The Ashes 2010/11 in Australia

I won't say this English squad is the best they've had for the decade, I rate that squad of 2005 much better, due to the fact that Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff were head and shoulders much better fast bowler than any at present.  You also had Hoggard and Harmison who was still bowling well.  Swann is a much better spinner than the ones present in 2005.

Edited by spin wizard - 17 August 2010 at 4:36am

England's bowling won't be as potent in Australian conditions, particularly Anderson like I pointed out in another thread and this will be emphasised further if they choose only 4 bowlers. Also, England bat low, but if Pietersen doesn't find form then they are certainly lacking some x-factor in their line up. Clarke and Ponting at 3 and 4, 2 guys who average 50+ in test cricket over many years and playing at home makes a big difference. Hussey does well in Australia and Katich and Watson had brilliant summers last year. I definitely think Australia has a better batting line up. Batting is the key in Australia as India have show in the last couple of series, having a good batting line up can win you matches.  

Originally posted by Sledger Ponting's talking codswallop - the only person he's kidding is himself.  To say that the series is in their own hands was downright stupid - they'll be a few visiting cricketers more than happy to prove that statement wrong.             100 days to go and the tosh has started.

I think he meant that his side's performance is in his hands... if they perform well then they should win at home. He qualified his statements. I think you read into him too much. Nothing suggests that Australia is a far superior side. Perhaps at home they are bookies favourites, but nothing more. Australia can win the series , most definitely . I don't think there's any room for over confidence from Australia, but I highly doubt they'll be complacent. If anything, they'll be working harder and harder.

Just one question guys, who all think that Stuart Clark was very foolishly dropped by the Aussies?  I for one think so.  The only bad series from my recollection that he's had in his test career was that series in India, where apart from Ishant Sharma's average of 27, all other seamers average 41+.  The guy took wicket and kept the run rate down.  Imagine having him and Douggie keeping things under control and then the strike bowler of Mitchell Johnson taking up wickets.  Aussies would surely have a lot more games in control as far as i'm concerned.

Siddle taking Douggie spot?  Milkman, I think you've had too many stuff to drink overnight haha

No , Siddle is the favoured bowler - believe me on that. 

not too sure if Hughes deserves a place in the side. Katich and Watson have formed a very good pair so far. I too can't believe the amount of faith the Aussies have shown in North... surely there must be others knocking on the door.

as for bowling Bollinger, Hilfy and Johnson are obvious choices at least for the first test, although Milky is right, even one bad game for Bollinger and Siddle could be in.

Both Johnson and Bollinger were decidely ordinary versus Pakistan in England. Watson and North took the bulk of the wickets if you folks remember, while Hilfenhaus looked alright on his comeback. A lot will depend on this India series and how the fast bowlers play. It will also be Nathan Hauritz's comeback and if he performs poorly then it could well be Steven Smith doing the spin duties for Australia.
North does not warrant a spot in the Australian side. Hughes could well back at 5 or 6, if he's the next best batsman then he can bat anywhere. In Australia, the tradition is that the best batsman in the side opens the batting so that he's exposed to the most deliveries. That's probably why Hughes has opened all his life throughout his youth times.

Hughes is far away better than Khawaja. Khawaja is no where near as consistent or hard working. Hughes should be opening and Watson should bat at no.6. He has 1 ton in 20 tests and 9 50s. That's not a good enough conversion rate for an opener, just compare it to Hayden or Strauss. He needs to bat at 6 also because we need him to take on some of the burden with the old ball. Hughes is a run machine, with the potential of making huge scores. He needs to get first shot and he's a  much , much better option than North. Katich and Hughes have batted together before, in tests and also for NSW. I have no problem with those 2 opening. If not, then Katich can come down and Watson can keep opening.

As others have pointed out Watson's conversion rate is poor.When you factor in his an all rounder and his body is so fragile why risk Watson at the top of the order when you got  a YOUNG sensation in Hughes, a guy who averages 47 in test in Jacques and a run machine in Rogers.Any of those 3 guys can open the batting.I would go with Hughes though.If HUGHES is the best young aussie batsman we have seen since Ponting then he cant be waiting on the sidelines for another 2- 3 years.He needs to be in the team. This Aussie team needs the same spark(hughes) which we saw in the South AFRICAN test series.Hughes being in the side and if he perfroms will lift this Aussie team.Thats what a young sensational batsman can do to a team.I was shocked when he got drop after the second test of the ashes.Poor poor decision.Hughes has a short ball problem like sehwag and just like Sehwag he'll hurt an opposition when set.Good balls fly to the fence and bowlers are left scratching their hands.by the way i think Khawaja is a fine fine player but i would choose Hughes to open the batting ahead of Khawaja everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.Who cares about technique if you can score mountain of runs.Khawaja might be a better technical batsman but Hughes is more damaging and scores more.

