*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Cricket_God

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Oscillatingmind

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?

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Cricket_God

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.

They will certainly wag if Hauritz is bowling to them.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Cricket_God

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.

This is Hauritz we're talking about. Not Warney

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

North, Katich and Clarke are plenty enough to take care of the tail (provided the fast bowlers don't themselves).

You're spot on. Provided England don't play Anderson and Panesar at 10 and 11.

[aussie tragic]

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]

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.

[aussie tragic]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

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)

[tooextracool]

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]

Originally Posted by aussie tragic

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.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

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.

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.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

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.

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.

PEWS left the rolleyes out.

[four_or_six]

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.