Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Rant0r]

what chance is bryce to play at all at this stage ?, surely if they want to take him to england, they will play him in the upcoming test

 

[Matt79]

people forget that, they also forget that the aussies didn't take it seriously, they were doing the 'yeah every ashes series we hear about this team that can beat us and it never happens'

Aussie fans maybe reacted to the media speculation that way, although it was noticeably more substantial ahead of '05, and normally had an introductory line along the lines of "while it has become tradition to forecast that an English team going into the Ashes represents a threat to Australian dominance, this time it is a forecast that does need to be taken seriously."

I don't agree that the Australian team did not take the Ashes seriously in 05, if that was what you are saying.

 

[Rant0r]

i still don't think they really did, however it was more to do with a few players coincidentally being out of form at the same time than attitude.

notice the attitude ahead of the next attitude, you can't tell me they weren't pissed about how they folded in '05

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Johnson
Lee
Clark
Siddle

Bollinger first drop.

This, exactly.

Wasn't that long ago Lee was arguably the best quick in the world. If he's fit and bowling decently by the time the Ashes rolls around, he should definitely be selected.

As I said in the SA tour thread, the best Australian team IMO includes all the four seamers listed above. If over rates or injury means we can't pick all four, bring in McGain, but Lee is definitely still one of the best bowlers in the country IMO.

 

[Rant0r]

katich may finally get more of a roll after this week, even though he only got out 3 tailenders, it might have put him back in punters mind

 

[Matt79]

i still don't think they really did, however it was more to do with a few players coincidentally being out of form at the same time than attitude.

notice the attitude ahead of the next attitude, you can't tell me they weren't pissed about how they folded in '05

Sorry mate, that got a bit confusing halfway through.

If I understood correctly, then I disagree, I think it was a few players being out of form at the same time, combined with a few players being exposed in conditions they hadn't encountered in recent times/ever (Hayden/Clarke), combined with a crucial injury to the guy who would normally have covered for those problems - McGrath, rather than any lack of focus. (By the way English posters, not making excuses, just saying that England were a better team for reasons other than a lack of focus )

Obviously they were extremely pissed and focused in 06/07, but that hyper level of motivation doesn't mean that their efforts in 05 were less than fully committed.

 

[Rant0r]

i still think they just got into a zone against england where they felt they would fold, or self destruct, and they (the aussies) would be good enough to put it out of their reach, when in fact england put them under more pressure than they were used to and it was in fact the aussies that crumbled, call it what you will, attitude or poor preparation, lack of form, they certainly made sure in the lead up to 06/07 that it didn't happen again, in fact i don't think they will ever take england lightly again

 

[Pratters]

Lee should be selected for sure. If he does badly in the tour games in terms of how he bowls and shows no rhythm or fitness, he should obviously be then excluded.

 

[Matt79]

^^ Think that underplays just how good the cricket England played was - several of the Aussies did the reverse of folding, eg. Warne, Ponting, but they were fighting an inspired team, played for each other and out of their skins in periods.

It was interesting reading Gilchrist's autobiography, in terms of the fear that he said he always felt going into the Ashes that "this will be the one where the streak ends". People in the team, from his account, were obviously distracted, stressed, and not coping well with the challenge being thrown down, but Symonds' booze up aside, I can't think of anything to say they were taking England lightly. England were just too good.

What changed in 06/07 were the conditions, the ball, no Simon Jones, no Trescothick, the addition of a fit McGrath and Mike Hussey, the reemergence of a much more mature Clarke. To say that the Aussies were simply annoyed, and hence switched on is oversimplifying IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

The motivation was nothing in 06/07. You can't keep up a level of adrenalin and intensity for five five-day tests just because you have something to prove. It's debatable whether desperation to succeed is good for a sports team anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

^^ Think that underplays just how good the cricket England played was - several of the Aussies did the reverse of folding, eg. Warne, Ponting, but they were fighting an inspired team, played for each other and out of their skins in periods.

It was interesting reading Gilchrist's autobiography, in terms of the fear that he said he always felt going into the Ashes that "this will be the one where the streak ends". People in the team, from his account, were obviously distracted, stressed, and not coping well with the challenge being thrown down, but Symonds' booze up aside, I can't think of anything to say they were taking England lightly. England were just too good.

What changed in 06/07 were the conditions, the ball, no Simon Jones, no Trescothick, the addition of a fit McGrath and Mike Hussey, the reemergence of a much more mature Clarke. To say that the Aussies were simply annoyed, and hence switched on is oversimplifying IMO.

