Unofficial Buildup to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Owzat]

BBC Sport - Cricket - Allan Lamb dismisses Lillee's 'nonsense' Ashes call

Lillee questioned England's ability to take 20 wickets, I think he's right. Ignoring the rubbish opposition we play, England can struggle to take 20 wickets. In both the last two home Ashes series we may have won, but we only won TWO of the FIVE Tests in each series. Down under in 06/07 we didn't take 20 wickets once so in 15 Ashes Tests England have taken 20 wickets just four times.

England have taken 20 wickets in seven of their last eight Tests, but those were four apiece against Pakistan and Bangladesh. Here's England's record with wins and how many times they've taken 20 wickets and how many times their opponents have from 2000-2010 (Tests played in those years)

Australia : P25 W6 D4 L15 (20W : F6, A16)
India : P15 W2 D8 L5 (20W : F2, A7)
South Africa : P20 W7 D6 L7 (20W : F7, A8)
Sri Lanka : P15 W5 D6 L4 (20W : F7, A4)

Pakistan : P16 W8 D4 L4 (20W : F9, A5)
New Zealand : P12 W8 D2 L2 (20W : F8, A3)
West Indies : P23 W15 D6 L2 (20W : F15, A4)

Bangladesh : P8 W8 D0 L0 (20W : F8, A0)
Zimbabwe : P4 W3 D1 L0 (20W : F3, A1)

Against Australia, India and South Africa the England side have not taken 20 wickets more often than their opponents. If you count just West Indies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe they 'win' 26-5, against everyone else it is 39-43 and that's generously including New Zealand who England have beaten four times as often as they've lost to them since 2000, and the four matches Pakistan played in this country which were controversial to say the least and at best Pakistan were poor.

Whittle it down to the last three years only and ONLY South Africa have bowled England out twice in a match more often than England have bowled opponents out, but then they've played South Africa, Australia, India and Sri Lanka just 13 times (4-4 on 20 wickets count) compared to 20 Tests against the rest (13-4 on 20 wickets count)

And the stats I'd quote Lamb if I was Lillee are these :

ASHES

02/03 (in Australia) 4-1 win to Australia (4-1 on 20 wickets)
06/07 (in Australia) 5-0 win to Australia (4-0 on 20 wickets)

Different ball game down under, Lambie should know that before getting into an exchange of words. And the crunch, how different England bowlers fare at home compared to on tour :

2000-2010

Home : P76 W43 D17 L16 (20W : F45, A24)
Away : P62 W19 D20 L23 (20W : F20, A24)

A lot of those away will be in Bangladesh, New Zealand and West Indies, wish I had time to tot them up but I'm sure most know England don't win that many in India, Pakistan, Australia or Sri Lanka without needing stats to back that up.

 

[War]

HAAA @ Lamb. I guess he is just trying to defend ENG patriotical.

But fact is AUS have far better bowling attack once all bowlers are fit. Thats not a debate.

Plus ENG chances of taking 20 AUS wickets reamins a big question mark. Since the pace trio have yet to prove they can bowl well on flat pitches when the ball is not swinging.

 

[sifter132]

^I'd also argue that Australia has the better batting lineup too - if both top 6s are in form. Ponting, Hussey and Clarke are fantastic players when in touch. Watson and Katich are just as good as Strauss and Trott I'd say. North compares with Cook. So that leaves Ponting, Hussey and Clarke to face KP, Bell and Collingwood. I like Australia there.

What's really the issue here is that we don't know which Australia is going to turn up. On paper they look a little better than England, but the random batting collapses and the wayward spells from Johnson and occasionally Siddle and Bollinger don't inspire the sort of confidence that their talent should.

 

[Robelinda]

Agree with the above post. If the great Australia rock up then we are set. Does anyone really expect Hussey to come good?I think the best we'll see from him is some fighting 50's but nothing more. Bit worried not many of our guys are making big scores over the past few years.

 

[aussie1st]

Doesn't take a special attack to rip through out batting lineup these days, infact our batsmen do most of the work for them.

If Hussey plays like he does in ODI then we could see him getting back to where he was a few years ago. But if he plays like he has recently, his technique is unable to last long enough for him to make a 100 going at his strike rate. That in turn slows the team's scoring rate down.

 

[angryangy]

It's harsh to pinpoint just one player who is lucky if he gets a hundred. Even the most in-form batsmen have done their job with a lot of 80s and 90s.

 

[RoboRocks]

If Broad and Finn can find some rhythm, they'll be effective on Australian pitches with the pace and bounce they can generate. The problem could be Anderson if the ball isn't swinging, he doesn't have the accuracy to be able to build up pressure at his end.

The batting is a bigger worry. Cook, Pietersen and Collingwood haven't scored too many runs in recent times. Pietersen is the real worry though, he's England's best player when he's in top form, but going by recent interviews and dismissals it has to be questioned whether he's lost the confidence and desire it takes to succeed at international level.

It's looking tight at the moment. Both teams seem fairly even and only time will tell the outcome.

 

[aussie1st]

It's harsh to pinpoint just one player who is lucky if he gets a hundred. Even the most in-form batsmen have done their job with a lot of 80s and 90s.

Well even 80s or 90s from Hussey is an achievement these days.

 

[TumTum]

Hmm I don't think Broad and Finn are suited to bowling in Australian pitches as everyone is saying. Bowlers that succeed here are the ones that bowl good lines and keep the ball up, that is where the bowlers will find the most movement.

 

[CaptainOZ]

Hmm I don't think Broad and Finn are suited to bowling in Australian pitches as everyone is saying. Bowlers that succeed here are the ones that bowl good lines and keep the ball up, that is where the bowlers will find the most movement.

