Australia in England - 2009 Ashes Tour

[evertonfan]

All pessimism aside for this one; we're gonna get utterly mullered.

 

[Simbazz]

I dunno, Matt, I think we might have a chance IF we can clear the West Indies well.

Strauss
Cook
KP
Shah
Bell
Flintoff
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Panesar

That would be my team, BUT obviously you cant be in England and play that so I'd sacrifice Swanny for S.Jones or Sidebottom. My view on Khan has lessened somewhat.

 

[Leicester Fox]

I would play Hoggy. I would have sex with Hoggy though.

I'm more confident after the Windies series than before it. The series was stupid in terms of pitches. All we learnt is that Strauss KP and Colly are all in top form with the bat, Broad is much improved and we have found a quality spinner. Provided we win in style against the West Indies we can definitely win. Hopefully a new coach will come in and we'll have that feelgood factor. The Aussies are still arrogant as well which is always good news.

 

[smssia0112]

Wouldn't call it a super series for your batsmen, they scored big against a pretty poor attack but it won't be so easy against us.

 

[aussie_ben91]

LOLLOLLOL. You've surpassed yourself there Ben. Chanderpaul not better than Hughes, Katich, Clarke and Hussey? Considering your dependance on averages I thought you'd rate Chanderpaul highly. He's averaged over 100 in his last 2 years, and is averaging 73 this year. He's a class act, and although those players are very talented, there's no way they've achieved more or are better batsmen than Shiv Chanderpaul yet. Chanderpaul averages 48 against Australia, 71 against India, 55 against England, 47 against Sri Lanka, 47 against Sri Lanka, he's a top class batsman. There's no way you can say any of those players bar Ponting are better, or have achieved more than Chanderpaul.

The South African bowling attack that Phillip Hughes has dominated against over the past 2 weeks, has been stronger then any bowling attack that Chanderpaul has faced over the past 2 years.

I respect your opinion on cricket and rate it very highly but you are getting a bit carried away. I never said that any of our batsman had acchieved more then Chanderpaul, although Clarke, Hughes and possibly Hussey will score more Test hundreds then Chanderpaul. Also Chanderpaul isn't close to Ponting; not even on the same tier.

1st Tier: Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Waugh
2nd Tier: Kallis, Dravid, Hayden, Pietersen
3rd Tier: Inzamam, Yousuf, Sangakkara, Chanderpaul, Jayawardene, Smith, Hussey
4th Tier: Gilchrist, Clarke, Katich, Gambhir Sehwag

Sarwan's a class act as well, he's one of the biggest underachievers in the world game. He's been in a real purple patch in this series, failing on only 1 ocassion, with 3 hundreds and a score of 96. He may not be as good a player as some of those mentioned, namely Ponting, Clarke and Hussey, but he's a very talented batsman. Look at his ODi record for example, 141 games, 4594 runs at an average of 44.17, if that's not a class batsman I don't know what is.

Michael Bevan averaged well over 60 for the majority of his ODI career but he struggled against the bouncer, hence why he didn't have much of a Test career. ODI statistics aren't a true reflection of a batsman talents. Especially middle-order batsman, who bat in the middle-overs of a ODI, where attacking fields aren't set and easy runs are available. Middle-order batsman in ODI's also get knicks and edges that go through slips that run away to the boundry for 4, because you'll rarely, if ever, see a slip in a ODI after the powerplays.

Broad's got the good batsmen out on at least 1 occassion in the series, getting Chanderpaul 3 times, and Brendan Nash twice, who's looked a very calm and composed player, and has made some good runs in his early Test career. He's also got Gayle and Sarwan on 1 ocassion. He's bowled fantastically on very batsman friendly pitches, and in England will be far more threatening than he was earlier in his career.

Ashley Giles has gotten world-class batsman out aswell.

As for Anderson troubling Hughes, we'll have to wait and see won't we. No point making sweeping judgements yet as Hughes hasn't played in England, and Anderson's not bowled to Hughes.

He handled Dale Steyn pretty well and even destroyed him at times. I dunno about you, but the difference between Steyn & Anderson is pretty big.

your a joke kid. Chanders owns everyone in world cricket since 2007, go back and watch the last time Australia was in the Caribbean. Toyed with your best.

I remember foundly watching Brett Lee knock out Chanderpaul with a bouncer. His the only batsman that I've ever seen get knocked out by a bowler whilst being in the form of his life.

 

[King Pietersen]

The South African bowling attack that Phillip Hughes has dominated against over the past 2 weeks, has been stronger then any bowling attack that Chanderpaul has faced over the past 2 years.

