• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The "No-Loyalty" XI for the Gabba

Matt79

Global Moderator
If you disregarded past-service, reputations, and team stability and just picked the 11 players you thought would produce the most wickets and runs for the team in the 1st Test (ie. ignoring the rest of series). For the Aussie team, I'd bring in Jaques, Haddin, and Johnson AND Clark for a team of:

Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Watson
Haddin
Warne
Lee
Clark
Johnson.

Obviously you'd never select this team, but for the sake of argument. :laugh:

For England with Trescothick pulled out probably WILL play all the batsmen who have been in recent runs of form, but you'd surely include Monty over Giles. Harmison is a gamble, he looks dodgy, but he may click (and probably needs to if England are to win) and run through the Aussies.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Matt79 said:
If you disregarded past-service, reputations, and team stability and just picked the 11 players you thought would produce the most wickets and runs for the team in the 1st Test (ie. ignoring the rest of series). For the Aussie team, I'd bring in Jaques, Haddin, and Johnson AND Clark for a team of:

Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Watson
Haddin
Warne
Lee
Clark
Johnson.

Obviously you'd never select this team, but for the sake of argument. :laugh:

For England with Trescothick pulled out probably WILL play all the batsmen who have been in recent runs of form, but you'd surely include Monty over Giles. Harmison is a gamble, he looks dodgy, but he may click (and probably needs to if England are to win) and run through the Aussies.
Could argue a case for Clarke or Hodge in place of Watson on the account that they'd more than likely score more runs than him, and i'm not quite convinced that Watto will be making huge impacts with the ball.
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
I think we, but KP especially, will take Watto to the cleaners. He has to play though, best AR prospect for years and he looks like Corey Feldman.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I'd go with the same XI that I think will be picked, to be honest. I don't think Jaques should be in the side just yet, and I certainly don't think McGrath should be out of it. Martyn's in good form and should be picked also.

The only questionable one for me is Watson, who I think should be picked mainly because of what he is capable of in the long term. Clarke or Hodge are probably more likely to make big runs in the first test.
 

howardj

International Coach
If my life depended on Australia winning the Ashes

Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Haddin
Lee
Warne
MacGill
Clark
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
howardj said:
If my life depended on Australia winning the Ashes

Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Haddin
Lee
Warne
MacGill
Clark
No McGrath is insane. He's not only your best bowler, he's the most experienced one to boot. If things start to go wrong, I'd rather have McGrath than anyone else in the world with the ball in his hand.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah. He's easily the most reliable bowler in the country under pressure. It'd be insane to leave him out of the side, whether he's in form or not. And seriously, he bowled pretty damn well in India. Give him a pitch with a bit of life in it like we saw last year and I think he'll run through England.
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
silentstriker said:
No McGrath is insane. He's not only your best bowler, he's the most experienced one to boot. If things start to go wrong, I'd rather have McGrath than anyone else in the world with the ball in his hand.
Please give it a rest, you don't have to take any possible inkling that somebody might be better than McGrath as a personal insult.

The whole point of the thread is that it is about current form and so on, and for mine and few other people's money, Johnson is just a better bet than McGrath.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
PhoenixFire said:
Please give it a rest, you don't have to take any possible inkling that somebody might be better than McGrath as a personal insult.

The whole point of the thread is that it is about current form and so on, and for mine and few other people's money, Johnson is just a better bet than McGrath.
I wish you were an Aussie selector.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
I left out McGrath and specified that you're selecting for a one-off match at the Gabba, not for the whole series. I think McGrath will obviously do better than Johnson across the 5 match series, but I also think he's played 1 FC game and half a dozen ODIs in a year, so to expect him to rock up to the Gabba and be the best bowler in the team is damn unrealistic. But he'll still be a force to be reckoned with and will be a lot better for the run. If he doesn't get injured, I'd expect him to improve throughout the series until he's back near top form for the last couple of tests. But if I wanted somebody to play tomorrow and didn't want to be concerned about them being shagged after two decent length spells and rusty to boot, and wasn't worried about playing anyone back into form, I'd pick Johnson..
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
PhoenixFire said:
The whole point of the thread is that it is about current form and so on, and for mine and few other people's money, Johnson is just a better bet than McGrath.
Is that why McGrath was the better bowler in the most recent series - the CT?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Matt79 said:
I left out McGrath and specified that you're selecting for a one-off match at the Gabba, not for the whole series. I think McGrath will obviously do better than Johnson across the 5 match series, but I also think he's played 1 FC game and half a dozen ODIs in a year, so to expect him to rock up to the Gabba and be the best bowler in the team is damn unrealistic. But he'll still be a force to be reckoned with and will be a lot better for the run. If he doesn't get injured, I'd expect him to improve throughout the series until he's back near top form for the last couple of tests. But if I wanted somebody to play tomorrow and didn't want to be concerned about them being shagged after two decent length spells and rusty to boot, and wasn't worried about playing anyone back into form, I'd pick Johnson..
I'd still take McGrath - short on match form and all - ahead of an untried and still raw Mitchell Johnson. I'd fully expect McGrath to have a bigger impact. The expectations upon Johnson are unrealistic. He's only just started to really come along as a bowler.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
PhoenixFire said:
Please give it a rest, you don't have to take any possible inkling that somebody might be better than McGrath as a personal insult.

