Unofficial Buildup to the 2010/11 Ashes

[drainpipe32]

Hauritz undoubtedly had a more consistent Ashes than Swann. Six wickets in Cardiff? Fairly good, compared to the 1/200 odd Monty and Swann could gather.

 

[sifter132]

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

Well I'm afraid they were. Headingly didn't matter so much because England didn't stay in the full day and therefore Ponting couldn't get penalised for over rates. Here's some figures I've gathered from the scorecards:

Day 1 at Headingly: England bowled out in 33 overs
to lunch: 24.5 overs - 6 wickets lost
England bowled out in next session

Day 2 at Headingly: England batted for final session
to stumps: 32 overs - 5 wickets lost (not sure if this was more than 2.5 hrs or not - could have been since tea was taken on the last Australian wicket)

Day 3 at Headingly: England resumes
to lunch: 24 overs - 3 wickets
England bowled out after lunch.


Day 1 at the Oval: England batted all day
to lunch: 26 overs -1 wicket lost
to tea: 27 overs - 2 wickets lost
to stumps: 32.3 overs (in 2.5 hrs) - 5 wickets lost
Total: 85.3 overs with the 30 min overtime and 8 wickets down

Day 3 at the Oval: England batting
to lunch: 27 overs - 1 wicket lost
to tea: 28 overs - 3 wickets lost
England declared in last session

Considering Marcus North bowled 44 overs in that Oval Test that is a very tardy over rate. You need to bowl 28 per session and 34 in the last long session if you want to have the 90 overs bowled - allowing for the 30 minute extension. Australia did that once in the 8 full sessions they bowled and that was the session where North bowled unchanged from one end! Even then, they only bowled 28.

The only way I'd consider playing 4 quicks is if the pitch is an absolute minefield. That's the only way Australia will get away with the over rate, by bowling out a team quickly on a greentop. Headingly was a good call as they skittled England quickly, but anything with less assistance for the quicks - no way.

And remember that Watson is available and is a solid 4th fast man. I'm not sure why we need to pick a marginal 4th seamer. If the 3 regulars plus Watson can't do the job then I really don't think the 4th guy is going to make all the difference.

 

[Lee1981]

Probable England team for first Ashes test in Australia 2010.

1. Strauss(c)
2. Cook
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Bell
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Sidebottom/ Onions
11. Anderson

I would personally pick sidebottom if he,s fit over onions any day,
Anyone got any other suggestions to the line up, i believe this is pretty much a nailed on side.

 

[MUFC1987]

Kieswetter instead of Bell. Definately Onions or someone else over Sidebottom too.

 

[Kiko_97]

My team for 1st test.

1. Strauss(C)
2. Cook
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Kieswetter/Prior (wk)
7. Wright
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Onions/Shahzad

 

[drainpipe32]

Strauss to get out lbw to Hilfenhaus within the first four overs.

 

[Owzat]

I would like to win the Ashes England

But the English Players Struggle on the Aussie soil so THIS Could BE THE RESULT;

Australia 2

England 1

England struggle on tours full-stop, against decent opposition. Last decent tour series win was South Africa in 04/05, we've drawn one or two series but lost too many - in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, down under 06/07 and even lost in West Indies. We're too inconsistent, incapable of realising that five bowlers might work in England but not overseas BUT maybe Flintoff's retirement may force us to play just four despite Michael Yawn suggesting we need five (how was he ever captain?!?!)

Last time we won down under was in 86/87, we had a great and in-form side back then.

ASHES 86/87

Broad : 487 runs @ 69.57
Gower : 404 runs @ 57.71
Gatting : 393 runs @ 43.67
Richards (wk) : 264 runs @ 37.71
Emburey : 179 runs @ 35.80
Athey : 303 runs @ 33.67
Botham : 189 runs @ 31.50

Small : 12 wkts @ 15.00
Dilley : 16 wkts @ 31.94
Botham : 9 wkts @ 32.89
Edmonds : 15 wkts @ 35.87
Emburey : 18 wkts @ 36.83

More resembles our 2005 series than our 06/07. The only Test an Englishman didn't score a hundred in was the last when the series was over (2-0) Even then the aussies only won by 55 runs.

 

[King Pietersen]

Probable England team for first Ashes test in Australia 2010.

