-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Its 2007 and it the start of the ashes in Australia, what would be your best xi
- Thread starter chris.hinton
- Start date
howardj
International Coach
Gabba 1st Test Match
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath
Before Clark came along, I always favoured taking England on with MacGill and Warne, and having someone at six who could bowl useful mediums. However, Clark has closed the gap between MacGill and our 3rd best paceman, and maybe has even overtaken the tweaker in terms of effectiveness (especially economy rate). This has dovetailed with the realisation that Symonds is not the allrounder that we've been looking for - he's unfit to bat in top six - and that, with the arrival of Clark, we no longer need his serviceable mediums anyway.
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath
Before Clark came along, I always favoured taking England on with MacGill and Warne, and having someone at six who could bowl useful mediums. However, Clark has closed the gap between MacGill and our 3rd best paceman, and maybe has even overtaken the tweaker in terms of effectiveness (especially economy rate). This has dovetailed with the realisation that Symonds is not the allrounder that we've been looking for - he's unfit to bat in top six - and that, with the arrival of Clark, we no longer need his serviceable mediums anyway.
Last edited:
tassietiger
U19 Debutant
I would pick this side:
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Jaques
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath
MacGill
BATTING:
Langer and Hayden have to stay in there, Langer's form has been a bit iffy for a while, but he and Hayden are too good a combination to ignore. Ponting is Ponting, so he'll be picked. Jaques bats at 4 for whatever county he plays for, and is better than any of our other options (Hodge isn't as good as his Test average suggests). Hussey can bat anywhere, so I put him at 5, and Clarke should go back to batting at 6, where he has looked his best.
BOWLING:
I know it won't happen because the selectors seem to love Lee, but he's not going to be the one that wins us the Ashes (unless he does it with the bat). He's been scaring South Africans and West Indians over the summer and still ended up with an average average (pun intended) of about 30 since coming back to the side. His Ashes average was about 40. Gillespie has rediscovered his form thanks to having a little while on the sidelines, and McGrath always has the potential to be a star. Warne can be picked purely because he's Warney, and MacGill should be in there because the English seem to really struggle with leg spin, and have done for a long time.
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Jaques
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath
MacGill
BATTING:
Langer and Hayden have to stay in there, Langer's form has been a bit iffy for a while, but he and Hayden are too good a combination to ignore. Ponting is Ponting, so he'll be picked. Jaques bats at 4 for whatever county he plays for, and is better than any of our other options (Hodge isn't as good as his Test average suggests). Hussey can bat anywhere, so I put him at 5, and Clarke should go back to batting at 6, where he has looked his best.
BOWLING:
I know it won't happen because the selectors seem to love Lee, but he's not going to be the one that wins us the Ashes (unless he does it with the bat). He's been scaring South Africans and West Indians over the summer and still ended up with an average average (pun intended) of about 30 since coming back to the side. His Ashes average was about 40. Gillespie has rediscovered his form thanks to having a little while on the sidelines, and McGrath always has the potential to be a star. Warne can be picked purely because he's Warney, and MacGill should be in there because the English seem to really struggle with leg spin, and have done for a long time.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Since the start of the Australian summer, Lee has 49 wickets @ 25.43 and 278 runs @ 25.27. That's including the test against Bangladesh where he took 1 for 116. Without that his average was 23.54.tassietiger said:
The suggestion that he should be dropped on that form is utterly absurd.
howardj
International Coach
I'm in two minds about Brett Lee, next summer. No doubt his figures have improved markedly since his return from the Old Dart. Good on him - he's one of, from all reports, the most likeable guys in world cricket. However, I think it's an over-simplification to say that he has substantially improved since the Ashes series. The jury is still out, in my view. They'll return with a verdict after the Ashes. For not only do England represent a more potent threat, in terms of batting skill, than either South Africa or the West Indies, but they are an aggressive batting team.
