Its 2007 and it the start of the ashes in Australia, what would be your best xi

[chris.hinton]

No giles though i think Panesar will do better in England

 

[Barney Rubble]

Bell's under no threat at all - how on earth do you come to such a conclusion?

I appreciate he's had some low scores on the subcontinent, but he's also had 71, 115, 92 and 57, plus a couple of 30-odds. He's been one of the few successes on the winter tours.

Oh, I forgot. You just don't like him.

That's what I've been saying.

I also have no idea why Andrew "a century every third Test" Strauss' place is supposedly in danger, either.

To my mind, the XI is 90% nailed-on to be the same one that played the first four Tests of the 2005 Ashes, with the other six names in the tour party being Cook, Shah, Collingwood, Read (he'll overtake Prior soon enough), Anderson and Panesar. Plunkett and Tremlett unlucky to miss out.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's what I've been saying.

I also have no idea why Andrew "a century every third Test" Strauss' place is supposedly in danger, either.

To my mind, the XI is 90% nailed-on to be the same one that played the first four Tests of the 2005 Ashes, with the other six names in the tour party being Cook, Shah, Collingwood, Read (he'll overtake Prior soon enough), Anderson and Panesar. Plunkett and Tremlett unlucky to miss out.

As I keep saying how the hell is Bell who averages around 30 against proper opposition ahead of Collingwood who averages over 40 (at this moment)? Completely ridiculous. Bell does not look Test class and his record is not Test class, he's only managed runs on complete roads where the par score is 500 or against truly awful bowling attacks (Bangladesh). It is amazing how people who wrote Collingwood off and said Bell was the bee's knees are still hanging onto this theory after Collingwood has completely stuffed Bell in terms of performance.

 

[marc71178]

No giles though i think Panesar will do better in England

Hmm, because his 5 wickets @ 59.40 is such a great return isn't it?

Add in the fact he can't bat or field and Giles has to come back.

 

[Matt79]

Aussies:

Haydon
Langer
Ponting
Hodge
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
Tait

Sadly I think its likely McGrath won't be joining us.

 

[The Baconator]

Aussies:

Haydon
Langer
Ponting
Hodge
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
Tait

Sadly I think its likely McGrath won't be joining us.

No Hussey either?

 

[Matt79]

dammit i knew i'd mess it up. I originally was going to predict langer would be gone and hussey opening instead, but changed my mind and left langer in - then forgot to slot hussey back in.

he'd be in at hodge's expense

 

[aussie]

well at this stage once everyone is available & fit for both sides, this could be the teams walking out to the gabba come november 23rd:

ENGLAND - 95% sure of this

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
G Jones
Giles
Hoggard
Harmison
S Jones

AUSTRALIA - 85% sure

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath

 

[marc71178]

How can you 95% sure of an England side including a player who even himself is beginning to wonder if his career is over?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia should either play Watson or give up on the all-rounder experiement. Symonds isn't batting well enough to be at number 6, and his bowling is nothing more than handy. He's been better with the ball than the bat actually, and if he was averaging 40 odd natting I'd be happy to keep him because his seamers have been quite good, but his batting has been rubbish and Watson would be a better pick.

If not Watson, then Clarke.

 

[aussie]

How can you 95% sure of an England side including a player who even himself is beginning to wonder if his career is over?

thats why its 95%, you fool. Not as if these percentages are accurate, i just randomly selected them. Gilo is one player, so i didn't think his dilemma would make a big percentage drop.

 

[aussie]

Australia should either play Watson or give up on the all-rounder experiement. Symonds isn't batting well enough to be at number 6, and his bowling is nothing more than handy. He's been better with the ball than the bat actually, and if he was averaging 40 odd natting I'd be happy to keep him because his seamers have been quite good, but his batting has been rubbish and Watson would be a better pick.

If not Watson, then Clarke.

Thats the thing, i think the selectors especially Ponting want to have a 5th bowling option in the side these days, so their are sacrificing playing the extra batsman which should be Clark.Has you said Watson would defiantely be a better pick but he could aslo warrant a place in the top 6 as a batsman. For me once McGrath is back again, i think Australia could have great stability for the ashes with a 4-man attack of McGrath/Lee/Clark/Warne.