1. Strauss(c)
2. Cook
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Bell
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Sidebottom/ Onions
11. Anderson

I would personally pick sidebottom if he,s fit over onions any day,
Anyone got any other suggestions to the line up, i believe this is pretty much a nailed on side.

I wouldn't. Sidebottom's not been any good since 2008, we need to move on. He's looked terrible in the past few months, despite being supposedly fit now. Agree with the rest of the side though, I don't think we'll see much change from that side, except the possibility of Trott being dropped. I expect to see Matt Prior keeping wicket in Test cricket come the Ashes.

 

[Lee1981]

I think since prior came back into the team he has done well and should definately be first choice keeper,
Maybe your right about syd i do like the way he gets fired up though,also agree about trott he has to put in some performances this summer or he will be out.

 

[War]

My team for 1st test.

1. Strauss(C)
2. Cook
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Collingwood
6. Kieswetter/Prior (wk)
7. Wright
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Anderson
11. Onions/Shahzad

Luke Wright must NEVER play test cricket.

Plus based on what i saw of Shahazad in those two T20s vs Pakistan he aint nothing special at the moment. Better back-up options would be Tremlett (if he has a good season for surrey) & Boyd Rankin (if he decides to play for England).

 

[War]

Well I'm afraid they were. Headingly didn't matter so much because England didn't stay in the full day and therefore Ponting couldn't get penalised for over rates. Here's some figures I've gathered from the scorecards:

Day 1 at Headingly: England bowled out in 33 overs
to lunch: 24.5 overs - 6 wickets lost
England bowled out in next session

Day 2 at Headingly: England batted for final session
to stumps: 32 overs - 5 wickets lost (not sure if this was more than 2.5 hrs or not - could have been since tea was taken on the last Australian wicket)

Day 3 at Headingly: England resumes
to lunch: 24 overs - 3 wickets
England bowled out after lunch.


Day 1 at the Oval: England batted all day
to lunch: 26 overs -1 wicket lost
to tea: 27 overs - 2 wickets lost
to stumps: 32.3 overs (in 2.5 hrs) - 5 wickets lost
Total: 85.3 overs with the 30 min overtime and 8 wickets down

Day 3 at the Oval: England batting
to lunch: 27 overs - 1 wicket lost
to tea: 28 overs - 3 wickets lost
England declared in last session

Considering Marcus North bowled 44 overs in that Oval Test that is a very tardy over rate. You need to bowl 28 per session and 34 in the last long session if you want to have the 90 overs bowled - allowing for the 30 minute extension. Australia did that once in the 8 full sessions they bowled and that was the session where North bowled unchanged from one end! Even then, they only bowled 28.

All true. But even so i dont recall the match referee fining Australia in the 4th & 5th tests for these overates though, so i guess they didn't have a problem with it overall.

Plus what about in South Africa 2009 when AUS played 4 seamers too, the overates where probably similar i those two tests & the match ref didn't do anything.

The only way I'd consider playing 4 quicks is if the pitch is an absolute minefield. That's the only way Australia will get away with the over rate, by bowling out a team quickly on a greentop. Headingly was a good call as they skittled England quickly, but anything with less assistance for the quicks - no way.

And remember that Watson is available and is a solid 4th fast man. I'm not sure why we need to pick a marginal 4th seamer. If the 3 regulars plus Watson can't do the job then I really don't think the 4th guy is going to make all the difference.

Because the strenght is in the pace attack & AUS don't have a really test quality spinner right now.

Look at the South African team of the 90s for example. For the majority of the 90s they went into tests without a spinner. They only played the likes of Symcox, Adams, Eskteen on sub-continental tours or on real turners. The majority of the time 4 & 5 man pace attacks where employed & look how successful they where.

I have always been of the opinion AUS in this post Warne/MacGill era in test should adpot that approach. AUS wont even have to worry about the scenario of not having a spinner to exploit a wearing 5th day pitch - since in Watson/Hilfenhaus/Bollinger have alreayd showed that they can reverse swing the ball. Which would equally effective on a wearing pitch.

 

[angryangy]

They're not just going to magically roll teams for 200 just because they have no spinner. Any time the opposition makes a decent go of their innings, the five man pace attack will be rooted. It's far more of a liability than it is an advantage.