Without doubt, against defensive teams, Lee is one of the best fast bowlers in the world. To give him his due, he's also been, on balance, the best ODI fast bowler from 2003 onwards. However, that he averages 44 with the ball against England in Test Matches is no mystery. They really attack his bowling. Not for them (unlike other skillful batsmen, such as Kallis last summer) sitting on him; letting him fall onto his preferred line and length; and counting the balls until the end of his spell. Instead, they'll attack him with everything they have, and put him under pressure; ask him questions.
He did bowl some withering spells in Ashes 2005. However, the reason why he averaged over 40 with the ball in that series was because, on the days when he wasn't at the top of his game, England did not let him settle - they made him react to them. Moreover, I just find it a little difficult to believe that a 29 year-old fast bowler has made such a dramatic improvement in the space of a few months. More likely, he has made a small improvement, but more significantly, out here in Australia and in South Africa last summer, he was confronted with defensive/less skillful batsmen who were unwilling to put the onus back on him.
Without doubt, against defensive teams, Lee is one of the best fast bowlers in the world. To give him his due, he's also been, on balance, the best ODI fast bowler from 2003 onwards. However, that he averages 44 with the ball against England in Test Matches is no mystery. They really attack his bowling. Not for them (unlike other skillful batsmen, such as Kallis last summer) sitting on him; letting him fall onto his preferred line and length; and counting the balls until the end of his spell. Instead, they'll attack him with everything they have, and put him under pressure; ask him questions.
He did bowl some withering spells in Ashes 2005. However, the reason why he averaged over 40 with the ball in that series was because, on the days when he wasn't at the top of his game, England did not let him settle - they made him react to them. Moreover, I just find it a little difficult to believe that a 29 year-old fast bowler has made such a dramatic improvement in the space of a few months. More likely, he has made a small improvement, but more significantly, out here in Australia and in South Africa last summer, he was confronted with defensive/less skillful batsmen who were unwilling to put the onus back on him.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
There's no doubt that Lee will have a test in the Ashes for various reasons, but I think you're somewhat overrating England to suggest that they are significantly more dangerous with the bat than South Africa. They were certainly aggressive in the Ashes, when they were on top, batting first on good wickets and didn't have to face McGrath, but you will find like most teams that England will play more defensive cricket when they are confronted with a better attack, a more difficult wicket or a more difficult situation.
If Lee bowls the way he did in the 2005 Boxing Day test for example, I doubt any team will be able to get on top of him. Lee's failing in the Ashes was a lack of consistency, and a lack of a decent plan once the batsmen got on top of him. The second issue is still a problem, as we have definitely seen in Bangladesh, but the first isn't so much. It's anyones guess how Lee will go next summer, but I will say that England will find it a lot harder to get on top of them than they did at Edgbaston or The Oval, and there's no question that he isn't just getting better returns than he used to, he's also deserving them.
Regarding Lee's improvement, I don't think he's necessarily that different from what he was in the Ashes. The improvement in his game came during his time away from test cricket, the changes that he has made since the Ashes have been mainly cosmetic - he's simply bowled more of his good spells and less of his bad ones. And of course his work with the new ball has improved significantly for whatever reason, and he's bowling consistent, accurate and dangerous spells with it.
If Lee bowls the way he did in the 2005 Boxing Day test for example, I doubt any team will be able to get on top of him. Lee's failing in the Ashes was a lack of consistency, and a lack of a decent plan once the batsmen got on top of him. The second issue is still a problem, as we have definitely seen in Bangladesh, but the first isn't so much. It's anyones guess how Lee will go next summer, but I will say that England will find it a lot harder to get on top of them than they did at Edgbaston or The Oval, and there's no question that he isn't just getting better returns than he used to, he's also deserving them.
Regarding Lee's improvement, I don't think he's necessarily that different from what he was in the Ashes. The improvement in his game came during his time away from test cricket, the changes that he has made since the Ashes have been mainly cosmetic - he's simply bowled more of his good spells and less of his bad ones. And of course his work with the new ball has improved significantly for whatever reason, and he's bowling consistent, accurate and dangerous spells with it.
