Ashes 2013 - Australia tour of England June/August 2013
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
The Investec Ashes 2013 : Chris Rogers to open with Shane Watson | Cricket News | Australia in England - The Investec Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo
Watson and Rogers confirmed as openers. Cowan axed. 5 bowlers to potentially play with Faulkner at # 7. Love these choices by Lehmann in these early stages.
Watson and Rogers confirmed as openers. Cowan axed. 5 bowlers to potentially play with Faulkner at # 7. Love these choices by Lehmann in these early stages.
vaibhavtewatia
Panel of Selectors
Was expecting that tbh!
But I'll still not play Hughes
and would go with Khwaja for once. Or maybe Cowan over any of them!
But I'll still not play Hughes
and would go with Khwaja for once. Or maybe Cowan over any of them!
used2bcool
Club Captain
So based on what Lehmann has confirmed and who's playing in the warmup against Worcestershire, I'd say the Australian lineup we're likely to see in the first Test is this:
1 Rogers 2 Watson 3 Hughes 4 Warner 5 Clarke 6 Haddin 7 Faulkner 8 Siddle 9 Starc 10 Pattinson and 11 Lyon.
Personally, I'd pick Cowan over Hughes at 3 and Harris (if he is really fit) over Starc at 9. What say?
vaibhavtewatia
Panel of Selectors
Harris is out already, isn't he?
They are talking about some fierce spell where he also hit Bresnan with a bouncer. Would love to see it on Youtube!
Interesting!!
They are talking about some fierce spell where he also hit Bresnan with a bouncer. Would love to see it on Youtube!
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
I was watching it on TV. Mills cracked Swann on the arm (which, rather worryingly, he has gone off for a scan for) and then Bresnan on the helment. He was bowling around 92-94mph at times.
vaibhavtewatia
Panel of Selectors
I love to see that asap it is uploaded on youtube. Expecting something like, a week or two injury maybe? Sad, Monty over Tredwell then!
Sounds like an exciting talent. Hope Swann is not too badly injured. If he is I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next Essex CC team meeting.
*Mills feels the cold stare of Gooch and Cook*
Skater
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Profile Flag
- England
Swann has had the scan, there's no damage to the arm, just bruising. Good news. He's expected to return to the field against Essex tomorrow.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Its pretty straight forward really. Now that Watson is going to return to his logical place as an opener, his bowling workload has to be reduced or stopped for two simple reasons:
- His weak body can't handle the workload of opening and bowling
- No all-rounder in test history every combined opening and quick bowling effectively. Trevor Goddard from SA sort of did, but he was medium pace really.
AUS best chance of winning the ashes is to take 20 wickets consistently and a variety based 5-man attack is the best way. AUS batting has much question marks and if we are being realistic they are going to struggle to dominate ENG's attack and make begin enough totals. So they need to keep ENG much vaunted top 7 in check.
----------
Doubt Warner will start now, most likely Khawaja. Although i'd maintain that AUS have too many guys that are more comfortable opening or batting in the top 3 than the middle-order which is why i believe George Bailey should have been drafted into the squad instead of Steve Smith.
Harris is believe will start. The selectors are already risking his career by picking him to play tests, so once he is fit i can't see him not starting.
Cowan doesn't deserve to start. He is an average player who AUS have gotten every once out of limited talented already.
England could well have picked the opposition very carefully to make sure there was every chance of players making runs or taking wickets.
While it might have been nice for Bresnan and Swann to make some runs, and for Root to pick up some wickets, I'm not sure how much difference it will make to the Ashes. Root may have to fill in for an injured bowler, but I doubt he'll find the aussies so accommodating. And I'd be surprised if Swann or Bresnan make too many scores over 40 in the series
I'd rather one of Onions, Bresnan or even Swann had ripped through the Essex line up, Swann might have had he been able to bowl, but that Onions and Bresnan returned modest figures over 10+ overs apiece does not bode particularly well.
On reflection I think I'd have possibly gone for Somerset at Taunton or a similar side/ground, might be easy-ish runs for the batsmen and a bit more toil for the bowlers, but I'd want batsmen spending time at the crease and bowlers made to bowl well and/or work hard for their wickets. Not sure there's any substance in making runs or taking wickets against Essex - 413/9 thanks to lower order big scores and a part-timer helping Finn reduce the hosts to 231/9
----------
I agree, I think the "need" for a fifth bowler is one of a) not knowing who your best bowling quartet is, b) a paranoia/fear of something going wrong or c) not knowing how the pitch is going to play and whether you need an all seam attack, or a spinner, so picking an all seam attack and a spinner.
If you are lucky enough to have someone who can bat and bowl well, like a Kallis, maybe a Flintoff, a McMillan, a Botham etc, and a strong enough batsman keeper, then you can probably pick a fourth bowler. I don't think it is any coincidence that England have been one of the top sides around with four bowlers, as were the aussies for a couple of dominate decades, and I don't remember the West Indies needing more than four bowlers in their domination.
I don't see the need for a fifth bowler for the simple reason if your best four bowlers are picked and can't bowl a side out, what odds your fifth best bowler will make a difference? Sometimes you have to accept you've picked your best bowlers and if they don't bowl a side out cheaply then c'est la vie. You have to place faith in your best six batsmen, the keeper, and best four bowlers (available in all cases) Quantity does not equal quality in terms of throwing bowlers into the equation thinking more bowlers = more wickets.
England won the Ashes in 2005 with five bowlers, but not necessarily because they had five bowlers but as much in spite of it. Some will argue the wheelie bin (Giles) rested the main bowlers or "his tight bowling created wickets at the other end", both of which may or may not be (remotely) true.
What I do know for a fact is Pietersen (473 runs), Trescothick (431 runs), Strauss (393 runs), Flintoff (402 runs & 24 wkts), Jones (18 wkts), Harmison (17 wkts) and Hoggard (16 wkts) all had very very good series or better. Jones, Vaughan and Giles all chipped in. I'd think the 75 wickets the four main bowlers took between them would have made England competitive, probably would have taken more if Vaughan and Collingwood say had been the fifth bowler.
Of course the series could have easily gone the other way, the two run victory at Edgbaston filled with doubt about the final dismissal. I wonder how the series might have gone if the review system had been in operation. I think the aussies had some luck go their way, England some their's.
