*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I wasn't really biased towards different countries as such - I just rated players who played in a style I liked watching more highly than I should, and the more a player deviated from that, the less I rated them. It made me under-rate players like Sehwag and Hayden a lot and over-rate players like Sibanda, Vaughan, Ganga etc.

I'm a lot better at separating what I like watching from what's actually effective these days. It wasn't really as much of a bad prediction as an example of how my cricket theories and ideas have evolved.

You better not have reversed on Skippy, or else.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Noble One

By all interviews and autobiographies of the time, it seems the Australian experiment with playing Bevan as a spin-bowler really messed up his attitude.

It must have been long-lasting, his attitude sucked when I met him.

[social]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Nah, the bollocks theory that gained legs is that Watson was brought in for his bowling. Overs bowled by him on his recall as an all-rounder? 3.

Hughes looked like he'd been totally sorted out and he doesn't have the basics to fall back on when out of nick, what with having a technique that's on the retarded side of quirky.

Sorry mate but that's rubbish

Watson had actually opened in fc cricket (scoring basically no runs in about 10 innings) and no-one in their right mind would've entrusted him to do so if it wasnt for the fact that Johnson and Siddle couldnt hit the side of a barn with the ball and they needed back-up in the form of Watto

Hughes was regarded as expendable due to a lack of runs in 2 tests and that's all she wrote

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by social

Sorry mate but that's rubbish

Watson had actually opened in fc cricket (scoring basically no runs in about 10 innings) and no-one in their right mind would've entrusted him to do so if it wasnt for the fact that Johnson and Siddle couldnt hit the side of a barn with the ball and they needed back-up in the form of Watto

Hughes was regarded as expendable due to a lack of runs in 2 tests and that's all she wrote

Nah, doesn't even vaguely ring true. I never saw the idea that Watson was selected as an all-rounder proposed until months after the fact (and, to be honest, then only by you); it just wasn't a factor. Hughes had failed six times out of six (including the Loins game), Oz were behind in the series and everyone else had made a score.

The fact that Hauritz was dropped for the next game surely puts it to bed in any case.

&, ftr, Siddle hadn't bowled badly at all either.

[social]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Nah, doesn't even vaguely ring true. I never saw the idea that Watson was selected as an all-rounder proposed until months after the fact (and, to be honest, then only by you); it just wasn't a factor. Hughes had failed six times out of six (including the Loins game), Oz were behind in the series and everyone else had made a score.

The fact that Hauritz was dropped for the next game surely puts it to bed in any case.

&, ftr, Siddle hadn't bowled badly at all either.

Did you see Australia's bowling performance at Lords - ****ing woeful

Did you see Watto's record as an opener before that test - worse

The Australian selectors were openly adamant that they'd keep together the pace attack that won in SA and to compensate for their ineffectiveness they first picked Watson and then Clark (who should've been there in the first place) for Headingley

It was hardly a secret

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by social

Did you see Australia's bowling performance at Lords - ****ing woeful

Did you see Watto's record as an opener before that test - worse

The Australian selectors were openly adamant that they'd keep together the pace attack that won in SA and to compensate for their ineffectiveness they first picked Watson and then Clark (who should've been there in the first place) for Headingley

It was hardly a secret

The woefulness at Lords was mainly down to one chap in particular. Siddle and Hilfy bowled steadily for the most part and Hauritz dislocated a finger so barely bowled first innings.

If Hughes had been dropped for the all-round skills of Watson one might've thought that the selectors would've told him this to cusion the blow and then, subsequently, he might've made reference to it in his injudicious tweet, which was how the world first heard of his axing.

The facts don't support the idea Watson was selected as an all-rounder at all. 8 overs in 3 tests? Come on.

[GIMH]

Largely siding with Brumby, but did you see what happened when Watto did bowl? It was delightful.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Largely siding with Brumby, but did you see what happened when Watto did bowl? It was delightful.

"Juicy" is I think how Boycott described it, and you know when he's taking a shine to your bowling, you're about to get hammered.

[TumTum]

Paine is a better glove-man than Haddin. Both great against the fast bowlers but Haddin is woeful against spin. Although tbh I haven't seen Paine receive any edges from Hauritz

My predictions:

- I reckon Swann will have an average series overall wise, but he will pick up a bag of wickets at certain times, hopefully it all comes in vain, but I doubt we would get on top of him forever.

- Punter will get at-least 3 tons this series and it will be the start of another purple patch for him.

- Watson will look great all series, but won't have the scores to back it up with.

- Katich will score at-least 2 tons this series, but they will all come in the 1st innings and he will average about 40.

- Hussey will continue to be dire, however he will produce at least 1 match winning knock.

- Hauritz (if he plays) will be **** (if the series against SA is anything to go by)

- North will fail for the first 2 Tests and will be dropped (but will return just after as his replacement will get injured in their 1st match)

- Clarke will play the patience game outside off-stump, get sucked in a few times but will also get many 70s/80s.

