Unofficial Buildup to the 2010/11 Ashes

[ferg512]

Just read Ponting said England will struggle with the Gabba pitch. I'm kind of hoping England win this one I'm sick of this Aussie team talking too much before the games at least back in previous series they had the team to back it up. They should just keep to themselves like England. So far all they have worried about is England and swept their own problems (which there are many of) under the carpet.

 

[angryangy]

What he actually said wasn't unfair. The Gabba is a place where touring teams tend to struggle. It's a very different wicket from the others at the moment and England's preparation doesn't take them there, so it's to be expected that there will be new challenges for them, even with a 3 game warm up.

Sure, he's not drawing attention to their own issues, but why would he? England isn't a perfect team either, but you wouldn't know it from the press conferences. I don't know what else people expect. The media ask their questions and then go out and create their headlines.

 

[ferg512]

Yeah I realise that I guess I'm more referring to others like Watson who said which bowlers would struggle and I think he said Broad will do alright. I'm just thinking why do they have to comment like that. McGrath said things and could usually back it up with his bowling. I don't think this team can do the same.

In saying that it is good to not have the same old boring press conferences that you usually get with everyone these days.

 

[lethalhughes]

Yeah I realise that I guess I'm more referring to others like Watson who said which bowlers would struggle and I think he said Broad will do alright. I'm just thinking why do they have to comment like that. McGrath said things and could usually back it up with his bowling. I don't think this team can do the same.

In saying that it is good to not have the same old boring press conferences that you usually get with everyone these days.

Agreed with you that Watto and co should keep shut and let their bats and ball do the talking.England are ahead of us in the ranking so i think its best we concentrate on what we need to do and work on getting the best combination together.McGrath atleast had the game to back it up and Australia was dominating teams, so he could atleast run his mouth all day.

 

[sifter132]

But I gotta say, most of it is media spin. Take this morning's story for instance from Steve Finn:
Finn 'dislikes' Australia | Fox Sports

Headline says: "Finn 'dislikes' Australia"
Actual quote:

Asked if he admired or disliked Ricky Ponting's unit, Finn said: "I think there is a bit of both."

"You have to admire them," he said.

"Their record in cricket, full stop, for the last however many years has been fantastic. Australia has some high-class players.

"But again Australia is the old foe and it's something, if I get the opportunity, I want to do - go out and beat them."

NOWHERE does he directly say "I dislike Australia". Just journos looking for a headline...

 

[Left_Hander]

In regargds to England struggling at the Gabba. I think that could be a strong chance. Though they have played a match in Perth which does provide similiar conditions.

 

[War]

The Ashes 2010-11: Australia selector Greg Chappell not sold on all-pace attack for the Gabba | Cricket News | The Ashes 2010-11 | Cricinfo.com

Haha. Well i give up on arguing this, but some interesting points Chappell raises in his defense of Haurtiz & his questiion of picking an all-pace attack:

But Chappell, who is the newest member of the selection panel, said a pace-only attack would be a big gamble against an England side that will certainly feature the offspinner Graeme Swann.

"That will obviously be part of the conversation when we meet," Chappell told the radio station SEN. "Four quicks - I'm not convinced that four is better than three. We'll certainly talk about it. It's hard to go in to a Test match without a recognised spinner, I don't care what the conditions are like. You need balance in any conditions.

"We know the West Indies tended to do well with four quicks for many years, but more times than not I've seen it backfire. Someone gets underbowled or you give someone a bowl just because they're there, when maybe they weren't the best choice. I think if we've got three good quicks and Shane Watson and a spinner, we'll be in better shape. That's my personal opinion."

Firstly i'm not sure what relevance Swann would have to the consideration of playing 4-quicks. If as i presume he is worrying about the footmarks that would be left outside the right/left-handers off-stump - both the AUS & ENG fast-bowlers will cause that eventually for Swann. So i'm a bit confused with that one.

I dont like the arrogance in his suggestion that "i dont care what the conditions, you need balance in any attack". He cannot be seriously suggesting even on Headlingely 09 or Johannesbury 2010 like wicket, that "balance" in any attack in having a spinner would be more logical in such conditons that an all-pace attack.

But of course the larger argument as i've always said. You dont pick a spinner just for the sake of balance & just hope for miracle that he on a wearing 5th day wicket can aid in bowling out teams. When the spinner has has struggled to do that domestically & againts good international batsmen, as the cases with Hauritz especially is ATM (Doherty domestically), to prove he can do such a thing. So basically as he suggested AUS will not be in "better shape" if they pick a spinner.

The selectors better start accepting AUS have no spinner capable of doing the main job of a spinner in tests (unless they want to recall Krejza as part of a 5-man attack), so they better off start accepting this clear deficiency that has been obvious for 2 years (approaching 3 years) now & stop wasting time picking useless spinenr who will not do the job. Just simply pick the 4 quicks.

He rightfully highlighted the success Windies had playing 4 quicks. But i'd love to know the examples in test history of his backfiring in the sense as he suggested "you give someone a bowl just because they're there, when maybe they weren't the best choice.



Cricket Australia > Latest News > News

HAAAAAAA @ Dussey. So he smoked Hussey & still says he thought he bowled well. . Thats like you beating up someone is fist fight in mortal kombat with a flawless victory & you saying that you thought your opponent put up a good fight.


