Jones reinstated behind stumps

[tooextracool]

He bowls some outswingers but the main problem has been an inability to land 2 consecutive balls in the same place

It's a shame - the guy's got talent.

Did he bowl them in the warm up games? Im certain he used to be able to bowl them about a year or so ago, but since hes remodeled his action, hes looked a completely different bowler.
Also his accuracy, he was quite accurate in the Mumbai test, if he can bowl anything like he did in that test he'd be quite a handful.

 

[tooextracool]

And of course "should not have been in the team at all" was a comment based on hindsight. Because using hindsight, Hayden should still have been selected as he entered the series as an experienced player. In hindsight, Bell shouldn't have been.

Bell certainly deserved to start the series. Whether he deserved as many games as he got is another story,but i certainly respect the policy of not changing a winning side.

 

[tooextracool]

MacGill could have done as bad a job.

exactly, at worst he would have done just as poorly. At best he would have probably outbowled Warne and bamboozled England given how poorly they played leg spin in that series. Any fool however could see after the first 2 tests that Macgill had the greater odds of taking wickets than Gillespie,Kaspa and Tait combined in that series.
Scratch that last line actually, obviously the Australian selectors couldnt.

 

[tooextracool]

Dont think it will happen - Johnson adds more (pace, bounce, etc) and took 4 wickets in Perth yesterday

I will put my house down on the bet that if Bracken takes 4+ wickets against England today, he'll be in the starting lineup for the first test. Actually i hope thats what happens.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Bell certainly deserved to start the series. Whether he deserved as many games as he got is another story,but i certainly respect the policy of not changing a winning side.

At the expense of Thorpe with little experience and against the Australians to try to regain the Ashes? In hindsight, I disagree.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

exactly, at worst he would have done just as poorly. At best he would have probably outbowled Warne and bamboozled England given how poorly they played leg spin in that series.

And at best, Gillespie and possibly even Tait could have done better than MacGill. You can't honestly be calling me out for dealing in hindsight and then use it yourself.

Also, England hardly played legspin as poorly as you seem to think. The fact that Warne took so many wickets was on account of none of the other Australian bowlers taking wickets. More than once he went long periods without wickets and then cashed in over time or with tailend wickets. Not belittling Warne, as he did a lion's share of the bowling and deserved his haul. But England played him a lot better than in the past.

 

[tooextracool]

At the expense of Thorpe with little experience and against the Australians to try to regain the Ashes? In hindsight, I disagree.

No at the expense of Pietersen. Believe it or not just because Pietersen scored that 158 it does not mean that he deserved a place in the side over thorpe at the start of the series.

 

[tooextracool]

And at best, Gillespie and possibly even Tait could have done better than MacGill. You can't honestly be calling me out for dealing in hindsight and then use it yourself.

Im sorry what? If it wasnt incredibly obvious to you after 2 tests, several warm ups and some 10 ODIs that Gillespie and Kaspa were shadows of their former selves than you clearly werent watching. Gillespie wasnt at his best, he got enough opportunities to prove it. How many opportunities did Macgill get again?
Tait was absolute rubbish, anyone could have seen it. To think that Tait was a better bowler than Macgill is really pushing the limit.

Also, England hardly played legspin as poorly as you seem to think. The fact that Warne took so many wickets was on account of none of the other Australian bowlers taking wickets. More than once he went long periods without wickets and then cashed in over time or with tailend wickets. Not belittling Warne, as he did a lion's share of the bowling and deserved his haul. But England played him a lot better than in the past.

Umm no. They may have played him better than in the past, but how much of an accomplishment is that? Yes he went thro periods without wickets, but what did you expect? He was pretty much bowling with the new ball and old. He was bowling in the first session of the first day and he was bowling until his arm nearly came out of its socket. Spin bowlers can do a lot of things, but the fact that he was taking wickets in the first innings when on most pitches the ball was barely turning an inch is absolutely disgraceful. His figures in the first innings of the 5 tests were: 2/19, 4/116, 4/99, 4/102 and 6/122. Thats 22 wickets, 20 of which came in the first innings on the first day of each test match and bar Lords all of them were absolute roads. If you call that playing leg spin competently then i really have to wonder what you've been smoking. Oh and how many wickets did the pace bowlers take in those innings?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Im sorry what? If it wasnt incredibly obvious to you after 2 tests, several warm ups and some 10 ODIs that Gillespie and Kaspa were shadows of their former selves than you clearly werent watching. Gillespie wasnt at his best, he got enough opportunities to prove it. How many opportunities did Macgill get again?

