The Ashes: (England tour of Australia)

[Neo 7]

With Finn ruled out, i hope Tom Curran get's a chance. Big fan of him.

 

[CerealKiller]

YES!

 

[Velocity]

With Finn ruled out, i hope Tom Curran get's a chance. Big fan of him.

Tom Curran has looked impressive since his debut. He looks like a very good bowler, reminds me a bit like Hasan Ali but he will be one of the future stars for England in the future.

 

[Jetty]

With Finn ruled out, i hope Tom Curran get's a chance. Big fan of him.

Me too. He will probably play in the 3rd warm-up game.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

I'll do some analysis on that if you wish.

Age Range | Players | Details
Under 20| 0 |-
20-24| 3 |Ashton Agar (24), Pat Cummins (24), Matt Renshaw (21)
25-29| 12 |Joe Burns (28), Hilton Cartwright (25), Peter Handscomb (26), Josh Hazlewood (26), Nathan Lyon (29), Nic Maddinson (25), Mitchell Marsh (26), Glenn Maxwell (29), Joe Mennie (28), James Pattinson (27), Steven Smith (28), Mitchell Starc (27), Matthew Wade (29)
30-34| 11 |Jackson Bird (30), Callum Ferguson (32), Moises Henriques (30), Jon Holland (30), Usman Khawaja (30), Shaun Marsh (34), Peter Nevill (32), Steve O'Keefe (32), Peter Siddle (32), David Warner (31)
35-39| 1 |Adam Voges (38)
40 and over| 0 |-

Australian Test players since 01 Jan 2016, by their current ages.

As you can see, there's a pretty clear bell-curve in terms of the ages of the Australian players. It's just a normal distribution as far as I can see, centred around roughly 28 or 29 as the average age of the team. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much exactly what you would look for in a balanced Test team.

You raise the concern of there being a dearth of young batsmen though; again I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. Cartwright (25, 2 Tests), Handscomb (26; 10 Tests), Maddinson (25, 3 Tests), Marsh (26, 21 Tests) and Renshaw (21, 10 Tests) have all been given a run in the top six in the last eighteen months. Perhaps Cartwright and Maddinson could reflect on not having had enough opportunities to properly assert themselves, but at least they've had them.

Nor is it exactly essential that Australia immediately replenish their batting stocks. A top-six of Warner (31), Renshaw (21), Khawaja (30), Smith (28), Handscomb (26) and... whoever ends up at number six could be settled for anywhere up to four or five years.

In all, nine young batsmen scored over 600 Shield runs last year, of whom only two averaged over 50, one of whom broke into the Test side.

Player | Runs

Hilton Cartwright (25)|861 runs @ 53.81 (2 centuries)

Marcus Harris (25)|808 runs @ 42.52 (2 centuries)

Ashton Turner (24)|742 runs @ 52.00 (2 centuries)

Jake Lehmann (25)|692 runs @ 40.70 (1 century)

Kurtis Patterson (24)|668 runs @ 44.53 (1 century)

Travis Dean (25)|664 runs @ 34.94 (1 century)

Travis Head (23)|645 runs @ 43.00 (2 centuries)

Jake Weatherald (23)|634 runs @ 31.70 (1 century)

Marnus Labuschagne (23)|626 runs @ 36.86

I guess what I'm saying is, it's easy to throw stones at the Australian selectors, but they've actually not done too badly.

I disagree. 11 blokes above 30 being picked is an admission that 'we don't have the batting stocks.' I think Australia is probably the best cricket country of all time and their USP has been their domestic cricket structure, mental fortitude and their fearlessness to invest in youth. I have seen a trend of that diminishing. I also remember the stubbornness of previous Aussie selectors to back the youth they handpicked (Ricky Ponting) in their dark times (India 2000, IIRC) and even the pushing out of an all time great ie Steve Waugh. The current lot don't inspire the same spirit and I certainly don't think you have a captain that's a leader or a tactical genius. A lot like ours at the moment.[DOUBLEPOST=1510123942][/DOUBLEPOST]England's Ashes seems to be in tatters before it's begun. Also, like India they play the crest of the wave historically. When they play well, they do it for the duration of the series. But when they fall, they tend to lose badly, ie 4-0/5-0 with tests getting over in 3 days.

 

[Aislabie]

I disagree. 11 blokes above 30 being picked is an admission that 'we don't have the batting stocks.' I think Australia is probably the best cricket country of all time and their USP has been their domestic cricket structure, mental fortitude and their fearlessness to invest in youth. I have seen a trend of that diminishing. I also remember the stubbornness of previous Aussie selectors to back the youth they handpicked (Ricky Ponting) in their dark times (India 2000, IIRC) and even the pushing out of an all time great ie Steve Waugh. The current lot don't inspire the same spirit and I certainly don't think you have a captain that's a leader or a tactical genius. A lot like ours at the moment.