Indeed. It's really quite arrogant to assume that you can only lose if you play **** - and it's not like it was a blow-out series either, or a series against a poor team.

I know Richard will say the standard of cricket played was poor if he reads this and put it down to the number of dropped catches, but poor catching more than any other aspect of cricket is exaggerated in high-pressure situations and that's exactly what we got throughout the whole series. The standard of batting and bowling in the series was excellent and whilst there did seem to be a hint of a lack of specific planning from the Australians, I don't think the result would have been any different had Australia focused better or took the series more seriously.

If anything, I think we have a tendency in this country to put a little too much importance on the Ashes. Obviously it's the series we love to win most and it has a lot of historical significance, but the way some people talk, you'd think England were omnipresent as the best team in the world. Take this recent post for example:

Its been a while since I posted on here but I could not resist....

DAMN! How is that for a series win? I bet most Aussie supporters wrote them off before the tour....

Even I did. I would have been ecstatic with a series draw....

I would liken this series win almost with the '94/95 Windies tour win....similar inexperience, similar predictions from alot of supporters and media...

I look forward to the Ashes tour to see how the new boys really stack up..

So despite just hammering the main challenger to our crown in their own backyard after they beat us over here, the big test for the new players in the team is, apparently, going to be a series against a team who we beat 5-0 last start, who are now ranked #6 in the world and who just lost a series to the West Indies. Riiighht...

I've seen other posts around the forum (which I can't find anymore due to the way the search functions "works" these days) to the tune of "Ha, well if we can't beat South Africa, we're going to get smashed in the Ashes!!!" as well.. that doesn't really follow any sound logic at all.

Sure, it's a traditionally and historically important series, but as far as the difficulty of it goes and how big a test it is for the new players in the team, it pales in comparison to what they just achieved. I don't think there's ever been a hint of Australia not taking the Ashes seriously, at all.

 

[Rant0r]

^^ Think that underplays just how good the cricket England played was - several of the Aussies did the reverse of folding, eg. Warne, Ponting, but they were fighting an inspired team, played for each other and out of their skins in periods.

It was interesting reading Gilchrist's autobiography, in terms of the fear that he said he always felt going into the Ashes that "this will be the one where the streak ends". People in the team, from his account, were obviously distracted, stressed, and not coping well with the challenge being thrown down, but Symonds' booze up aside, I can't think of anything to say they were taking England lightly. England were just too good.

What changed in 06/07 were the conditions, the ball, no Simon Jones, no Trescothick, the addition of a fit McGrath and Mike Hussey, the reemergence of a much more mature Clarke. To say that the Aussies were simply annoyed, and hence switched on is oversimplifying IMO.

don't get me wrong, england were awesome, but 06/07 they were READY like you wouldn't believe, and strangely, england just weren't. years of bashing the poms made them take it a little for granted i feel

The motivation was nothing in 06/07. You can't keep up a level of adrenalin and intensity for five five-day tests just because you have something to prove. It's debatable whether desperation to succeed is good for a sports team anyway.

i assure you a lot of planning went into 06/07, ponting particularly was burning after 05, and warne would have retired in 05 if they'd won, he came back only for the ashes.

 

[Rant0r]

and on the upcoming series in england, it's starting to look a little dissapointing just quietly, i'm wondering if staying up late to watch it and being rooted at work the next day is really going to be worth it

 

[Uppercut]

i assure you a lot of planning went into 06/07, ponting particularly was burning after 05, and warne would have retired in 05 if they'd won, he came back only for the ashes.

Ah, yeah, fair point. But i don't think that's what people generally mean when they say things along the lines of, "Australia won because they were fired up".

 

[Uppercut]

and on the upcoming series in england, it's starting to look a little dissapointing just quietly, i'm wondering if staying up late to watch it and being rooted at work the next day is really going to be worth it

Haha, because it might be too easy? You never want to be thinking like that...

 

[Rant0r]

i know, and i really hope it's a cracker of a series, but they're just a rabble at the moment

 

[Prince EWS]

and on the upcoming series in england, it's starting to look a little dissapointing just quietly, i'm wondering if staying up late to watch it and being rooted at work the next day is really going to be worth it

The irony of that post is the fact that you've spent the last 20 minutes telling us that Australia lost in 2005 because they took the English too lightly.

 

[Rant0r]

believe it or not i'm not part of the australian cricket team, it allows me to make such comments

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

believe it or not i'm not part of the australian cricket team

You mean to tell me I've been misled!?

 

[Rant0r]

i was in the preliminary touring party until they realised i was a poor mans cameron white and tried to infiltrate boonies grog