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

[Mister Wright]

6 or 7 doesnt matter. Garry Sobers started at 8, Greg Chappell at 7, etc etc

He is good enough to average 40 now in tests, is excellent in the field and will only improve with the ball.

2 years ago, he was as quick as anyone in Aus and then had 12 months off with a back injury. He's good enough for 20 overs a test at present and will only improve if he stays healthy.

I'm sorry, but if he's going to play in that team, he should be playing as a batting allrounder, his first class record speaks for itself with an average of 45.36, which craps all over Clarke's first class average of 38.02. Assuming that if he plays Katich will open for Hayden, then he should be batting at 5 or 6, especially considering Gilchrist's recent form.

However, I think it is all meaningless speculation considering Australia are unlikely to select anyone outside the initial squad.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm sorry, but if he's going to play in that team, he should be playing as a batting allrounder, his first class record speaks for itself with an average of 45.36, which craps all over Clarke's first class average of 38.02. Assuming that if he plays Katich will open for Hayden, then he should be batting at 5 or 6, especially considering Gilchrist's recent form.

Forget the stats and answer me honestly without your maroon-tinted glasses for once; do you honestly think Watson is a better batsman than Clarke? Because having watched plenty of both (and I think Watson has fantastic all-round potential), there's no way those averages are instructive as to who the better batsman is. Clarke, without a doubt.

 

[social]

Forget the stats and answer me honestly without your maroon-tinted glasses for once; do you honestly think Watson is a better batsman than Clarke? Because having watched plenty of both (and I think Watson has fantastic all-round potential), there's no way those averages are instructive as to who the better batsman is. Clarke, without a doubt.

Exactly.

Clarke was picked on potential alone as would Watson.

 

[Slats4ever]

They're most definitely not bad luck.

ok well then that would only suggest that it's good luck that England haven't taken any wickets off them.

Which in turn means that if England have gotten good luck Australia must've gotten bad luck.

 

[sqwerty]

Forget the stats and answer me honestly without your maroon-tinted glasses for once; do you honestly think Watson is a better batsman than Clarke? Because having watched plenty of both (and I think Watson has fantastic all-round potential), there's no way those averages are instructive as to who the better batsman is. Clarke, without a doubt.

yep.....I can't remember Watson EVER playing a good knock for Australia when we really needed him.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah Chappelli has just put out a book about his views on cricket. I think he broke a record for appearing on two different TV shows, on the one network, on the one day, to promote his book yesterday. It's based on interviews with him, by Ashley Mallet, on various topics. It looks pretty good. Here's a link:

http://www.allen-unwin.com.au/exports/product.asp?ISBN=1741144566

I've always liked Chappelli. I think he's one of the few long-term commentators who remains incisive and analytical - never lapses into merely describing what he sees on the field. And, unlike some recently retired players-turned-commentators, Chappelli puts the viewing audience first, and gives us his honest opinion on players, rather than worrying about his relationship with those players.

Another thing that he does is after a really good innings comes to an end, he remains silent for a few seconds so that the viewers can hear the big reception that the batsman is getting while going back to the pavilion. I think it is something that everyone should follow.

 

[honestbharani]

ok well then that would only suggest that it's good luck that England haven't taken any wickets off them.

Which in turn means that if England have gotten good luck Australia must've gotten bad luck.

Bowling no balls is bad bowling. And there are no such things as wickets off no balls. Once you have bowled a no ball, you cannot get a wicket.

 

[Linda]

Lets shake things up a bit...

Langer
Hussey/Katich
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Tait
McGrath

Eh? Eh?

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Lets shake things up a bit...

Langer
Hussey/Katich
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Tait
McGrath

Eh? Eh?

I would say,

Langer
Hussey
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Warne
Gilchrist
Lee
McGill
McGrath
Tait.

McGill should be in the side, i'm also tempted to try out Symonds at test level.

 

[Burpey]

With Watson's double ton for Hanpshire, it is a possibility to bring him in and MacGill like the Sydney Test against Pakistan earlier this year. However, this does weaken the batting. Also, who to drop for Watson? Hayden, but then who would open? I don't think Katich should be opening ... he is not an opener and a specialist is needed against the English attack I feel.

