Australia in England - 2009 Ashes Tour

[Sureshot]

Apart from when he took 5/23, I've seen a fair few of his wickets been fluky, such as when the batsman skys one up in the air or just plays a fairly poor shot.

The idea of a bowler building up pressure on the batsman is to force him into a poor shot. Most wickets are caused by the batsman making a mistake which is often induced by pressure from the bowler(s).

 

[SciD]

Anyway, if Australia's current bowling line-up was collectively better than Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff, Sidebottom and Panesar then you wouldn't have been hammered by India.

These guys would have been hammered too.

What do you think Indian batsman are. Bangladeshis.

 

[adyhorn]

What do you think Indian batsman are. Bangladeshis.

No, they're worse.

 

[karnog]

Um Anderson of late has been awesome (well against the kiwis and saffas). I haven't seen him have such control- a lot more than what Johnson has at the moment (and they're the same age too). But then wait Johnson> an out of form Harmison. Harmison on his day is hard to compare but he's a very temperamental player. If he gets through India it will be amazing achievement (as in if he can overcome his home sickness issue). I think Mcgain if he plays can compete with Panesar and may out perform from what i've seen from him. He's a good quality spinner but if he's injured then i can't see Australia using much spin. So yeah bowling is covered by the poms. But then Australia have a year to figure it out by which things in the english camp can change. Which is why i think the ashes should swap with the India series

 

[aussie_ben91]

Steve Harmison was once rated the best in the world. He had an amazing County season with Durham this year. He took 7/12 in the West Indies getting the wickets of the likes of Gayle, Chanderpaul and Sarwan in that innings. Harmison's got a poor record in Australia because his first series was very early in his Test Career, and then his 2nd journey to Australia was when he was massively out of form. He's also only played 2 tests in India, so that's not entirely fair either. If you honestly believe that Mitchell Johnson, a guy who Bob Willis described as "embarassing" this morning is better than a guy who has taken 216 Test Wickets and was once rated the best in the world, then you're more biased than first thought.

You discreditted Hayden in the other thread for not having success in England in 2005 despite being on a massive form slump before and during the series had begun.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[King Pietersen]

What do the Australian's think will the team to face England come 2009 then? Is it likely that McGain will be the spinner, or will it be someone like Casson? Who will be the fast bowling attack do you imagine? Let's say these were the teams for the series:

England:

Alastair Cook
Andrew Strauss
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen (C)
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Matthew Prior (WK)
Stuart Broad/Ryan Sidebottom
Stephen Harmison
James Anderson/Ryan Sidebottom
Monty Panesar

Australia:

Matthew Hayden
Phil Jaques
Ricky Ponting (C)
Michael Hussey
Michael Clarke
Shane Watson
Brad Haddin (WK)
Brett Lee
Stuart Clark
Mitchell Johnson
Bryce McGain/Beau Casson

I think the series would be incredibly open, and incredibly close if these were the 2 teams. Australia's batting order is stronger, until you reach 6 and 7 who are very unproven in Test Cricket, but they do have talent, as proven by their FC records. I think the problem for Australia will be taking 20 wickets. Brett Lee's struggled to take wickets in India and looked out of form, Stuart Clark although high quality is getting older and injuries are starting to creep in, Mitchell Johnson is the worst pace bowler in the list from both teams, and then Monty Panesar is a far more established bowler than both McGain and Casson.

If Australia get rid of Johnson, who will get eaten up in England, as you need accuracy and consistent swing to be effective in England, Johnson doesn't have either of these things, raw pace doesn't get you through in England. I also think that Shane Watson needs to develop his bowling if Australia are going to be able to take 20 wickets consistently. I don't think the 4 bowlers on their own will do it. England's pace attack will not be scared of Australia's illustrious batting line-up. Matthew Hayden has struggled in England in the past, and has a repuation for struggling when the ball swings or seams, hence the relatively poor record in both England and New Zealand, by his standards anyway

Ponting has shown weakness against Sharma, and if Stuart Broad can develop enough to be consistently threatening, then he could have Ponting in trouble, as he and Sharma are fairly similar bowlers, with Sharma getting slightly more seam movement, with Broad tending to bang the ball into the surface more. Hussey's a gun, and England will need to find a way to get him out consistently, not exactly sure how though tbh. Then Michael Clarke had a terrible time in England last time round, he's a far better player now though, so he could have a good series.