Ian Bell scored 199 against an identical attack, is he better than Chanderpaul?. 1 Test Match does not make Hughes a better player than a man that's averaged over 100 in Test cricket in the last 2 years. Chanderpaul also made a hundred in South Africa in 2007, against an attack of Steyn, Ntini, Nel, Kallis and Harris, an attack arguably stronger than one that includes Morne Morkel. He also scored 2 hundreds in a series that included bowlers like Lee, Johnson, MacGill and Clark. He also made a nice 86* against Vaas and Muralitharan. Hughes has played well in 1 Test match, Chanderpaul's been doing it consistently for a number of years, there's no comparison.

Michael Bevan averaged well over 60 for the majority of his ODI career but he struggled against the bouncer, hence why he didn't have much of a Test career. ODI statistics aren't a true reflection of a batsman talents. Especially middle-order batsman, who bat in the middle-overs of a ODI, where attacking fields aren't set and easy runs are available. Middle-order batsman in ODI's also get knicks and edges that go through slips that run away to the boundry for 4, because you'll rarely, if ever, see a slip in a ODI after the powerplays.

I suppose you've got a point, but his ODi record does go some way to prove the talent the guy has. If he could be more consistent away from home in places like England, New Zealand and Australia, he'd have a fantastic Test record. He's made some very big runs in this Test series against England, and although England haven't bowled superbly at him and he's been helped by some flat pitches, he's batted beautifully. The fact he's the only one to take advantage of the flat pitch and make a massive score proves his talent. I'm not saying he's up there with the best, but he's a very accomplished and talented batsman, especially in the West Indies.

Ashley Giles has gotten world-class batsman out aswell.

Yeh, and your point is? Giles mixed pies with a few decent deliveries and some luck. Broad has bowled brilliantly on incredibly flat decks, and got good players out on a consistent basis. If you think Australia will just milk him for runs, then you'll be in for a shock, he's a much better bowler than he was 5-6 months ago.

He handled Dale Steyn pretty well and even destroyed him at times. I dunno about you, but the difference between Steyn & Anderson is pretty big.

They're different bowlers. Steyn's got more pace and swing, but Anderson gets more swing, reverses the ball at pace and with no change in action gets the ball to swing both ways. In English conditions, with overcast skies and abit of green on the deck, you'll see the best of James Anderson. Steyn's a far better bowler, but Anderson in England could possibly be more effective!

I remember foundly watching Brett Lee knock out Chanderpaul with a bouncer. His the only batsman that I've ever seen get knocked out by a bowler whilst being in the form of his life.

Kevin Pietersen looked all at see against 1 92mph Fidel Edwards bouncer on the 4th day of the final Windies Test. Pietersen also incredibly struggled with Lee's bouncer in England in 2005. Jacques Kallis got smacked on the chin by a Mitchell Johnson bouncer and he looked in good touch before that. If a bowler is bowling upwards of 90mph bouncers at your head, there's not alot you can do as a batsman, whether your in good form or not. Loads of batsmen in good form have been hit by quick bouncers, so I don't really know where you're going with that point.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ian Bell scored 199 against an identical attack, is he better than Chanderpaul?. 1 Test Match does not make Hughes a better player than a man that's averaged over 100 in Test cricket in the last 2 years. Chanderpaul also made a hundred in South Africa in 2007, against an attack of Steyn, Ntini, Nel, Kallis and Harris, an attack arguably stronger than one that includes Morne Morkel. He also scored 2 hundreds in a series that included bowlers like Lee, Johnson, MacGill and Clark. He also made a nice 86* against Vaas and Muralitharan. Hughes has played well in 1 Test match, Chanderpaul's been doing it consistently for a number of years, there's no comparison.

Ian Bell's 199 was at Lords - The so-called "flattest pitch" in England, where the last 6 matches have been drawn. Hughes made twin-hundreds on a pitch where both Graeme Smith & Jacques Kallis had to retire hurt because the ball was spitting off the pitch and they both got collected.

The hundred that Chanderpaul made was against a significantly weaker attack. Steyn wasn't as good as he is now and Kallis has been bowling allot more in the past 6 months then what he did 2 years ago, with success, Nel got dropped for a reason and Ntini was probably slightly better 2 years ago.

Also his runs against Australia aren't all impressive. Johnson was really down onform and bowled poorly, Lee was starting to show signs of deterioration and MacGil was in no condition physically to bowl at International standard; hence his retirement. 6 months ago you wouldn't of creditted a batsman for making runs against Mitchell Johnson.

