England in Australia

[irottev]

No Gillespie, No Katich who were pathetic last year.
.

You forgot Kasprowicz.

Luckily for me it'll be on around about 2-9 pm time frame. So whilst I won't see every ball, I will see enough.

 

[RoboRocks]

Good news for England fans.
Ian Bell is fit to play in the first test.

 

[cricketmad09]

You got to be a fool if you blame umpiring decisons for england taking the ashes there were some pathetic decisons against england too.It happens to all fans its easy when the same umpire rules in favour they say it is a game after all.

I'm not saying that umpiring decisions were the reason why we lost. We lost because we didnt play well, but the umpiring was pathetic, and when the delivery is plum LBW and it not given out, which happened on numerous occasions, that allows the batsmen to go on and effectively have another innings, and also harms the bowlers confidence, thus reducing thier performence. And when a batter is given out LBW when it shouldnt have been, and there were numerous occasions, that results in alot less runs. A wicket affects the batsman coming in and his performence aswell as the runs lost from the batsmens potential innings.

Also I think that Gillespie has been better than Clark over his career, but Gillespie's form over the past 1 1/2 years has been poor. Even averaged around 40 playing county cricket, which is an inferior competition.

Rest of the points I echo wfdu_ben91's sentiments.

 

[angryangy]

With Tait released, I'd say Stuart Clark is a certainty. It seems likely the selectors will opt for reliable rather than searing.

I don't think Clark and Gillespie are very comparable. Sure, they're about the same height, same pace, and a bit lacklustre in one-dayers but Dizzy is very much a bowler that batsmen play-and-miss a lot; he is one of a scant few players who can bowl an unbelievable spell for no wickets, which of course, still has plenty of carry over effect for the other bowlers.

Clark is much more comparable to Michael Kasprowicz. They offer balls to the batsmen, are willing to employ risky tactics like pitching the ball well within drivable reach and give themselves a chance of a wicket where the other bowlers failed. They're both a kind of bowler that is perhaps better suited to 1st change than to opening.

With that in mind, remember Kasper's variations include treacherous cutters, swing and ability to use height and angle to help shape the ball (particularly against the left handers); things that Nathan Bracken is arguably much better at than Clark.

I really hope Johnson gets the nod, though. Home d?buts are golden and he's just more fun than Clark.

 

[Iron-Haggis]

warne main weapon is bounce thats why he has not been successful in india
while in south africa the tracks seam a bit more in australia you get great batting tracks every where its different.by neutral i mean a pitch which won't be baised towards the home team.in england last yeay the grounds were pretty small and in australia they sure will extend the boundaries.

So thats why he averages 20 in Sri Lanka? He hasn't been successful in India because the Indian batsmen are the best players of leg spin bowling in the world. His average against India is actually better in India than Australia.

Fair enough I didn't know what you meant by neutral. But what would be the most neutral conditions?

Last Ashes the umpiring decisions did favour England, mainly the two poor decisions aginst Marto. He could of gone and scored centuries both games, but then again he could of just gotten out the very next ball. But like everyone else has said England outplayed Australia and thoroughly deserved to win.

 

[Sureshot]

Correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt Gabba help a seamer like Clark?


Here is why Australia will win 4-0.

Last series, England won 2-1.

England won 2-1 playing great cricket, and Australia played bad, so imagine if we played good?

Umpiring was shocking. Blatant favour to England all series. Plum LBW's not given to us, and terrible LBW decisions given to England.

Reverse swing won't be such a factor, and thats one of the main reasons why England won last year.

No Simon Jones, Micheal Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick

Flintoff captain. Nothing bad about his captaincy skills, but the workload of being batter, bowler and captain WILL effect his performence.

Duncan Fletchers selection policies

No Gillespie, No Katich who were pathetic last year.

Micheal Hussey

Ricky Ponting was inexperience with regards to losing, therefore that experience would make him a better captain.

The 2 matches England won last series were both when McGrath was injured

Home ground advantage

That is why we will win 4-0.