It's going to be close. The gap between the sides that was evident in 2005 has gone. Johnson, McGain/Casson, Jaques and Haddin have nothing on McGrath, Warne, Langer and Gilchrist, and that's alot of talent to lose. Although saying that, I wouldn't mind Gilly in the side in England, he was Freddie's bunny in 2005 =D. I think Australia's fans will be expecting a walkover and another 5-0 win, but it's not going to be as easy as that. Pietersen has installed a winning formula and mentality, and is yet to get beaten as full England captain. It's going to be an immense series, and I can't wait. Roll on 2009.

 

[Highlander999]

Won't Australia have Symonds back? Surely he would replace Watson. I agree with you on the England team though

 

[Skater]

I am going to the 1st day of the Edgbaston test.

 

[King Pietersen]

Way to condract, yourself, eh?

The rest of my post is targetted at you to, BTW.

Not sure how that's a contradiction. There's a big difference between poor and mediocre. I just don't think an average of 35 in ODi's is as impressive as you're making out. It's not poor though, and I never once used that word.

LMFAO..

Shah? He is a lesser player then Watson. Watson has played allot more ODI's then Shah and averages like 10 more runs per innings then what Shah does and Watson has played down the order for the majority of his career like Shah has.

The fact that Shah is considered a class batsman in England, just goes to show how weak their system is.
Players like Hodge, D. Hussey, Watson, Rogers, Hughes and Pomersbach are all genuiely better batsman then Shah.
Shah ranks along players like Marcus North and Adam Voges from Western Australia

You actually have never seen Shah bat have you? You're basing your entire argument on his stats. He's been comfortably one of the best players in England for a number of years. He's fantastic against pace, has very good wrists so plays Spin probably better than any other player in the England team, and he can really hit the ball when necessary. He's far better player than Marcus North and Adam Voges, he's definitely up there with Hussey, Hodge, Watson and miles ahead of Hughes and Pomersbach. They're just potential, proved nothing so far, not doubting their talents, but Shah's achieved far more in the game than both of them put together.

England are a one man team anyway. If Kevin Pietersen fails then just watch them fall to pieces. The rest of their batsman are massively overrated and don't make runs unless Pietersen does.
Everyone else failed in the 2nd Test but Watson stood up and showed class and helped Australia to avoid the follow-on. I highly doubt that Shah would've made runs in a similar situation as Englishmen are traditionally poor players of spin.

I'd take any Australian batsman averaging 45+ in first-class cricket over any player from England barring Pietersen and Cook and to an extent, Ian Bell..

That's so wrong it's not true. How can England be a 1 man team with everyone in Englands's top 5 averages over 40 in Test Cricket? Pietersen's not a one man team, there have been many times when he's failed but England have made big runs. The proof that we weren't a 1 man team was winning in New Zealand when Pietersen was massively out of form, made 1 innings of note in the Test series, and even that was poor by his standards, very slow and he struggled massively. Yet we still won the series 2-1.

Also, your comment about Shah not being able to match Watson's innings because England players are traditionally poor against spin is just ludicrous. Shah's one of the best players of spin I've seen for a long time. He's so wristy, he's got some great improvised shots, and is easily one of the best players of spin in England, and I'd say the best in the England team. So again, possibly try watching the bloke play before saying he's bad against spin.

So you'd take Watson over Flintoff in an all-rounder role would you? If so, LOL, you're more biased than first though. Flintoff is so much better than Watson that it's not even funny.

In other news, Watson and Haddin really proved their immense talent today once more didn't they. Doesn't look like i'll be eating my words any time soon .

