Are Australia a better side now than 12-18 months ago?

[LongHopCassidy]

Yep, they're a better side. They've offloaded what were their biggest liabilities in 2005 - Gillespie and Kasprowicz - and replaced them with people like Clark and Lee, the latter who was chomping for a spot for a year before the Ashes. They've also shown that they're prepared to take MacGill seriously as Warnie's shoulder becomes a scientific phenomenon.

The other biggie has been Hussey, turning the Australian weakness in the middle order into a strength. He's consistently the only or among the only batsmen to put a price on their wicket every innings. Why he wasn't picked during the Ashes I'll never know.

[howardj]

I don't think Australia are a much better side. Has McGrath improved? Martyn? Langer? Gilchrist? Warne, I'd guess, is more susceptible to injuries - last year he almost missed the Hobart Test because of general back soreness, which he apparently struggled with during that six Test Match stretch.

It's drawing a long bow to suggest that the development of Lee and Hussey last summer counter-balances the above. Besides, Lee didn't get have the batsmen attacking him last summer, like he did in the Ashes. England, if their past performances against him are any guide, won't prod Lee back down the pitch like Kallis did.

Not that it's all doom and gloom for Australia though. They're very hard to beat at home - the pitches and general climate are very unforgiving. Furthermore, there's no surprise or ambush element with England this year. Australia know how good England are, and will treat them accordingly. Australia 3-2.

[White Lion]

my first ever post on this forum btw -Wooo!

as ppl are doing their Ashes predictions... (it is still the beginning of September, right?!)

2-2, with eng therefore retaining Ashes, and why?

Adelaide for me is a major factor to bear in mind -injuries permitting the aussies are guarenteed to play both MacGill and Warne. MacGill has out-performed Warne (purely on a wickets tally) most of the times they have played together in their careers, Adelaide will in the optinion of various top-rated Aussie batsmen "turn square", and Eng are generally poor against spin, particularly if both Cookie and Bellie bat in the top 5.

With the aussies likely to win that match, unless Panesar does a 'Jim Laker', Eng will be hard pressed to stop the aussies winning just one more game out of the other four, so if Eng play at their absolute best, that's my prediction: 2-2

[grecian]

Good first post, and a good prediction too.

Mines 5-0 to Australia, I'm hoping for the McGrath-effect.

[Laurrz]

Originally Posted by howardj

I don't think Australia are a much better side. Has McGrath improved? Martyn? Langer? Gilchrist? Warne, I'd guess, is more susceptible to injuries - last year he almost missed the Hobart Test because of general back soreness, which he apparently struggled with during that six Test Match stretch.

It's drawing a long bow to suggest that the development of Lee and Hussey last summer counter-balances the above. Besides, Lee didn't get have the batsmen attacking him last summer, like he did in the Ashes. England, if their past performances against him are any guide, won't prod Lee back down the pitch like Kallis did.

Not that it's all doom and gloom for Australia though. They're very hard to beat at home - the pitches and general climate are very unforgiving. Furthermore, there's no surprise or ambush element with England this year. Australia know how good England are, and will treat them accordingly. Australia 3-2.

McGrath would not be injured
Langer would be the same i recn
Gilchrist i recn wold be better at home.. a lot better
and Warne is a champ and loves bowling against the English

i agree very much with the lee comment tho... but if England are prepared to attack em..then good on em...they may or may not do well tho..always a risk esp,. on our bouncy wickets

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Australia's area of concern is still the middle order. They must score runs between 4 and 7 to consistently put pressure on England, rather than scoring between 4 and 7 runs each, like they did in England last year.

I think its interesting that while everyone is talking about Englands weaknesses, no one has mentioned how Australia's batting has been rather meek since the Ashes. Bar Ponting, Hayden and Hussey all of whom have undergone golden patches since the Ashes, the rest(Gilchrist, Martyn, Langer, Clarke) have been in dismal touch. I also desperately hope that symonds is picked as their number 6 as that would only make their middle order even more brittle.
The only concern i have about this England side is the bowling. Plunkett is clearly rubbish, Mahmood seems to bowl 1 good spell every 5 innings, Harmison is hardly much better, there are still question marks about Hoggard without swing(despite his success in the subcontinent), and with Anderson and Jones unlikely to be match fit by the time, it really will come down to how well flintoff and Panesar bowl.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Strauss is solid but the extra bounce out here is a factor he will have to adjust to.

