Ashes 2009 - Predict Today, Laugh Tommorow!

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Yet you still retain the services of Steve Harmison.

Harmison can produce match-winning bowling, if Panesar takes a few wickets in a game it either means England are getting hammered or it means they'll soon get hammered by a part-time finger spinner or a genuine world class wrist spinner/'different' finger spinner (ie Kumble or Murali).

[Langeveldt]

ENG
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Joyce
4. Pietersen
5. Bell
6. Flintoff
7. Read
8. Broad
9. Panesar
10. Mahmood
11. Hoggard

AUS
1. Jacques
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Hussey
6. Voges
7. Henriques
8. Haddin
9. White
10. Lee
11. Clark

Prediction 5-0 Australia I've predicted it every Ashes series since 2003, and have a 50% success rate

[andyc]

Just realised I forgot to predict the score. Will go 2-1 Australia.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by PY

Big things predicted for Joyce, I've not seen it yet to be honest but I live in hope.

I saw him live for the first time last summer and he looked to have that little something.

Mind you the Warwickshire attack weren't up to much, but he outshone anyone else who played that day by a long way.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Didn't think you'd taken leave of your senses that much!

Funny though that you think the team won't change one bit - yet you're not predicting a heavy Aus win?

It'll change a little bit, but realistically I think Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar are all good bowlers and will all be around in 2009 if they are fit. Jones is in the same boat, if he's fit, but he rarely is. It's hard to predict whether or not guys like Broad will be ready in 2009, but I'd guess not, while the selectors love Harmison and he'll have to bowl atrociously for an extended period for them to drop him. There's nothing much wrong with the batting - it's the second best batting lineup in the world IMO and easily the best England have had in some time, so I don't expect it to change much in two years, aside from Vaughan and Trescothick being gone for good. History suggests that successful teams with reasonably young players don't change much over a couple of years, and it'd be a surprise if England aren't reasonably successful in the next two years.

Anyway, Australia will be a different team. No Warne and McGrath, probably no Hayden and Gilchrist, and the bowling attack will be relying on a few guys who really aren't proven yet at test level and probably won't have a world class spinner, unless MacGill is still going at nearly 40. Obviously there's a chance that the players coming in for Australia could prove to be tremendously successful, but they also might not, particularly the fourth seamer or spin bowler, and I imagine England will be a better team in a couple of years than they are now, plus on home soil. 30 months out, I think 2-2 is a fair bet. I'd also bet that Australia will still be the best test team in the world in 2009, but it won't be by a big margin.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

England

Thompson
Clinton
Newman
Hamilton-Brown- Captain
Benning
Clarke
Walters- Australian but will have qualified in time, talent.
Batty- wk
Saker
Dernbach
Ormond

Doug Walters?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

ENG
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Joyce
4. Pietersen
5. Bell
6. Flintoff
7. Read
8. Broad
9. Panesar
10. Mahmood
11. Hoggard

AUS
1. Jacques
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Hussey
6. Voges
7. Henriques
8. Haddin
9. White
10. Lee
11. Clark

Prediction 5-0 Australia I've predicted it every Ashes series since 2003, and have a 50% success rate

Moises Henriques is one hell of a call. I guess if anything he would be picked for the ODI team before he would get a gig in the Test team, assuming he has the form, fitness etc.

James Anderson can be quite a good bowler by 2009, providing he has plenty of overs to bowl in County Cricket and if on tour, plenty of overs in warm-up games, and there for he can learn to be more consistent with the ball because he can get some good outswing and if he bowls it on a good length outside off stump, it will trouble any batsman. England don't actually have a bad squad as such, there are a lot worse out there, so if they plan right, select right, make the right changes at the top, some luck I don't see why they can't have a chance. And there is no reason to suggest some Australia's replacement players will be great successes.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Harmison can produce match-winning bowling, if Panesar takes a few wickets in a game it either means England are getting hammered or it means they'll soon get hammered by a part-time finger spinner or a genuine world class wrist spinner/'different' finger spinner (ie Kumble or Murali).

Like in the 2nd & 3rd tests against pakistan last summer?
And as for Harmy being a match winner, please ......

