The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[Scaly piscine]

Have the ECB hiked the prices up for next year or something? Only cost me £30something for my tickets to day three at Headingley V SA this summer, which isn't too bad considering I've paid £20 for 90 minutes of League One footy plenty of times

The extortionate prices cited are from down south:

"To watch the whole Test match at Lord's against South Africa this summer will cost a member of the public at least £300. Even a day of the New Zealand Test at Lord's will cost £60, while the best ticket for a one-day international at The Oval has exceeded £100."

To me international cricket continues to move rapidly in an elitist direction - which is not good for the future. England have enough pampered softies playing already.

 

[The Masterplan]

If all goes well this would be England's best XI come 2009 IMO:

Trescothick
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
a solid keeper (i fear the selectors have missed a trick by not Pothas though)
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

Other players who will obviously be in the very close to selection are blokes like Sidebottom, Strauss, Shah, Key, Bopara, Tremlett, Broad, Anderson.

I don't know how you've got Harmison and Hoggard in there?

I'd put Anderson, and assuming Simon Jones doesn't injure himself this season, I'd put him in the frame, and possibly Mahmood if he has a good county season

 

[andruid]

Luke Wright scoring a fantastic innings in the Champion County match. What are his prospects as a bowler, batsman or as an all rounder.

Ayone think that if he matures enough this county season he could be lining up for England batting in the 5-8 region and possibly bowling as a back up seamer come the Ashes?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Luke Wright scoring a fantastic innings in the Champion County match. What are his prospects as a bowler, batsman or as an all rounder.

Ayone think that if he matures enough this county season he could be lining up for England batting in the 5-8 region and possibly bowling as a back up seamer come the Ashes?

Not unless there's a dramatic outbreak of Green Parrot Disease.

 

[andruid]

Any dibs on Anderson just about clinging on to his test spot till the ashes, or even consolidating and becoming a regular in the team

 

[Richard]

Really wouldn't rule it out - sadly.

 

[Richard]

Sorry this has taken so long, seems to have completely slipped off my radar...

You've been watching it longer than me then. My interest of Test cricket is much less convoluted than yours, though - I watched my first Test match in...hmm...possibly 1998 (not sure though). Despite watching the odd game, I never developed an interest in it until late 2003, when my mother started watching it. The first ODI match I watched with any real involvement was on 9 January 2004 (Aus vs India) and the first Test match that I watched with complete involvement was in March 2004 (Aus vs Sri Lanka). Since I was born in 1989, I'm much in the same boat as you with regards to trying to attain info about cricket in the 70's, 80's and 90's (particularly the 90's).

Blimey, so CW was 2-and-a-half years old and I'd been on here for 6 months by the time you started watching. Some people really are scarily young these days.

Hmm...I think that there's a distinct correlation. If those players who you learnt your game from are incompetent at playing spin (obviously with a couple of exceptions, such as Richards and Lara), there is a good chance that your descendants will be afflicted in a similar way.

If anything, I think West Indies have had some better players of spin in more recent times than they did in the late-1980s. Lara, Chanderpaul and Adams were the best, of course, but Sarwan is excellent too, and Bravo and Ramdin have been pretty decent for my money.

Anyway, this isn't terribly important to the MSP case - what remarkable tangents CW truly leads to sometimes.

I still disagree. I swear that he trapped at least a few of them in front with his arm ball, despite the lack of turn. Also, ineptitude against spin is ineptitude against spin, no matter how far the ball is turning.

Ineptitude against the turning ball is different to ineptitude purely against the ball delivered slowly, though - and you've got to be truly abysmal to have the latter. And this really was what West Indies (in some proportion tailenders) were doing - the ball wasn't turning, and they were playing for the turn, against standard break deliveries that never turned all match. Inexplicable.

You're on, then.

Oh-hoh-kay, but I'll leave it for a little later. It'll take a while, and I'm off to bed before all that long.

I'm waaaaaitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing...

Sorry, I've been pretty busy recently. Can't put a timescale on it, but I promise it will be done someday - just stay on CW, and one day you'll have it.

With Giles, I will grant you New Zealand. For reasons listed above, I'll struggle not to believe that the West Indian wickets were, for the most part, not down to their ineptitude against spin. Point taken about your Panesar ones (the Old Trafford one even had inconsistent bounce), though.

West Indies had no troubles with Giles (and this was almost all the same players) in the 5 other Tests on non-turning pitches they faced him on, though. There were some poor batsmen in there, but they still handled Giles easily when it wasn't turning.

True, but it also depends on the wickets taken and at what times they are taken.

Yes, indeed - cases need to be examined on an individual basis. But still, mostly 3-150 will be a worse performance than 2-80.

AFAIK, Patterson Thompson barely played Test cricket. As such, you shouldn't really compare him to Devon Malcolm. While Malcolm could be Test class (he usually wasn't, though), Thompson, IMO, never had the potential to be (stories abound about his embarrasing lack of control).

