2010/11 Ashes XI

[Mister Wright]

I don't think there will be many performances remaining in this test to change the XI.

Here's my Ashes XI, and there aren't many Aussies:

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

A few tough selections. The first was Strauss over Watson. Watson, probably has been more consistent and has two half centuries, but so does Strauss who also has a century. So in the end he has to get the nod.

The other tough selection was Haddin. He probably hasn't kept as well as Prior, but he has batted much better. Haddin's innings in Brisbane was fabulous, he also batted well in Perth.

Only two Australian bowlers average under 30 so it wasn't hard to decide the bowlers. Siddle had to be in, despite only getting one wicket in two tests, in Brisbane and Melbourne he bowled super. Anderson & Tremlett were easy choices, and the other decision was between Swann and Johnson, both have bowled their teams to victory, however, in the matches they didn't Swann has easily bowled better than Johnson.

Thoughts?

[Athlai]

Wouldn't go for Strauss over Watson personally unless you desperately felt you needed a captain.

Cook
Watson
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Haddin (+)
Swann
Harris
Tremlett
Anderson

[morgieb]

Cook
Watson
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Haddin
Swann
Harris
Tremlett
Anderson

Chose Harris as he was more consistent than Siddle or Johnson. Chose Watson as he's been somewhat more consistent than Strauss.

[King Pietersen]

Cook
Strauss *
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Prior +
Swann
Harris
Tremlett
Anderson

Strauss gets the nod over Watto due to him being the only Captaincy candidate. Prior over Haddin because I'm biased. Harris over Siddle because he's less of knob. Bresnan could sneak in with a couple more wickets, and some runs in this game.

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Would have Siddle over Harris. For Siddle's lack of penetration in Adelaide, Harris was similarly poor in Melbourne.

Would also bat Siddle ahead of Swann on form at the moment. I know Swann's a much better batsman, but in the XI of the series, Siddle's been one of Australia's most consistent batsman whilst Swann has (when required) been below his best.

[GingerFurball]

No way Watson gets in the side. Poofy little starts before throwing your wicket away when your counterpart has captained his side brilliantly, as well as hitting a ton which helped save a Test and a 50 on the same day the opposition were skittled for 98.

[Athlai]

Hate that line of thought tbh, if Watson had a player like Trott or Cook at the other end turning his platforms into something meaningful it wouldn't be an issue. If not for Watson Australia wouldn't even have an innings at all.

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Hate that line of thought tbh, if Watson had a player like Trott or Cook at the other end turning his platforms into something meaningful it wouldn't be an issue. If not for Watson Australia wouldn't even have an innings at all.

All fair points, but Strauss has more influence on the series than Watson has.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Hate that line of thought tbh, if Watson had a player like Trott or Cook at the other end turning his platforms into something meaningful it wouldn't be an issue. If not for Watson Australia wouldn't even have an innings at all.

Alternatively Watson could go on with his starts instead of triggering collapses or exacerbating them by throwing his wicket away in the middle of them.

Adelaide's the perfect example, after their horror show in the first 10 minutes Watson and Hussey stabilised things nicely, before Watson threw away his wicket immediately after lunch. Take your point about Watson at least getting scores, but he's as much a part of Australia's batting woes. He doesn't have Cook etc at the other end, he's had an out of touch Ponting and Clarke. He has to take responsibility and get runs himself when his colleagues aren't delivering.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Hate that line of thought tbh, if Watson had a player like Trott or Cook at the other end turning his platforms into something meaningful it wouldn't be an issue. If not for Watson Australia wouldn't even have an innings at all.

Yeah, completely agreed.

[GingerFurball]

If Cook and Trott chucked their wickets away everytime they got near 50 we wouldn't have won either game as comfortably as we did. Watson is an opening batsman, he has to take some degree of responsibility for scoring runs to help Australia win Test matches.

Strauss scored 100 to help save a Test and got an unbeaten 50 on day 1 at Melbourne when Australia were out for 98 - that's more of a meaningful contribution than Watson constantly throwing away starts, which is exactly what a collapse prone batting lineup doesn't need.

And that's not taking Strauss' captaincy into consideration.

[Athlai]

Watto's 95 surely has to be considered influential on the series though doesn't it?

[Zinzan]

From a neutral perspective;

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

12th man, Harris/Bresnan

Note: Bresnan to edge out Harris if he does well in this match

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Watto's 95 surely has to be considered influential on the series though doesn't it?

Not really.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Not really.

Ridiculous.