Ashes 2013 - Australia tour of England June/August 2013

[Owzat]

Aah stats. It can tell you many things depends on the question asked.

IE England managed to get 20 wickets using 4 bowlers. But who got 20 wickets using more than 5 bowlers or 5 bowlers?

I'll call you the wooden spoon for that part, mainly because of the wording but also what you'd get for your attempts to undermine the stats.

Doesn't matter anyway, sometimes England have bowled a side out using only three bowlers, doesn't mean England should use three bowlers. It's about efficiency, that is not having too few frontline bowlers so you have use part-timers and your main bowlers are overused to the point of fatigue.

Who cares "who got 20 wickets using more than 5 bowlers" ?!?!?! That's just a daft question, you might consider six bowlers for a one-dayer, but few sides would adjust their tactics on the basis of instances that fit the answer. Or maybe the intention is just to pose a silly question you know no one will both answering so you can claim some kind of victory against stats....................

I've broken down the stats as much as might be reasonably expected, and noted that it doesn't break it down by strength of opposition, to cover where a side might have had four bowlers and played Bangladesh say, thus potentially skewing the stats.

Who was the fifth bowler or what do you calss as a 5th bowler. Any one can be a 5th bowler. Mark Boucher our wicketkeeper was a 5th bowler once and got a wicket. Doesn't say much

Frontline bowlers, but I can tell you're going to twist everything to make out that the stats don't tell the truth. Maybe I should have worded it to close that door to your cynicism, five proper RECOGNISED bowlers and not just a Trott, Vaughan or even Bell turning their arm over.

 

[cricket_icon]

So here's my tradition of picking my own team for The Ashes. Let's start off with the challengers, this is what I'd go for:

1. Shane Watson
2. David Warner
3. Phil Hughes
4. Usman Khawaja
5. Michael Clarke C
6. Brad Haddin VC & WK
7. James Faulkner
8. Peter Siddle
9. Nathan Lyon
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Jackson Bird
12. James Pattinson

The top 3 slots were a tight competition between Watson, Hughes, Warner, Cowan and Khawaja. Personally I believe Khawaja will profit from a move down the order and that Hughes makes a more attacking number three than Cowan or Warner. Watson is a rarity in the Australian side, a world class batsman and he needs to open. Warner is being given a chance because he can strike the ball and may hurt England's opening bowlers.

It's pretty straight forward why Haddin and Clare are where they are. Faulkner's included because the Aussies need a bowler who can bat and bridge the gap between middle order and tail.

The bowling line up is a combination of good bowlers and untested quantities. Jackson Bird has impressed even though he has played very little and Starc has shown some real spark. I think Pattinson has a chance to be a real player on the world stage and Lyon is there because a spin option is necessary. Siddle is the work horse of this team and has enough experience, he needs to step up.

Now to the champions:
England
1. Alastair Cook C
2. Joe Root
3. Jonathon Trott
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Ian Bell
6. Matt Prior WK
7. Tim Bresnan
8. Stuart Broad
9. Graeme Swann
10. Steven Finn
11. James Anderson

The batting speaks for itself although Bell and KP still have to bat themselves into their best form.

I was stuck at having either Bairstow in the team or Bresnan, an allrounder or batsman so I picked the allrounder. I think England will need a good, 5th bowler. Finn is in ahead of Onions but I'm not sure if he will actually play when England take to the field, I think England will go for Bresnan AND Bairstow, I move I don't personally like. Finn is an explosive fast bowler, something England are lacking at the moment.

----------

Spot on plus England is not the place where you need 5 bowlers anyway. These pitches aren't roads, they will be providing loads of assistance to the quicks. The only places I would even remotely consider 5 bowlers is a absolute flat deck and even then I would question the merit in it.

Anderson is in great form but if you look away from him, it's only Swann who puts fear into the hearts of batsmen, let's not get too cocky, I know the Aussies batting line up is lacklustre but all it takes is a couple of good partnerships to take the game away from you. I've never been convinced with Bresnan and Broaid is far off, if we are going for a line up of:
Anderson, Swann, Broad, Bresnan, I regard Bresnan as a passenger. A 5th bowler is a great idea, back your top 5 to get runs and have someone like Finn, being wasted on the side lines. Do we really need Bairstow?

 

[shravi]

I hope Pattinson makes a mark on this Ashes. One of my favorite bowlers.

 

[War]

Eortable draw.



