Unofficial Buildup to the 2010/11 Ashes

[TumTum]

He had one average test. He's not pushing for a first XI spot, but he should be there or thereabouts imo. He has a good record in a strong domestic competition.

I don't want a Lleyton Hewitt in our cricket side.

 

[War]

How's that possible? Im not English but just because of my English parents I have a strong hatred for Australia love for England.

Never heard of a neutral Ashes fan

Ha, well since i started watching cricket in Ashes 97 - specifically the Old Trafford 97 test, when Steve Waugh scored back-to-back centuries & watching Warne bowl. That sparked my interest in cricket as a kid.

Since as a Englishman of African decent, my generation of black birts doesn't have time with cricket - mainly football & athletics (this is proven by the lack of british born cricketers of Afro decent playing county cricket).

If it weren't for AUS i probably wouldn't like cricket at all, so i have always supported & them since. Just not againts England of course in Ashes battles.

 

[Covvy]

Australian XI, I hope.

1.Hughes/Watson(depending whether Hughes gets in good form)
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Clarke
5.M.Hussey/George Bailey (if M.Hussey retires, or bad form)
6.Bailey/Watson (Whether or not Watson opens)
7.Haddin
8.Hauritz/Steve Smith (depending on form)
9.Johnson
10.Siddle/Bollinger
11.Hilfenhaus

Similiar line-up to first test in England. Hilfenhaus and Siddle should be picked over guys like Harris and McKay, who have so far only played in whitewash's. I reckon George Bailey could very much push into the XI if his form continue's and North will never play again.

 

[TumTum]

Watson is staying as opener. He will totally own England here.

I really can't see Hughes back in the side for this Ashes

Of course he as more chance than people like Bailey etc...

 

[Covvy]

I reckon people like Bailey have more chance than Hughes. The selectors aren't smart enough to bat him down the order.

 

[Dare]

Australian XI, I hope.

1.Hughes/Watson(depending whether Hughes gets in good form)
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Clarke
5.M.Hussey/George Bailey (if M.Hussey retires, or bad form)
6.Bailey/Watson (Whether or not Watson opens)
7.Haddin
8.Hauritz/Steve Smith (depending on form)
9.Johnson
10.Siddle/Bollinger
11.Hilfenhaus

Similiar line-up to first test in England. Hilfenhaus and Siddle should be picked over guys like Harris and McKay, who have so far only played in whitewash's. I reckon George Bailey could very much push into the XI if his form continue's and North will never play again.

Why are people thinking of moving Watson. He is there to stay, he is a opener and there is no reason to move him.

 

[angryangy]

Always neutral in Ashes contests.

 

[drainpipe32]

Hilfy will almost definitely play in Brisbane.

 

[Lee1981]

Aslong as we have swann playing we,ll retain the ashes no problem.
Number one spinner in the world right now....

 

[sifter132]

Why are the Australians so quick to dismiss McKay? He's done nothing wrong as of yet. Bowls a good line, and on a good length, keeps the runs down and takes more than enough wickets.

I agree. His first Test wasn't a great example of his work, but I think he can be a Stuart Clark type bowler eventually. He can be the workhorse, into the wind bowler.

I doubt they will go in without a spinner. Hauritz has been doing well and will probably play.

Agree. Playing 4 quicks (5 really with Watson) is an easy way to get yourself into overrate hell. The Australians are always tardy and even when Hauritz plays they are always behind the rate. 4 quicks would just mean they'd have to resort to 10 rushed Michael Clarke/Mike Hussey overs a day to try and catch up the overs - and I sure as hell don't want to see that.

 

[drainpipe32]

Aslong as we have swann playing we,ll retain the ashes no problem.
Number one spinner in the world right now....

He didn't do much in the last Ashes.

 

[Lee1981]

Didnt do alot in the last ashes are you winding me up?
He didnt take as many wickets as he should have but his all round play was quality, he always creates problems with his bowling.
Am i right in thinking he also took the wicket that deservedly won us back our ashes, Yeah your right he didnt do much...

 

[drainpipe32]

Was he also the guy that was completely useless on a turner in Cardiff, the first innings of Lords, the whole of Edgbaston and Headingley?

He took wickets three times, twice at the Oval on that minefield, and at Lords.

But I'd hardly say he bowled well enough or troubled us enough to 'confirm' that you'll retain the Ashes.

 

[Lee1981]

No spinner bowled well at cardiff to be fair,
And before you go down the hauritz done better than swann road which i asume is coming... stop you now i think,, thats like comparing brazil football team to san marinos. No where near the same league.

 

[War]

Agree. Playing 4 quicks (5 really with Watson) is an easy way to get yourself into overrate hell. The Australians are always tardy and even when Hauritz plays they are always behind the rate. 4 quicks would just mean they'd have to resort to 10 rushed Michael Clarke/Mike Hussey overs a day to try and catch up the overs - and I sure as hell don't want to see that.

IIRC Australia weren't tardy when they pplayed 4 seamers in the Trent Bridge & Oval test nor when they won in South Africa.

Plus we can even take the example of South Africa playing and all-pace attack in this recent test vs England:

4th Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Jan 14-17, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

But its basically a choice based on conditions. Thats why i suggested AUS play an all-pace attack (once all are fit) only in the Brisbane test, since thats the only gorund in AUS where all-pace attack will flourish.

For the other tests, they will have to play Hauritz/Krejza.