DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

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

Err, no, I haven't got to be mad, as I said I think there's no chance whatsoever of it.

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.

Err, England showed they aren't that good against GOOD spinners - we've handled average spinners like MacGill perfectly well - such as on the last Ashes tour.

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.

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. Langer has never scored runs infinately, he's not that good. I reckon he was due an average patch.
I also think that no-one can simply keep being hit and coming back from it forever.
In any case - the latest blow was even worse than anything yet.

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.

And I was very careful not to say "I'm near enough certain we'll have the wood over Gilchrist"; I do, though, back us to expose Hayden again, regardless of his form a year before the event.

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?

Err, if 2 of them have absolute horror-stories it's kinda useful.

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

As I said, Australia don't have enough good batsmen - they don't have 7 who I'd say are likely to score runs against the English seam-attack. Their best chance would be to try to fight back by having the strongest attack possible - and we all know that McGrath, Gillespie and Clark can be absolutely lethal on a seamer, and Lee of late has bowled well on 2 or 3 of them, too.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

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.

In cricket there is no such thing as a fact and that's not even close.

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

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

Hayden
Langer

Originally Posted by Richard

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

How pedantic can one be.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

How pedantic can one be.

Much more so than that

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Err, England showed they aren't that good against GOOD spinners - we've handled average spinners like MacGill perfectly well - such as on the last Ashes tour.

First of all MacGill is a bit better than ``average``. Also i think MacGill's control has improved a great deal since the 2002/03 series judging by seeing him bowl this summer i.e he has bowled MUCH less short balls & full tosses. So dont be surprised if he causes England problems if he gets a chance in the ashes.

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. Langer has never scored runs infinately, he's not that good. I reckon he was due an average patch.

Well since the 2001 ashes Langer has been super consistent.

I also think that no-one can simply keep being hit and coming back from it forever.
In any case - the latest blow was even worse than anything yet.[/QUOTE]

Langer was only hit once in the Jo'Burg test, he has just had some unlucky injuries, if it was affecting him you would have saw it in how he batted. He didn't show any signs that he was declining at all. So once he has a injury free start to the pura cup this year, i expect buisness as usual from JL.

[QUOTE=Richard]

Originally Posted by Richard

And I was very careful not to say "I'm near enough certain we'll have the wood over Gilchrist"; I do, though, back us to expose Hayden again, regardless of his form a year before the event.

I have a feeling you will eat your words about Hayden. November 23rd can't come sooner

Originally Posted by Richard

Err, if 2 of them have absolute horror-stories it's kinda useful.

Well probably, but once you got 5 VERY GOOD bowlers like the options like Australia would have not many batting sides would be making big runs againts you. Its better to pick the next batsman.

Originally Posted by Richard

As I said, Australia don't have enough good batsmen - they don't have 7 who I'd say are likely to score runs against the English seam-attack. Their best chance would be to try to fight back by having the strongest attack possible - and we all know that McGrath, Gillespie and Clark can be absolutely lethal on a seamer, and Lee of late has bowled well on 2 or 3 of them, too.

Its an option, but looking back at the ashes Warne caused England much headaches, during Australia 10 years plus of dominace the 4 man attack of McGrath/Gillespie Warne & Lee, Kasper, Fleming has done the trick. So once the current 4 are bowling well i think that will be enough to counter England.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

In cricket there is no such thing as a fact and that's not even close.

Judging by the ashes i think it is. England had the measure of Australia's batting, but when Australia bowled after the lord's test the only consistent treat England got came from Warne & even with that the Test England won were tight contest.

Look at how McGrath bowled at Lord's, all Australia & Warne needed was his champion partner fully fit for all 5 test & England definately would not have made 3 consecutive 400 totals batting 1st which put Australia back a lot.

I admit it probably isn't a FACT that if pigeon had played all 5 test fully fit Australia would have had the ashes.But in most cases i think if that were the case one would have to assume that with those 2 bowling well together that Australia would not lose a series.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

How pedantic can one be.

Very.
For some reason it always annoys me when people get opening-pairs which are always the same the wrong way around.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

First of all MacGill is a bit better than ``average``. Also i think MacGill's control has improved a great deal since the 2002/03 series judging by seeing him bowl this summer i.e he has bowled MUCH less short balls & full tosses. So dont be surprised if he causes England problems if he gets a chance in the ashes.

No, he hasn't, he's just been punished less for them. I've watched pretty well, and I've lost count of the number he got away with.
I find it near enough impossible that MacGill could be average for so long then become good at 35 or however old he is.
MacGill is no better than "average", and has been poor since 2000\01 (Third Test).

Well since the 2001 ashes Langer has been super consistent.

No more so than 1998\99 to 2000\01.
Langer has ALWAYS had fallow periods - he's not good enough not to.
He is good enough, though, to cash-in big-time when he's going well.

Langer was only hit once in the Jo'Burg test, he has just had some unlucky injuries, if it was affecting him you would have saw it in how he batted. He didn't show any signs that he was declining at all. So once he has a injury free start to the pura cup this year, i expect buisness as usual from JL.

You expect a lot, then.
Tough a WAn as he is - being hit on the head 5 or 6 times (may be more - it's certainly 3 just while batting) will inevitably eventually take it's toll.
Whether that time will be now I'm not sure - something simply tells me it might be.

I have a feeling you will eat your words about Hayden. November 23rd can't come sooner

You had that feeling in 2005, too...

Well probably, but once you got 5 VERY GOOD bowlers like the options like Australia would have not many batting sides would be making big runs againts you. Its better to pick the next batsman.

