Unofficial Buildup to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Themer]

The batting like-up looks solid although how did Prior get in!

Huh?

 

[barmyarmy]

Knowing England though it could very well be another whitewash.

I don't think you'll do that badly. You might nick a dead rubber at the end.

 

[Themer]

I thought our English contingent had Kieswetter ahead of him?

Kieswetter is nowhere near the the test team. Prior's averaging 42 in tests and is one of the better keepers in world cricket now. His 42 certainly trumps Haddin's 38 and he scores them quicker.

 

[Sureshot]

Prior's test spot is the most cemented an English keeper has had since Stewart retired. His form is pretty good at the moment, his glove work improving lots over the last 12 months.

 

[Biggy]

Prior (along with Trott) was probably the most in form batsman during the Eng v Pak Test series.

 

[Owzat]

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Just for the record.

You want to tell us the relevance or what they are supposed to signify

You do know that will apply to pretty much every batsman in World cricket, because, funnily enough, the best teams have the best bowlers in the world.

Not necessarily, the aussies traditionally don't play Bangladesh any more than they have to. And we seem to play West Indies shedloads compared to other nations, despite their massive dip in status we still play four match series against them, I guess tradition and other better nations preferring ODIs and whatever excuse Sri Lanka had for not touring - no prizes for guessing who filled in......................................

So while you are right in theory, doesn't mean all sides beef up their averages by overdosing on Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies. And some batsmen seem more than capable of averaging 40+ against just the better sides, whether intended or not, you are implying that all batsmen rely (as) heavily on playing the weaker sides. So while I appreciate what you're trying to say, the main point of highlighting those stats is some players are shocking if you take out their bread and butter. Would you take Bresnan on the basis of those stats? Or indeed not question if Anderson will cut it down under in the toughest test when he hasn't stood up to the remotely tough tests previously with any great aplomb.

Some might question Ian Bell's inclusion

 

[Howsie]

You want to tell us the relevance or what they are supposed to signify

They're pretty straightforward don't ya think.

 

[Themer]

It shows us New Zealand have bowler friendly pitches?

 

[Howsie]

It shows us New Zealand have bowler friendly pitches?

Well that obviously helps, much like it would for attacks from South Africa and England. Point was lumping New Zealand in with Bangladesh and the West Indies when talking about this group of batsmen "boosting" there numbers is highly informative.

 

[Themer]

I do agree with you to an extent. It is unfair to fudge NZ with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as they are alot quite a bit worse.

I'd say it would be fair to take bowling averages against New Zealand with a pinch of salt however.

 

[Howsie]

Indeed.

 

[Sureshot]

So while you are right in theory, doesn't mean all sides beef up their averages by overdosing on Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies. And some batsmen seem more than capable of averaging 40+ against just the better sides, whether intended or not, you are implying that all batsmen rely (as) heavily on playing the weaker sides. So while I appreciate what you're trying to say, the main point of highlighting those stats is some players are shocking if you take out their bread and butter. Would you take Bresnan on the basis of those stats? Or indeed not question if Anderson will cut it down under in the toughest test when he hasn't stood up to the remotely tough tests previously with any great aplomb.

Some might question Ian Bell's inclusion

I wouldn't take Bresnan in any circumstances, I think that's something we can all agree on. Stats only mean so much, Anderson has struggled against the better teams for consistency, but he still takes match-winning hauls against the big teams. In any case, Anderson is still one of the best seamers we have out our disposal. Do you honestly think we have any bowler who could fill his role as a swing bowler with the new ball? I think Hoggard is too far off the radar now. I think Anderson has a point to prove, but he's been bowling well and he deserves that chance.

I can't see how you can question Ian Bell's inclusion. His record vs Australia may be suspect, but he's been in excellent form and is in the prime of his career, not only technically but mentally.

 

[Ollie_H]

Alot of the hype is built up over the 'old' Australia. They used to have the most fearsome attack in McGrath, Warne, Lee and the rest of the bunch and I think Australia still revel in some of that glory. The aura of the team still has that of the 2006/07 bowling line up. But now it only consists of Johnson, Hauritz, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus and Watson. Which doesn't look nearly as menacing. Whilst I still rate Hauritz as a journeyman he does come up with some very very tidy bowling performances.

I think it will be an incredibly good tour, their is a MASSIVE difference in the squads since the last tour in Australia when the infamous whitewash occured. Would be interesting to see how many survivors there actually are from each tour.

Just on the English half of things, this is the squad that travelled last time England went to Australia (retained players in bold. Tresco ommited due to obvious reasons.):

Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss, James Anderson, Ian Bell, Paul Collingwood, Alastair Cook, Jamie Dalrymple, Steve Harmison, Matthew Hoggard, Geraint Jones, Ed Joyce, Sajid Mahmood, Monty Panesar, Kevin Pietersen, Liam Plunkett, Chris Read & Ashley Giles.

So on the English side of things only 7 players have made it from the last tour. Which means more than half of the squad weren't here during the thrashing. The squad picked for the upcoming series does look a lot stronger than the one that played 3 years ago.

 

[War]

Do you know what back up means? He will play if Swann gets injured in such an event Bresnan will replace Finn/Tremlett to bolster out batting line up. Weakens our team a hell of a lot but you can't go in with 3 complete bunnies as seen in the last Ashes.

Thats would poor tactics. If Swann gets injured, Panesar cannot play since he is not good enough to be the main spinner in a 4-man man - it is that obvious.


The safest option in that horrific "Swann being injured scenario" is to pick an extra fast-bowler (which would have been Shazad), to back-up the main trio of Anderson/Broad/Finn or Tremlett). Given at least Shazad on the wearing surfaces where Panesar would be useless on - we can be sure Shazad can reverse swing the ball.

A 4-man attack as you suggested of Anderson/Finn/Bresnan/Panesar is terrible & it totally incapable of taking 20 wickets in AUS. You might as well hand Australia the Ashes

In test matches Morgan has a big flaw outside offstump which Hilfenhaus would be all over like the plague.

I don't see why there is such overt pessimism in regards to our squad. Its coming in off the back of a brilliant year where its won every series. I certainly feel its at least good enough to draw the series against an Australia who have as many weak links as we do.

Dont overexaggerate. That technical flaw outside off-stump is indeed a problem & it could be exposed. But its not a flaw that can't be corrected if he works on it in the nets with assistance from Flower. I would certainly back Morgan if he has to play, to stand up & score runs vs the AUS quicks farrr more than Carberry. I'm stunned how you or anyone else could see it any other way.

We have to pessimistic, because some dumb selections in Panesar & Bresnan have been made. Our batting is very vulnerable (our best batsman in KP is out of form) & we will miss Onions.

I dont know how Australia have "as many weak links" as us???. The only weak link AUS have is that since 2006/07, their batsmen have developed a the tendancy to have dumb batting collapses. Which is basicaly ENGs hope really to hope really, but once AUS bat to potential, ENG have no chance.

 

[Brook]

Onions got a pretty raw deal