• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* First Test at the Gabba

tooextracool

International Coach
Im really not sure why Hauritz is being considered for Brisbane given the reports on what the pitch is going to play like. Hauritz outside of Sydney/Adelaide is a real recipe for disaster. 4 quicks is the way to go IMO.
 

Tom 1972

School Boy/Girl Captain
You know who should move up? Marcus North. Here's why...

*He bat's at 4 for WA
*He's a 'boom or bust' batsman. You don't want a guy like that coming in at #6 IMO. You want him coming in earlier because if he does fail then you've got 2 proper batsmen in to halt any collapse, and your #6 to come. Batting him at #6, means the keeper has to halt any potential collapses and if it's due to a good spell of bowling he may not be able to resist with his inferior technique.
*And thinking more positively, North is the most likely of Clarke/Hussey/North to score a big hundred right now. So get him in there first. Clarke might be just as likely to score a ton, but Clarke rarely scores big centuries.
*It would let him partner Clarke more often, and that might give the Poms some bad memories of 2009.
*It would be a good confidence booster for him if Ricky comes and says, hey Marcus you're in at 4.
*It fits well with the other 2 guys as well, since we know Clarke is a good #5, and if Hussey is retained he's potentially a very good #6 too. He bats there in ODIs and even in Test cricket many of his better knocks have come with the lower order.
really good point. If North must play, then #4 isn't a bad idea at all.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hey Australia, have you gone soft?

That's the impression I'm getting lately. Their predicament is partially selector-engineered which is, well, hilarious from an Englishman's perspective because for so long it has been us who couldn't organise ourselves out of a paper bag. But where has the decisiveness gone? The confidence in a young tyro to step up and give us a kick in the nads? Where's the grit? The shoe seems to be on the other foot. Now we're the ones with the settled side, the positive, forward-thinking board and the ability, I think, to terrorise the old enemy for a while. And I've never known an Australian to chuck a hissy fit under the pressure of the big stage as Johnson did in the Ashes last year. Lost your hard edge lads? :p
Think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that'd disagree with your main points here, tbh. Australian selectors just spineless atm.
 

howardj

International Coach
I will also add that this season has been Australia's wettest since like ... ever.

- Last year CA has asked all curators to start leaving more grass on the pitches
- One of Australia's wettest season in history
- Recent Domestic results at this ground
- Curator has said that if there is any moisture left in the pitch before the Test starts, grass will grow quickly underneath.

Adding all these together, I think the expectations is pretty clear.
All good points TT.

I think the curators will actually be under enormous pressure from the State asssociations to not have the game fizzle out within three days - given the number of prepurchased tickets for this Ashes series, and the stream of gold that will flow into the coffers.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Australia already have 4 seam options including watson who is good on helpful tracks,its better to have a spinner as tails can sometime wag.
North, Katich and Clarke are plenty enough to take care of the tail (provided the fast bowlers don't themselves).
 

Oscillatingmind

U19 Cricketer
Please. It does not correlate. Hussey,

2008 tests, 14 matches, 900 runs @ 37.50 with 2 hundreds and 4 fifties
2008 ODI, 18 matches, 622 runs @ 56.54 with 6 fifties, SR 74.40

2009 tests, 13 matches, 804 runs @ 36.54 with 1 hundred and 6 fifties
2009 ODI, 33 matches, 1166 runs @ 48.58 with 11 fifties, SR 90.80

2010 tests, 8 matches, 442 runs @ 36.83 with 1 hundred and 1 fifty
2010 ODI, 22 matches, 788 runs @ 46.35 with 6 fifties, SR 93.69

The guy needs to play that effing tour match
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Please. It does not correlate. Hussey,

2008 tests, 14 matches, 900 runs @ 37.50 with 2 hundreds and 4 fifties
2008 ODI, 18 matches, 622 runs @ 56.54 with 6 fifties, SR 74.40

2009 tests, 13 matches, 804 runs @ 36.54 with 1 hundred and 6 fifties
2009 ODI, 33 matches, 1166 runs @ 48.58 with 11 fifties, SR 90.80

2010 tests, 8 matches, 442 runs @ 36.83 with 1 hundred and 1 fifty
2010 ODI, 22 matches, 788 runs @ 46.35 with 6 fifties, SR 93.69

The guy needs to play that effing tour match
How ironic would it be if we dropped Hussey for Ferguson - a man picked purely based on his ODI career? :p
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
Coming up to the first Test, any comments on the ICC Rankings comparison….

