2010/11 Ashes XI

[Spark]

Not a whole lot of chances tbf.

didn't say there was a huge gap, just enough to bridge the gap between their batting - which I don't think is enormous.

[Burgey]

Would have Johnson in ahead of Swann, frankly. Yeah Swann was the best spinner in the side, but he's hardly done that much. It's a personal thing of course, but I would like to see Johnson operate in that 3rd-4th quick role behind two blokes bowling well, rather than trying to lead the attack.

[vic_orthdox]

I think Swann's been serviceable rather than super, but he's played a big holding role down one end whilst still applying pressure, which is more than you can say for pretty much all of our quicks. He's probably still going to average better than Johnson for the series, and he's been a massive partnership bowler for them.

Especially with Watson missing out on the team, you need him being able to churn through large numbers of overs down one end into the breeze.

[Burgey]

Yeah fair points. He keeps the overs ticking by too.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Would have Johnson in ahead of Swann, frankly. Yeah Swann was the best spinner in the side, but he's hardly done that much. It's a personal thing of course, but I would like to see Johnson operate in that 3rd-4th quick role behind two blokes bowling well, rather than trying to lead the attack.

There's not much of a difference between them, they've each bowled their side to victory in one Test and been fairly innocous for the series, if Swann snares a couple tomorrow then they'll end up with pretty similar series figures.

The crucial difference between them IMO is that when conditions haven't been in Swann's favour he's held up an end and built pressure by bowling pots of overs economically whilst prising out key wickets at key times. Outwith Perth, Johnson has bowled rubbish.

edit: or, basically, what Jack said.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

There's not much of a difference between them, they've each bowled their side to victory in one Test and been fairly innocous for the series, if Swann snares a couple tomorrow then they'll end up with pretty similar series figures.

The crucial difference between them IMO is that when conditions haven't been in Swann's favour he's held up an end and built pressure by bowling pots of overs economically whilst prising out key wickets at key times. Outwith Perth, Johnson has bowled rubbish.

edit: or, basically, what Jack said.

Economy rates:

Swann - 2.7
Johnson - 4.1

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

Economy rates:

Swann - 2.7
Johnson - 4.1

Which I pointed out in my 2nd paragraph. In terms of 5fors, matchwinnimg performances, wickets taken and average they're both pretty similar.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Which I pointed out in my 2nd paragraph. In terms of 5fors, matchwinnimg performances, wickets taken and average they're both pretty similar.

Except Johnson's had matchlosing performances too. Plus he was dropped for the pitch he'd probably have gone worst on.

[MW1304]

Strauss *
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Prior †
Swann
Siddle
Tremlett
Anderson

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by four_or_six

Except Johnson's had matchlosing performances too. Plus he was dropped for the pitch he'd probably have gone worst on.

Or was he rested?

I think that you have to compare the players based on their roles in the side, and so you can't really compare Swann's holding role and partnership bowling to Johnson's mercurial strike bowler role. Tremlett and Anderson have been the best aggressors by far.

So while I would hear an argument regarding Siddle in the side ahead of Swann I wouldn't take Johnson. Bresnan would get in but questions remain over whether he could have done better all series.

For similar reasons, you have to compare Strauss to Ponting and not Watson, and you would go with the better captain's performance.

Prior vs Haddin is closer. Keeping was fairly even - both missed simple chances - though Prior's footwork has really improved. I wouldn't mind either being picked, Haddin for being tough at the start of the series or Prior pushing the advantage at the end. I'd take Haddin for batting against the better attack.

Strauss (c), Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Hussey, Bell, Haddin, Swann, Siddle/Bresnan, Tremlett, Anderson.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Watson out, unless you want half the batting order run out.

Yeah fair point. But he's scored more runs than Strauss and his bowling is very very handy.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Yeah fair point. But he's scored more runs than Strauss and his bowling is very very handy.

He's also had 3 more innings than Strauss in which to bat, his bowling has largely been innocuous and wouldn't be needed in England's side (and this isn't really an Ashes XI, it's a "which Australians would get a game for England" side), and he's played no innings of any real substancein the series, save maybe for his 95 at Perth if you're being generous. Strauss on the other hand has hit a 2nd innings ton to help save a Test in Brisbane and 1st innings 50s at Melbourne and Sydney to help put England in a position to win both Tests.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

I think Swann's been serviceable rather than super, but he's played a big holding role down one end whilst still applying pressure, which is more than you can say for pretty much all of our quicks. He's probably still going to average better than Johnson for the series, and he's been a massive partnership bowler for them.

Especially with Watson missing out on the team, you need him being able to churn through large numbers of overs down one end into the breeze.

Agree with all of this except Swann is averaging quite a few higher IIRC

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Agree with all of this except Swann is averaging quite a few higher IIRC

Johnson 37, Swann 42. But it's not all about stats.

[GIMH]

Yep, hence why I said I agreed with everything else he said