The Ashes are coming home!

[FaaipDeOiad]

It all depends on what type of assistance in the pitches - if there's even a bit in it for the seamers expect to see England knocked-over for 250 or so. Equally, don't expect Harmison and Flintoff to give anything back.
If the pitches are flat, England's batting-line-up is not good enough to be competetive, you mark my words. It'll be the familiar story of cave-in to McGrath especially - it might even be the case that the three of them get something out of the flat deck anyways.

As I said a while ago, if I was in control of pitches in England, I'd be picking something which is going to be fairly difficult to bat on but won't turn much... slow, low, with a bit of grass and seam movement. And hopefully, some swing. The harder batting is (excluding turn), the better things will be for England, because the gap in class on a flat wicket is simply tremendous. Australia have Warne who can bowl quite well on a flat deck, McGrath who is possibly the best ever on a flat deck and two other bowlers who don't mind too much when the pitch isn't helpful, and an army of batsmen who have simply murdered bowling on flat pitches over the last few years. Seaming, English conditions with some grass on the wicket and some swing are quite foreign to almost all Australians these days (excluding the likes of Hayden and Katich), and I think the likes of Hoggard and Jones could do some damage on those wickets. So can McGrath of course, so it would be a matter of the English batting standing up in trying conditions.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, standing-up against McGrath (and Gillespie and Kasprowicz) in seaming conditions is not far short of impossible.
And likewise - if England had the bowling to exploit such conditions (as they appeared to in 2001) it'd be a grand idea, sure. Simple fact is, though, they don't, and it's no good having seaming conditions if the bowlers don't use them, batting is still relatively easy.
I also just don't understand why you think no turn would be an advantage for England - if Giles is taken out of the equation (and he is if the pitches don't turn) that's one potential large weapon for England lost.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thing is, standing-up against McGrath (and Gillespie and Kasprowicz) in seaming conditions is not far short of impossible.
And likewise - if England had the bowling to exploit such conditions (as they appeared to in 2001) it'd be a grand idea, sure. Simple fact is, though, they don't, and it's no good having seaming conditions if the bowlers don't use them, batting is still relatively easy.
I also just don't understand why you think no turn would be an advantage for England - if Giles is taken out of the equation (and he is if the pitches don't turn) that's one potential large weapon for England lost.

Well, I think it's fair to say that Giles and Vettori are fairly similar sorts of bowlers in terms of ability, and I've watched Australia face Vettori on flat pitches a lot recently. If Giles is accurate, he can do a handy sort of job on flat wickets. He won't take a whole bunch of wickets, but he can keep an end tight, build pressure, and assist the team generally. He's well suited to that sort of role. Warne is dangerous on a flat pitch, but he's lethal on a turner, and it's a fallacy to suggest Warne doesn't do better when the wicket is turning because he definately does. In Sri Lanka last year for example, he was deadly, and if he bowled like that to England in conditions like that, he would absolutely murder them. England's best bet for combating Warne is to offer pitches which don't turn much and combat him as best they can with his turn neutralised somewhat. He will still take wickets, but he's not going to run through a team if the batting is good.

McGrath can bowl on any wicket, and won't be THAT much more dangerous on a seamer than he is on a flat wicket. Kasprowicz certainly will be and Gillespie might be as well, but with players like Hoggard and Jones who certainly can use seaming conditions, I think England will get benefit from it as well. Add to that the fact that Australia are not particularly experienced in these sort of conditions and might struggle if England bowl well, and you can limit the gap between the sides somewhat.

 

[Slats4ever]

Interestingly I think it won't actually be utterly insignificant.
Everyone, but EVERYONE, knows how important his PR is to Warne - if the England players are able to get under his skin with the old "going bald, Warnie" etc. jibes I seriously wouldn't rule-out it having some effect on his bowling, even if it is only relatively small.
If his hair is out of the worry, it obviously won't affect him.

u're a weirdo man. as if that'd effect warne.. only fire him up more

 

[social]

u're a weirdo man. as if that'd effect warne.. only fire him up more

Agreed.

Warne has a serious ego but is a seriously great bowler.

 

[simmy]

Good news! I've calmed down now.

A concede that the game last night was merely a Twenty20 and in the scheme of the Ashes not too influential... but i'm sure its woken up Ponting and the lads to the fact that this English team means business.

This will be Australia's first real test in last several years (expect India in India) and I am fascinated how they will cope under pressure.

Can't wait.

