***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[steds]

Yeah Lloyd was pretty poor. I'm looking forward to watching the tests on SBS when they get the Channel 4 feed... Richie, Boycott, Nicholas etc... no more Lloyd and Hussein.

How dare you bracket the mighty Bumble Lloyd with Nasser Hussain?!?!?!

 

[superkingdave]

yeah IMO Bumble is quality

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

yep i wonder who will be replacing Dermott reeve. But has you said a pannel of Benaud, Nicholas, Atherton, Boycott & another good addition would be a very nice Ashes commentary team

One would assume someone Australian... although they already have Richie. It would have to be someone not with channel 9 I guess, or with Foxtel, and Lehmann appears to be working with Sky. Hard to say.

 

[superkingdave]

Slater is doing comm for channel 4 like he has in the past

 

[wpdavid]

I'd say he means in Test/ODI cricket (when England picked no specialist spinner).

... in which case try the Leeds test against SA a little under 2 years ago.

The thing about always picking a spinner if only for variety does look a bit silly though when the spinner in question is Gareth Batty. If Giles isn't fit for the Ashes, I'd agree with Tim De Lisle (for once) at play KP at number 7 in the test side, looking to get 15-20 overs a day from Bell, Vaughan, Tresco &, if all else fails KP himself. As for the NW, Gough, Lewis, Harmy & Jones are such different types of bowlers that it isn't the worst idea on earth to pick all of them.

 

[aussie]

One would assume someone Australian... although they already have Richie. It would have to be someone not with channel 9 I guess, or with Foxtel, and Lehmann appears to be working with Sky. Hard to say.

Dean Jones or Slater???

 

[marc71178]

So...
Trescothick
Jones
Vaughan
Pietersen
Flintoff
Strauss
Collingwood
Lewis
Gough
Jones
Harmison

Something like that? It's also possible one of Jones and Harmison will miss out, and Solanki will play with Collingwood and Vaughan making up 10? That would seem a pretty daft move though, the above side looks fairly solid.

If that 11 plays you'd swap Pietersen and Strauss, although the logice would be Strauss up top and Jones at 7 with Collingwood up to 6.

Then Pietersen goes 4 and Flintoff 5 I guess.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

i see you are located anywhere else other than reality. I think you should come over here mate

I think it's called "irony", aussie

As for the commentary, hopefully Slats' will continue to do the splendid job he's done before over here; objective but passionate and fecking honest, that's the ticket. Ex-Derbyshire of course, what else could one expect

 

[badgerhair]

Taking Clarke off was understandable, but Symonds was a shocking decision and a clear example of one-dimensional, narrow-minded captanicy on Ponting's part. he was clearly the perfect person for that situation and put in three wonderful overs, and he should have finished out, and Lee and McGrath could have shared the last 3.

Aren't you the bloke who was saying that 20-20 was incredibly simple and one-dimensional, which tends to imply that captaincy is pretty simple too?

Seems to me like you're now arguing about tactical points, and how they could have done better. So perhaps it's not as simple as it looks.

You are perhaps underestimating the effect of the strict time limit. You have effectively 67 minutes (given that six wickets or so wil go down) in which to bowl 120 deliveries, and that includes the field-setting time and getting the ball back after its repeated trips to the boundary.You also need to learn how to adapt your batting order: it was quite impresive to see England deciding that enough of a start had been made after three overs for the big guns to come in next, when they'd had Strauss on standby to go in at three if a wicket had fallen very quickly.

It's a big test of players' ability to keep cool under pressure. It's all very well spotting elementary tactical mistakes from the comfort of your sofa: out there in the middle, they're doing everything at twice the normal speed and having to think twice as quickly.

I've now watched about fifteen 202-20 games, and I'm a complete convert from being a big sceptic at the start. I would far rather watch a 20-20 than a 50-over bore.

I dare say some will prefer 50-over stuff, just as I still prefer Test matches above all. But 20-20 is no more an idiots' version of cricket than 50-over stuff is. As with the two other forms, the precise mix of skills required to succeed at it is not the same as for the others: perhaps more than any other it benefits teams which are slick and disciplined enough to move like clockwork and seamlessly adapt their game plans to meet immediate demands.

