**.....UNOFFICIAL.....** ASHES 2007 thread

[luckyeddie]

ah wonderful reading, i wish the australian selectors were like you in this case..

What - boneheads?

 

[Richard]

Don't worry, I'm not like the Aussie selectors.

 

[Richard]

3 series is a short term thing?

No, it's not.
Nor was he useless in 3 series - as I mentioned somewhere, he bowled pretty much exactly the way he's always bowled in the home summer. Even though his figures were poor in 3 Tests out of 5 (very good in the other 2) that was more down to bad luck than especially poor bowling.
And as I also mentioned, he might've bowled poorly in NZ, but if so I don't know, I didn't see the thing. Certainly if he did he bowled nowhere near as badly as he did in England.
Nor was his ODI form, with the exception of 1 game, poor at all, as it was in England.

 

[benchmark00]

I think that unless another team puts their hand up, it's only a two horse race at this stage...


Hmmm.

 

[Linda]

Youre a horse.

 

[benchmark00]

Well...

 

[steds]

I think that unless another team puts their hand up, it's only a two horse race at this stage...


Hmmm.

Agreed. The others really just don't look up to it.

 

[Slats4ever]

woah this topic even has it's own forum sub-section now... Unbelievable

 

[aussie]

well yea, its going to be a huge series could even be better than last years..

 

[Slats4ever]

really einstein? i was wondering why they'd created it's own thread!!!

I'd put Australia at about $1.40 and England at about $2.50 and a dray at $7

 

[Richard]

If I were a betting man I'd put nothing on anything when there's still such a long time and so much cricket to be played in the interim.

 

[howardj]

It seems almost accepted that Langer and Gilchrist should both play in the Ashes next summer, provided they can prove their fitness. Although their past achievements are magnificent, I now think that both of them are fading alarmingly, and should be under pressure for selection for the series opener next summer. It would be romantic for the old firm of players who lost the Ashes to win them back, but is it in our best interests to just automatically select some of these older guys?

Langer, in Tests this summer, averages 32. He just doesn't seem to be the same batsman that he was even just recently. Even in the Pura Cup this summer, he averaged in the mid-thirties. I really question how many more big scores he has left in him. Certainly, if Phil Jacques fires in the next two matches, and Langer fails to post some decent scores in the opening rounds of the Pura Cup next summer, I reckon the selectors should have an open mind about who partners Hayden in Brisbane.

Secondly, Adam Gilchrist is a worse player than when England dominated him last year. In his last 15 Test Matches, he averages 22. It's a little more than just a form slump - it’s a trend. His run of outs mirrors the closing stages of Ian Healy's career - his glove-work is still exceptional, but his batting is rapidly deteriorating. He’s failed to come to terms with bowlers bowling around the wicket and taking the ball away from him. Much like Andrew Symonds, he now seems incapable of anything more than one aggressive half-century blitz every few Test matches.

Brad Haddin would be the obvious replacement for Gilchrist. Haddin averaged over 50 in domestic cricket last year, and is worthy of a place in any domestic side as an aggressive batsman alone. To be fair, obviously Gilchrist brings a lot more to the Australian side than just his batting - his character, tactical nous, and experience with the gloves all make him a compelling package. But Ian Healy had those exact attributes a few years ago, when he was dropped for a dynamic, consistent run-maker who was merely serviceable with the gloves.

Gilchrist promptly posted a brilliant 80 on debut and really revitalized our side with his batting alone. Having a number seven, who can be relied upon to score consistently, took the Australian side to another stratosphere. By contrast, having a number seven who is so vulnerable, really cost us dearly in the Ashes last year. It can be the difference between 300 and 450. Moreover, can anyone really see Gilchrist - after the way he has batted for an entire year - making any impression against Flintoff, Jones, Harmison and Hoggard? And is his keeping that much better than Haddin’s, that it nullifies the gap that now exists between their batting abilities?

Moreover, I think the best call made last Ashes series was to select Pietersen ahead of Thorpe. England were bold and gambled on a young player ahead of a proven stalwart who had an outstanding record against Australia. They were rewarded for that boldness, in much the same way that Australia were rewarded when they picked Gilchrist ahead of a legend some seven years ago. The point is that the selectors should keep very much an open mind in relation to both Langer and Gilchrist. They shouldn’t be afraid to be bold and select on current ability, or fall into the trap of thinking that the old firm are the only combination capable of regaining the Ashes.

 

[aussie]

top post Howard agreed on the idea that the selectors should keep an open mind on Langer & Gilchrist.

But for me i still think Langer has some big scores left in him, this season he has been injured a lot & hasn't really got a chance to play at his best, but at least with him he is getting starts but not carrying on & their is no trend in his dismissals. All he needs is a injury free start to the Pura Cup season & i'd pick him over Jaques even if Jaques were to start well again. But if he shows sign's that he may be losing it get Jaques in their right away.

Gilchrist on the other hand well their has been a trend in his dismissals no question but is really lost it?, his ODI form shows that he still can do it. Maybe after the Bangladesh tour the 5 months where he can get his mind of cricket, spend time with his family etc & work on his technique so he can combat bowlers coming around the wicket to him, then he could well & be blazing it in the ashes. Since he is such a great player its though to write him off.

Haddin undoubtebly has been doing well batting well of late & he could seriously come into consideration once he continues his good form if when Gilchrist returns the england seamers get on top of him during the ashes.

 

[Richard]

It seems almost accepted that Langer and Gilchrist should both play in the Ashes next summer, provided they can prove their fitness. Although their past achievements are magnificent, I now think that both of them are fading alarmingly, and should be under pressure for selection for the series opener next summer. It would be romantic for the old firm of players who lost the Ashes to win them back, but is it in our best interests to just automatically select some of these older guys?