Thank you. Why? Because you've demonstrated how logic doesn't always follow, and it's been bugging me all weekend. Australia are worried about BATTING collapses so the way to allay that fear is to play five bowlers!?!?!?!?

Was it Ozzie Ardiles who was in charge of a spudz side who played FIVE attackers and no midfield? Exactly what I was saying about bowlers, quality vs quantity. Even if you played seven bowlers it wouldn't guarantee you bowl out the opposition, if anything you usually get 1-2 bowlers in a five man attack underused and so it is an inefficient policy.

Playing five bowlers won't make the aussies a robust batting side, it just means you'll have a longer tail and put pressure on the bowlers to try and rescue you whenever you make a score of par or below.

West Indies in 2000 is a good example of where bowlers couldn't make a difference, Walsh and Ambrose battled away but the batting was too reliant on a few stars. Ambrose and Walsh took FIFTY-ONE wickets between them in five Tests, the rest took 25 between them and they lost 3-1

Hell, they even bowled England out for 134 in the 2nd Test, Walsh and Ambrose ripping through the side before West Indies were skittled for 54 in their 2nd innings and despite taking seven wickets in the 2nd innings they could not avoid a two wicket defeat. Those two were like men possessed, but it didn't stop the batting underperforming - and they had six batsmen.

I'll be delighted if the aussies play five bowlers, personally I think you'd be better off playing six batsmen and trying to pick off the inconsistencies in our bowling attack - do to us what we did to the West Indies.

The "variety" logic is one England applied in the past, before a 5-0 whitewash down under made them realise throwing bowlers at the situation did not help. Even with Flintoff in the side as an all-rounder, and wheelie bin Giles at eight, England failed to make 200 FIVE times out of 10, and only made 300+ three times.



From 2000 to 2012 England employed five bowlers just over half the time.

Five bowlers : P82 W34 D22 L26 (Won 41.46%) - 20W = 47.56%
Four bowlers : P79 W39 D20 L20 (Won 49.37%) - 20W = 53.16%

Funny how England won more and took 20 wickets more often with only four bowlers, although some of that can be down to who was played, but still it is significant. Break the win percentages down to big opposition :

vs Australia : five = 22.22%, four = 41.67%
vs India : five = 16.67%, four = 57.14%
vs South Africa : five = 41.67%, four = 18.18%
vs Pakistan : five = 16.67%, four = 53.85%
vs Sri Lanka : five = 50.00%, four = 20.00%

Sri Lanka have been a mixed entity, as have Pakistan, but take the five as wholes and England won 37.77% with four bowlers compared to 29.31% with five. England have a pretty ordinary record against South Africa, I think that record has more to do with the opposition than the bowler make-up. For example South Africa scored 637/2 to win one Test by an innings, I doubt if we'd played any more bowlers they would have done more than Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Swann and a back-up of Bopara (most notable of three) Another match was fairly close in which England scored 300+ in both innings, you could argue by "War logic" that an extra bowler might have lowered their scores by enough to win, and maybe it might have worked if England knew Taylor would suck so much, but we don't know the bowler would have made a difference as much as we didn't know Taylor would be like a rabbit caught in headlights.

England have found five bowlers at home only a little more productive :

Five bowlers

Home : P41 W24 D9 L8 (Won 58.54%) - 20W = 65.85%
Away : P41 W10 D13 L18 (Won 24.39%) - 20W = 29.27%

Four bowlers

Home : P48 W26 D12 L10 (Won 54.17%) - 20W = 54.17%
Away : P31 W13 D8 L10 (Won 41.94%) - 20W = 51.61%

But overall not only have four bowler attacks won more Tests for England, they've lost less too. It would be quite difficult to relay how bowlers get marginalised by there being five, but it isn't difficult to grasp that when a bowler is taking wickets he's more likely to be used and more than someone who isn't. For starters rotating five bowlers just makes it way too complicated, you are much better off identifying your best four bowlers (for the pitch) and rotating them. Watson as a fifth bowler and maybe Clarke too would be adequate, trying to bowl England out cheaply by throwing bowlers at it in a hope you can win is fundamentally flawed, as fundamentally flawed as trying to win football games 1-0 by packing your defence and hoping to sneak a winner on the counter.

Fact is AUS bowlers have been the only thing in the post McGrath/Warne era that have impressed & they are in the ones in form. Except for Clarke the entire AUS batting line-up has some question marks over it.

