Ashes debate thread.

[evertonfan]

I think that Trescothick is going to be as vital as KP, he'll probably be opening with Strauss, and the latter is the one who tends to get out first. It is absolutley crucial that Trescothick gets us off to a good start and scores a big hundred (something which he has yet do do against the aussies) in order for the middle order to have something to build on. On top of all that, Harmison needs to perform well; he was made for Aussie pitches, despite being poor the last time he was there. Although it's a bit harsh to call him poor, considering that he had just broke into the side then.

 

[James219]

Shane Watson, really? I've seen him a few times and I don't think he is up to international standards, although i'm sure you have seen him more than I have. You would be better off just playing with 7 batsmen (keeper included), and 4 bowlers.

He does have the potential, and his batting is extremely solid these days as his constant injuries allow him time to work on it- that's the thing, though. He's been injury prone since he was like sixteen, and as a result, has never been a fixture. (I.e. misses out on important tournaments, and thereby chances to prove his worth) True, he hasn't performed THAT impressively on the international stage, but that's what happens with some allrounders when they're breaking through a tight generation of Australian stars, I guess. Still, I doubt he'll play a major part in the upcoming home series, and the fact that some say he needs to play the Flintoff role is sorta inaccurate- he's an individual...
Anyway, there are more promising allrounders younger than him over here...

 

[evertonfan]

He does have the potential, and his batting is extremely solid these days as his constant injuries allow him time to work on it- that's the thing, though. He's been injury prone since he was like sixteen, and as a result, has never been a fixture. (I.e. misses out on important tournaments, and thereby chances to prove his worth) True, he hasn't performed THAT impressively on the international stage, but that's what happens with some allrounders when they're breaking through a tight generation of Australian stars, I guess. Still, I doubt he'll play a major part in the upcoming home series, and the fact that some say he needs to play the Flintoff role is sorta inaccurate- he's an individual...
Anyway, there are more promising allrounders younger than him over here...

I sort of agree with you. I mean look at Freddy, he hardly hit the grown running did he?

 

[James219]

On top of all that, Harmison needs to perform well; he was made for Aussie pitches, despite being poor the last time he was there. Although it's a bit harsh to call him poor, considering that he had just broke into the side then.

Yep, I s'pose he has to find a combination awkward enough to trouble the Australians- at times he was frighteningly quick and bowling with rhythm in the recent Ashes, but in other periods, looked restrained. He's got the ability tear through line-ups, and although he wasn't great the last time he was here, he was only breaking into the side under a scarred English captain, and did test world-class batsman at times. Anyway, agreed, he'll be crucial come November.

I sort of agree with you. I mean look at Freddy, he hardly hit the grown running did he?

Yeah, that's true. I guess he was in a different situation, though, in the sense that he wasn't always putting in the effort (well, I couldn't really say that unless I knew him). Watson will never be as great as Flintoff (I don't think so anyway..), but one similarity I do see is how people view their bowling- a few years ago, Flintoff had decent pace, was used as a containing force and rarely moved the ball enough to constantly dictate terms or keep the batsman under control- Watson has similar attributes there, and is criticised for the exact same thing (not looking to take wickets, impose himself, one dimensional part-timer with pretty good pace, etc). 'Just shows how he can develop and become far more effective, despite many already writing him off in the bowling department and comparing him to present Flintoff.

 

[Sureshot]

The difference with Flintoff is he is a much more aggresive bowler than I think Watson will ever be.

In terms of back up bowling as mentioned. We have alot better bowlers in back up than selected for the current ODI side.

Jon Lewis, Kabir Ali, Stuart Broad even Tom Smith.

 

[aussie1st]

Shane Watson, really? I've seen him a few times and I don't think he is up to international standards, although i'm sure you have seen him more than I have. You would be better off just playing with 7 batsmen (keeper included), and 4 bowlers.

The selectors have talked him up. Bowling is improving and the selectors may feel he will step up in the big occassion like he did against the World 11. If not him then we either promote the inconsistent Clarke or take back Hodge. Not the options I would take. If it was Cosgrove being promoted or Jaques then I would go 7 batsmen but it wouldn't be.

 

[evertonfan]

I would definatley give Cosgrove a go, he's been prolific in England this year.

 

[Gilchrist]

Cosgrove was excellent for The Redbacks, makes me laugh when they banned him for being too fat, and watching him smash Bangladesh on his debut really impressed me.

 

[evertonfan]

Hey Gilly, perhaps you could add a poll to this thread? But staying on topic, will Gillespie be given his chance again in this winter's Ashes?

 

[James219]

The difference with Flintoff is he is a much more aggresive bowler than I think Watson will ever be.

Hussain used him as a more containing, or defensive, option and that's why he was wasted there, because he always had the aggression in him. I'm by no means saying Watson is anywhere near Flintoff's class, and that's why he has to be developed in such a way that suits him as an individual cricketer, but he can build on his bowling, as the foundations are obviously there for him to be a consistent change bowler in the future- that's another thing, though; Flintoff has the potential to open the bowling, whereas Watson doesn't.
Anyway, Cosgrove's a great back-up option, as he's done well against English domestic attacks, and obviously over here as well. Jacques is also on the verge.

