DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[Richard]

As I say - I reckon Clarke, Hayden, Martyn and Langer are likely to play about as many decisive innings as Warne, Lee and Gillespie.
And in the absence of any better alternatives - bowlers who can bat a bit are enough for me.
Especially when you're in control of the pitches.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Richard

As I say - I reckon Clarke, Hayden, Martyn and Langer are likely to play about as many decisive innings as Warne, Lee and Gillespie.
And in the absence of any better alternatives - bowlers who can bat a bit are enough for me.
Especially when you're in control of the pitches.

You're unbelievable! I dub this the unfortunate six-bowler theory.

How in the world do you expect Australia to utilize 6 front-line bowlers in a Test innings against any opposition in this day and age? Even with 5 bowlers there tends to be one or two who don't get much of a bowl, and I'm wondering how exactly they justify their place if they bowl just a handful of overs.

Unbelievable!

[oz_fan]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.
I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.
I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much.
So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

So you want six bowlers when one of them (Warne) is going to bowl at least one third of the overs?

[sqwerty]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.
I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.
I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much.
So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

are you taking the p!ss?

6 specialist bowlers?? You can only use 2 at a time......what's the point having 6?

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

[Linda]

Apart from anything else, Ponting can barely handle 4 bowlers properly. 6 is asking too much of the young fella.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Linda

Apart from anything else, Ponting can barely handle 4 bowlers properly. 6 is asking too much of the young fella.

Good point.

Australia were found wanting with 4 bowlers last summer IMO, and it was where having an all-rounder, and the best one in the world at that, really paid off, tail comes in at the same point but you have one extra bowler. But I think it's obvious that Australia don't have an all-rounder good enough to help them beat England. You don't want Warne coming in at 7 do you? It's all well and good against Bangladesh, but you're facing the best attack in the world now! So I think the Aussies will have to go with 4 bowlers, but whatever they do I suspect they will be a little short either way.

[James]

Originally Posted by sqwerty

are you taking the p!ss?

6 specialist bowlers?? You can only use 2 at a time......what's the point having 6?

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

The filter is there for a reason!

[Great Birtannia]

My preferred Ashes Line up at this point in time would be:

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Jaques (He only moved to open to get a game at NSW!!!)
Hussey
Gilchrist
Lee
Gillespie
Warne
MacGill
McGrath

Playing Martyn and Clarke is a waste of time. Neither earned their recall to the team and both will fail again against the English attack. We need to take the risk and play 5 bowlers. Symonds failed and Watson wasn't given a proper run and with all the injuries it is too late for him this time around, forget an allrounder completely.

To that end, the Gabba pitch will be far more responsive, and generally I think, in Australian conditions, Clark has his nose in front of Dizzy

Disagree.

Clark has never really excelled in FC cricket in Australia. Remove the last 12 months of Gillespie's test career and it is faultless especially considering the amount of injuries he has had to overcome. He has went back to Pura Cup cricket and done all that he could possibly have been asked to. The selectors would be regretting not taking him to SA ahead of Kaspa, that would have been a much better measuring stick to see where he is at. As long as he averages under 30 for Yorkshire he is a lock for the side IMO.

[aussie]

. You got to be mad, there is no way Australia will or should play 6 BOWLERS in the ashes.

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do
I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.

Why? England showed in the Ashes and in Pakistan/India that they still aren't good againts spin especially leg-spinners, so if conditions are helpul you would be foolish to say MacGill wouldn't cause England many problems.

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.

Langer even though he was hit ONCE still looked in decent form. He may not have had the big socres since the ashes but thats simply because of the injuries he had. Its not as if he looked as if he was losing it at all. I'm very sure if he had an injury free summer, Langer would have had big runs.

Originally Posted by Richard

I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much..

I'd give you Martyn & Clark (more so) but not Hayden judging on his current batting form. I think it would be tempting fate to judge FOR CERTAIN how Gilly would do, i think he will get one or two big innings though.

Originally Posted by Richard

So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill.

The idea of picking 6 bowlers in modern day cricket yet alone for the ashes is absolutely absurd. How is a captain suppose to utilize all those bowlers in a match?

Originally Posted by Richard

As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

This sounds a bit more realistic, but unlikely to happen since Australia need the batting equally as much, so more likely Australia will play 6 bats instead of 5 bowlers.

As i just mentioned the only batsmen in the side that may struggle againts England's pace attack are Martyn, Clarke & Gilly. The rest i'm confindent of doing well

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

Playing Martyn and Clarke is a waste of time. Neither earned their recall to the team and both will fail again against the English attack.

A bit of a over-reaction here i think. Martyn is going down a bit i wont doubt that, but i dont think he will be an absolute waste of time if he plays in the ashes. We MUST not forget that in the ashes Martyn was really worked out by the English bowlers a la Hayden & Gilchrist, he suffered from a lot of bad decision and bad shots. IMO if luck can be on his side this time his experience will be vital.

Clark on the other hand, may fail yes but there is a chance he can make runs. After all he wasn't exactly hopeless during the ashes. All he needs to his adapt better shot selection and he'll be ok. If not Brad Hodge is another option.

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

We need to take the risk and play 5 bowlers. Symonds failed and Watson wasn't given a proper run and with all the injuries it is too late for him this time around, forget an allrounder completely.

The 5 bowlers policy is an option but as i just mentioned, playing the 6 batsmen is equally as important as that. In Australia's dominace the 4 bowler policy was very successful, in the ashes Australia missed that. Warne was the only consistent treat after lord's to England.

Its a fact that if McGrath could have played 5 test fully fit along with Warne bowling so well the ashes would have still been with Australia. Englands batting has its question marks so IMO the rejuvenated 4-man attack of McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Warne will be enough to beat England.

Also for now until the ashes is over the ``all-rounder`` option should be put on hold. But afterwards it will be definately needed with McGrath & Warne nearing retirement, the need for all-rounder will be vital. Shane Watson is the man wo has showed that promise at FC level so hopefully he will able to fill that role in the near future.

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

As long as he averages under 30 for Yorkshire he is a lock for the side IMO.

This is for damn sure..

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

My preferred Ashes Line up at this point in time would be:

Hayden
Langer

Just not gonna happen.
Since the first time they opened together, Langer has ALWAYS faced first.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

You're unbelievable! I dub this the unfortunate six-bowler theory.

How in the world do you expect Australia to utilize 6 front-line bowlers in a Test innings against any opposition in this day and age? Even with 5 bowlers there tends to be one or two who don't get much of a bowl, and I'm wondering how exactly they justify their place if they bowl just a handful of overs.

Unbelievable!

You think after the Gillespie-Kasprowcz horror-story that many Australians wouldn't have been greatful for 6 bowlers last summer?
As I said, though - I wasn't being entirely serious.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by oz_fan

So you want six bowlers when one of them (Warne) is going to bowl at least one third of the overs?

You know that for fact, do you?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by sqwerty

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

I hardly think they're not.
There's no reason to presume it's less likely than more.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Good point.

Australia were found wanting with 4 bowlers last summer IMO, and it was where having an all-rounder, and the best one in the world at that, really paid off, tail comes in at the same point but you have one extra bowler. But I think it's obvious that Australia don't have an all-rounder good enough to help them beat England. You don't want Warne coming in at 7 do you? It's all well and good against Bangladesh, but you're facing the best attack in the world now! So I think the Aussies will have to go with 4 bowlers, but whatever they do I suspect they will be a little short either way.

As I say - the fact that they're facing the best attack in The World (hopefully, of course) means that batsmen and bowlers-who-bat are not as different as otherwise.