*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Taking away the bowling and the fielding do you think that Steve Smith is a better bat over Phil Hughes?

Smith's batting is extremely overrated for mine.

So is Hughes though. Hughes is found out atm.

I don't know enough about Smith to comment.

[social]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

So is Hughes though. Hughes is found out atm.

I don't know enough about Smith to comment.

Is this the same Hughes that scored nearly 1000 runs in the last Aussie fc season and battered the Kiwis in the second innings of his only test since being dropped?

Runs are runs and if we ignore them on the basis of aesthetics then guys like Sehwag, Amla, and Chanderpaul would never have been given another go at test cricket

[Spark]

Amla? Amla's a fairly aesthetic batsman IMO.

[social]

Originally Posted by aussie

As i said. Given i have seen him bat in all those tests. Most of his dismissals have been more down to hit getting out to dumb/overly aggressive shots, instead of him looking technically exposed & getting out one way all time. Which if that where the case, then that would have been a HUGE problem.

But given that hasn't been the case, i am confident once he focuses more when he bats. He will score more consistently, i have no worries.

with the exception of one innings in India, he's barely laid bat on ball for 12 months

The guy is a walking wicket these days and Australia is in deep **** if we're relying on him to score runs

[social]

Originally Posted by Spark

Amla? Amla's a fairly aesthetic batsman IMO.

Amla is a very different looking batsman today than he was when he first played test cricket

[social]

Originally Posted by aussie

Main 3 bowlers or 4 bowlers. Doesnt matter what you want to call him, once he is in the team.

If you have Bollinger/Hilfy/Johnson/Harris in the team i suggested in Brisbane in those condtions. Why would you need McDonald to back them up when you already have Watson, who can back then up if needed?.

Their is aboslutely no way McDonald could replicate that FC average of his if he played test cricket regularly. He is not that good. I already articulated to you how McDonald was weak link in those matches he played vs SA.

Firstly, you're assuming that a fit to bowl Watson will turn up in Brisbane

That wasnt the case in India so I hope a miracle cure has been discovered in the meantime

Secondly, you've weakened Australia's already dodgy batting lineup by ensuring our tail starts at 8. Sorry but that prospect doesnt exactly fill me with joy

Thirdly, you've taken ONE McDonald bowling performance (in a match where he scored 68 btw) and somehow drawn the conclusion that it's representative of his career.

He averages 33 with the ball in test cricket not 103 and for the most part, SA couldnt hit him off the square i.e. he'll do the job

As I've said earlier, IF the weather forecast for Brisbane is correct then McDonald would be a good bet because you know what you'll get

BTW< Harris is highly unlikely to be fit so talk of him is wishful thinking in the extreme

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by social

Is this the same Hughes that scored nearly 1000 runs in the last Aussie fc season and battered the Kiwis in the second innings of his only test since being dropped?

Runs are runs and if we ignore them on the basis of aesthetics then guys like Sehwag, Amla, and Chanderpaul would never have been given another go at test cricket

Yeah, that Hughes.

Runs against NZ. Hard to come by these days with our bowling attack.

He got shown up in England and I reckon he has a bit to work on before returning to the test side.

And lol at the aesthetics. I never said he shouldn't be picked because he's ugly. Geez, I support Sinclair and Ingram.

[social]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Yeah, that Hughes.

Runs against NZ. Hard to come by these days with our bowling attack.

He got shown up in England and I reckon he has a bit to work on before returning to the test side.

And lol at the aesthetics. I never said he shouldn't be picked because he's ugly. Geez, I support Sinclair and Ingram.

Why are you setting different criteria for Hughes than others?

He was dropped, scored nearly 1000 runs last season and succeeded in his comeback test

If he scores runs in the leadup to the first test (i.e. is in form this year) then I honestly dont know what else people can ask of him.

IMO, the only way we'll find out whether the Ashes was merely an aberration (as opposed to a fatal flaw) is to actually play him

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by social

Why are you setting different criteria for Hughes than others?

He was dropped, scored nearly 1000 runs last season and succeeded in his comeback test

If he scores runs in the leadup to the first test (i.e. is in form this year) then I honestly dont know what else people can ask of him.

IMO, the only way we'll find out whether the Ashes was merely an aberration (as opposed to a fatal flaw) is to actually play him

Agreed, but do you want to risk it in the Ashes when Watto/Katman is a good opening partnership anyway?

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Agreed, but do you want to risk it in the Ashes when Watto/Katman is a good opening partnership anyway?

