Who did Australia miss most?

[Uppercut]

Matthew Hayden is perhaps the player with the least capable replacement, with Phil Hughes failing at the top of the order and having to be replaced by Watto. Still, he had an ordinary tour of England last time out and against good quick bowling may have struggled to make an impact.

Adam Gilchrist is the best of the three players, but had a very able replacement and wasn't quite himself in the latter half of his career. He struggled last time in England too, but with Haddin struggling to resurrect an innings from 7 you have to think he'd have made a difference.

Symonds is nowhere near the class of the others, and has had the most successful replacement. But considering that the series was lost in so few key moments with the bat, you have to wonder whether his undeniable ability to turn a collapsing batting lineup around in the big moments would have saved Australia when they were falling apart. North had a good series, but his centuries came with Australia already well in control of the game and the going straightforward. Mid-collapse at Edgbaston, Lord's and the Oval, he failed to turn things around. It's worth wondering whether Symonds could have fought back better in those moments when Australia seemed to be losing themselves the game- he's certainly done it before.

[NUFAN]

Who the hell is Mark Lewis?

[Kylez]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Who the hell is Mark Lewis?

Isn't he some retired Victorian pace bowler?

Not sure if he is name was Mick or something else though.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Who the hell is Mark Lewis?

That was the name of the photographer at my cousins wedding in 1983.

[Uppercut]

Yeah, that's what I meant. ****ing irrelevant fourth option.

[honestbharani]

Gilly... at least in hindsight.

[Ikki]

Probably Gilchrist, and because of his batting. His counter-attacking style would have been helpful in taking the initiative away from the English bowlers and setting us up better in terms of time.

[kingkallis]

Gilly in my opinion!

But yeak it was Mike or Mick Lewis, who went for 100+ runs against the SA in that 438 chase!

[andyc]

Don Bradman

[BoyBrumby]

Without wishing to negate the poll, I'd say Langer was probably missed more than any of them. Was the clear stand out amongst the Australian batsmen in 2005.

Of the three, Gilchrist, although as much for his keeping as his batting. When you're coming a (distant) second to Prior in glovework you know work needs doing. Haddin's batting was decent, although after the ton at Cardiff no more than that.

[Andrew Pollock]

If Krezja was selected Australia would have retained the ashes

[Redbacks]

Roy pre IPL would have been a valuable addition for his ability to bowl spin/pace and also to produce good knocks when the chips were down.

[Jono]

Gilchrist

[vic_orthdox]

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

[tooextracool]

Don't think any of those players would have made a difference to the result of the series. Gilchrist had been well and truly found out by the end of his career, even a half fit Flintoff would have walked all over him. Hayden may have been useful with England not playing Hoggard these days and Anderson's continual attempts to bowl away swingers at left handers instead of inswingers, but his record in England is poor and I doubt it would have mattered much. Symonds is the same as Hayden, although I suppose his part time bowling may have helped him out.

Nonetheless, one batsman can rarely make a huge difference to a series result unless he has the series of his life, whereas one good bowler can make a huge difference. Therefore, Australia missed Lee more than any of those guys.