Actually if anything Strauss should be more comfortable on bouncy wickets given his penchant for cutting and pulling and his relative weakness against swing. One must remember that his best series came in SA on what you may say are similar wickets, and his worst patch coincided with playing on slow, low pitches of the subcontinent.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Don't get me wrong, Australia are favourites rightfully. But all this talk of England being embarassed and vastly inferior, it's crazy, crazy, crazy. We've not learnt very much about either side since last year. All the learning will be done this winter. We are 7-2. Worth a tenner if you ask me.

To defeat Australia in Australia would be tougher than defeating them in home conditions. It is debatable whether Australia has strengthened or not but I think they are much better placed now than last time to win the series and the only danger I see is if England's spinners (mostly Panesar) plays an important role.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by howardj

I don't think Australia are a much better side. Has McGrath improved? Martyn? Langer? Gilchrist? Warne, I'd guess, is more susceptible to injuries - last year he almost missed the Hobart Test because of general back soreness, which he apparently struggled with during that six Test Match stretch.

It's drawing a long bow to suggest that the development of Lee and Hussey last summer counter-balances the above. Besides, Lee didn't get have the batsmen attacking him last summer, like he did in the Ashes. England, if their past performances against him are any guide, won't prod Lee back down the pitch like Kallis did.

Not that it's all doom and gloom for Australia though. They're very hard to beat at home - the pitches and general climate are very unforgiving. Furthermore, there's no surprise or ambush element with England this year. Australia know how good England are, and will treat them accordingly. Australia 3-2.

Seconded.

[burr]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

Yep, they're a better side. They've offloaded what were their biggest liabilities in 2005 - Gillespie and Kasprowicz - and replaced them with people like Clark and Lee,

But that's the problem isn't it? We haven't off-loaded Gillespie. He's still hanging around - now that is depressing.

I really think we're not much better - if anything, slightly worse. There must be precious little new talent out there because all these oldies are getting another shot. As much as I hate to say it, and as much as he is my absolute fav, how did Marto get a recall? If there was the talent of the 93 era that would never have happened.

We may still win, b/c of home ground advantage and b/c England may not be as primed, but I don't think we are better. Having said that, I don't care if we no longer dominate. There's excitement this summer, like there hasn't been since the early 90s. Cricket has been re-born and there is no doubt that is thanks to the renewed End-Aus rivarly. So bring it on - let it be close, bitter and above all, exciting.

[valvolux]

You know i don't think we are better than 18 months ago...but I don't think we need to be. We had some awful luck, faced some suspiciously good swing bowling and just didn't find any touch. It was a big series, but it was one series. As arrogant as Hayden was saying that it only mattered how well the australians played...he is dead right, and many of our key players didn't play well. Huss is a massive inclusion, Clark is better than what Gillespie was a year ago and we are going into this series better prepared than any before. The confidence that england seems to have is that we seemingly haven't made any changes - I don't think we needed to make many changes, we just need to play better, and there's no doubt we can. Our team has incredible fighting spirit and are incredibly hard to beat, even if we are seemingly getting flogged. We only need to improve by 20% on 2005 to beat these guys...I think we've probably gained 10-15 from getting rid of Dizzy and getting in Huss...but the key is the rest of the side have another 60-80 up their sleeves from last year.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Barney Rubble

Of course he was "pumping up" England - last time I checked, the Wirral was a long way from Wollongong.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Who am I confusing him with that was in form then scored next to nothing then?

Adam Gilchrist perhaps. He dominated NZ (as he always does) before the Ashes.

[valvolux]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Adam Gilchrist perhaps. He dominated NZ (as he always does) before the Ashes.

and marto...he was red hot fav to take out the AB medal about a month before the ashes after making about 6 tons in the calendar year. he was still in red hot form and batted beautifully with clarke in tough conditions in the 1st test....followed by two nicks onto pads given out leg before and the rest is history. he's still the most stylish batsmen in test cricket since mark waugh - he looked on song in that final test against the Saffers..but he becomes complacent at times when he becomes too comfortable in his position. As there's currently very little comfort sitting in at number 4 for australia, look for a red hot series from him this time around.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by valvolux

and marto...he was red hot fav to take out the AB medal about a month before the ashes after making about 6 tons in the calendar year. he was still in red hot form and batted beautifully with clarke in tough conditions in the 1st test....followed by two nicks onto pads given out leg before and the rest is history. he's still the most stylish batsmen in test cricket since mark waugh - he looked on song in that final test against the Saffers..but he becomes complacent at times when he becomes too comfortable in his position. As there's currently very little comfort sitting in at number 4 for australia, look for a red hot series from him this time around.

EDIT just realised you were talking about Martyn. Fair enough.