His 86 not out against Murali may have been impressive but he hasn't scored a 100 against Murali or Warne and only 1 against McGrath. I think Hughes made a ton against Murali in a warmup match before the Australian/Sri Lankan tour in 2007, when he was only 17/18 anyway.

Yeh, and your point is? Giles mixed pies with a few decent deliveries and some luck. Broad has bowled brilliantly on incredibly flat decks, and got good players out on a consistent basis. If you think Australia will just milk him for runs, then you'll be in for a shock, he's a much better bowler than he was 5-6 months ago.

Broad has performed well on flat decks against one of the weaker batting lineups in world cricket. How long do you think England will persist with a bowler averaging over 40 in Test Cricket? Especially if he doesn't perform well in the Ashes? Which to me seems very likely...

They're different bowlers. Steyn's got more pace and swing, but Anderson gets more swing, reverses the ball at pace and with no change in action gets the ball to swing both ways. In English conditions, with overcast skies and abit of green on the deck, you'll see the best of James Anderson. Steyn's a far better bowler, but Anderson in England could possibly be more effective!

South African decks have been the hardest to bat on for the past 10-15, that's why only a handful of players have averaged over 50 in those parts. The likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid and Hayden have all averaged well under their career average in South Africa.

The fact that also South Africa have had 3 premier pacemen over the last 15 years averaging 20-22 (Donald, Pollock, Steyn) furthermore adds to the disadvantages that touring South Africa brings. If England were capable of producing a pace bowler of this quality then making runs in England would be more of a challenge.

Kevin Pietersen looked all at see against 1 92mph Fidel Edwards bouncer on the 4th day of the final Windies Test. Pietersen also incredibly struggled with Lee's bouncer in England in 2005. Jacques Kallis got smacked on the chin by a Mitchell Johnson bouncer and he looked in good touch before that. If a bowler is bowling upwards of 90mph bouncers at your head, there's not alot you can do as a batsman, whether your in good form or not. Loads of batsmen in good form have been hit by quick bouncers, so I don't really know where you're going with that point.

The thing though is, Pietersen's not at his best currently and Kallis is seemingly past his best.

 

[Jakester1288]

I reckon if Watson is fit and has match fitness bowling, we should select him.

He fits the balance of our team well IMO. We have the 2 openers, Hughes and Katich, then Ponting, Hussey and Clarke. Then we should follow with Haddin then Watson, then the lower order. He is not good enough to be picked on batting alone, so if he doesn't start bowling soon (apparently he plans on bowling around IPL time) I wouldn't take him on tour. He is a solid batsmen, but I don't think he is good enough to bat top 6 in test match cricket, and his bowling could be very valuable. Whilst we wouldn't want any more than 15-20 overs out of him per innings, due to him being so injury prone, that's a good amount of overs each innings. Plenty of time for him to take a few wickets. With 4 main bowlers, the chances are they will be quicks. He should come in for McDonald IMO.

So, this is what I think the Australia side should look like assuming Lee, Clark and Watson have match fitness with the ball.

1. Katich
2. Hughes
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Haddin
7. Watson
8. Johnson
9. Lee
10. Siddle
11. Clark

Clarke and Katich will provide the spin in that team. Trouble is working out who to drop if we get a real, spinning dustbowl kind of wicket where a spinner is absolutely necessary.

I get the feeling Hussey doesn't have that long left in the test series. I really hope he kicks on in this series, because I like watching him bat when in form. He is one of the best in the world, his average over 80 for a while during the 2007/08 summer proves that. Even if he bats poorly during this series, I think the selectors will persist with him until during or after the Pakistan test series, then they will finally make the call to drop him.

 

[sifter132]

I reckon if Watson is fit and has match fitness bowling, we should select him.

He fits the balance of our team well IMO. We have the 2 openers, Hughes and Katich, then Ponting, Hussey and Clarke. Then we should follow with Haddin then Watson, then the lower order. He is not good enough to be picked on batting alone, so if he doesn't start bowling soon (apparently he plans on bowling around IPL time) I wouldn't take him on tour. He is a solid batsmen, but I don't think he is good enough to bat top 6 in test match cricket, and his bowling could be very valuable. Whilst we wouldn't want any more than 15-20 overs out of him per innings, due to him being so injury prone, that's a good amount of overs each innings. Plenty of time for him to take a few wickets. With 4 main bowlers, the chances are they will be quicks. He should come in for McDonald IMO.