 

[howardj]

Maybe now that Australia have found a 3rd seamer - Stuart Clark - the quest to find an all-rounder may be discontinued. When you think about it, that quest, in my view, came about because our 3rd seamer in England (be it Kasper or Dizzy) was bowling pretty woefully. It was not because three quicks and a spinner is an insufficient arsenal to pick up 20 wickets. That is only the case if one or two of those bowlers (as in the Ashes) is bowling poorly. Such a balance would enable Australia to include a genuine batsman (the standout is Michael Clarke) at number six. Surely, with Gilly fading, we need a specialist bat at number six, up against England's highly skilled pace battery.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Agreed.

A five man attack is certainly a bonus, but really it only has two potential advantages. One is that it can offer more flexibility to an attack, such as the ability to play a specialist swing bowler for particular conditions, an extra spinner, or just a wider range of seam bowlers. The other (and the one that was of huge benefit to England during the Ashes) is the ability to "hide" an underperforming bowler, but giving them a minimal workload where they can bowl one poor spell and then sit in the field for the bulk of the day while the others do the work. Hoggard, Jones and Harmison all benefited from this at times during the Ashes, and an attack that might have had a weak point on one day or another looked solid all the time.

Symonds has done a reasonable job as he's been able to keep the runs very tight, and therefore send down some overs to try something new or rest the other bowlers without giving much away. And when there's some seam movement around he's a mildly threatening bowler, as we saw in the Boxing Day test. He isn't however adding anything in his own right to the attack - he's not going to be a major wicket taking threat very often, even when it turns he's only a moderately useful spin option, and on a seaming wicket he's okay but not as good as any of Australia's other bowlers. So really, he's not part of the bowling attack in any real sense, he just fills in a few overs.

Watson has the potential to actually be an attacking option in test cricket. He's got the tools to be a decent bowler, but he isn't there yet. One would imagine that Symonds scores over him in terms of bowling ability at the moment because he can keep it very tight, but Watson has the potential to be worth more in that area. With the bat, Symonds looks lost at test level. He either hangs around and survives or he smashes the ball around until he gets out, neither of which are particularly great attributes for a test number 6. Clarke is a much better batsman, without question. The one thing Symonds really does bring to the team is his fielding, but Clarke is an excellent fielder as well, so there's no huge loss there.

Australia would be better off with either Clarke or Watson, both of whom are more likely to be successful batsmen at test level than Symonds, and neither of whom lose out significantly to Symonds "all-rounder" credentials. Certainly, keeping Symonds in the side so he can bowl 10 overs per innings and take 0/20 is a stupid idea. He needs to justify his position as a batsman or be dropped.

 

[Nate]

thats why its 95%, you fool. Not as if these percentages are accurate, i just randomly selected them. Gilo is one player, so i didn't think his dilemma would make a big percentage drop.

Funniest post I`ve read for months.

 

[Nate]

I wish Symonds would just make some damn runs. He`s such a unit, and brings so much to the field. Please Symo, make a century this next match. Please! Take Steyn apart!

 

[marc71178]

Funniest post I`ve read for months.

It's a similar basis to some of Richard's statistics.

He makes them up, if he likes the player then their statistically more likely to have a better figure made up for them.

 

[Neil Pickup]

then their statistically more likely to have a better figure made up for them.

Is that you, aussie?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Is that you, aussie?

Twice!

I'll start on the gallows.

 

[aussie]

Agreed.

A five man attack is certainly a bonus, but really it only has two potential advantages. One is that it can offer more flexibility to an attack, such as the ability to play a specialist swing bowler for particular conditions, an extra spinner, or just a wider range of seam bowlers. The other (and the one that was of huge benefit to England during the Ashes) is the ability to "hide" an underperforming bowler, but giving them a minimal workload where they can bowl one poor spell and then sit in the field for the bulk of the day while the others do the work. Hoggard, Jones and Harmison all benefited from this at times during the Ashes, and an attack that might have had a weak point on one day or another looked solid all the time.

He needs to justify his position as a batsman or be dropped.

1. I agree with your idea's on the advantages of having aa 5th bowling option. But in Australia case presently i think the selectors & Ponting just want to have that 5th bowling option especially with McGrath & Warne coming to the end of their career's.

2. Well for me even if Symonds does score a hundred in Durban playing naturally, i would still drop even though his fielding is superb & bowling has been economical because he has played againts WI who played him surprising defensively & SA who are a defensive side by nature. England are aggressive & i could easily seeing blokes England wanting to target him.