It takes time to get to understand the rhythms and ins and outs of a new format. Don't make up your mind about it on the basis of two or three games, one of which was an obvious bunfight with bad haircuts and another was a complete rout: watching Leics or Surrey, the two counties who've really worked out how to play this, is a much more interesting experience. As will international 20-20s be when teams have a bit more experience of it.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[badgerhair]

If that 11 plays you'd swap Pietersen and Strauss, although the logice would be Strauss up top and Jones at 7 with Collingwood up to 6.

Then Pietersen goes 4 and Flintoff 5 I guess.

My suspicion is that it depends how well 1-3 go. They'll be looking to make sure that Flintoff and Pietersen get enough time to bat, so whether Strauss comes in at four depends on whether they want to wait yet longer to get the heavy artillery out.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[chaminda_00]

My suspicion is that it depends how well 1-3 go. They'll be looking to make sure that Flintoff and Pietersen get enough time to bat, so whether Strauss comes in at four depends on whether they want to wait yet longer to get the heavy artillery out.

Cheers,

Mike

Don't you guys think the the great Pietersen would be wasted at 6, he probably already the 3rd or 4th best batsmen, so shouldn't he bat at 4 or maybe even open. he opened for England A aganist India A a couple seasons ago and would be a lot better option then jones

 

[Eclipse]

Pietersen should open or bat at 3 in ODI's..

get the players who can do the most damage up the order.. and maybe leave on in the middle lower (flintoff) to rescure the side in the last 10-15 overs..

 

[chaminda_00]

Pietersen should open or bat at 3 in ODI's..

get the players who can do the most damage up the order.. and maybe leave on in the middle lower (flintoff) to rescure the side in the last 10-15 overs..

I guess the other thing to consider is McGarth, maybe it not the best idea to make Pietersen face McGarth with the new ball when he doesn't regurlar open in domestic cricket. I guess it is a lot different opening the batting aganist India A and McGarth and co. But in saying that i think he should atleast bat 4 and not at 6, that far too low.

 

[Eclipse]

I guess the other thing to consider is McGarth, maybe it not the best idea to make Pietersen face McGarth with the new ball when he doesn't regurlar open in domestic cricket. I guess it is a lot different opening the batting aganist India A and McGarth and co. But in saying that i think he should atleast bat 4 and not at 6, that far too low.

well it's worth a try if you ask me..

openers and number 3 are the most importaint batsman in the team,he should be given a chance to shine.. if he doesn't come off he can always be moved down the order a bit.. but no lower than 4-5

I don't think Jones is any good as an opener, seems England want him to be like Gilchrist but i don't see it working, and he did quite well down the order from my memory.

 

[chaminda_00]

well it's worth a try if you ask me..

openers and number 3 are the most importaint batsman in the team,he should be given a chance to shine.. if he doesn't come off he can always be moved down the order a bit.. but no lower than 4-5

I don't think Jones is any good as an opener, seems England want him to be like Gilchrist but i don't see it working, and he did quite well down the order from my memory.

Jones has generally batted near the top of the order in ODIs from memory.

They do have Strauss, Vaughan and Solanki who are regular top order batsmen who can open or bat at 3. Something like this looks about right IMO:
1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Vaughan
4. Pietersen
5. Flintoff
6. Collingwood
7. Jones

 

[Eclipse]

Strauss and Vaughan are not particuarly damaging batsman and i would rather have a top order with a bit more fire power.. having said that if those two play it's either up the order or not at all..

If Vaughan wasn't captain i wouldn't have him in the ODI side..

 

[chaminda_00]

Strauss is pretty damaging at times, but agree about Vaughan

 

[marc71178]

Don't you guys think the the great Pietersen would be wasted at 6, he probably already the 3rd or 4th best batsmen, so shouldn't he bat at 4 or maybe even open. he opened for England A aganist India A a couple seasons ago and would be a lot better option then jones

Hoggard would be a better option than Jones!

 

[marc71178]

They do have Strauss, Vaughan and Solanki who are regular top order batsmen who can open or bat at 3.

If someone can explain to me how Solanki is in the squad and Bell not, I'd be grateful.

 

[marc71178]

Strauss is pretty damaging at times, but agree about Vaughan

The thing about Vaughan is he is beginning to perform better.

His last 15 matches he is averaging 50.81.

Admittedly that includes 5 Zimbabwe games, but take them out and it is still 41.38, and that's for 6 games against SA, and 1 each against India, Sri Lanka, West Indies and Australia.