I can remember reading somewhere where Shane Warne says its time for Watson to bat down the order.His better able to provide more value to the team down the order, since his an allrounder.He also doesn't bowl as much as he should since he is opening the batting.With Watson swinging the ball like he has shown not only in England but back in AUSTRALIA he can come and bowl first change at times when it really is swinging big.Thats how much i rate his bowling.North first got selected on the basis that he is an allrounder( batting allrounder).Do we really need a batting all rounder now that we have Watson and an ever improving offie in Hauritz?The changes which are to be made are quite obvious, its not rocket science.Why can't the Aussie selectors realise the obvious?Just like they kept batting Hussey at 4 for quite some time when it was obvious a more inform Clarke should be batting at 4.Thankfully they finally realise that.

Too much loyalty in the Australia camp. Hussey could have easily been dropped a long time ago with his poor run of form. I'd like to see some proactive action from the selectors. North has no right to be in the side, especially at age 31, when there's other guys making a shedload more runs than he.

I think Steve Smith will be highly considered for the no.6 spot during the Ashes, he's a proper batsman and if he plays I guess there would be 6 bowlers in the side. Interesting to see if they go down that path.

My preference would be to see Watson drop back down to 6, so he can have more of a role with the ball and then Phillip Hughes opening with his NSW skipper, Katich. Obviously that would mean no room for North, which is no big loss. I'd rather the 22 year old Hughes being given a try than the 31 year old North, he's doing nothing of note. 

Peter Siddle will be vying for a spot and I dare say if Johnson has a poor tour of India it could well be an attack featuring Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Bollinger.

There's a shed load of young fast bowling options, certainly Hilfenhaus is the only one who should be considered a hands down certaintly, while Bollinger is marvellous in home conditions.

Australia tend to do better after losing though...

Originally posted by W.G. Here we go then ..... eyes down for proper cricket against the old enemy.  Always a tough tour and, regardless of form, England will have their work cut out in what looks like being the tightest of series.  Much though my heart pulls me, I fear that the Aussies will scrape it unless we have three bowlers firing throughout the series and taking 18+ wickets each.  Swann will be up for it big time and I really hope he has the series he deserves.  I think Broad will truly come of age with both bat and ball and don't be surprised if he tops 25 wickets and 300 runs, including a good half century or two and maybe another ton.  Finn will be the boy to watch.  If it all comes together he could be the trump card and destroy the Aussies - if not then it could be two tests and out and a bowling attack slightly under-cooked.  Anderson will lead the attack well, but I have a little feeling he may struggle to be a real strike force over there - but if he hits his straps early on then watch out Aussies because to me there is no finer sight than a fired-up Anderson.

You picked out the three key men for England with the bowling: Finn, Broad and Swann. For mine those 3 are the most important and most suited to the conditions in Australia. Swann gets a lot of revs on the ball and the extra bounce and pace will suit him to a tee. While Broad and Finn can use their height and tendency to bowl somewhat short to garner good bounce. If Anderson doesn't adjust from his fuller length he will struggle as the ball won't swing a hell of a lot.
Weakness for England is definitely the batting though. Not due to ability, but mostly form. Collingwood and Pietersen did well last time in Australia, but both are in ordinary nick and someone like Cook you can never really tell if he'll do well or not. He got a ton last time he came down as a younger lad, but he hasn't improved much since then unfortunately. I suppose that makes Strauss the key and it will be interesting to see how Trott and the lower order perform.
In terms of batting Australia definitely have something over England, but England's attack is probably better. Thus making the series very evenly matched, because Australia's strength with the bat is matched by England's strength with the ball and vice versa.

Money would certainly be on Australia as they are playing at home, but England's best ever chance is now and it will make for a marvellous series. I won't be making any predictions though. If the past is anything to go by, it will either be very close or England get thumped. If England get thumped like in 2006/07 then it will be the biggest disappointment, I'm hoping for an evenly poised series and I think that is  very likely.


Edited by milkman - 23 September 2010 at 1:02pm