 

[karnog]

Nah, he made 88 batting at 3 in India before being caught as slip by Dravid off Harbhajan. Then he was unfortunately run out in the 2nd innings when also going well, on 38.

Also, in that said test, Pietersen failed, only getting 46 runs in the test, but England still won. With runs from Shah, Strauss and Flintoff.

Actually i was reffering to an ODI played in 2007 which i think was at the Oval. Yeah he made 107 (was he not out?)

I'll check cricinfo

 

[aussie_ben91]

Not sure how that's a contradiction. There's a big difference between poor and mediocre. I just don't think an average of 35 in ODi's is as impressive as you're making out. It's not poor though, and I never once used that word.

You said at the start of the arguement that Watson only had a ODI average of 35.

You actually have never seen Shah bat have you? You're basing your entire argument on his stats. He's been comfortably one of the best players in England for a number of years. He's fantastic against pace, has very good wrists so plays Spin probably better than any other player in the England team, and he can really hit the ball when necessary. He's far better player than Marcus North and Adam Voges, he's definitely up there with Hussey, Hodge, Watson and miles ahead of Hughes and Pomersbach. They're just potential, proved nothing so far, not doubting their talents, but Shah's achieved far more in the game than both of them put together.

I've seen Shah bat before, he goes well, but just like any other English batsman, he is inconsistant and rides off 1 good score in the space of 10-15 innings. Watson however is much better. He is just better in all facits of the game. Better overall technique, better temperament, better top order batsman, better lower order batsman, better player of pace bowling and a better player of spin.

I'd suggest you should go watch Watson when he bats in the top 4, or watch his innings' in the World Cup of 2007.

That's so wrong it's not true. How can England be a 1 man team with everyone in Englands's top 5 averages over 40 in Test Cricket? Pietersen's not a one man team, there have been many times when he's failed but England have made big runs. The proof that we weren't a 1 man team was winning in New Zealand when Pietersen was massively out of form, made 1 innings of note in the Test series, and even that was poor by his standards, very slow and he struggled massively. Yet we still won the series 2-1.

Also, your comment about Shah not being able to match Watson's innings because England players are traditionally poor against spin is just ludicrous. Shah's one of the best players of spin I've seen for a long time. He's so wristy, he's got some great improvised shots, and is easily one of the best players of spin in England, and I'd say the best in the England team. So again, possibly try watching the bloke play before saying he's bad against spin.

Are you kidding me? Do you even watch your country play?
- Pietersen doesn't fire in Sri Lankan Test series and you absolutely got mauled.
- England got flogged in the ODI series against New Zealand when Pietersen didn't fire.
- England got flogged in the first Test by New Zealand when Pietersen didn't fire, but they rebounded after a Pietersen century. Pietersen's 100 in that series took the momemtum from New Zealand's grasp and enabled his teammates to play with more fluency.
- Ian Bell wouldn't of made 199 against South Africa had Pietersen not made a century. You'll probably dispute this but it was so blatantly obvious when it occured at the same time. It's no cocindence that when Pietersen had acouple of more failures in the next couple of innings' that Bell wasn't able to recapure his form and continue to make hundreds for the remainder of the series. Paul Collingwood was the same, if it wasn't for Pietersen's 94 then I highly doubt that he would've reached triple figures. Again, you'll probably say that this isn't true, but it was blatantly obvious at the time.

I could go on, but England looks like a fordmidable unit when Pietersen fires but when he doesn't then England ranks along side the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at times.

So you'd take Watson over Flintoff in an all-rounder role would you? If so, LOL, you're more biased than first though. Flintoff is so much better than Watson that it's not even funny.

In other news, Watson and Haddin really proved their immense talent today once more didn't they. Doesn't look like i'll be eating my words any time soon .

Why would I drop Flintoff? His the best bowler England have by a country mile. I'd pick Shane Watson purely as a batsman if he was English and drop either Strauss, Bell or Collingwood.