It generally is, but if you had 5 VERY GOOD bowlers and 2 of them had horror-stories (happened with Kasprowicz and Gillespie in The Ashes - both are undeniably VERY GOOD bowlers, though with Tait and Lee in there with them it reduced Australia's stocks to 3, with Warne).

Its an option, but looking back at the ashes Warne caused England much headaches, during Australia 10 years plus of dominace the 4 man attack of McGrath/Gillespie Warne & Lee, Kasper, Fleming has done the trick. So once the current 4 are bowling well i think that will be enough to counter England.

It's a guess to think Lee will bowl well.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

Judging by the ashes i think it is. England had the measure of Australia's batting, but when Australia bowled after the lord's test the only consistent treat England got came from Warne & even with that the Test England won were tight contest.

Look at how McGrath bowled at Lord's, all Australia & Warne needed was his champion partner fully fit for all 5 test & England definately would not have made 3 consecutive 400 totals batting 1st which put Australia back a lot.

I admit it probably isn't a FACT that if pigeon had played all 5 test fully fit Australia would have had the ashes.But in most cases i think if that were the case one would have to assume that with those 2 bowling well together that Australia would not lose a series.

The Lord's pitch was quite unlike the middle 3 pitches.
Yes, it's quite likely had McGrath played England wouldn't have made so big scores, but it's far from certain.

[Jono]

Ponting doesn't know how to handle 5 bowlers properly Richard, I hardly see how Australia picking 6 would work. You'd just have MacGill doing nothing for 80 overs.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Whether Ponting can handle them or not is beside the point, which is that the entire idea is completely insane. Not only is six bowlers pointless when your bowlers are actually any good, but it terminally weakens the batting.

Why six bowlers anyway? We can agree that Warne is likely to bowl well, yes? Given that he is a good bowler? So you're going to want him to be bowling say 20 overs out of every set of 80, at least. This is ignoring the fact that, however, awful you might think the batsmen are, having seven batsmen averaging 30+ is better than having five batsmen averaging 40+, and it's much, much more likely.

[Hoggy31]

6 bowlers?! That's just ludicrous.

Anyway,
I'd still say Clark is ahead of Gillespie even with the double hundred and all, Clark took wickets against proven opposition in South Africa. I'd still like to see Australia play 5 bowlers. McGrath, Lee and Warne are probably the integral 3, whereas Clark, MacGill and Gillespie could probably be rotated depending on the pitch conditions. Also if Watson has a good county stint with the ball I'd like to see him play as the fifth bowler. As for the batting, I think the top 5 is pretty much set in Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn and Hussey.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Can not understand, if someone watched the last Ashes series, why they would want Australia to play five bowlers this coming summer. In effect, people are saying that they want an already-fading Adam Gilchrist (have a look at his form in South Africa) to bat at number six, against an attack which totally exposed him last time, and which even reduced the great Ricky Ponting to an average of 37. Yet people still want to shorten the batting line-up?

Regarding Australia's bowling, our problem was not the number of overs we took to knock England over last time (I doubt they batted more than 100 overs on two occasions). Rather, it was the number of runs that we conceded in those overs. That is no basis for picking five bowlers - which Australia should only ever do in the most barren of conditions (West Indies 2003 etc) - rather, it demands a better line and length from the four bowlers that are picked, than the fare served up last time by the likes of Kasprowicz and Gillespie.

I'll repeat what I said on another thread that Australia's search for a fifth bowling option only ever came about when one or two of our four bowlers was bowling rubbish in England. Four bowlers, bowling well, more than sustained Australia through our golden period. That at least one of our attack was bowling rubbish, in one series, is no basis for shortening an already struggling batting line-up, and picking five bowlers, and exposing the likes of Warne and Lee at number seven. Nor is it a basis for picking an inadequate batsman like Symonds in the top six.

Regarding Gillespie...I still think Clark is definitely ahead. Against Australia's last quality opposition, Clark excelled and won man of the series. By contrast, Gillespie struggled against England, New Zealand and Pakistan. Gillespie's omission from the team in 2005 was as a result of a gradual decline, not an isolated bad patch of form. Moreover, I think the selectors will find it hard to pick Gillespie, first up at the Gabba, when they haven't seen him bowl to quality Test opponents since he got dropped. And against the very same batting line-up that exposed him last time. Granted, he would be next in line if an injury were to occur.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jono

Ponting doesn't know how to handle 5 bowlers properly Richard, I hardly see how Australia picking 6 would work. You'd just have MacGill doing nothing for 80 overs.

Unless 2 of the seamers bowled a heap of crap a la Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Whether Ponting can handle them or not is beside the point, which is that the entire idea is completely insane. Not only is six bowlers pointless when your bowlers are actually any good, but it terminally weakens the batting.

Why six bowlers anyway? We can agree that Warne is likely to bowl well, yes? Given that he is a good bowler? So you're going to want him to be bowling say 20 overs out of every set of 80, at least. This is ignoring the fact that, however, awful you might think the batsmen are, having seven batsmen averaging 30+ is better than having five batsmen averaging 40+, and it's much, much more likely.

How many times?
I don't think it's in the slightest likely - nor did I say it was unquestionably the best strategy.
If I supported Australia I'd want 6 batsmen, 5 bowlers.
Incidentally - WR Warne, yes, he's likely to bowl well, but so were Gillespie and Kasprowicz in 2005. Sometimes even the most likely of things don't come to pass.