Langer, in Tests this summer, averages 32. He just doesn't seem to be the same batsman that he was even just recently. Even in the Pura Cup this summer, he averaged in the mid-thirties. I really question how many more big scores he has left in him. Certainly, if Phil Jacques fires in the next two matches, and Langer fails to post some decent scores in the opening rounds of the Pura Cup next summer, I reckon the selectors should have an open mind about who partners Hayden in Brisbane.

Secondly, Adam Gilchrist is a worse player than when England dominated him last year. In his last 15 Test Matches, he averages 22. It's a little more than just a form slump - it’s a trend. His run of outs mirrors the closing stages of Ian Healy's career - his glove-work is still exceptional, but his batting is rapidly deteriorating. He’s failed to come to terms with bowlers bowling around the wicket and taking the ball away from him. Much like Andrew Symonds, he now seems incapable of anything more than one aggressive half-century blitz every few Test matches.

Brad Haddin would be the obvious replacement for Gilchrist. Haddin averaged over 50 in domestic cricket last year, and is worthy of a place in any domestic side as an aggressive batsman alone. To be fair, obviously Gilchrist brings a lot more to the Australian side than just his batting - his character, tactical nous, and experience with the gloves all make him a compelling package. But Ian Healy had those exact attributes a few years ago, when he was dropped for a dynamic, consistent run-maker who was merely serviceable with the gloves.

Gilchrist promptly posted a brilliant 80 on debut and really revitalized our side with his batting alone. Having a number seven, who can be relied upon to score consistently, took the Australian side to another stratosphere. By contrast, having a number seven who is so vulnerable, really cost us dearly in the Ashes last year. It can be the difference between 300 and 450. Moreover, can anyone really see Gilchrist - after the way he has batted for an entire year - making any impression against Flintoff, Jones, Harmison and Hoggard? And is his keeping that much better than Haddin’s, that it nullifies the gap that now exists between their batting abilities?

Moreover, I think the best call made last Ashes series was to select Pietersen ahead of Thorpe. England were bold and gambled on a young player ahead of a proven stalwart who had an outstanding record against Australia. They were rewarded for that boldness, in much the same way that Australia were rewarded when they picked Gilchrist ahead of a legend some seven years ago. The point is that the selectors should keep very much an open mind in relation to both Langer and Gilchrist. They shouldn’t be afraid to be bold and select on current ability, or fall into the trap of thinking that the old firm are the only combination capable of regaining the Ashes.

I know what you mean, but... I have to say it.
The gamble on Pietersen was only successful because of a dropped catch, from someone you'd normally never expect to drop it.
I think it'd be brave selectors who dropped Gilchrist. I can quite see the parallels with Healy, but in Healy's case his batting was only good - he averaged in the high 30s between 1993 and 1998\99 (60 Tests, 91 innings). Gilchrist, on the other hand, averaged 60 from his debut until the West Indies tour in 2003 (42 Tests, 59 innings). Gilchrist has mostly been on a downward slope for quite some time, however - in his last 36 Tests (57 innings) he averages 36.44 - impressive enough, but it's almost exclusively down to one short 8-Test period where he averaged 107 - in the other 28 he averaged just 25.47.
As I said elsewhere - I feel that he who writes-off Gilchrist is a fool in the extreme, and I'm sure most people would feel the same. It'd be very, very dangerous for any Englishman to make patronising comments his way because I still feel there's a perfectly decent chance he could destroy us next winter, as he did (with good fortune) in the first 2 in 2001.
As for Langer, I can't believe he'll be dropped for next winter. There's a small chance he might be forced-out - but I'm sure Allan Border could have a "we'll get a real Australian out there instead" word with him...

 

[Richard]

England are the ones that should be looking forward to this series, Australian cricket will be in tatters in 14 months

Well... it wasn't an unreasonable prediction, and with just a few adjustments to the South Africa series' it might have been, but... all-in-all, 5-0 was a pretty comprehensive scoreline.
It hasn't come-to-pass.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

Gilchrist is in one of those form slumps that every batsman has gone through in their career. But champion players bounce back and thats what Gilly will do. The selectors wouldnt drop him just before the ashes, I feel that if he was going to be dropped it would of been in between the two South African series.

Regards to Langer, he is a gritty player that is getting older and older. With Jacques travelling to Bangledesh now, we will see if he is able to make scores against one of the weaker sides. We have seen him smash century after century at first class level but is he good enough for the international stage?

-Tiger

 

[marc71178]

Gilchrist is in one of those form slumps that every batsman has gone through in their career.

But the question is how long does a form slump have to last for it to be something more than just a form slump.

IMO there is a similar situation going on with SRT.

 

[aussie]

But the question is how long does a form slump have to last for it to be something more than just a form slump.

IMO there is a similar situation going on with SRT.

not totally, Tendulkar hasn't been the same test batsman since late 2002, while his OD form since has for the majority been pretty good. Gilly only since the ashes has had this slump in test matches, while OD form has been good. Has i mentioned before i feel the 5 month break will do him good, if he comes back & he still struggles (especially during the ashes) then we can say for sure that his batting in test in really in decline.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, you have mentioned that he has a 5 month break coming up.

I still ask the question when does it turn from a form slump to a lessening of ability - I mean 15 tests isn't a short period of matches.

 

[Nate]

There's a small chance he might be forced-out[/URL] - but I'm sure Allan Border could have a "we'll get a real Australian out there instead" word with him...

Poor Dean Jones. "We`ll get a Queenslander out here."