So if AUS was to pick 5 bowlers (Faulkner as the all-rounder) it would be a accurate reflection of the form balance of the team.

However i would say picking 5 bowlers is not a MUST. I'm quite fine if AUS play a simple formula of 6 bats, Haddin, 3 quicks & Lyon this morning.

 

[Owzat]

Fact is AUS bowlers have been the only thing in the post McGrath/Warne era that have impressed & they are in the ones in form. Except for Clarke the entire AUS batting line-up has some question marks over it.

Not sure the bowlers have been anything special, just because the batting hasn't either.

However i would say picking 5 bowlers is not a MUST. I'm quite fine if AUS play a simple formula of 6 bats, Haddin, 3 quicks & Lyon this morning.

To get through tougher times I think you have to keep it simple and go for a proper Test balance of six batsmen, keeper and four bowlers

Unless your top order/five and keeper is strong enough to carry an extra bat I think you're just asking to be exposed. If Watson is the "all-rounder" then fair enough, but if you're pinning hopes on someone doing a solid job of picking up some wickets, scoring some runs, and carry a fairly long tail, I think Anderson et al will be as happy as pigs in proverbial.

Is that James Faulkner you were referring to? 8 ODIs, decent batting average but no big indicators he could bat an all-rounder's position in Tests with a FC career batting average of just under 30. I'd say he's more like a DeFreitas or one of our own bowling all-rounders whose batting average in the counties was decent, but as much as a I love Daffy I would never have had him batting higher than probably 8 or 9.

And if what you've said yourself is true, your bowling is your strength so why overload that? You can't take more than 10 wickets in an innings so reinforce the batting, not the bowling. Clarke and Watson are adequate reinforcements if you need bowling, England have a history of getting out to part-time spinners. While Clarke's record against England lacks wickets, and indeed overs, he's more than handy with a bowling average some Test bowlers would take over their own.

 

[sifter132]

I'm back. Had a cricket free month, and now I'm kinda excited about this series! Plenty of things to discuss...

Firstly, War, I think picking Faulkner nullifies the bowling of Watson, which would be a waste IMHO because Watson is perfectly capable of being a decent-good 5th bowler. He showed between 2009-2011 that's he's able to open the batting and bowl handily. No reason he can't continue that, because his bowling has maintained quality better than his batting off late. More importantly, it's not because there has been a significant ramping up of his bowling workload since he dropped to the middle order - that's a myth. A quick and dirty calculation to prove that would be: Watson averages 11.875 overs per innings under Clarke's captaincy (about when Watson dropped down the order) vs 10.34 overs per innings under Ponting. Not a significant difference, especially if you take out the Hobart Test where he had to bowl his most overs ever in a Test because Hilfenhaus broke down (Take out that Test and he's down to 10.55 overs per innings under Clarke).

As for the 4 bowlers vs 5 bowlers idea in general, I think the most important factor in that equation is your spinner. Australia never needed 5 bowlers with Shane Warne. England shouldn't need 5 bowlers with Graeme Swann, so it's no surprise their record with 4 bowlers is better as Owzat pointed out. With Ashley Giles though...different story, you'd want a 5th option. Basic theory would be your fast men shouldn't be relied on for more than 20 overs a day. 3 fast men x 20 overs = 60 overs. If you've got a gun spinner to bowl the other 30, then who needs another bowler? Strengthen your batting instead. If your spinner can't be trusted, a 5th bowling option is more important. Significant to me that the 2 most touted all-rounders of recent times: Flintoff and Kallis played as 5th bowlers on teams with weak spinners, thus making their bowling relatively important.

Anyway...onto tonight's match! Most interesting to me will be Australia's batting order. Cricinfo has suggested it will be Watson, Rogers, Cowan, Clarke, Hughes, Warner. I have 2 problems with that: a) Hughes and Cowan should swap. We saw Hughes struggle mightily vs spin in India, how is putting him LOWER in the batting order going to aid that? Hughes is also more likely than Cowan to get a big score, Cowan's been dealing in starts and only has 1 100 to his name. You want your big scorers higher rather than lower. Cowan also started his career at NSW as a middle order player, Hughes has always opened. So there's 3 reasons to me why Hughes at 5 would not be my choice...Another would be that Cowan and Rogers are the 2 'sensible', slowest scoring players in this team, putting them next to each other wouldn't be my choice. I'd like to see someone in the middle order with some backbone. Usman Khawaja might be that guy in time, but for tonight I'd go with Cowan at #5.

