Cricinfo Readers' Ashes XI

[gold639]

I would've put Lee in place of Harmison, and Strauss in place of Trescothick.

 

[barmyarmy]

I don't think we can fault Squiz's balance. He's admitted he was wrong to predict an Aussie series victory and said that England were the better team. I didn't know Aussies knew how to be good losers!

 

[Andrew G]

I don't think we can fault Squiz's balance. He's admitted he was wrong to predict an Aussie series victory and said that England were the better team. I didn't know Aussies knew how to be good losers!

I think because we had the Ashes for so long, some of the passion
for them had worn off, as one would expect, but it happened to be
enough for us to lose them. McGrath's injuries didn't help us.

I think now that England has the Ashes, the big task wasn't winning them back,
it'll be keeping them, one reason being our passion for the Ashes is
rejuvinated and the England team will have to fight for them on our home soil,
plus the English bowlers used Swing heavily in their attack and that won't
work very well here, so their going to have to find a new way of attack.
Giles's style of bowling will be some-what worthless here aswell, as he's
not a wrist spinner. So, the next Ashes test will be interseting, no doubt.

As for Gilly being found out...Gilchrist's batting style is reckless because
he just wants to hit the ball at any cost, so there are big holes in his style.


Happy cricketing...
Andrew.

 

[Sureshot]

Giles might not tour Australia, depends if another spinner shows themselves in India and Pakistan. Panesar is doing very well for Northants.

 

[Zahid Ali]

Interesting, but here's my theory...
(And, no I'm not going rip your theory apart aggressively, just logically)

Gilchrist had a bad series, G.Jones had a top one, so you really have
to way them up by how they would perform on a good series,
it's the only way to get a good prediction of who would truely perform.

The Wicket Keeping side of it...
G.Jones hasn't had a long career, where as Gilchrist has and bad days
are rare for him, where as they are some-what common with G.Jones.
As seen in the Ashes, when G.Jones has a bad day Wicket Keeping,
it's shocking - I'd think you'd agree, where as with Gilchrist bad days
aren't any where near as bad, so you would have to trust him far more.

The Batting side of it...
Sure G.Jones played well with the bat, he was on home ground during
the Ashes, so one would expect that to happen, experience is everything.
With Gilchrist, we know he had a bad series, but he's a proven batsmen
that also knows the game better than G.Jones, even as a Captain he's
proven material. If the team was in some trouble in the top order,
I'd still trust Gilly more than G.Jones to help get the team out of a situation,
reason being, one bad series doesn't make one of the best batsmen in the
world suddenly worse than G.Jones, neither does age.

Sure I agree, G.Jones is worth a look at, but basing his performance
just on the Ashes isn't logical. Head-to-head, Gilchrist is better in
both Batting and Wicket Keeping.


I've said what I think, what's your thoughts on my theory, Will P. ?
__________________
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3...armisonvt5.jpg

 

[shravi]

Wow...Big bump...

 

[Zahid Ali]

Hi sureshot give details about England tour of Australia

 

[Owzat]

Before i post this, let me say one thing I do know Gilchrist is a better keeper batsman than Jones!!

But in the test matches Jones scored 229 runs compared with Gilchrists 181 at an average of 25.4 compared with Gilchrists 22.6, ok so Jones dropped more catches and missed more chances, but Gilchrist didnt take them all! Don't roast me for saying Jones is a better keeper/batsmen, what do you think, did Jones deserve a look in (could be kent and England bias coming in here) But it's just an idea!!

Exactly what I was thinking, it wasn't Gilchrist's best series so you have to wonder how much of that was down to performances in the series and how much down to the player's reputation.

I'd go for this combined XI

OPN M.Trescothick (ENG) : 431 runs @ 43.10
OPN J.Langer (AUS) : 394 runs @ 43.78
BAT R.Ponting (AUS, capt.) : 359 runs @ 39.89
BAT K.Pietersen (ENG) : 473 runs @ 52.56
BAT M.Clarke (AUS) : 335 runs @ 37.22
ALR A.Flintoff (ENG) : 402 runs @ 40.20 & 24 wkts @ 27.29
WKT G.Jones (ENG) : 229 runs @ 25.44 & 15/1 ct/st
BWL S.Warne (AUS) : 40 wkts @ 19.93
BWL M.Hoggard (ENG) : 15 wkts @ 29.56
BWL G.McGrath (AUS) : 19 wkts @ 23.16
BWL S.Jones (ENG) : 17 wkts @ 21.00

It was a toss up between Hoggard and Harmsion, I went with Hoggy on the basis of a better SR and average. You could make a case for pace and go with Harmison. Geraint Jones and Gilchrist was close statistically, but Jones scored a crucial 85 while Gilchrist never scored a fifty. Vaughan did score 166 in one innings, but as I recall he was dropped twice on 41 and that was his only real contribution in the Ashes.

I think one thing comes from exercises like this is why a team won a series, it was close but England have three bowlers in there with a case for another only kept out by the top quality of Warne and McGrath. So it was England's four key bowlers against Australia's two and England's batting did just enough.

So my XI includes Clarke for Vaughan, Jones for Gilchrist and Hoggard for Harmison. Still maintains the 6-5 split in favour of England, I just feel two of my inclusions played key roles : Jones with his 85, Hoggard getting key Aussie wickets - just three bowlers in his 15 wickets. Harmison on the other hand took out seven bowlers in his 17 wickets, so Hoggard got two more batsmen out than Harmison - although Harmison did crucially 'take the wicket' of Kasprowicz in the two run win at Edgbaston...........................