It's funny how you for some reason rate your country's players and think that they are of better standard of the likes of Hodge, Hussey, Watson. All 3 of them would play 100 Tests if they were English.

North and Voges actually has similar statistics to Shah and both are a more suitable comparison to Shah. Overall Watson's first-class statistics and International statistics are better then Shah's and they don't justify how good Watson is but Shah's give more of a reflection of how good he is.

 

[Leggie]

You'd drop Colly, Bell or Strauss for Watson...and that as a batsmen?

Thats crazy man.

 

[Simbazz]

I'm sorry Ben, but are you actually saying Watson is a better batsmen than Shah? If you are then I think you've taken too many pills or something, Shah is probably one of the most unluckiest CC players in England. How he hasn't secured a place in the top order of England is beyond me, I'd have dropped Bell before New Zealand and given Shah his rightful place!

Australia aren't all that good, it is proved when India can score 600+ (yes they're one of the hardest teams to beat on home soil) as top of the rankings, Australia should be able to secure a draw or a win in this test series, but its extremely unlikely!

 

[King Pietersen]

So Watson's stats, even though he's played more games don't give a fair reflection on his talents, but Shah's do? Yeh, that makes real sense that does.

As for the Pietersen comments. In the New Zealand test series, England lost the first test, Pietersen made a useful 42 in the first innings which was very similar to the scores made by the other guys in the side. 2nd Test, Pietersen failed miserably. Yet Ambrose and Collingwood made runs to get us up to 342 in the 1st innings. 2nd Innings Pietersen failed again, but Cook, Collingwood and Strauss made runs to put us in a position to win the game, which we did. Then the 3rd Test. Pietersen made a hundred in the first innings, and I'll agree with you there, without that innings we'd have been screwed, Broad contriubted though. Pietersen failed in the 2nd innings though, and yet Strauss made 177 and Bell, who apparently fails every time Pietersen struggles made a glorious 110.

Pietersen isn't the be all and end all for English cricket. In India, Mumbai test, Pietersen failed in both innings, yet we still won, with runs for Cook, SHAH, Collingwood and Flintoff. 2005 Ashes, Pietersen made runs in the first 2 Tests, with 3 fifties, but apart from that largely failed until his impressive 158 in the final test. He made 21 and 0 at Old Trafford but we still won the Test. Then against Pakistan, Old Trafford test, he only made 38, but with hundreds from Cook, and again Bell (I thought he failed when Pietersen doesn't make runs? =/) we managed to win by an innings and 120 runs.

Obviously he's important to the team, he averages over 50 in Test Cricket, anyone who does that is going to have a massive say in his teams sucesses. But to claim that without him England are the same level of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is possibly the stupidest thing you've ever said, and that's saying something. You seem to forget that all of England's current top 5, Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood and even Prior average over 40 in Test Cricket. If they all averaged 35 and under then you'd have a point, but they're all class players in their own right.

Also, try looking up Shah's FC stats in the past 3 seasons. Shah made over 1000 runs in a rain effected County Championship season this season averaging over 40 with 3 hundreds. Then last year he made 1194 runs at 70.23, with 4 hundreds. He's a far better player than his stats make out, and from what I've seen from Watson, he's a far better player than him.

I was wrong about rating Shah higher than David Hussey, but Shah's a better player than Hodge and Watson. Also, Watson wouldn't play 100 tests for anyone, he might have the talent to do so, but he's injured so often that that's practically impossible. What's Watson's FC record been like when compared to Shah's in the past 3 years btw? Shah's made over 1000 runs in the past 3 seasons, how does Watson compare with that?

 

[aussie_ben91]

Making 1000 runs in county cricket is like making 1500 runs in Australian grade cricket.
Why else do you think we have tons of batsman who average 60 in England and 30 in Australia and have first-class averages of 35-40? :

Calling Shah a better player then Hodge totally contradicts your theory as he holds the record for most runs scored by a Victorian in state cricket whilst playing in the strongest domestic system in the entire world.

Watson, Hodge and Hussey are all better batsman then Shah. End of arguement.