Hey Gilly, perhaps you could add a poll to this thread? But staying on topic, will Gillespie be given his chance again in this winter's Ashes?

Tough one to call- he probably deserves the opportunity, and there would be merit in selecting him with regards to experience and unchallenged class if he finds his feet quickly, but there are several others pushing for the spot. Dunno if Kasprowicz'll be back, but then again, he's the king of surprise returns. With Lee and McGrath taking the new ball, he may well come in as a change option, but there's Clark, Bracken, Kasprowicz and even Watson to think about. I'd expect MacGill to play at least one or two of the five tests (probably Adelaide and Sydney), and Symonds is there as an extra medium pacer and part-time finger spinner, but I doubt they'll opt for him during the test leg of the tour anyway. There's also other outsiders in contention. To add to that, England do have the psychological edge over him, and that'd be on his mind, but then again, he's already shown he can bounce back patiently with solid performances.

 

[aussie1st]

Dizzy has to get the gig. In Australia he has been that good. Bracken is a shot, Clark on the seaming wickets definitely a go. MacGill no question on the flat and spinning tracks.
On Symonds I would pick him as a batsmen cause he has that KP/Flintoff counter attack nature about him. But he has never been able to convert that ODI form to test yet. Maybe the Ashes will be the making of him.

 

[evertonfan]

Clarke really impressed me in Safrica, I would definitley have him in the side. On another note, it's a nice thought for all English fans that this is going to be Warne's last Ashes. Or at least it should be! Saying that though, he'll probably sign off in style! 20 wickets in the Sydney test anyone? :crying

 

[James219]

Dizzy has to get the gig. In Australia he has been that good. Bracken is a shot, Clark on the seaming wickets definitely a go. MacGill no question on the flat and spinning tracks.
On Symonds I would pick him as a batsmen cause he has that KP/Flintoff counter attack nature about him. But he has never been able to convert that ODI form to test yet. Maybe the Ashes will be the making of him.

Gotta agree there, and it's annoying when people say he's past it, looks like he's aging, etc. He's actually bowling with great rhythm, and that alone cancels out any doubts over capability, and his pace, although not knowing the exact speed in the absence of measuring tools, has seemed top notch, or as high as he usually gets it, ignoring the period where he was pushing the 150 km/h barrier. He's taking plenty of first-class Australian wickets behind the wicket, which are also great signs. He definitely should get the gig, and with the re-instatement of Border on the selection panel, might end up doing so. By the way, I don't think the Ashes will improve Symonds' case- he's a very dangerous force, but I dunno if he'll ever make the transition, but who knows, he may prove myself and many others wrong. The thing is, a balance is hard to find. He plays his natural game, and people criticise him for irresponsibility in shot selection. He adopts a more restrained approach, and is criticised for straying from his instinctive game plans. A lose-lose battle.....

Clarke really impressed me in Safrica, I would definitley have him in the side. On another note, it's a nice thought for all English fans that this is going to be Warne's last Ashes. Or at least it should be! Saying that though, he'll probably sign off in style! 20 wickets in the Sydney test anyone? :crying

Clark's situation was one of the funniest I've ever seen- he went from absolute hero and a future star with people saying: "age is no barrier, he's in the mould of Mcgrath, still another five years left in 'im, etc", and suddenly, after one relatively poor meeting with Bangla, became the villian, was 'rested' and, if I remember correctly, was in the sports news saying how the selectors lied about a family commitment and genuinely dropped him...
Anyway, he's a very nagging bowler, a competitor, and looks very hard to play, as he constantly hits that corridor of uncertainty and puts the batsman in two minds about whether to get forward or back- if he gets even the slightest of movement, can realy trouble a batsman, and then mix it up by holding his line and forcing the batsman to play for non-existent movement!
As mentioned, will be dangerous on any variable or remotely seaming wicket, jagging the ball back and away.
Warne, well, he's past it! :

 

[aussie1st]

Problem with Clark is on those flat wickets like in Bangladesh. Didn't look anywhere near as effective as he did in SA but he was only give 1 test so bit hard to judge.
I'm sure the A games coming up will decide who our backup 4th bowler is. Tait and Johnson both have chances to shine.

 

[James219]

I'm sure the A games coming up will decide who our backup 4th bowler is. Tait and Johnson both have chances to shine.

Ah, forgot 'bout Tait! Yeah, he's a real chance to star in the upcoming Ashes, and although the English dealt with him quite well last year, will pose a massive threat if on-song and fully prepared for the contest. There were glimpses of his quality in the 4th and 5th tests, with some great wickets to his name, but his figures were hampered with inconsistency. But, if he performs well in the approaching A games, he probably will be a favourite- the English only need to see the ING cup final of 2006 to know what he's capable of. The selectors will be seriously worried about bringing him in purely on the basis of raw pace, but to be honest, there's much more to him than that. Johnson, well I doubt he'll star in the tests this summer, but if he strings together convincing shows in the A games and in the Pura/ING, should play a part in the VB series.