 

[andyc]

With Watson's double ton for Hanpshire, it is a possibility to bring him in and MacGill like the Sydney Test against Pakistan earlier this year. However, this does weaken the batting. Also, who to drop for Watson? Hayden, but then who would open? I don't think Katich should be opening ... he is not an opener and a specialist is needed against the English attack I feel.

Keep in mind the attack Watson was up against was hardly Flintoff/Hoggard/Harmison/Jones. I'd have included Giles, but... you know.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Keep in mind the attack Watson was up against was hardly Flintoff/Hoggard/Harmison/Jones. I'd have included Giles, but... you know.

It wasn't, but it actually wasn't that bad for a county attack either. I mean, usually if you score runs in county cricket the bowling will be fairly average, but Warwickshire won the CC last season, and they had Ntini who is a bona fide test bowler. And, usually the Rose Bowl is fairly bowler friendly, although it could of course have been flat this time.

 

[Choora]

As Steve Waugh said in Australian media this week, they need to select him now and give him 2 years to develop.

As Ive said before, his all-round skills mark him as potentially the most important player in the medium term for Aus.

As this series has shown, the aging of Warne, McGrath and Gillespie means that we can no longer afford to have 4 bowlers as a given.

And i said the same thing a day earlier than Waugh come up with the statement that Australia is missing the 5th bowler.

All these years Australia managed to bowl out opponents coz they had champion bowlers like McGrath, Jason, Warne, Flemmings etc.Also the Waugh brothers use to turn their arm over in time of need and i believe they use to do a pretty good job.

The ageing of Australian champ bowlers means that Aus need to go into matches with 5 bowlers.But who is going to be the fifth bowler is a million dollar question.

 

[six_and_out]

I would say,

Langer
Hussey
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Warne
Gilchrist
Lee
McGill
McGrath
Tait.

McGill should be in the side, i'm also tempted to try out Symonds at test level.

Yeah, awesome.

My ideal Aussie team exactly.

On another note: will Simon Jones be playing at The Oval?

 

[andyc]

I would say,

Langer
Hussey
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Warne
Gilchrist
Lee
McGill
McGrath
Tait.

McGill should be in the side, i'm also tempted to try out Symonds at test level.

Warne ahead of Gilchrist?? Warne's been amazing, but there's no way that's going to happen

Also, I wouldn't drop Katich after he's played so well. Hussey probably should be in the team, but if I had to drop anyone it'd be Martyn, even though I don't think he deserves to be dropped.

 

[sqwerty]

I would say,

Langer
Hussey
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Warne
Gilchrist
Lee
McGill
McGrath
Tait.

McGill should be in the side, i'm also tempted to try out Symonds at test level.

McGrath would be dirty not to pick up the number 9 spot in that lineup. Now that's a tail ! albeit only 3 players long !

Also I'd still have Gilly in front of Warney.

 

[Choora]

Pakistan is one team that hates to go into a test match with 4 bowlers, even though their batting line is so fragile that playing with 5 specialist batsmen often end them up into embaressment.They have found a very good batter in Asim Kamal for number six slot, but they are still tempted to axe him to accomodate an allrounder like Malik or Razzak to give them a 5th bowler option.Problem is that Razzak and Malik are not much of a test bowler.

Aus and Pak need an allrounder like Flintoff that can win matches with both bat and ball, he's an ideal number 5-6 player in a test team. Can Watson do the job for Australia in comming years??? that remains to be seen.

 

[Choora]

I would say,

Langer
Hussey
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Warne
Gilchrist
Lee
McGill
McGrath
Tait.

McGill should be in the side, i'm also tempted to try out Symonds at test level.

Not a bad team, Mcgill can be very usefull indeed, however i would certainly want to see Gilchrist bat up the order, he should come before Warney.

Hayden had a dreadful series, but Ponting and co still have faith in him.Would be nice to see him comming on top if he's selected for the last test.

 

[marc71178]

ok well then that would only suggest that it's good luck that England haven't taken any wickets off them.

Which in turn means that if England have gotten good luck Australia must've gotten bad luck.

There is no luck involved at all.

Unless you're going to tell us that receiving a no ball is good luck, in which case Australia have had more good luck in this series...

 

[marc71178]

yep.....I can't remember Watson EVER playing a good knock for Australia when we really needed him.

Has he ever had the chance?

As a front line batsman, surely he needs to bat in the top 5 or 6 consistently to have a chance to play a knock that's needed.