Malcolm's was every bit as bad on most of his occasions. There was a very brief interlude in early 1990 (the series in West Indies and the home one against New Zealand) where his control improved and he took bagfuls of wickets. But from the second half of 1990 onwards, he reverted to type, with just the odd breakout (most notably that game in 1994).

Anyway, none of that this matters overtly. 'Twas just a for instance, I could probably have used a better example.

 

[andruid]

Andrew Strauss
Micheal Vaughan
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Luke Wright
+Phil Mustard
(some county jouneyman who bowls harmless offies and averages 25 odd with the bat)
Liam Plunkett
James Anderson
Graeme Onions
Steve Harmison

Most popularly unpopular possible England XI?

 

[Richard]

Probably.

In all seriousness, I really think there are no more than names I'd feel genuinely confident will be a firm fixture in the Test team this time next year:

Cook

Pietersen




Sidebottom

MSP (and he shouldn't be - it should be alternating according to pitch)

Of those currently incumbant:
Strauss - still far from convinced

Vaughan - those knees will never be totally confidence-filling and he's set himself back by having that winter as an opener too, and now has to get back to scoring ways this summer

Bell - he's got a very strong case, but still hasn't ever completely convinced me, or it seems that many others in his career so far
Collingwood - never really rated him and any time his form drops-off, which obviously I think could happen any time, I'll be questioning his place
Ambrose - only starting his career, no knowing where he'll be at at the end of this summer
Broad - still not convinced me as a bowler

Anderson - obviously never convinced me and I don't see him ever doing so

The worrying thing is the likes of Hoggard, Key, Shah and Tremlett, who'd be those I'd hope to replace those I don't currently rate in the side, are very much unknown quantities too. And of course, the biggest "if" of them all is Flintoff's fitness. If that "if" comes down affermative, he's straight back in there and immediately confusing many issues with the "where does he bat?" question.

If you ask me right now who I'd want next summer it'd be this:
Cook
Key
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Shah
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Tremlett
With MSP replacing Tremlett if we got a pitch that looked like it was going to turn. But time is so, so short and we've got to do so much finding-out about a large number of players in that short time.

 

[Kweek]

Sorry this has taken so long, seems to have completely slipped off my radar...

Blimey, so CW was 3 years old and I'd been on here for the best part of a year by the time you started watching. Some people really are scarily young these days.

If anything, I think West Indies have had some better players of spin in more recent times than they did in the late-1980s. Lara, Chanderpaul and Adams were the best, of course, but Sarwan is excellent too, and Bravo and Ramdin have been pretty decent for my money.

Anyway, this isn't terribly important to the MSP case - what remarkable tangents CW truly leads to sometimes.

Ineptitude against the turning ball is different to ineptitude purely against the ball delivered slowly, though - and you've got to be truly abysmal to have the latter. And this really was what West Indies (in some proportion tailenders) were doing - the ball wasn't turning, and they were playing for the turn, against standard break deliveries that never turned all match. Inexplicable.

Oh-hoh-kay, but I'll leave it for a little later. It'll take a while, and I'm off to bed before all that long.

Sorry, I've been pretty busy recently. Can't put a timescale on it, but I promise it will be done someday - just stay on CW, and one day you'll have it.

West Indies had no troubles with Giles (and this was almost all the same players) in the 5 other Tests on non-turning pitches they faced him on, though. There were some poor batsmen in there, but they still handled Giles easily when it wasn't turning.

Yes, indeed - cases need to be examined on an individual basis. But still, mostly 3-150 will be a worse performance than 2-80.

Malcolm's was every bit as bad on most of his occasions. There was a very brief interlude in early 1990 (the series in West Indies and the home one against New Zealand) where his control improved and he took bagfuls of wickets. But from the second half of 1990 onwards, he reverted to type, with just the odd breakout (most notably that game in 1994).

Anyway, none of that this matters overtly. 'Twas just a for instance, I could probably have used a better example.

Rich my first test match I saw was Windies - England where Lara scored his magnificent 400.....

and i'm also born in 1989 go figure

 

[Richard]

You and DaRick started watching the game around the same time then - as said ARG Test was within a month (if that) of that SL-vs-Aus Test.

So you joined CW before you watched your first game? Impressive stuff. Mind, you also joined with another account and I've never understood that either.

 

[Kweek]

aah yes, thats a classic 'forgotten' password
I was at cricketgames.com before that

Yes I never watched any competative cricket but one lonely game at the WC'03' after Holland was kicked out and I randomly walked into an irish pub hoping for cricket to be on(and it was plus 1/2 the dutch team)

but yeah, playing cricket and it's games fascinated me long before that

 

[Burgey]

Next year, can we have some new English commentators?

