Australia in England - 2009 Ashes Tour

[Leicester Fox]

Oh my god this thread is so crap.

Stop discussing things.

This is the Ashes. We are meant to be insulting each other.

I can't wait till they start. If Flintoff is fit I can't wait to see him ready to tear into the Aussies with the crowd behind him. They should have put a test at old Trafford though, it's silly.

 

[aussie_ben91]

ROFL at Southee being better than Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Donald, Bond, Clark, Murali, Caddick, Gough, Lee, Kumble, Pollock, Akram, Younis, MacGill and Srinath. He's not even seen as good enough to be picked for his countries XI, with Kyle Mills being picked ahead of him, surely that says enough? Southee had 1 good innings against Australia, getting Hayden out a couple of times, and I'm guessing thats what you're basing that on? Get Hayden out and you're automatically a class bowler.

Also, this is the biggest over-rating of a young player I've ever seen. He's had 2 Tests, and yeh he may have performed remarkably well, but to be rating him higher than Chanderpaul after such a short period of time is just purely laughable. Hughes has made runs against a South African attack that looks a good distance worse than they did in Australia. Steyn's not really found his proper form, Ntini's bowling well today but hasn't really been brilliant so far, Morkel's been completely off his game and Harris is just Harris. I'd say only Kallis is bowling better than he did in Australia, the rest have dropped their game.

Also, New Zealand and England is a far harder place to bat for players from Australia. The tracks in South Africa are very similar to those in Australia. Hughes' test will come in England when it's swinging, then reverse swinging plus the possibility of some seam movement as well. Luckily Middlesex are giving him 6 weeks to get used to the conditions. Twats. I don't think we'd ever see New South Wales giving Kevin Pietersen 6 weeks of practise in Australia before an Ashes series, so why are we letting Clark and Hughes get some form? =/

What is your problem? I take one friendly crack (which initially was suppose to be a joke until you took it to heart) at England a few weeks ago, you take it the wrong way and you go back to hating me? =/

If you think that Southee doesn't have the potential to match Clark, Caddick, Gough, Lee, MacGil and Srinath then you've obviously never seen him bowl. Remember when he cleaned up England on the first day of a Test match on debut? He has some serious talent. It wasn't long ago that you were singing the praises of Southee either. Kyle Mills is also, a way better Test bowler then Stuart Broad as their Test records indicate.

If you'd actually been watching the series then you'd realise that no other batsman from both sides (South Africa & Australia) has constantly dominated in the same fashion as Hughes has. Which is incredible for a 20 year old. Just because Hughes makes it look easy doesn't mean it is easy, because the results of the other batsman in the series speak otherwise. All I'm saying is that I think Hughes will be a way better batsman then Chanderpaul by the time his career finishes.

South Africa is much harder to tour then England, because unlike England, South Africa actually has bowlers that take advantage of bowler friendly conditions. South Africa's obviously harder to tour because only a handful of batsman have averaged over 50 in those parts in the last 15 years.

 

[King Pietersen]

What is your problem? I take one friendly crack (which initially was suppose to be a joke until you took it to heart) at England a few weeks ago, you take it the wrong way and you go back to hating me? =/

It's nothing to do with that. I can't even remember the joke you're on about. If you post something I don't agree with, I'll contest it, doesn't matter who it is.

If you think that Southee doesn't have the potential to match Clark, Caddick, Gough, Lee, MacGil and Srinath then you've obviously never seen him bowl. Remember when he cleaned up England on the first day of a Test match on debut? He has some serious talent. It wasn't long ago that you were singing the praises of Southee either. Kyle Mills is also, a way better Test bowler then Stuart Broad as their Test records indicate.

I don't think Southee will be as good as Clark, Gough, Lee or MacGill. He'll be a good Test bowler, but he won't be as good as those 4, especially Gough. Southee took a 5fer against England in the first innings, but looked completely flat after that. In the 2nd innings he did nothing, and it's a trend that's continued throughout his career so far.

Also, I can't wait to see Broad vs Australia. You'll soon change your tune when you see how much he's improved. In the series against West Indies he was been fantastic, and was one of the only bowlers to be consistently threatening (alongside Fidel Edwards), and the only bowler to take wickets on a consistent basis. Anderson bowled better than him in the final Test, but Broad's figures are far better. 12 wickets at 30 on 4 of the flattest tracks I've seen in world cricket is a tremendous effort. So when the balls swinging and moving off the seam he'll be a real handful. Dismiss it as much as you want, but I can see you eating your words come the end of the series.

If you'd actually been watching the series then you'd realise that no other batsman from both sides (South Africa & Australia) has constantly dominated in the same fashion as Hughes has. Which is incredible for a 20 year old. Just because Hughes makes it look easy doesn't mean it is easy, because the results of the other batsman in the series speak otherwise. All I'm saying is that I think Hughes will be a way better batsman then Chanderpaul by the time his career finishes.

