dropped catches we'd have beeb 2-0 up after 2 Tests. The last Test defeat would then have been a case of "dead-rubber" syndrone - which NEVER happened to Australia. PS -Pakistan H and A, India A and SL H against the ICC Waste of Time XI and WI at home, SA H and A, and Bangladesh A . If Australia had England's fixtures would they have done better?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

And about SL - but for dropped catches we'd have beeb 2-0 up after 2 Tests.

Worst. Excuse. Ever.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

If they were as injury crippled as England were, then probably not. But if they had the same squad available then yes, they probably would've.

 

[superkingdave]

With the batting line up in place, who exactly should've been at 3 and 4 then?

Pietersen at 3, then the Colrymple brothers, then Flintoff at six. If the 3rd wicket partnership is substantial, Flintoff could move up to 5.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Whether Pietersen could handle new ball, is debatable. When he has just come in, it is pretty much exactly the same as being an opener, and you would put him there, would you?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I agree with dav.

 

[Xuhaib]

Pietersen at 3, then the Colrymple brothers, then Flintoff at six. If the 3rd wicket partnership is substantial, Flintoff could move up to 5.