Surely he will be more consistent than North at 6.

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by TumTum

Surely he will be more consistent than North at 6.

Dunno tbh.

At least North will ton up once or twice in the Ashes if he plays.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by social

with the exception of one innings in India, he's barely laid bat on ball for 12 months

The guy is a walking wicket these days and Australia is in deep **** if we're relying on him to score runs

As i already articluated in that post. Johnson's average year with the blade has been down to mainly him getting out to poor shots, rather than a sign of him losing his batting ability.

I fully expect him to contribue in a few innings over the course of Ashes, once he bats more responsibly. If you dont, i'm not going to try to convince you otherwise ATM. Performances in the Ashes shall prove this.

Once a proper strong top 6 is picked with North dropped. Then AUS should & woudl not be relying on him to score runs at all. Just for example if he comes it with AUS 400/6, TO score a good quick-wire 30-50.

Originally Posted by social

Firstly, you're assuming that a fit to bowl Watson will turn up in Brisbane

That wasnt the case in India so I hope a miracle cure has been discovered in the meantime

Secondly, you've weakened Australia's already dodgy batting lineup by ensuring our tail starts at 8. Sorry but that prospect doesnt exactly fill me with joy

Thirdly, you've taken ONE McDonald bowling performance (in a match where he scored 68 btw) and somehow drawn the conclusion that it's representative of his career.

He averages 33 with the ball in test cricket not 103 and for the most part, SA couldnt hit him off the square i.e. he'll do the job

As I've said earlier, IF the weather forecast for Brisbane is correct then McDonald would be a good bet because you know what you'll get

BTW< Harris is highly unlikely to be fit so talk of him is wishful thinking in the extreme.

Even if Watson is 100 % fiit as he was in India (he has looked this lazy & latargic since the NZ series earlier this year & took those 5 wicket hauls vs PAK). If Brisbane conditions do turn out to be as you suggest. He would be far more effective than McDonald in such a line-up, if needeed to bowl as the 5th bowling option behind the 4-main quicks. So no need to pick McDonald.

I've already articulated my position on Johnson above. By no means in the XI i chosen would that tail start from # 8 with him. The likes of Hilfenahaus & Harris/Siddle are no joke tailedners, they certainly can contribute.

McDonald scored that 68 with AUS basically having no hope of winning, with no pressure to perform. His batting is not good enought to give consistent runs @ # 6/7 @ test level for AUS.

As i laready said, it wasn't as if the SA batsmen couildn't hit him off the square. They where rather never in a position to in the first two test TO HIT him him off the square, because of how superb Johnson/Hifly/Siddle bowled in the 1st two test. Especially Johnson who shocked them with amount of inswing he got in SA - they certainly wouldn't have expected that based on what they faced from him in AUS. The SA batsmen where never in a position to be able to take of advantage of McDonald since he was an obvious weaklink, until the final test @ Capetown when they got accustomed to the AUS pace trio on flat pitch & absolutely slaughtered McDonald. So McDonald bowling tight in those 1st two test in SA was him feeding of the pressure Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy created.

If conditions are correct as you suggest. I would pick Harris, Siddle or George (form & fitness permitting) over McDonald without a doubt. Since they would clearly provide a more wicket-taking threat in such conditions.

We shall see what happens with Harris between now & the 1st test. Even if he isn't fit, the likes of Siddle or George should be next in line.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Ever stopped to wonder why that might be the case?

Ha, no.

Enough people always agree with my POVs on this site at a given time in a thread. The world of cricket POVs/opinions does not end on CW.net. So i dont care if the majority of the CW regulars & elitist dont with sotimeme i say at a given time, since i dont come on here to change minds - but rather to state my positions on various cricket matters.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by aussie

Ha, no.

Enough people always agree with my POVs on this site at a given time in a thread. The world of cricket POVs/opinions does not end on CW.net. So i dont care if the majority of the CW regulars & elitist dont with sotimeme i say at a given time, since i dont come on here to change minds - but rather to state my positions on various cricket matters.

State your opinion? More like drilling it in. Can't basically tell the difference between your various posts and its basically like copying and pasting what you told in the previous post. Repetition - one word to describe your posting style.

[Prince EWS]

Guys, stop discussing aussie and talk about the Ashes. He should be allowed to have a discussion without people discussing the discussion.

And Shri if you reply to or completely ignore this, I'll campaign for your banning. So much ****-stirring from you lately; keep a lid on it.