And we now have a wicket taking spinner, Bell has been in great form, Cook has been a great find, Jimmy is a more than capable bowler. I expect Australia to win maybe 3-0/3-1.

Also I don't think we played all that great Cricket last year, we were better in 2004 I think.

Giles, Jones and Bell made very few contributions bar Giles being there to win the game once although he averaged 57 with the ball. Harmison and Hoggard did alright but didn't average that great over the whole series iirc.

We'll fight and we will make it hard, but Australia are favourites and England love being under dogs.

 

[cricketmad09]

You have a wicket taking spinner, who won't get a game.

Last series Bell looked like an under 13 playing in the under 17's against Warne.

 

[angryangy]

You have a wicket taking spinner, who won't get a game.

Last series Bell looked like an under 13 playing in the under 17's against Warne.

Well, Bell is a small fellow.

To be honest, the ones who made me grimace the most were the openers. A mere machine can't teach you how to fight against a learning computer. Merlyn can produce perfect deliveries, but it has no cunning. As such, Strauss and Trescothick played Warne with all the savvy of a trout. They allowed Warne to attack from well wide of off, with no repercussions. Strauss just stood there trying to get his knee roll in the way, which of course led to getting bowled from a ridiculous angle, while Trescothick was similarly lbw from a ridiculous angle (lets not talk about the other horrors).

It makes you cringe moreso than watching a total hack, because these guys were in pretty serious form and were able to squirm and flounder about for quite a lot longer than Bell.

Hopefully Strauss learned from his mistakes, because this time they're probably sending a second Terminator in.

 

[JamesyJames3]

You have a wicket taking spinner, who won't get a game.

Last series Bell looked like an under 13 playing in the under 17's against Warne.

I could say the same for Michael Clarke against our whole attack.

 

[brad352]

I could say the same for Michael Clarke against our whole attack.

And yet he managed to average more than your captain did against our hack attack.

 

[JamesyJames3]

And yet he managed to average more than your captain did against our hack attack.

Hack? You have Warne and McGrath!

And I don't think an average of 37 is anything to call home about.

 

[brad352]

Hack? You have Warne and McGrath!

And I don't think an average of 37 is anything to call home about.

Of course it isn't, I don't rate Clarke all that highly and his deficiencies were highlighted but it's not the most terrible return against quality bowling and he was far from being outclassed the way Bell was. I'm sure we both know of a man who's averaged less than that over a far longer period of time but actually gets praised for his efforts

 

[JamesyJames3]

Of course it isn't, I don't rate Clarke all that highly and his deficiencies were highlighted but it's not the most terrible return against quality bowling and he was far from being outclassed the way Bell was. I'm sure we both know of a man who's averaged less than that over a far longer period of time but actually gets praised for his efforts

Far from being outclassed the way Bell was?

Clarke got one innings of 91, nothing else. Bell got two 50's. And McGrath and Warne are argueably the best two bowlers in the world.

Don't get me wrong, Bell was completely out classed during the last Ashes. But some of the comments coming from Australians would suggest they hadn't seen him play at all in the last year since then.

 

[brad352]

Far from being outclassed the way Bell was?

Clarke got one innings of 91, nothing else. Bell got two 50's. And McGrath and Warne are argueably the best two bowlers in the world.

Don't get me wrong, Bell was completely out classed during the last Ashes. But some of the comments coming from Australians would suggest they hadn't seen him play at all in the last year since then.

7 starts from 9 innings (25, 30, 36, 39, 40, 56, 91) and was our third best batsman, Bell got 7 single figure scores from 10 (0,0,3,3,6,6,8) and averaged less than Ashley Giles (who admittedly must have been playing as a batting all rounder). Obviously one bloke was quite capable of handling the bowling, doing the hard work and getting himself well set, one wasn't. Not suggesting that's likely to happen again but to compare their performances is laughable.

 

[JamesyJames3]

It's not really laughable Brad. What's the point in getting a start if you don't go on to do anything with that start. Im not saying I would rather our batsmen get scores under 10 than scores in the 20s and 30s, but if Clarke was test quality he would make those starts count. From the past year it is clear to see Bell is a diffferent class to Clarke.