2010/11 Ashes XI

[Prince EWS]

The fact that Doherty and Beer have played three Tests between them is a great example of why Swann has to be picked. Johnson may have technically had a more effective series but Swann performed his role to a much better standard and I don't think the difference between Johnson and Swann is anywhere near big enough to ignore the variety Swann gives. Expanding on that - unlike someone a Hauritz/Harris who offers variety only in changing the pace of the attack and can't really take advantage of a turning surface, Swann offers variety in being able to perform in a way others can't when the pitch is in a different condition - and he demonstrated within the series too, so it's a valid point for a series team.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

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.

IMO you have to rate players based on what they've done, rather than what they might have done. Bresnan strung two excellent performances together, which is more than anyone not named James Anderson or Chris Tremlett managed.

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Prior
Bresnan
Swann
Anderson
Tremlett

12th man: Siddle

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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.

Well yes he's had more innings than Strauss but he also averages 48 to Strauss' 43.

As to whether he's made a substantial contribution, although he's not made a big score, he has been freakishly consistent in getting good starts, as that average of 48 shows.

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler. And I also disagree that he wouldn't be needed by England's team. The greatest weakness in this England team is the lack of a 5th bowler. Colly isn't really up to the task, his 2 wickets in this series notwithstanding. That weakness has not been costly because the Aussies have rarely managed to put a lengthy innings together and because the 4 England bowlers have rarely had an off-day. But the lack of a 5th bowler would be a problem in different circumstances, and a player like Watson balances the team very nicely.

Having said which, there are other factors that need to be taken into account such as Strauss' catching and Watson's running between the wickets and haircut and nationality.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler.

Damning with faint praise indeed

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Well yes he's had more innings than Strauss but he also averages 48 to Strauss' 43.

As to whether he's made a substantial contribution, although he's not made a big score, he has been freakishly consistent in getting good starts, as that average of 48 shows.

I disagree with you about his bowling. In this match he looked like Australia's best bowler. And I also disagree that he wouldn't be needed by England's team. The greatest weakness in this England team is the lack of a 5th bowler. Colly isn't really up to the task, his 2 wickets in this series notwithstanding. That weakness has not been costly because the Aussies have rarely managed to put a lengthy innings together and because the 4 England bowlers have rarely had an off-day. But the lack of a 5th bowler would be a problem in different circumstances, and a player like Watson balances the team very nicely.

Having said which, there are other factors that need to be taken into account such as Strauss' catching and Watson's running between the wickets and haircut and nationality.

Strauss was captain. Every side needs a captain, literally has to, and we have to judge on who played better this series, not who might have done okay.

Picking a composite XI without a captain is like picking one without a keeper.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Damning with faint praise indeed

True.

But he did look decent, and in any side right now would be a viable 5th option.

[GingerFurball]

To what extent to good bowling units really need a 5th bowler?

[Jacknife]

Originally Posted by MW1304

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

Yes ,that would be my side, the only thing you could add to this England side, is Hussey and probably Siddle, but to be fair to Bresnan, if we go on what we've seen from him, I'd be happy to have him in there, instead of Siddle. I would defo have Prior over Haddin and Johnson wouldn't be within a million miles of my side.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

To what extent to good bowling units really need a 5th bowler?

Depends on the opposition, context of the series, conditions, balance of the side and how your team is performing.

Always, always a valuable option.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Strauss was captain. Every side needs a captain, literally has to, and we have to judge on who played better this series, not who might have done okay.

Picking a composite XI without a captain is like picking one without a keeper.

Pick your best XI and then pick the captain tbh.

Well, IMO anyways.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

To what extent to good bowling units really need a 5th bowler?

Australia would have liked one in 05. England had one in 05.

I dare say SA would have liked one last night, but Kallis was injured.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Pick your best XI and then pick the captain tbh.

Well, IMO anyways.

I agree, but this is trumped by the rule, "Don't pick Twatto"

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Pick your best XI and then pick the captain tbh.

Well, IMO anyways.

Maybe if you picking "The XI that should have played", or something.

Except we're judging on performances with the series, so it's not just a hypothetical XI. You can't make, say, Alistair Cook captain the XI based on this series performance - because he didn't perform as a captain.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Australia would have liked one in 05. England had one in 05.

I dare say SA would have liked one last night, but Kallis was injured.

I did say "good bowling units". You didn't really need one in 2006/07 did you?

The current South Africa side aren't a good bowling unit.

[Zinzan]

In the final wash;

1. Cook
2. Strauss (c)
3. Trott
4. Pietersen
5. Hussey
6. Bell
7. Haddin
8. Swann
9. Bresnan
10. Tremlett
11. Anderson

12th Man: Siddle

Could have gone either way on Prior vs Haddin tbh, but felt sorry about the lack of Crims in the side.