That's the thing Ben. I have been watching the series, and Hughes has batted well, I'm not denying that. But there is no way you can say that Hughes will definitely be a better batsman than a man that's been playing international cricket for 15 years and has an average over 50 with 21 Test Hundreds. Sure, Hughes has had a good start, but so have alot of players, doesn't necessarily mean he'll continue to build on it.

Look at Alastair Cook, was hyped as the next big thing when he burst onto the scene, but then people worked out how to get him out and it took alot of mental toughness to battle through that and start scoring runs again. Now, Cook has gone from being rated as the next big thing, to just a good, run of the mill Test opener. You can't categorically say that Hughes won't go the same way, he certainly didn't look anywhere near as dominant today, could have got out 4 times at least.

South Africa is much harder to tour then England, because unlike England, South Africa actually has bowlers that take advantage of bowler friendly conditions. South Africa's obviously harder to tour because only a handful of batsman have averaged over 50 in those parts in the last 15 years.

Only a handful? There have been 11 batsmen that have averaged over 50 in Test Cricket in South Africa in the last 10 years with a minimum of 5 Matches. Then you've got 2 more guys that average 49, so unless you're from Norfolk, that's more than a handful, and considering the bowling is apparently so much worse in England, only 3 more players average over 50 in England, and only 6 batsmen average over 50 in New Zealand having played 5+ matches.

Also, it's brilliant that it's the Australian slagging the English bowlers off for not making the most of conditions, when the fact is, the last time Australia toured England, we beat you, with our bowlers being all over your batsmen with a mix of pace, conventional and reverse swing. I'm not sure Matthew Hayden would agree with your hypothesis either, considering he averaged 34 in England, and 49 in South Africa............

 

[Dare]

They will be equally as good as the majority of the names listed and they are already better then some of them. IMO, bowling attacks will be allot stronger in the future then what they have been over the past decade.

right so Mendis is going to end up better than Warne. Southee better than McGrath. Now your just talking garbage man. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Opening the batting is the hardest position to bat and South Africa is the most difficult country to open the batting in. Really, Hughes couldn't of done it much harder and he not only succeeded by dominated one of the best bowling attacks in world cricket in bowler-friendly conditions.

props to him for being successful in 2 tests, Chanderpaul did it in 100+ tests. Once Hughes gets to 100 tests and is better than Chanderpaul I will give him all the respect he deserves.
Certainly if he is better than Chanderpaul than he is better than Hayden.

It's no coicindence that Chanderpaul only started succeeding after all of the quality bowlers in world cricket retired. The fact that he also bats so far down the order only helps his cause.

Actually it is because at about the same time he had a SURGERY (in case you missed it in my previous post) to remove a lose bone from his foot.

He already has. The pressure of replacing one of the greatest Opening Batsman ever is more pressure then Chanderpaul has ever faced. Being targetted by the best bowler in the world before your maiden Test match is allot more pressure then Chanderpaul has ever faced.

Yea and I would like to see him rescues his team from 100/7 to 300. Sort of the situations Chanderpaul is used to coming in.

I could potentially see Hughes overtaking Hayden by the end of his career and Hayden was a way better batsmen then Chanderpaul, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Good for him as long as he does it by the end of his career, unless you want to say that he is already better than Hayden...


Now let me tell you something, those bowlers you said are better than the legends of the game. Chanderpaul has faced all of them. He faced Steyn inf South Africa and dominated him all the way (you probably didn't watch that since you clearly don't watch any WI cricket), Southee in NZ and yet another series he dominated. Clark, Johnson, Lee and he owned their ass.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I don't think Southee will be as good as Clark, Gough, Lee or MacGill. He'll be a good Test bowler, but he won't be as good as those 4, especially Gough. Southee took a 5fer against England in the first innings, but looked completely flat after that. In the 2nd innings he did nothing, and it's a trend that's continued throughout his career so far.

Also, I can't wait to see Broad vs Australia. You'll soon change your tune when you see how much he's improved. In the series against West Indies he was been fantastic, and was one of the only bowlers to be consistently threatening (alongside Fidel Edwards), and the only bowler to take wickets on a consistent basis. Anderson bowled better than him in the final Test, but Broad's figures are far better. 12 wickets at 30 on 4 of the flattest tracks I've seen in world cricket is a tremendous effort. So when the balls swinging and moving off the seam he'll be a real handful. Dismiss it as much as you want, but I can see you eating your words come the end of the series.

Clark didn't make his debut until 30, Gough was a good bowler but he wasn't great, Lee could've ended up like Mohammad Sami in a weaker team and MacGil isn't even a pace bowler. I can see Southee equalling, if not being better then them.