The whole point of the thread is that it is about current form and so on, and for mine and few other people's money, Johnson is just a better bet than McGrath.
Um, no. Its not an insult, its just ludicrous to leave out your best bowler, your most consistent bowler, and the bowler who is going to do the best under pressure in favor of an untried prospect. Recent form or not. And he did damn well in India. Improved every game.

McGrath doesn't have to run through sides to be worth his weight in the team. At the very least, no one is going to cart him around and he can be a good influence on the rest of your bowlers.

Even for a 'no loyalty' XI, his inclusion is a no brainer. It's like leaving out Warne because a surface isn't suitable for spin, or something equally ludicrous.

Mr Mxyzptlk said:
I'd still take McGrath - short on match form and all - ahead of an untried and still raw Mitchell Johnson. I'd fully expect McGrath to have a bigger impact. The expectations upon Johnson are unrealistic. He's only just started to really come along as a bowler.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

howardj

International Coach
Could be something to do with his Test stats in the last series he played in - and moreover his strike rate in that series. And the fact that West Indies, England absolutely murdered him in the Champions Trophy, to the point where he had to be taken off and brought back on when those batsmen were dismissed. Apparently he didn't pose much of a threat to Strauss or Pietersen the other day either.

So, enough of the breathlessness please. People are actually basing his non-selection on something. And it's not like, in not selecting him in a 'FORM XI', people are saying that he's a shocking bowler who has totally lost the plot. Rather, it's just that some believe he's not ahead of Lee, Clark, Warne or MacGill at this particular point.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Um, no. Its not an insult, its just ludicrous to leave out your best bowler, your most consistent bowler, and the bowler who is going to do the best under pressure in favor of an untried prospect. Recent form or not. And he did damn well in India. Improved every game.

McGrath doesn't have to run through sides to be worth his weight in the team. At the very least, no one is going to cart him around and he can be a good influence on the rest of your bowlers.

Even for a 'no loyalty' XI, his inclusion is a no brainer. It's like leaving out Warne because a surface isn't suitable for spin, or something equally ludicrous.



Agreed.
actually, apart from games at Lord's, he's not been our most effective bowler for some time now. Still easily merits his place in the team and his pressure makes the rest of the attack better, but first gillespie and then lee have both looked more consistently dangerous for a while
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
howardj said:
Could be something to do with his Test stats in the last series he played in - and moreover his strike rate in that series. And the fact that West Indies, England absolutely murdered him in the Champions Trophy, to the point where he had to be taken off and brought back on when those batsmen were dismissed. Apparently he didn't pose much of a threat to Strauss or Pietersen the other day either.
We've done the McGrath form debate to death, but you'd have to be mad to think that his performances in the CT were indicative of some sort of decline. He got hammered for four overs against England and two overs against the West Indies, and in both games came back strongly, and in the West Indies game he ripped the heart out of their middle order and bowled beautifully. McGrath has been smacked around in ODIs and even in tests plenty of times before, the key thing has always been his ability to bounce back. IMO, you're really stretching if you think that getting hit for a couple of sixes by Chris Gayle in an ODI means that Stuart Clark is going to be a more dangerous bowler in the first test.

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick any bowler in the country to come out at Brisbane and take two top order wickets in his opening spell and get the series off to a strong start, it'd be McGrath. You can call that breathlessness or selection on reputation or whatever if you want, but I wasn't convinced that he was in serious decline as a bowler before the CT and I'm not convinced now.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Matt79 said:
actually, apart from games at Lord's, he's not been our most effective bowler for some time now. Still easily merits his place in the team and his pressure makes the rest of the attack better, but first gillespie and then lee have both looked more consistently dangerous for a while
Games at Lords? Before the Ashes, he averaged 15 with the ball in New Zealand, while our other seamers in Gillespie and Kasprowicz averaged 39 and 45. The four series before that following his comeback he averaged 14, 20, 25 and 17, going back. Kasprowicz or Gillespie came close in each of those series, but none of them matched McGrath's consistency or took as many wickets as him. The only period in recent history when McGrath has been in the side but hasn't been our best and most consistent seamer has been since the Ashes, as he was trumped by Lee against the West Indies and had a poor series against South Africa. If you're going to argue a decline, it has to start with stepping on the ball in Edgbaston, because there's no way he was anything other than the best seamer in the world before that.
 

Top