- Hilfenhaus and Johnson will get the most wickets this series.

- Bollinger will bowl with a lot of heart but his length will be inconsistent and will have an average series.

- KP will play at-least a couple of innings of note, but will struggle getting out in the strangest of ways.

- Collingwood will make 1 big hundred, but will fail rest of series, consequently being called Hilfy's bunny.

- Strauss will feast on our short and wide bowling on many occasions and will have a good series, but still won't play any significant innings (kinda like Watson).

- Cook will fail at the start of the series but will get a 100 later on and show his mental toughness, will still have an average series though.

- Finn will bowl terribly and the crowd will treat him like Harmison of 06/07. He will still pick up some wickets though, but will mostly be due to stupid batting mistakes.

- Broad will be the leader of attack and will bowl pretty decently and economically. However he will end up close to the least wicket of the series and will pose no threat.

- Anderson (if he plays) will enjoy some of the green wickets CA will produce and will be tough to handle with the new ball on those green pitches. Which will in the end justify him for the other Test matches with not so green wickets, where he will get carted

- Prior will be a dud.

- Haddin/Paine will also be duds, however they will prove to be good pinch hitters when Aus has a decent total.

Time to save this quote for later and see how many humble pies I will eat after we regain the Ashes

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Noble One

When you concede > 200 runs in the one innings, I would hardly class that as being effective. But I do get your point, he is a bowler who does take advantage of spin friendly conditions.

I really like Krejza. I remember watching his first couple of OD games for NSW and thinking that he was a special talent. He is the only decent spinner in Australia who has the capability to be a true world-class spin bowler. The issue is he lacks so many of the other attributes needed to compliment what he does well. He is still only 27, I believe he will return to the Test team at some stage, but at this moment he should not be near the selector’s radar until he starts to show some improvements in the core basics of his game.

I will be very frustrated if Krejza starts talking about his doosra again this season. Bowl an accurate off-break, and then things will change.

Fair enough.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

The woefulness at Lords was mainly down to one chap in particular. Siddle and Hilfy bowled steadily for the most part and Hauritz dislocated a finger so barely bowled first innings.

If Hughes had been dropped for the all-round skills of Watson one might've thought that the selectors would've told him this to cusion the blow and then, subsequently, he might've made reference to it in his injudicious tweet, which was how the world first heard of his axing.

The facts don't support the idea Watson was selected as an all-rounder at all. 8 overs in 3 tests? Come on.

The Watson gamble pays off | Cricket News | England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Originally Posted by quote

with Watson called up as much for seam bowling insurance as top-of-the-order runs.

.

The fact that Watto didn't bowl more than 3 overs ATT. Basically just had to do with circumstances. With the match being rain effected & teams going on & of the field. Ponting coming out back after starts just simply preferred to bowl his main 3 quicks in those overcast conditions.

In Headingley. The 4-quicks owned ENG so Ponting didn't need to call on Watson or any 5th bowler.

At the Oval especially in the 2nd innings when the ball was turning. Ponting just didn't use him then.

Overall though he was certainly picked as an-allrounder after Hughes axing. Just circumstances in various innings made Ponting didn't use him much with the ball.

[four_or_six]

It was said before the tour here, when people worried about Hughes being so inexperienced, that Watto was able to cover the opening batting slot.

[four_or_six]

We think that some of the fans come up with mad teams for the Ashes, but here is Darren Berry's:

1. Katich
2. Watson
3. Ponting
4. Khawaja
5. Clarke
6. Ferguson
7. Paine
8. Smith
9. Siddle
10. Bollinger
11. Hilfenhaus

Apart from saying that Ferguson is obviously a 100-test player, the most bizarre bit has to be dropping Johnson.

[social]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

We think that some of the fans come up with mad teams for the Ashes, but here is Darren Berry's:

1. Katich
2. Watson
3. Ponting
4. Khawaja
5. Clarke
6. Ferguson
7. Paine
8. Smith
9. Siddle
10. Bollinger
11. Hilfenhaus

Apart from saying that Ferguson is obviously a 100-test player, the most bizarre bit has to be dropping Johnson.

Johnson is a disappointment in that whilst on one hand he's good enough to be named World Cricketer of the Year, on the other he's prone to bowling complete dross on a semi-regular basis

Now you either take the view that, on average, it's worth it or you demand more consistency.

IMO, apart from the last innings, he bowled very well in India so dropping him would be harsh particularly when the odds are on him being a real handful at the Gabba

In terms of this team, I dont agree with the selections of either Ferguson or Siddle as neither has done enough to warrant inclusion

Ferguson is yet to have a breakthrough season at fc level and Siddle was crap prior to his injury

[social]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

It was said before the tour here, when people worried about Hughes being so inexperienced, that Watto was able to cover the opening batting slot.

TBH, I dont think too many people were worried about Hughes after SA

It was more a case of it being highlighted that no backup openers were selected and the selectors nominated Watson as an option (a suggestion that was pretty much laughed off at the time btw)