Right, so where is Phil Hughes in all of this? Just sitting back with his double diamond earrings and being a glamour queen? He hasn't been selected in a while, and there's no news of him in the press.

 

[TumTum]

Right, so where is Phil Hughes in all of this? Just sitting back with his double diamond earrings and being a glamour queen? He hasn't been selected in a while, and there's no news of him in the press.

Think he will go in as the reserve batsman.

 

[Owzat]

^I'd also argue that Australia has the better batting lineup too - if both top 6s are in form. Ponting, Hussey and Clarke are fantastic players when in touch. Watson and Katich are just as good as Strauss and Trott I'd say. North compares with Cook. So that leaves Ponting, Hussey and Clarke to face KP, Bell and Collingwood. I like Australia there.

What's really the issue here is that we don't know which Australia is going to turn up. On paper they look a little better than England, but the random batting collapses and the wayward spells from Johnson and occasionally Siddle and Bollinger don't inspire the sort of confidence that their talent should.

England not only need their bowlers to do something with the ball, but their batsmen need to up their game and post big scores, they can't post ordinary to decent totals and hope their bowlers bail them out because their bowlers will struggle enough as it is.

Of course England have gone down under with five bowler theory their main strategy, one win in 10 shows how well that worked! Be interesting to see how England fare should they decide to play four bowlers, their last win in Australia was using............................ four bowlers.

2000-2010 Ashes down under

Test wins : AUS 9-1 ENG (0 draws)
1st inns leads : AUS 9-1 ENG
1st inns leads 100+ : AUS 7-0 ENG
20 wkts : AUS 8-1 ENG

500+ : AUS 5-1 ENG
400-499 : AUS 3-1 ENG
300-399 : AUS 2-6 ENG
200-299 : AUS 4-4 ENG
under 200* : AUS 3-8 ENG
DNB : AUS 3-0 ENG

Runs scored : AUS 6157 @ 49.26, ENG 5314 @ 27.25
1st inns ave : AUS 459-286 ENG

*all three aussie scores under 200 were succesfully chasing down targets : 107/5, 168/4 and 46/0. England have not been bowled out only twice : 551/6d and 452/9d, winning one and losing one.

8/20 (40%) of the aussie total are 400+ compared to England's 2/20 (10%) England haven't had the ability to knock the aussies over down under too often, I really don't see Broad, Anderson et al as consistent enough and I'm betting Swann won't be as effective as some hope/anticipate. Swann's 14 wickets against the aussies cost 40.50 apiece, all in England.

England spinners vs Australia (last three series home and away)

2001 (h) Croft : 1 wkt @ 10.00
2009 (h) Swann : 14 wkts @ 40.50
2005 (h) Giles : 10 wkts @ 57.80
2001 (h) Giles : 1 wkts @ 108.00
2009 (h) Panesar : 1 wkt @ 115.00
2001 (h) Tufnell : 1 wkt @ 174.00


98/99 (a) Such : 11 wkts @ 29.36
02/03 (a) Giles : 6 wkts @ 31.83
06/07 (a) Panesar : 10 wkts @ 37.90
98/99 (a) Croft : 2 wkts @ 63.00
02/03 (a) Dawson : 5 wkts @ 79.60
06/07 (a) Giles : 3 wkts @ 87.33

Not terribly impressive home or away, Such the only one to average under 30 in a series with more than one wicket and the only spinner to take 10 wickets in a series AND average less than 37. And yet England made every effort for such a long time to include a spinner, the TWO Tests down under that England have won in those three series came with a contribution of ONE wicket from a main spinner, the win in 98/99 coming when England didn't play a recognised spinner and BOTH the last two wins down under came with only FOUR bowlers - we insisted on playing five bowlers in 06/07 and got stuffed 5-0, nuff said.

England's only win down under since 2000 :

Australia vs England 02/03 (Sydney)

England won the toss

England 1st inns : 362.
Butcher 124, Hussain 75, Stewart 71.
Bichel 3/86.

Australia 1st inns : 363.
S.Waugh 102, Gilchrist 133.
Hoggard 4/92, Caddick 3/121, Harmison 3/70.

England 2nd inns : 452/9d.
Vaughan 182, Hussain 72.
Lee 3/132, MacGill 3/120

Australia 2nd inns : 226.
Bichel 49, Lee 46.
Caddick 7/94.

England won by 225 runs.



England reached 362 thanks mainly to a 166 3rd wicket partnership between Butcher and Hussain. Stewart made 71 off 86 balls with 15 fours batting at seven, but from 332/5 England collapsed losing five wickets for 30 runs.

Australia gained a one run lead having been 150/5 with Caddick picking up the first three wickets early on (56/3). Waugh and Gilchrist shard a 6th wicket partnership of 91 and Gilchrist then batted with the tail to be 9th out having hit his 133 off 121 balls with 18 fours, Bichel chipping in with 31 runs to help add 82 for the 9th wicket and go a long way to helping secure the lead.

England lost Trescothick early 2nd innings, but Butcher and Vaughan added 87 before Vaughan was joined by Hussain in a 3rd wicket partnership of 189 which put England in control. Stewart chipped in with 38no batting at seven again, helping add 107 runs for the last four wickets to fall with Harmison hitting 20no off 23 balls before England declared.

Australia again got off to a poor start with Caddick taking four of the first five wickets to fall. From 139/7 the aussies did well to reach 226 all out, Brett Lee thumping 46 off 32 balls with nine fours and a six.

England's off spinner (Dawson) took 1/113 in the match compared to MacGill's 5/226

HowSTAT! Match Scorecard

 

[barmyarmy]

Planes in the air. This can potentially now be renamed as the "official" thread...

 

[Manly]

Isn't it plane's...?

 

[barmyarmy]

I was referring to multiple planes - just one of which has the England team on.