Batsmen
1. Katich (14) – Strauss (27)
2. Watson (24) – Cook (31)
3. Ponting (16) – Trott (15)
4. Clarke (13) – Pietersen (23)
5. Hussey (32) – Collingwood (33)
6. North (46) – Bell (28)
7. Haddin (39) – Prior (34)
8. Johnson (86) - Swann (80)
9. Hauritz (91) - Broad (49)

Bowlers
1. Bollinger (9) – Anderson (4)
2. Hilfenhaus (19) – Broad (11)
3. Johnson (7) – Finn (29)
4. Hauritz (31) – Swann (2)
5. Watson (35) – Collingwood (84)
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well on the rankings England have a better batting line up and bowling if you discard Colly who doesn't bowl much at all these days.If Colly bowls more than 20 overs in the series then England are in trouble (in 2009 series he bowled 18 overs and just 3 last time down under) as it means the men chosen are really struggling.

Watson will bowl more than Colly does in the series during the 1st test in my opinion so it makes it a bit of a strange comparison.Colly v North or Clarke would be a better comparison and i'd expect them to bowl more than Colly too anyway.
 
Last edited:

aussie tragic

International Captain
Watson will bowl more than Colly does in the series during the 1st test in my opinion so it makes it a bit of a strange comparison.Colly v North or Clarke would be a better comparison and i'd expect them to bowl more than Colly too anyway.
I just picked the 5 highest ranked bowlers..oh for the days when Freddie allowed a 5th English bowler ;)

And how does England have a better batting line-up with Aussies having 4 of the top ranked 6?

1. Clarke (13)
2. Katich (14)
3. Trott (15)
4. Ponting (16)
5. Pietersen (23)
6. Watson (24)
7. Strauss (27)
8. Bell (28)
9. Cook (31)
10. Hussey (32)
11. Collingwood (33)
12. Prior (34)
13. Haddin (39)
14. North (46)
 
Last edited:

tooextracool

International Coach
The more I look at Anderson, Broad and Finn, the more I worry about our pace attack in Australia tbh. Personally, really hope that Tremlett goes well in the warmups and manages to displace Finn. Would have been nice to have had Onions.

Isnt much doubt in my mind that Australia have the better pace attack in Australian conditions.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And how does England have a better batting line-up with Aussies having 4 of the top ranked 6?

1. Clarke (13)
2. Katich (14)
3. Trott (15)
4. Ponting (16)
5. Pietersen (23)
6. Watson (24)
7. Strauss (27)
8. Bell (28)
9. Cook (31)
10. Hussey (32)
11. Collingwood (33)
12. Prior (34)
13. Haddin (39)
14. North (46)
Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.8-)
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.8-)
Well that'd be massively thrown out by the fact that Broad is apparently 40 odd places better than Hauritz, when in reality I highly doubt the difference between their batting is going to have such an effect on the series. I mean, that's about the same difference as the gap between Tendulkar and North. If you just look at the top sevens, Australia have a better battting lineup as per the rankings. If you're going to discount the fifth bowler, I think discounting the 8 and 9 batsmen seems logical as well.

I reckon the teams are about equal on batting though. Each of them have class from 1 to 7 but severe problems with form/decline/inconsistency in a couple of their players. The difference will be in the bowling and I think England have a better attack for English conditions while Australia have a better attack for Australian conditions. So I'm tipping Australia, but only because of the HGA. The teams are extremely even IMO.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
The more I look at Anderson, Broad and Finn, the more I worry about our pace attack in Australia tbh. Personally, really hope that Tremlett goes well in the warmups and manages to displace Finn. Would have been nice to have had Onions.

Isnt much doubt in my mind that Australia have the better pace attack in Australian conditions.
Don't know how well Onions would've gone here to be honest. Despite his reputation as an honest, hit-the-deck trier, what he actually is, is a pitch-it-up swing and seam merchant, who bowls an extremely large percentage of his balls on the stumps. That can often be highly ineffective in Australia and go for plenty of runs.

Tremlett should definitely be in the team though. He'd be the first bloke I picked. I'll also throw in a wildcard and say that I'd consider picking Darren Pattinson ahead of Bresnan should it get down to that, particularly given his early-season form here.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.8-)
Well that'd be massively thrown out by the fact that Broad is apparently 40 odd places better than Hauritz, when in reality I highly doubt the difference between their batting is going to have such an effect on the series. I mean, that's about the same difference as the gap between Tendulkar and North. If you just look at the top sevens, Australia have a better battting lineup as per the rankings. If you're going to discount the fifth bowler, I think discounting the 8 and 9 batsmen seems logical as well. 8-)

PEWS left the rolleyes out.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
If you add up the positions of the top 7, it's as near as damn it the same.

The rankings basically say that the Aussies have the stronger top four on paper, we have the stronger middle/lower order.
 

Top