I mean, we get these posters from overseas telling us how dire Healy, Lawry et al are over here, but fair dinkum, Gower and even Lloyd are cures for insomnia. Their routine with each other is as tired as I feel after year's work, while Botham and Hussain are as impartial as one of those coaches of 6 year old soccer teams whose own kid gets man of the match each week.
All opinion of course, but I'd have some new talent with Athers and Holding, and limit Lloyd to just telling some self-deprecating tale at lunch (which is what he spends all day doing now anyway as he seems to think we turn a test match on to hear him talk about getting hit inthe cobblers by Thommo again), and throw subtitles on for him, coz his accent is that thick you canna understand a word the blighter says.
Botham should ditch commentary and put on a short skirt and pom poms, he's that much a cheer leader for England (and he's entitled to be, my point is it detracts from his commentary imo, and there can't be much doubt the bloke knows his cricket), and Nasser just strikes me as someone who's still bitter he never got to skipper the side until 05 and have a crack at winning the Ashes.
Yes Bumble, you were good for a giggle, but I fear that like skull over here, it's all getting a bit tired.

 

[Laurrz]

Really excited about this obviously

our quicks dont often bowl in conditions conducive to swing bowling... so to see Lee Midge Clark bowling in England will be droolworthy... Symonds is quite handy too seam up

 

[Richard]

Next year, can we have some new English commentators?

I mean, we get these posters from overseas telling us how dire Healy, Lawry et al are over here, but fair dinkum, Gower and even Lloyd are cures for insomnia. Their routine with each other is as tired as I feel after year's work, while Botham and Hussain are as impartial as one of those coaches of 6 year old soccer teams whose own kid gets man of the match each week.
All opinion of course, but I'd have some new talent with Athers and Holding, and limit Lloyd to just telling some self-deprecating tale at lunch (which is what he spends all day doing now anyway as he seems to think we turn a test match on to hear him talk about getting hit inthe cobblers by Thommo again), and throw subtitles on for him, coz his accent is that thick you canna understand a word the blighter says.
Botham should ditch commentary and put on a short skirt and pom poms, he's that much a cheer leader for England (and he's entitled to be, my point is it detracts from his commentary imo, and there can't be much doubt the bloke knows his cricket), and Nasser just strikes me as someone who's still bitter he never got to skipper the side until 05 and have a crack at winning the Ashes.
Yes Bumble, you were good for a giggle, but I fear that like skull over here, it's all getting a bit tired.

Hmm, disagree completely about Hussain TBH. Hussain's a far better commentator than Atherton for my money. And there's no way he's bitter in the slightest - he himself chose to step down from the team, when he could easily have still been around the shake-up for the 2005 series. But he thought it was best for the team to take a difficult decision out of the hands of those who'd otherwise have been responsible, and full credit to him for that.

Not particularly a massive fan of Gower and Botham or anything, but they're part of the furniature. Sky Sports cricket would not feel right without them, to me. Ditto Bumble. He's given to buffonary, but that's all part of the package.

BTW, the chances of a different commentary team are zero. I just hope Bob Willis and Paul Allott get their due and have the chance to join in. Willis, Allott, Gower, Botham, Lloyd, Atherton, Hussain would be the dream-team for me, unless they can actually get a decent Australian commentator in, which their usual catch (Jeff Thomson) emphatically is not. Trouble is, the best lot are all contracted to Nine - don't know whether Nine even have highlights these days, but if they do obviously Fox pick-up the Sky feed so therefore they won't be able to do anything for Sky as it'd be rival broadcasters.

Never been much of a fan of Michael Holding being part of Sky teams for non-WI series either. Not that he's a poor commentator, just seems really odd having a complete neutral in the chair.

 

[duffer]

Trouble is, the best lot are all contracted to Nine - don't know whether Nine even have highlights these days, but if they do obviously Fox pick-up the Sky feed so therefore they won't be able to do anything for Sky as it'd be rival broadcasters.

A different channel SBS picked up the rights for the last Ashes and broadcast the feed which had Boycs on it. Not sure if any free-to-air channels are bidding for it this time though.

 

[Richard]

Oh, yeah, of course - I remember now, apparently their normal viewership was decoupled during the fourth morning at Edgbaston or something. They just picked-up the C4 feed, though - that was what had Boycs on it. Fox still had the Sky feed.

Didn't Nine even carry their own highlights though?

 

[duffer]

Nah, SBS had exclusive rights to it.

 

[Richard]

They only took it because Nine had ditched it though, didn't they? I'd simply presumed they'd ditched ball-by-ball only, not refused to cover the thing at all.

 

[bond21]

SBS could never have a popsicles chance in hell of beating Nine to any sort of coverage, so yes Nine dropped the Ashes for 2005.

Fox Sports will probably get rights to it next year, thats almost certain.