That's the thing Ben. I have been watching the series, and Hughes has batted well, I'm not denying that. But there is no way you can say that Hughes will definitely be a better batsman than a man that's been playing international cricket for 15 years and has an average over 50 with 21 Test Hundreds. Sure, Hughes has had a good start, but so have alot of players, doesn't necessarily mean he'll continue to build on it.

Look at Alastair Cook, was hyped as the next big thing when he burst onto the scene, but then people worked out how to get him out and it took alot of mental toughness to battle through that and start scoring runs again. Now, Cook has gone from being rated as the next big thing, to just a good, run of the mill Test opener. You can't categorically say that Hughes won't go the same way, he certainly didn't look anywhere near as dominant today, could have got out 4 times at least.

Well, TBH, I've been more impressed with Hughes in this series then I've ever been with Chanderpaul.

Don't you know that rarely any Australians make their debuts until their late 20's? We're not like England and debut our talents as soon as we possibly can. It takes something special to debut at an early age for Australia, unless you're a spinner.

Hughes was younger then Bradman when Bradman made his debut. Hell, when Matthew Hayden was Phillip Hughes' age, Hayden hadn't even made his first-class debut.

To average 60 in the strongest domestic competition in the entire world as a teenager, says that you've got some talent. Ponting & Hayden are the only 2 Australian batsman to have done it, along with Hughes.

Phillip Hughes will single-handedly be responsible for Stuart Broad getting dropped from the Test side, much like he did to Morne Morkel. Just watch.

Only a handful? There have been 11 batsmen that have averaged over 50 in Test Cricket in South Africa in the last 10 years with a minimum of 5 Matches. Then you've got 2 more guys that average 49, so unless you're from Norfolk, that's more than a handful, and considering the bowling is apparently so much worse in England, only 3 more players average over 50 in England, and only 6 batsmen average over 50 in New Zealand having played 5+ matches.

Also, it's brilliant that it's the Australian slagging the English bowlers off for not making the most of conditions, when the fact is, the last time Australia toured England, we beat you, with our bowlers being all over your batsmen with a mix of pace, conventional and reverse swing. I'm not sure Matthew Hayden would agree with your hypothesis either, considering he averaged 34 in England, and 49 in South Africa............

Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Brian Lara & Matthew Hayden, all averaged well below their career averages in South Africa and they are some of the finest batsman of the modern era. It is the most difficult place to bat for top-order batsman.

aussie_ben91 added 12 Minutes and 56 Seconds later...

right so Mendis is going to end up better than Warne. Southee better than McGrath. Now your just talking garbage man. Stop embarrassing yourself.

props to him for being successful in 2 tests, Chanderpaul did it in 100+ tests. Once Hughes gets to 100 tests and is better than Chanderpaul I will give him all the respect he deserves.
Certainly if he is better than Chanderpaul than he is better than Hayden.

Actually it is because at about the same time he had a SURGERY (in case you missed it in my previous post) to remove a lose bone from his foot.

Yea and I would like to see him rescues his team from 100/7 to 300. Sort of the situations Chanderpaul is used to coming in.

Good for him as long as he does it by the end of his career, unless you want to say that he is already better than Hayden...

Now let me tell you something, those bowlers you said are better than the legends of the game. Chanderpaul has faced all of them. He faced Steyn inf South Africa and dominated him all the way (you probably didn't watch that since you clearly don't watch any WI cricket), Southee in NZ and yet another series he dominated. Clark, Johnson, Lee and he owned their ass.

Are you illiterate? Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said Mendis would be better then Warne and Southee would be better then McGrath. Obviously, greats like McGrath, Warne, Murali & Pollock are exceptions.

It took Chanderpaul 28 Test Matches to get 2 Test Match hundreds... 28! It took Phillip Hughes 4 innings to get there. After 50 Tests, Chanderpaul was averaging under 40 with the bat. Chanderpaul wasn't always a top class batsman but Hughes has that chance.

Hayden was a way better batsman then Chanderpaul ever was. It's not even a close comparison. You once said that Hayden was better then Greenidge & Haynes, surely you aren't going to say that Chanderpaul is better then them?!

 

[Dare]

Are you illiterate? Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said Mendis would be better then Warne and Southee would be better then McGrath. Obviously, greats like McGrath, Warne, Murali & Pollock are exceptions.

And allot of the bowlers from today that you listed arent at the level of Warne, Murli, Mcgrath, Pollock and the Ws which mean that Hughes will face significantly weaker bowlers than what Chanders had to face.

It took Chanderpaul 28 Test Matches to get 2 Test Match hundreds... 28! It took Phillip Hughes 4 innings to get there. After 50 Tests, Chanderpaul was averaging under 40 with the bat. Chanderpaul wasn't always a top class batsman but Hughes has that chance.