Cricket Australia > Latest News > News

Johnson believes Australia cannot afford to go in with four quicks against England, despite the fast Gabba wicket, the left-armer saying a specialist spinner was probably needed for overall balance.

I wonder if Mitchell thoguht a spinner was so needed when AUS won in SA 09 or Headingely with all pace attakcs. Or when he was forced to toil away recently in IND on last day wickets when he would expected the so call "spinner that is needed for overall" balance to be bowling & taking wickets then.

I swear based on these comments a conspiracy to keep Haurtiz in the team is going on. He must be a very popular memeber in the squad...

 

[lethalhughes]

War i would back you as a selector in test cause although i don't always agree with you atleast there's strong logic behind your arguements, with the Aussie selectors most times they speak i'm just wondering where is the logic and common sense behind their arguements-talking about England having Swann in discussing whether we should play four quicks or 3 and a spinner???????I love Chappell but that makes no sense to me.We won't always agree with selectors but as fans all we ask is some strong logic behind their selections.

 

[sifter132]

Well War I think you know my basic opinion - no need to rehash... But I did like the choice of word Chappell used: gamble.

4 quicks may be a better option on paper, but it leaves you with overrate problems and fatigued bowlers if it doesn't work and you have to bowl 100+ overs (or even 80+ overs). The mention of Swann is relevant too because as at the Oval last year, if you suddenly find that conditions suit spin more than you'd hoped, then your side is up against it because you've gambled and haven't matched the opposition's makeup. That's handing a big advantage to the opposition that you could have avoided.

So I think that's the key: risk. Does Australia need to take risks to win this series? If so should they take the risks early in the series or wait until it's a bit more grim? Playing Hauritz is certainly the more conservative plan, giving them a plan B if the quicks can't rip into England. But it leaves Australia with a lesser plan A. Depends what you want doesn't it? And how much risk you are willing to carry.

 

[lethalhughes]

Apparently Clarke has pulled up sore after his ton for NSW.

So at this stage of the game we could be taking two stiff batsmen (Katich) and Hussey and North into the first test. A recipe for disaster. At least one has to be replaced.

I can't see Katich being fit enough to play the first test.Clarke should be ok.I'm just hoping Bollinger recovers if not Harris should replace him.

 

[Themer]

.I'm just hoping Bollinger recover

Isn't it a Cricinfo headline at the moment that Bollinger is 100% fit?

 

[lethalhughes]

Isn't it a Cricinfo headline at the moment that Bollinger is 100% fit?

Oh thats great then .Anyway guys i reckon Harris should be the third seamer instead of Johnson for the first test.I know it won't happen with the selectors we've got but Bollinger-Hilfenhaus- Harris got the making of a top attack.

 

[War]

War i would back you as a selector in test cause although i don't always agree with you atleast there's strong logic behind your arguements, with the Aussie selectors most times they speak i'm just wondering where is the logic and common sense behind their arguements-talking about England having Swann in discussing whether we should play four quicks or 3 and a spinner???????I love Chappell but that makes no sense to me.We won't always agree with selectors but as fans all we ask is some strong logic behind their selections.

Yea indeed. Some some logic is needed, everytime for the past 2 years i hear Hilditich & whoever explain some of their selections starting from Casson & White being picked as test spinner in 2008 to the retention of Hauritz in 2010, its a massive WTF moment.

 

[War]

Well War I think you know my basic opinion - no need to rehash... But I did like the choice of word Chappell used: gamble.

4 quicks may be a better option on paper, but it leaves you with overrate problems and fatigued bowlers if it doesn't work and you have to bowl 100+ overs (or even 80+ overs). The mention of Swann is relevant too because as at the Oval last year, if you suddenly find that conditions suit spin more than you'd hoped, then your side is up against it because you've gambled and haven't matched the opposition's makeup. That's handing a big advantage to the opposition that you could have avoided.

So I think that's the key: risk. Does Australia need to take risks to win this series? If so should they take the risks early in the series or wait until it's a bit more grim? Playing Hauritz is certainly the more conservative plan, giving them a plan B if the quicks can't rip into England. But it leaves Australia with a lesser plan A. Depends what you want doesn't it? And how much risk you are willing to carry.

Yes my friend this is where we differ.


First & foremost the main focus when talking about the 4-man pace attack, is the fact that its AUS most likely route of taking 20 wickets consistently in most conditions.

Once that is covered, matters like over-rate issue (although it could bring it problems with fines etc) & which of the top-order can assist in bowling some part time spin, immediately become secondary. Since the main task above would be accomplished more often than that not. Plus if they bowl to potential i cant see HIlfy/Bollinger/Johnson/Harris having to bowl 100+ againts many opposition teams, so fatigue would be fairly minimal too.

We cant expect perfection here, since AUS dont have a quality enough spinner to do the main job of a spinner ITFP to utilize Oval like 5th day pitches (although i'm in the camp that believes Krejza could work in 5-man attack better, than Hauritz/Doherty if he is used properly). As we saw in Nagpur when the spinners struggles in such conditions where he should be the main-man - the fast bowlers still have to come back to try to take the wickets & if Bollinger hadn't got injured - the fast bowlers on wearing that last day wicket would have won AUS that test.

Thus those potential over-rates problems etc with the 4 quicks is a minor issue that AUS will just have to tolerate.

 

[angryangy]

This isn't the 80s, if a captain is a serial over-rate offender he doesn't get to say "that's just how we roll". He gets fined and suspended.