You point to the eleven players over thirty as if either (a) they are making up the entire playing XI or (b) that they are all regulars in the Test team, but in truth, most of them are players the selectors have moved on from anyhow. Only two of them could really be said to have a regular place, of which one finds himself often dropped whenever y'all go to Asia.

Player | Is he a regular?

Jackson Bird (30)|No, he's probably about sixth-choice seamer.

Callum Ferguson (32)|No, looks like a one-cap wonder.

Moises Henriques (32)|No, predominantly a limited-overs player.

Jon Holland (30)|No, now maybe the fifth-choice spinner?

Usman Khawaja (30)|Yes, he's Australia's number three.

Shaun Marsh (34)|Probably not, but you can never quite tell with SOS.

Peter Nevill (32)|No, although I'd rather him than Matty Wade.

Steve O'Keefe (32)|No, although if he can get back on the rails he should be.

Peter Siddle (32)|No, probably jostling with Bird for the sixth-choice spot.

Adam Voges (38)|No, he's retired.

David Warner (31)|Yes, as the vice-captain and world-class opening bat.

So the oldest regular Test player is 31, and is quite rightly one of the leaders in the side.

I also find your comment about the selectors not backing young batsmen a little perplexing: Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb were 20 and 25 respectively when they were told they had ten Tests to bed themselves in before the Ashes twelve months later. Nic Maddinson was told the same, but looked so out of his depth that it was kinder to take him out of the firing line.

So that's two of the top five who are over thirty and experienced, plus Smith the captain, plus two young players who've had some faith shown in them. As far as I can make out that's a really good balance.

The only real question is what sort of player you select at number six to complement them.

To be clear though, I'd be a big advocate for more A-team tours, possibly with a side something like: Harris, Bancroft , Patterson, Head , Lehmann, Cartwright, Turner, Agar, Tremain, Behrendorff, Swepson; maybe even throw Will Sutherland in.

 

[blockerdave]

My question to Aussies - how good is pat Cummins? Hear good things of him. Never seen him. FC record suggests talented bit no world beater.

Wondering exactly how pessimistic to be about England's chances?

I rate Starc highly. Hazelwood I don't rate one bit (put money on him to be highest wicket taker). Cummins I don't know...

Obviously I know all about England's weaknesses so I am quite pessimistic, but wondering if it is totally hopeless?

Aussies have a big reliance on Starc staying fit and firing I guess?

 

[Aislabie]

My question to Aussies - how good is pat Cummins? Hear good things of him. Never seen him. FC record suggests talented bit no world beater.

He's a curious case really. On the one hand, his raw ingredients are so good that the Aussies rushed him into the Test side as an eighteen-year-old with only I think three first-class games under his belt. And he rewarded them by running straight through the best Test team the world has seen in the post-Warne decade.

On the other hand, he has spent the six years since then learning how to bowl around his body, which seems inclined to snap in half if he bowls too much.

Cummins isn't the sort of bowler to run through a side very often though; he's the guy who finishes with an awesome two for 30 while Nathan Lyon takes five-for at the other end as they try to score off the perceived weakest link, because at his best Cummins is too good for the batsman to edge it, and too quick for them to adjust to the movement. The only thing that stops him being a Mitchell Starc style wicket-taker is that he moves it away from the right-hander, so his perfect ball is a dot ball play-and-miss, rather than bowled or LBW.

On his own, he'd give you a fright but he's unlikely to turn a series on its head (except that one time he did, RIP Proteas) but as the third prong in a Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins seam attack... well, everyone wants to be facing Josh Hazlewood. And that's a really troubling thought.

 

[blockerdave]

He's a curious case really. On the one hand, his raw ingredients are so good that the Aussies rushed him into the Test side as an eighteen-year-old with only I think three first-class games under his belt. And he rewarded them by running straight through the best Test team the world has seen in the post-Warne decade.

On the other hand, he has spent the six years since then learning how to bowl around his body, which seems inclined to snap in half if he bowls too much.

Cummins isn't the sort of bowler to run through a side very often though; he's the guy who finishes with an awesome two for 30 while Nathan Lyon takes five-for at the other end as they try to score off the perceived weakest link, because at his best Cummins is too good for the batsman to edge it, and too quick for them to adjust to the movement. The only thing that stops him being a Mitchell Starc style wicket-taker is that he moves it away from the right-hander, so his perfect ball is a dot ball play-and-miss, rather than bowled or LBW.

On his own, he'd give you a fright but he's unlikely to turn a series on its head (except that one time he did, RIP Proteas) but as the third prong in a Starc-Hazlewood-Cummins seam attack... well, everyone wants to be facing Josh Hazlewood. And that's a really troubling thought.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

I think Hazlewood is shite. Talked up as the new Glenn McGrath... only thing in common is being Aussie, tall and not quick. With McGrath you sensed he sacrificed pace for accuracy and movement... Hazlewood has neither.

 

[Aislabie]

Thanks for that. Interesting.