And yet we've already resolved that MacGill could have done as poorly. Therefore at that stage (after 2 Tests), there was no way of saying that MacGill would have been the better option to go with. Yes, he deserved a chance to replace Gillespie, but there's an argument that so did Tait and practically any other bowler.

To think that Tait was a better bowler than Macgill is really pushing the limit.

In hindsight, no, Tait isn't a better bowler. At the time I'd never seen him before and wasn't about to judge.

Umm no. They may have played him better than in the past, but how much of an accomplishment is that?

Anyone watching the Ashes would have seen that England certainly did not look fools against legspin as they have in the past. Rather, they looked quite competent for the most part (bar Bell).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No at the expense of Pietersen.

Pietersen was selected for the first Test because he looked good against Australia in the ODIs prior to the series and, more than scoring runs, he looked to have the attitude to win the Ashes back for England. There's no hindsight involved there.

 

[Great Birtannia]

And at best, Gillespie and possibly even Tait could have done better than MacGill. You can't honestly be calling me out for dealing in hindsight and then use it yourself.

In consecutive posts too, I was about to point it out myself. If you can use the domestic form card for Bell I don't see why Tait is any different, he completely wiped teams out in pura cup taking 65 wickets @ 20.16 in 10 matches in the Australian summer leading up to the ashes.

 

[tooextracool]

And yet we've already resolved that MacGill could have done as poorly. Therefore at that stage (after 2 Tests), there was no way of saying that MacGill would have been the better option to go with. Yes, he deserved a chance to replace Gillespie, but there's an argument that so did Tait and practically any other bowler.
In hindsight, no, Tait isn't a better bowler. At the time I'd never seen him before and wasn't about to judge.

The options were Tait and Macgill by the 3rd test to be honest, certainly Gillespie didnt deserve to play the 3rd test match. Considering how many wickets the fast bowlers had taken for Australia as opposed to Warne and considering Englands history against leg spin and Macgill it should have been a no brainer IMO.
As far as you not seeing Tait is concerned, its rather irrelevant, because the Australian selectors had. Old trafford and Oval have both been known to help the spinners, yet Macgill wasnt picked. Also if we are to use what you said earlier about Ian Bell v Thorpe, who would you rather have? Someone who has test match experience and has bowled well in tests before or a relatively unknown debutant?

Anyone watching the Ashes would have seen that England certainly did not look fools against legspin as they have in the past. Rather, they looked quite competent for the most part (bar Bell).

If they looked quite competent then howcome they lost 20 wickets in 4 tests on absolute roads to warne?
Also Strauss was so poor against Warne for most of the series that he was nicknamed 'Daryll'. He was also only dismissed about 6 times by him in the series.
Id also be grateful to hear which one of Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Butcher(post 2001), Ramprakash(post 2001), Stewart, White, John Crawley and Michael Vaughan- our regular players on our last 2 Ashes series before 2005 looked like greater fools against leg spin than the side that played in 2005.
And please, no uneducated guesses like John Crawley who was arguably one of the best players of leg spin in the country.

 

[tooextracool]

Pietersen was selected for the first Test because he looked good against Australia in the ODIs prior to the series and, more than scoring runs, he looked to have the attitude to win the Ashes back for England. There's no hindsight involved there.

Like i said what is the excuse for dropping Bell? Pietersen hadnt exactly been in the best of form in FC cricket before the Ashes, while Bell had done just the opposite. To drop Bell at that point would have defeated the purpose of wasting an entire year on him, as well as playing him against Bangladesh. Further more it would have absolutely crushed his confidence if he had been dropped after doing everything that was asked of him in every form of the game. For example how would you feel as a young player if you scored a 60 on debut for WI, then got dropped for the tour to SA, told to score more runs in domestic cricket and that is precisely what you do, as well as score runs for the A side, score prolifically against Bangladesh and then have the selectors come up to you and say " Sorry mate, we dont think you should play in the Ashes, because umm this guy over here deserves to make his debut over you"?