Last edited:
howardj
International Coach
For sure. In saying that next summer is a big litmus test, Im certainly not going to the other extreme and suggesting that he's fluked, or been undeserving of his returns, this summer. Clearly, any bowler who can dismantle the South African line-up, and get the best of Jacques Kallis, is a class act. Just saying, in terms of graduating to the patheon of current Test bowlers, I'd like to see Lee exercise some more control and discipline when he comes up against outfits that are particularly aggressive. Maybe England, in isolation, are not ultra aggressive. However, I reckon they were fairly aggressive last winter against Australia. Whether they'll be able to sustain that in foreign conditions is, as you say, another thing.
howardj
International Coach
Just on the the above....I actually think it was a definite plan of England, last winter, to be aggressive. I don't think the spanking (not from Peter Roebuck 
) that Gillespie received; the scoring of 400 in a day was accidental - that it came about because they batted first, on good pitches. A hell of a lot of planning, by England, went into that series. Likewise, when they arrive in Australia in November, Duncan Fletcher will have poured over the Australian team, and devised a plan to conquer them. Part of that, again I reckon, will be aggression with the bat.
) that Gillespie received; the scoring of 400 in a day was accidental - that it came about because they batted first, on good pitches. A hell of a lot of planning, by England, went into that series. Likewise, when they arrive in Australia in November, Duncan Fletcher will have poured over the Australian team, and devised a plan to conquer them. Part of that, again I reckon, will be aggression with the bat.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
No arguments there. Lee has bowled very well in the last six months and I am very happy that he's finally realised some of his huge potential in the longer form, but he certainly has a lot of other challenges to face, and one of those will be against England next summer.howardj said:
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
cant disagree with too much of what you two have said, but what i will say about Lee though is that its for sure that since the ahses he has made much improvements in his accuracy and consistency ESPECIALLY which was a key factor that was missing in the ashes.
Its also true that yes England are an aggressive batting side, but has Faaip said i dont think they are so dangerous (as lets say India's top 6 of the last 5 years or Australia's batting) that they could dismantle this rejuvenated and much improved Brett Lee.
Once he keeps this form up i'm very sure England will have a very tough time againts him and an Australian attack that is likely to be at full-stength at its usual disciplined bes, which has made them the best in the world.
Its also true that yes England are an aggressive batting side, but has Faaip said i dont think they are so dangerous (as lets say India's top 6 of the last 5 years or Australia's batting) that they could dismantle this rejuvenated and much improved Brett Lee.
Once he keeps this form up i'm very sure England will have a very tough time againts him and an Australian attack that is likely to be at full-stength at its usual disciplined bes, which has made them the best in the world.
Last edited:
howardj
International Coach
England's Ashes XI (with Jones and Vaughan out).
1 Strauss
2 Trescothick
3 Cook
4 Pietersen
5 Collingwood
6 Joyce / Bell etc
7 Flintoff (c)
8 G.Jones
9 Hoggard
10 Panesar
11 Harmison
Now that Jones is out, I'd maintain the quality of the pace attack, by not selecting a sub-standard quick (Plunkett/Anderson etc). In my view, Australia (in Australia) would eat those guys alive. Rather, I'd bring in an extra batsman and not have Flintoff in the top six. It still gives you four bowlers, plus Collingwood. As I say, I wouldn't be selecting the extra bowler (which would mean the batting would not be strengthened, and Flintoff would be under even more pressure) just for the sake of it.
1 Strauss
2 Trescothick
3 Cook
4 Pietersen
5 Collingwood
6 Joyce / Bell etc
7 Flintoff (c)
8 G.Jones
9 Hoggard
10 Panesar
11 Harmison
Now that Jones is out, I'd maintain the quality of the pace attack, by not selecting a sub-standard quick (Plunkett/Anderson etc). In my view, Australia (in Australia) would eat those guys alive. Rather, I'd bring in an extra batsman and not have Flintoff in the top six. It still gives you four bowlers, plus Collingwood. As I say, I wouldn't be selecting the extra bowler (which would mean the batting would not be strengthened, and Flintoff would be under even more pressure) just for the sake of it.
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Yeah, I agree. Anderson is quality.