I think Hazlewood is shite. Talked up as the new Glenn McGrath... only thing in common is being Aussie, tall and not quick. With McGrath you sensed he sacrificed pace for accuracy and movement... Hazlewood has neither.

It's funny you should pick out McGrath, as statistically they have both had very similar starts to their careers.

Both made their Test debuts as 23-year-olds in respected but not yet terrifying bowling attacks - McGrath with McDermott, Reiffel and Warne; Hazlewood with Johnson, Starc and Lyon. From then on, their careers progressed in comparable fashion:

|

Glenn McGrath |

Josh Hazlewood Age at start of debut |23y, 9m, 3d|23y, 11m, 9d
After 5 Tests |12 wickets @ 40.33|24 wickets @ 19.08 (1 5WI)
After 10 Tests |33 wickets @ 32.48 (1 5WI)|43 wickets @ 23.44 (2 5WI)
After 15 Tests |55 wickets @ 28.05 (3 5WI)|61 wickets @ 24.16 (3 5WI)
After 20 Tests |80 wickets @ 27.41 (4 5WI)|77 wickets @ 26.40 (3 5WI)
After 25 Tests |106 wickets @ 24.96 (5 5WI)|102 wickets @ 25.66 (4 5WI)
After 30 Tests |130 wickets @ 24.51 (7 5WI)|118 wickets @ 25.39 (5 5WI)
Age at start of 32nd Test |27y, 5m, 15d|26y, 10m, 15d

Though McGrath's numbers do show that he grew into Test cricket far more than Hazlewood (whose performances have been broadly consistent since very early in his career), they are close enough to each other that the comparisons are at this stage justified.

- - - - -

It seems I've got into the habit of providing extensive stats to back up literally any point I make. My apologies if it gets on anyone's nerves - it's just a habit that's coming more and more naturally with my history degree.

 

[blockerdave]

It's funny you should pick out McGrath, as statistically they have both had very similar starts to their careers.

Both made their Test debuts as 23-year-olds in respected but not yet terrifying bowling attacks - McGrath with McDermott, Reiffel and Warne; Hazlewood with Johnson, Starc and Lyon. From then on, their careers progressed in comparable fashion:

|

Glenn McGrath |

Josh Hazlewood
Age at start of debut |23y, 9m, 3d|23y, 11m, 9d
After 5 Tests |12 wickets @ 40.33|24 wickets @ 19.08 (1 5WI)
After 10 Tests |33 wickets @ 32.48 (1 5WI)|43 wickets @ 23.44 (2 5WI)
After 15 Tests |55 wickets @ 28.05 (3 5WI)|61 wickets @ 24.16 (3 5WI)
After 20 Tests |80 wickets @ 27.41 (4 5WI)|77 wickets @ 26.40 (3 5WI)
After 25 Tests |106 wickets @ 24.96 (5 5WI)|102 wickets @ 25.66 (4 5WI)
After 30 Tests |130 wickets @ 24.51 (7 5WI)|118 wickets @ 25.39 (5 5WI)
Age at start of 32nd Test |27y, 5m, 15d|26y, 10m, 15d

Though McGrath's numbers do show that he grew into Test cricket far more than Hazlewood (whose performances have been broadly consistent since very early in his career), they are close enough to each other that the comparisons are at this stage justified.

- - - - -

It seems I've got into the habit of providing extensive stats to back up literally any point I make. My apologies if it gets on anyone's nerves - it's just a habit that's coming more and more naturally with my history degree.

I love stats!

Fair enough perhaps I underestimate him foolishly. He was shocking in 2015 Ashes.

 

[Aislabie]

I love stats!

Fair enough perhaps I underestimate him foolishly. He was shocking in 2015 Ashes.

He definitely doesn't have the same aura about him that McGrath always had when I watched him, but perhaps that was because of the age I am and when I started properly appreciating cricket. By the time I really got into cricket, McGrath was always a bowler of some 400 Test wickets, whereas Hazlewood is a bowler we've seen progress from teenage ODI debutant to the bowler he is today, so we've seen his foibles far more than certainly I did of McGrath. Plus, there's just more analysis now to dissect every poor spell he bowls.

 

[Velocity]

Thanks for that. Interesting.

I think Hazlewood is shite. Talked up as the new Glenn McGrath... only thing in common is being Aussie, tall and not quick. With McGrath you sensed he sacrificed pace for accuracy and movement... Hazlewood has neither.

Hazelwood isn't bad but isn't spectacular either.
He forms a very good bowling partnership with Starc, who shines with his pace and bounce and is very troubling to the batsman, Hazelwood looks nothing special but by keeping that consistent line and length either of them can pick up wickets with Starc bowling wicket to wicket and Hazelwood just bowling in a single area, prompting the batsmen to fish at ones outside off stump.

 

[CerealKiller]

Highlights of the first day of the warmup

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=393014961132533

 

[CerealKiller]

Jake Ball is injured too. At this rate, they'll have to call up Freddie Flintoff soon