 

[tooextracool]

In consecutive posts too, I was about to point it out myself. If you can use the domestic form card for Bell I don't see why Tait is any different, he completely wiped teams out in pura cup taking 65 wickets @ 20.16 in 10 matches in the Australian summer leading up to the ashes.

Yes but he had only one good season.
Compared to Macgill who has one of the best SR's for a spinner in test cricket.This while Shane warne is taking bucketloads of wickets in the Ashes. Clearly lets go for the unproven quantity in tait who cant land 2 balls on the same spot.

 

[Great Birtannia]

Yes but he had only one good season.
Compared to Macgill who has one of the best SR's for a spinner in test cricket.This while Shane warne is taking bucketloads of wickets in the Ashes. Clearly lets go for the unproven quantity in tait who cant land 2 balls on the same spot.

Tait had taken 30 wickets @ 28 the season before as a 20 year old. His 65 wickets eclipsed Clarrie Grimmett's FC record for SA and fell two short of the Australian domestic record, it was more than just a good season. It's quite funny arguing that Tait can't land 2 balls on the same spot when advocating MacGill's selection, he is the master of the four ball.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Obviously MacGill should have been picked towards the end of the last Ashes series, but giving Tait a go was a reasonable decision at the time. He'd also done well in warmups and so on, and he really didn't bowl particularly badly in the Trent Bridge test. He was pretty much the pick of the seamers in the first innings. I'd have picked MacGill in the final test, and maybe got rid of Gillespie in favour of Tait or MacGill one test earlier. It's easy to criticise the selectors in hindsight given that they lost the series, but MacGill isn't the most reliable bowler in the world either, and Tait was always perfectly capable of producing a spell like he did for the PM's XI the other day and coming away with 5 for next to nothing and winning a test.

The problem was that Ponting had no faith in him and didn't want to use him, so he'd come on for a 3 over spell, get hit around and then get dragged. That's not a particularly good way to use a bowler like Tait, who relies on producing unplayable deliveries occasionally but can be quite wayward otherwise.

I think the selectors waited too long to make the necessary changes, but aside from not going to MacGill at the end of the series I don't think they actually made any clear errors.

 

[tooextracool]

Tait had taken 30 wickets @ 28 the season before as a 20 year old. His 65 wickets eclipsed Clarrie Grimmett's FC record for SA and fell two short of the Australian domestic record, it was more than just a good season. It's quite funny arguing that Tait can't land 2 balls on the same spot when advocating MacGill's selection, he is the master of the four ball.

macgill has been known to bowl 1 bad ball an over, Tait generally produces 4-5. To be honest some of the wickets that he took in the Ashes were actually off good deliveries, but you could count the number of those deliveries he bowled on one hand for the entire tour.
I may have underestimated his domestic record a little bit, but it doesnt change the fact that its painfully obvious that Macgill should have been selected ahead of him in the situation given the reasons ive already mentioned earlier.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As far as you not seeing Tait is concerned, its rather irrelevant, because the Australian selectors had.

And they'd seen him take 65 wickets in 10 games in the best FC comp. in the world and therefore picked him because of it.

If they looked quite competent then howcome they lost 20 wickets in 4 tests on absolute roads to warne?

Because wickets had to fall and no one else was taking them. If you actually watched the cricket instead of watching the stats, you'd understand what I mean.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Regarding the Pietersen v Bell (or anyone else) issue, I've gone over that so many times with you, it's gotten very tiring. I refuse to go it again.

 

[aussie]

Some people have been saying that Fletcher is a favourite of Jones, so now that he's in charge of the selection process in Australia he drops Read.

But one has to look at the facts that even though Read made runs againts an under-strength Pakistan bowling attack, his form in the India was bad and in the balance of the side going into the first, with England wanting to play 5 bowlers to cover Freddie, having Read at 7 doesn't look good at all. Maybe if Freddie was playing a lot of cricket then maybe England could have considered playing 4 bowlers then Read could have played.

But then again Jone's form since he was dropped hasn't been superb from what i remember, so overall England have a big problem in the keeping department, its going to be a rough, probably career ending summer for them both & has i keep saying hopefully once the selectors finally see that neither are good enough, pick Nic Pothas..