Who did Australia miss most?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

I really don't think we missed anyone, or needed anyone. We had the arsenal, but we shot it into the sea.

That's why I'm thinking Symonds had the potential to make a big difference to the result. It was a case of one or two moments when the series was lost, and Symonds so often excels in those moments. It's got nothing to do with talent, he's not even as good as North. It's the ability to turn round that crucial innings that's going against you.

[pup11]

I think Australia missed a guy like Hayden the most at the top of the order, I know he hasn't had a great time when he has played in England in the past, but surely had he been there this time around he would have made a big difference. especially considering that swing with the new ball wasn't much of a factor this time around.

Don't think we missed Gilly that much though, I think Haddin prior to his injury more than made up for the absence of Gilly, obviously Gilly is a more dynamic player than Haddin, but still it was Hayden out of those three that was missed the most in this series.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

That's why I'm thinking Symonds had the potential to make a big difference to the result. It was a case of one or two moments when the series was lost, and Symonds so often excels in those moments. It's got nothing to do with talent, he's not even as good as North. It's the ability to turn round that crucial innings that's going against you.

Don't think Symonds would have much of difference to our performances, it wasn't as if the series had any moments where a breezy knock at no.6 from him would have tilted things in our favour, on the contrary I think had he been there in place of North, then we could have probably ended up being in even more trouble.

[age_master]

If Australia missed anyone from last ashes it was Shane Warne.

[nightprowler10]

McGrath IMO.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by pup11

Don't think Symonds would have much of difference to our performances, it wasn't as if the series had any moments where a breezy knock at no.6 from him would have tilted things in our favour, on the contrary I think had he been there in place of North, then we could have probably ended up being in even more trouble.

It's funny, but Australia never collapsed so dramatically when Symonds was in the team. Remember when you were 84/5, 134/6 or 18/5? Symonds pulled you out of the mire.

I don't mean you can say conclusively that he would have made a difference, but he's as good a bet to change the momentum from number 6 as anyone. He's done it plenty before.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It's funny, but Australia never collapsed so dramatically when Symonds was in the team. Remember when you were 84/5, 134/6 or 18/5? Symonds pulled you out of the mire.

I don't mean you can say conclusively that he would have made a difference, but he's as good a bet to change the momentum from number 6 as anyone. He's done it plenty before.

Yeah he did that, but there were numerous umpiring decisions that went his way when he did all that, but more often than not, you would expect him to perish in face of a collapse, because the brand of cricket that he plays makes him too much of a hit and miss player in the longer form of the game.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by pup11

I think Australia missed a guy like Hayden the most at the top of the order, I know he hasn't had a great time when he has played in England in the past, but surely had he been there this time around he would have made a big difference. especially considering that swing with the new ball wasn't much of a factor this time around.

Swing with the new ball was more of a factor in this Ashes series than it was in 2005 where reverse was king (with the exception of Trent Bridge).

[HMas]

Simon Jones

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by pup11

Yeah he did that, but there were numerous umpiring decisions that went his way when he did all that, but more often than not, you would expect him to perish in face of a collapse, because the brand of cricket that he plays makes him too much of a hit and miss player in the longer form of the game.

Who isn't a hit and miss player? Every batsman scores sometimes and doesn't score other times. He might have struggled a little against swing, but I don't really agree with the Richardism that aggressive cricket can never work when the ball moves in the air. It's not exactly a given but I think it's pretty likely that Symonds could have turned one of Australia's three horrendous innings around.

[Jono]

Yeah he definitely could have. But so could Gilchrist, who admittedly was not at his best, but would have been handy.

Decent vice captain too, and gives confidence to the team when he comes out at 7, no matter his form, IMO of course.

[Majin]

they missed Brett Lee the most imho

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Who isn't a hit and miss player? Every batsman scores sometimes and doesn't score other times. He might have struggled a little against swing, but I don't really agree with the Richardism that aggressive cricket can never work when the ball moves in the air. It's not exactly a given but I think it's pretty likely that Symonds could have turned one of Australia's three horrendous innings around.

Yeh, often when a player like Symonds comes in and smacks everything, regardless if it's moving in the air, it can have a negative impact on the bowlers who often try something different when they probably should keep pitching it up.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah he definitely could have. But so could Gilchrist, who admittedly was not at his best, but would have been handy.

Decent vice captain too, and gives confidence to the team when he comes out at 7, no matter his form, IMO of course.

Yeah, I actually voted for Gilchrist in the poll. I'm just arguing the case for Symonds because I think everyone already knows what Gilchrist could have done.

[Mister Wright]

Hauritz.