 

[sifter132]

All true. But even so i dont recall the match referee fining Australia in the 4th & 5th tests for these overates though, so i guess they didn't have a problem with it overall.

Plus what about in South Africa 2009 when AUS played 4 seamers too, the overates where probably similar i those two tests & the match ref didn't do anything.

I only had a brief look at the SA over rates. I think they were better than the ones in England. Better in that they actually bowled 28 overs in a session more than once, but they still weren't 'good'. Reason? I think that's possibly because 1) McDonald was one of the 4 quicks and doesn't take so long to bowl his overs as Stuart Clark, and 2) because the Aussie bowlers did a much better job of bowling maidens against SA and keeping the scoring quiet hence overs being bowled quicker. I remember posting about it a while ago, but the economy rates in SA were under 3 for ALL the bowlers, yet in the Ashes Siddle and Johnson were about 4 from memory and the others were about 3-3.5.


And for me personally, I'm a little gobsmacked we've never had a problem with the match referees. To me Australia is always one of the tardiest teams and yet we've never had a suspension. Teams like West Indies and New Zealand seem to have no problem racing through their overs, but Australia can't for some reason.

Because the strenght is in the pace attack & AUS don't have a really test quality spinner right now.

Look at the South African team of the 90s for example. For the majority of the 90s they went into tests without a spinner. They only played the likes of Symcox, Adams, Eskteen on sub-continental tours or on real turners. The majority of the time 4 & 5 man pace attacks where employed & look how successful they where.

I have always been of the opinion AUS in this post Warne/MacGill era in test should adpot that approach. AUS wont even have to worry about the scenario of not having a spinner to exploit a wearing 5th day pitch - since in Watson/Hilfenhaus/Bollinger have alreayd showed that they can reverse swing the ball. Which would equally effective on a wearing pitch.

I guess I just have more faith in Hauritz than you do. And I'm not convinced that 5 quicks will do what 4 can't. Hauritz was doing an excellent job of bowling in the 15-50 over period of the ball, so the quicks could rest up and get ready for reverse swing.

Plus there is the over rate concern. And that to me wipes out any advantage that a 4th quick would have because if you play all quicks you're gonna have to bowl Marcus North for 10-15 overs a day. So it's a matter of weighing up:
Is 10-15 overs of North + 15-20 overs of a 4th quick better than 20-25 overs of Hauritz and 10 overs of Watson?

I don't think so. Watson is clearly better than North and your 4th quick won't be outbowling Hauritz by much unless it's a 1st or 2nd day seamers deck.

The only way I can see an extra quick working is if they select Steve Smith to bat at #6 or 7 with 4 quicks below him. That way you actually have a spinner if the pitch takes spin and he's more threatening than a part time spinner like North or Clarke. You could do that for the 3rd Test for example in Perth if Australia is behind. It gives them an extra quick bowler and a more attacking outlook with 5 bowlers, plus Watson.

 

[Owzat]

Luke Wright must NEVER play test cricket.

Seconded. Not even sure he is up to ODI cricket, his bowling is ok for county cricket where he can bowl a few overs and so can other bit-part bowling batsmen, but in ODIs we need as many who will bowl their 10 most of the time as possible. Tests he'd just be bowling maybe 5-10 overs most Tests, not much more than Collingwood could/would/should, and his batting may not be up to the sterner examination that is Test bowling

Plus based on what i saw of Shahazad in those two T20s vs Pakistan he aint nothing special at the moment. Better back-up options would be Tremlett (if he has a good season for surrey) & Boyd Rankin (if he decides to play for England).

Tremlett if he stays fit surely? But whatever we do do, not Sajid Mahmood, no to Batty boy. Players with three years of full season county experience, players who stand out and not just ones who look ok on the county circuit. Personally I think the ODI scene should be the tester for Tests, plenty of past Test greats played ODIs then Tests.

 

[King Pietersen]

Owzat, just whatever you do, do not bring Mark Davies into this discussion. You've mentioned County Experience, and bowlers who stand out, and given County records Davies stands out more than most. But you do not want to get into a discussion with "War" about Davies. Dire doesn't even begin to sum it up. As far as I'm concerned though, Mark Davies should definitely be up for consideration for the Ashes tour, should he have another exceptional season.