He can have 10 centuries in 20 tests for all I care, its where he ends his career that will help me determine if he is better than Chanderpaul. The way Mendis started his career we can say that he is better than Warne and Murli...if we go by your logic.

Hayden was a way better batsman then Chanderpaul ever was. It's not even a close comparison. You once said that Hayden was better then Greenidge & Haynes, surely you aren't going to say that Chanderpaul is better then them?!

I said that Hayden is better than GG or Haynes.
Hayden is a better batsman than Chanders but me saying that Hughes is better then Hayden just helps you see the ridiculous argument you are trying to make.

 

[aussie_ben91]

And allot of the bowlers from today that you listed arent at the level of Warne, Murli, Mcgrath, Pollock and the Ws which mean that Hughes will face significantly weaker bowlers than what Chanders had to face.

How do you know that Hughes will face significantly weaker bowlers though? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you? It's not as if Chanderpaul set the world alight against those bowlers anyway.

I said that Hayden is better than GG or Haynes.
Hayden is a better batsman than Chanders but me saying that Hughes is better then Hayden just helps you see the ridiculous argument you are trying to make.

I don't think it's ridiculous to compare Hughes to Hayden. I think that Hughes has the potential to match or even surpass Hayden and that I believe that the chances are that Hughes will be better then Chanderpaul.

 

[Dare]

How do you know that Hughes will face significantly weaker bowlers though? Do you have a crystal ball that tells you? It's not as if Chanderpaul set the world alight against those bowlers anyway.

Do you have crystal ball that tells you that Hughes is going to be better than Chanderpaul?

I don't think it's ridiculous to compare Hughes to Hayden. I think that Hughes has the potential to match or even surpass Hayden and that I believe that the chances are that Hughes will be better then Chanderpaul.

From the time he had his surgery in late 2000 Shiv averaged 43.8 with 19 centuries and 34 half centuries.
Time will tell how good Hughes becomes, I'm not doubting his talent but he will need to play 100+ tests before I say if he deserves to be called a legend or not imo.

 

[aussie_ben91]

From the time he had his surgery in late 2000 Shiv averaged 43.8 with 19 centuries and 34 half centuries.
Time will tell how good Hughes becomes, I'm not doubting his talent but he will need to play 100+ tests before I say if he deserves to be called a legend or not imo.

Bradman and Sobers didn't play 100+ Tests, do they not rank among legends? Tendulkar, Lara and Warne were known as legends long before they played 100 Tests.

 

[Dare]

Bradman and Sobers didn't play 100+ Tests, do they not rank among legends? Tendulkar, Lara and Warne were known as legends long before they played 100 Tests.

Look at what Bradman and Sobers accomplished in their careers. Bradman played over 50 tests and Sobers 93 not 2 like Hughes. He doesn't have to play 100+ tests but he does have to get some under his belt before calling him better than one of the best batsman in cricket.
I doubt anyone came out in Sachins 2nd tests and said hey this guy is better than Gavaskar, or in Laras 2nd test and said hey this guy is better than Sobers or Viv.

There is a huge difference in the amount of tests Bradman or Sobers played compared to that of what Hughes played.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I've changed my mind. I think we need Brett Lee in the starting XI now.

Hughes
Katich
Ponting (c)
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Haddin (wk)
Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Clark

No spinners. I think we also need to have Watson in the side if available.

 

[King Pietersen]

Gilchrist? Pretty sure that's wishful thinking

 

[aussie_ben91]

Sorry, I was in absolute owe of Phillip Hughes carting Dale Steyn around. If Hughes can do what his done to Dale Steyn then just imagine what his going to do to Stuart Broad!

 

[RoboRocks]

Broad will be a different proposition for Hughes on seaming pitches. He gets extra bounce from his height and will get some movement. Plus Broad has improved his accuracy and has much better control as was shown in the West Indies.

One thing Hughes has to work on is his footwork. His feet remain absolutely still and that might cause him problems in England where Anderson and Sidebottom (if he plays) will swing the ball. He has brilliant hand-eye co-ordination, which is how he has scored his runs but those feet don't move anywhere.

 

[aussie1st]

Hughes should be fine in swinging conditions. This match Cricinfo - Tasmania v New South Wales at Hobart, Dec 2-4, 2008 pretty much showed he is more than capable of producing the goods when the ball is swinging as Hobart is known for swing and this season has been the hardest pitch to score runs on.

I'm thinking we should bring Bailey as our spinner, give him a go in the tour matches to see how he goes. If he craps out then we go with 4 seamers but if he performs we might have ourselves a spinner. As if England produce a flat pitch our 4 seamers ain't going to be getting 20 wickets.