[ethos]

1. Rogers
2. Jacques
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Symonds
7. Haddin (Chris Hartley will be close on his heels though)
8. Lee
9. Clark
10. Cullen
11. Hilfenhaus

[howardj]

Australia
Jacques
Paine
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Haddin
Bailey
Hilfenhaus
Clark
Tait

England
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Collingwood
Joyce
Flintoff
Foster
Panesar
Jones
Hoggard

Top Run Scorers
Ponting
Pietersen

Top Wicket Takers
Hilfenhaus
Hoggard

Result
England 2-1

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

It'll change a little bit, but realistically I think Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar are all good bowlers and will all be around in 2009 if they are fit. Jones is in the same boat, if he's fit, but he rarely is. It's hard to predict whether or not guys like Broad will be ready in 2009, but I'd guess not, while the selectors love Harmison and he'll have to bowl atrociously for an extended period for them to drop him. There's nothing much wrong with the batting - it's the second best batting lineup in the world IMO and easily the best England have had in some time, so I don't expect it to change much in two years, aside from Vaughan and Trescothick being gone for good. History suggests that successful teams with reasonably young players don't change much over a couple of years, and it'd be a surprise if England aren't reasonably successful in the next two years.

England's batting lineup is pathetic. They were bowled out for 157, 129, 215, 159, 161 and 147 in the Ashes. That's half of their innings scores that are completely inadequate and the 215 wasn't too clever either. Only KP and Collingwood bothered to turn up with the bat. At least in 2005 the batting fired every now and then but it was still on the weak side then.

[marc71178]

I'd say that's being generous to Collingwood...

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

England's batting lineup is pathetic. They were bowled out for 157, 129, 215, 159, 161 and 147 in the Ashes. That's half of their innings scores that are completely inadequate and the 215 wasn't too clever either. Only KP and Collingwood bothered to turn up with the bat. At least in 2005 the batting fired every now and then but it was still on the weak side then.

Obviously they struggled in the Ashes, but most teams would struggle against that attack in the form it was in. England's batting dominated against Pakistan, who certainly don't have the weakest attack in world cricket, and really against all other opposition in recent times. Pietersen is obviously a class batsman, Strauss has been pretty consistent outside of the Ashes and would make most sides in the world, and Cook and Bell are pretty good prospects, particularly Cook. Bell I don't rate all that highly, but he's done reasonably well against teams other than Australia. Collingwood has generally been pretty good too, though he's not done much on any lively wickets yet. I haven't seen Joyce bat much yet, so I can't comment on him, but he does seem to be rated quite highly by a number of people.

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close, and the various keeping options are in a similar boat with the bat. And England's tail is as bad as the West Indies. The top 5 is probably the best in the business bar Australia though. India and Pakistan are reasonably close, but certainly neither of them are clearly better than England, and Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand are all less consistent and have more weak spots. Anyway, I don't see any particular reason England's batting lineup would change any time soon. Someone might end up being dropped to get Vaughan back in, probably Collingwood or one of the bowlers, but that's it.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh

I'd question if he were actually the worst number 6 in the Ashes...

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Obviously they struggled in the Ashes, but most teams would struggle against that attack in the form it was in. England's batting dominated against Pakistan, who certainly don't have the weakest attack in world cricket, and really against all other opposition in recent times. Pietersen is obviously a class batsman, Strauss has been pretty consistent outside of the Ashes and would make most sides in the world, and Cook and Bell are pretty good prospects, particularly Cook. Bell I don't rate all that highly, but he's done reasonably well against teams other than Australia. Collingwood has generally been pretty good too, though he's not done much on any lively wickets yet. I haven't seen Joyce bat much yet, so I can't comment on him, but he does seem to be rated quite highly by a number of people.

The main problem with England's batting is from 6 and down they are horrible. Flintoff's probably the worst number 6 in test cricket outside of Bangladesh, or at least close, and the various keeping options are in a similar boat with the bat. And England's tail is as bad as the West Indies. The top 5 is probably the best in the business bar Australia though. India and Pakistan are reasonably close, but certainly neither of them are clearly better than England, and Sri Lanka, South Africa, the West Indies and New Zealand are all less consistent and have more weak spots. Anyway, I don't see any particular reason England's batting lineup would change any time soon. Someone might end up being dropped to get Vaughan back in, probably Collingwood or one of the bowlers, but that's it.

TBF it was a Pakistan without Ahktar & (until the 4th test) Asif and Kaneria was having an ordinary series. With Asif we were getting our arses handed to us until you-know-what happened.