Also interested in people's opinion on the Bell/Pieterson argument. Those who have seen both bat... who do you think deserves the number 4 test slot? Especially if Pieterson continues to batter the bowlers throughout the one day games. (By the way... I am Ian Bell's biggest fan!)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Also interested in people's opinion on the Bell/Pieterson argument. Those who have seen both bat... who do you think deserves the number 4 test slot? Especially if Pieterson continues to batter the bowlers throughout the one day games. (By the way... I am Ian Bell's biggest fan!)

Bell. Pietersen can take his place when Thorpe retires.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hypothetically, if Pieterson does have a very successful ODI series, England have to bite the bullet and stick him in the side. Otherwise, he would be thrust in when the going is a bit harder, and the Aussies would have their tails up and any mental advantage that could have been carried from the ODI's would be forfeited. Much like the Hollioakes of 1997. Make the most of the advantage while they have it, and don't use the players who succeed as back-up for those who haven't this series.

 

[simmy]

Not to alarm you guys but have you seen the MCC XI vs International XI scorecard? Lara's (Yes Brian) economy rate is only slightly worse than Warney's!

Excellent... shame I cant watch it

 

[chaminda_00]

Bell. Pietersen can take his place when Thorpe retires.

Nah he can wait tell the third test and England have to bite the bullet and pick him after their 2-0 down. I would be very surprised if he isn't in the side before the end of series, due to injury or bad form for one of their batsmen. How often do sides play the same top 6 in all 5 Test of a Series.

 

[simmy]

Good point... never.

Best back up batsmen England have had in years! But I agree.. Bell is far more capable technically and mentally. Future English star.

OH! and for those of you that saw that game... who saw Strauss' lofted "flick" to fine-leg off Gillespie?
Best shot I've ever seen!

 

[Barney Rubble]

Personally, I think it would be better for England to wait untill the end of the series to give Pietersen his debut - Thorpe will have retired gracefully and Pietersen will be absolutely chomping at the bit to get stuck into Pakistan, or whoever it is England are playing this winter, I can't remember. Plus, when you're going into a potentially successful Ashes series, you need someone in your team who, when the first three wickets fall for 20 (which they will at some point this summer) can be relied upon to steady the ship. It'll be necessary. So will getting on top of the Aussie bowlers, but England already have 4 or 5 batsmen who have shown they can dominate attacks - they need a gritter in there like the legend that is Thorpey.

As far as Bell is concerned, I think he HAS to stay in the team, at no4, for the entire duration of the Ashes series, regardless of the form of Pietersen, Key, Joyce, Butcher etc. Definite FEC if he continues his development, and with a Test average of 297, you can hardly drop him, can you?

 

[King_Ponting]

Good point... never.

Best back up batsmen England have had in years! But I agree.. Bell is far more capable technically and mentally. Future English star.

OH! and for those of you that saw that game... who saw Strauss' lofted "flick" to fine-leg off Gillespie?
Best shot I've ever seen!

Straus has copied that shot off Ryan Campbell, he was playing that shot years ago..... its called the campbell flick.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Straus has copied that shot off Ryan Campbell, he was playing that shot years ago..... its called the campbell flick.

Who in turn copied it off Douglas Marillier, and it is not called the Campbell flick.

 

[simmy]

The student union erupted with that shot! Thank you Ryan Campbell.

 

[King_Ponting]

Who in turn copied it off Douglas Marillier, and it is not called the Campbell flick.

when Campbell was playing that shot years ago commentators labelled it the campbell flick

 

[chaminda_00]

As far as Bell is concerned, I think he HAS to stay in the team, at no4, for the entire duration of the Ashes series, regardless of the form of Pietersen, Key, Joyce, Butcher etc. Definite FEC if he continues his development, and with a Test average of 297, you can hardly drop him, can you?

So lets say that he doesn't score a fifty in the first 3 Test and England are one loss away from losing the series or something, are you still going to want to keep him in the side.

On the other hand you could say the same thing about Clarke, in a perfect world you would want him to play all five Tests. But if it is a very close series and Clarke has not returned to form then you have to bring Hogde into the side. There is no point in playing players just so they can develop, it more important to win a series.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The commentator (Jim Maxwell I think) on Radio 4 LW said it was called the "Marillier Thrillier" because Doug Marillier invented it.

 

[simmy]

Well Gillespie got his revenge I guess...

Also, good to finally see an English team get Martyn out before he's rattled up a huge score! He loves hitting England around!

 

[vic_orthdox]

when Campbell was playing that shot years ago commentators labelled it the campbell flick

Doesn't make the name:

a) right
b) regularly used

Did you see/hear anyone referring to it as the "Campbell Flick" when Brad Haddin, Adam Crosthwaite and others played it this year in domestic cricket??