And problem b) with that team is David Warner...The Argus review into Australian cricket implied that players were going to get picked based on performance, and David Warner would be a perfect test for this system, and the man I'd compare him to for this spot is Steve Smith. Warner's been largely disappointing in 2013, contrasting with Smith who showed fight and skillfulness against India when he got his chance. Smith looked like he'd improved, Warner has the same issues. I want to get rid of this sense of entitlement for spots in the team. Picking Warner here would go against everything that I believe is right in selection: he has no form, he's done nothing to improve over the past couple of series, and his off-field lack of discipline shows he's a bit of a spoiled brat right now. In other words, Warner could do with a good dropping in my view. Will Warner end up a better batsman than Smith? Probably, but that's not always the right way to select. Warner's been doing the right things in training which is nice, but if I'm the selectors I say 'well done old boy, keep it up and you'll be rewarded' before ignoring him for this match.

I'd also ignore Khawaja and Warner and go for Steve Smith at #6! Smith has more recent runs, is a right hander (Swann and Anderson love lefties, Finn too), and offers more in the field than Uzzie. I'd back the form and confidence of Smith over the class of Khawaja at this stage. Warner of course is the wildcard for this spot, but I wouldn't be picking him for this match, for the reasons outlined above. The other case for Smith at #6 is that it gives Aussies a better chance to play 4 fast bowlers below him. At the moment, if Australia wants to pick all fast bowlers, then Clarke (or Warner if picked) would have to bowl up to 10 quick overs a day to keep the overrate decent. Smith gives you an extra spin option.

So I hope Aussies go for 6 batters, 4 bowlers. Lyon will be needed by the sound of it, and Watson will be a solid 4th seam option. Starc too is probably worth a go if the ball is going to reverse, and for that left arm variety. Throw the kid in and see what happens! Harris is a bit too similar to Siddle to get a run for me, and Pete deserves to stay in the side based on his last 12 months. Pattinson is a must. Let the games begin!

 

[Left_Hander]

I agree with you about Smith, sifter. He had a good tour of India when I thought he'd struggle (likewise with Henriques, I don't know why he wasn't retained when his style of play and his seamers would have been much more useful than the pitches in India). I think we need to show some faith in Smith. His leggies could be useful for 5 or so overs a day as well.

On showing faith to players. Anyone know why Johnson and Hilfenhaus aren't in the squad? Hilfy was the leading wicket taker in the 09 series and I reckon his use of swing would have been useful. With Johnson, we gave him a spot in the summer Tests, why drop him so soon? I would have considered both Hilfy and Johnson over Harris.

 

[sifter132]

Found this fantastic chart featuring the matchups of batsmen vs bowlers that might feature in this Ashes. ALL the information you could hope for on the history between these 2 squads.
Player vs Player summary for Ashes squad | Random Keystrokes

Plenty of stuff to find eg. Shane Watson has a very good record vs James Anderson, and hasn't got out to Swann in Tests yet. Haddin and Clarke also average 78 and 69 vs against Swann's bowling. James Anderson's dismissed Clarke 6 times at an average of 25.5. Siddle and Pattinson's bowling average is 8 runs better when bowling at right handers...and much much more to be found!

 

[Epic]

My first real Ashes series in terms of true interest, looking forward!

 

[cricket_icon]

Ashton agar? Was he even in the original squad? And steve smith? This batting line up is weak. The pacers look good but good ---- from cook

----------

Pattinson should bring up his pace

 

[Dutch]

Anyone know the ECB YouTube link? Cant seem to find it anywhere.....

 

[Epic]

England Cricket - YouTube

 

[Dutch]

England Cricket - YouTube

Cheers I found that but cannot seem to find the live stream........????

 

[Epic]

Ashes 1st Test Day 1 - YouTube
Not available for me but there it is

Der.

 

[Slowcoach]

Haddin missing a catch...business as usual.

Annoying that during his time out of the team people forgot how inconsistent his glovework was.
Now people seem to think he is "experienced", and "reliable", because he is old, and his keeping has taken on some Ian Healy like mystique.
He is a better batsman under pressure than Wade, and a better keeper, but he is in the team for his batting, and always was, his keeping is dodgy.
Anyone remember him missing 3 stumpings in the same ODI v England just before he was dropped from the team?
Was par for the course.