So, this is what I think the Australia side should look like assuming Lee, Clark and Watson have match fitness with the ball.

1. Katich
2. Hughes
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Haddin
7. Watson
8. Johnson
9. Lee
10. Siddle
11. Clark

Clarke and Katich will provide the spin in that team. Trouble is working out who to drop if we get a real, spinning dustbowl kind of wicket where a spinner is absolutely necessary.

I get the feeling Hussey doesn't have that long left in the test series. I really hope he kicks on in this series, because I like watching him bat when in form. He is one of the best in the world, his average over 80 for a while during the 2007/08 summer proves that. Even if he bats poorly during this series, I think the selectors will persist with him until during or after the Pakistan test series, then they will finally make the call to drop him.

I'm a Watson fan too, but I think he can bat at #6 and probably higher as his career goes on. Haddin should bat at #7 because of his style. Haddin scores quickly, while Watson is more of a slow and steady starter. It's hard for a slow and steady starter to bat at #7 because he suddenly might have #9 at a partner and he's only just arrived.

I like those 4 quick bowlers, Johnson, Siddle, Clark and Lee. And we'd also have Hilfy and Bollinger in reserve. But if we go 4 quicks, I really think North should play instead of Watson. Otherwise we'll see what happened in India with so much reliance on pace that Clarke and Katich will need to bowl blocks of 10 overs in about 20-25 minutes just to make up the over rate and that would totally release any pressure that the quicks had built up.

Assuming the top 5, Haddin, Johnson and Siddle are locks there are 3 spots left and to keep balance I would say it's either Watson+McGain+Clark/Lee (3 quicks, McGain and Watson) or North+Clark+Lee (4 quicks + North's offies). I think Johnson and Siddle are the top 2 quickies and Lee and Clark are fighting for the 3rd spot. It's also possible North might be retained anyway if Hussey can't make any runs. It also depends on how Watson, Lee and Clark come back with the ball (we've already seen Watson can still bat with his 145 last weekend) and it also depends on how North and McGain look in the 3rd Test.

I'll tell you one guy who should NOT be there though: Andrew Symonds.

 

[Dare]

I remember foundly watching Brett Lee knock out Chanderpaul with a bouncer. His the only batsman that I've ever seen get knocked out by a bowler whilst being in the form of his life.

And I remember Chanderpaul getting up and making a century and ending up not out. Only batsman Iv ever seen do that. And it was a bouncer that kept low, Chanders went to duck under it and it skidded low on him.

 

[karnog]

Lol Ben don't get ahead of yourself. I have a feeling Hughes is going to be a bunny against spin (judging by his footwork and lets face it Harris can't be considered a world standard attacking spin bowler). Swann has hit his purple patch plus lets not forget the way he played in the first test. Obviously when on song he's a real treat but he can be an ugly player when he's below his best (first test). I hope he succeeds but better than Chander? No comparison.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Hughes made runs against Murali when he was 18 years old. Hardly a bunny against spin.

Hughes struggled in the first Test? He made a magnificant 75 in the second innings on a difficult pitch and played some cracking shots that an English opening batsman could only dream of playing. His only flaw is gloving the ball down the legside, which can be easily accounted for by leaving it. He played swing bowling beautifully against Dale Steyn, who is a better pace bowler then anyone from England.

Swann is hardly anything special in Tests. He is as about as equally as good as Harris if anything. His been taking wickets against one of the weaker batting lineups in world cricket whilst Hughes has been making runs against one of the better bowling units in world cricket and yet you claim that Swann can trouble Hughes? If Hughes lives up to his full potential then he'll be way better then Chanderpaul. Chanderpaul's a old-ball bully whilst Hughes does it tough at the top of the order.

 

[Dare]

If you paid attention to West Indies cricket you would notice that Chanderpaul was sticking around when the 2nd new ball is taken.
Why don't you wait until Hughes plays a good amount of tests before calling him better than Chanderpaul.
Watch some WI cricket before commenting on the WI players please.

 

[Skater]

Ben's obviously wearing a massive Aussie blindfold, in which he just cannot stand to give recognition to anyone who didn't once have a ball and chain.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Yeah Dare, it's obviously allot easier to face off the 2nd new ball when you've been batting for 30 overs and you've got your eye in.

Also my prediction for the Ashes...

3-1.

First match England will dominate and then find a way of drawing the match.

Australia will then dominate the next 3 Tests, winning them all.

Then England will win in a deadrubber.

But I wouldn't be supprised if we won 5-0 and completely shut up all of the Ricky Ponting critics once and for all.