Road to the 2019 Ashes

[trundler]

Don't need to fix the bowling. 4 ace bowlers is enough.

 

[wrongun]

Yes it is my opinion, I think going in without Pattinson is really silly if he’s available. Whomever misses out is unlucky and no I would not pick someone on their batting if they’re a bowler, it is simply a bonus. Playing all 4 would be pretty crazy, perhaps that’s the correct thing to do. If you rely on your tail all the time then you have serious problems but if it is your strength and you win games because of it then there’s no problem. Cummins with the bat was a huge reason Aus did well last time.

Haze and Lyon need to be part of the squad. Im not against Pattinson being a part of the XI but not at the expense of either of those 2. Go in with one batter less.

 

[Burgey]

My Aus XI for the first test would be:

Harris
Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Head
Labuschagne
Paine(c)(wk)
Pattinson
Cummins
Starc
Lyon

Funnily enough I think Harris will do reasonably in England, even if on raw stats you'd pick Burns. I think Harris will play late off the back foot nicely and hence play the moving ball well. I'm more worried for Head with the seam movement although I'm always reminded of his gutsy innings against Abbas in the UAE and I hope he proves me wrong. Labuschagne gets picked ahead of Patterson simply because of his huge form in England this season.

I don't think Khawaja is going to be right for the first test. It's a bit of an issue for me to have four of your top five lefties in circumstances where it's line ball between your choices, yet at the same time I'd have Patterson over Labuschagne any old day, in which case it's five of six.I'd be tempted to play Burns over Harris, and if Khawaja doesn't make the first test then I suppose Paterson or Wade (if selected) comes in for him. I wonder if they would bat at three or TPC would move up. Interesting choice.

I predict Travis Head to have a surprisingly good series for some reason. I don't know why.

 

[Burgey]

Haze and Lyon need to be part of the squad. Im not against Pattinson being a part of the XI but not at the expense of either of those 2. Go in with one batter less.

Only if you want to lose 4-0

 

[Starfighter]

The main thing I'm seeing here is someone suggesting an English XI without Broad.

I know he hasn't been bowling well but it does anyone think there's actually a genuine chance that he won't be picked, considering how hard cricket boards find it dropping long standing players?

 

[howardj]

Yep, Burns made 133 to go with his 180 in his last test innings, but hey, why not put Harris who played 6 tests for HS of 79 and average of 32 in ahead of him

It's just absurd, isn't it?

Burns averages in the 40s in Tests, and is the Test incumbent who peeled off 180 in his most recent innings.

Harris averages in the low 30s, and got out the same way regularly during the Summer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's just absurd, isn't it?

Not really if you're a deeper thinker

I can see why to someone just looking at the numbers and not really analysing too carefully why it would seem strange

 

[Burgey]

You can't have watched Harris and thought he's a more convincing test player than Burns. It isn't possible. Has different but just as obvious technical issues, and also lacks the wherewithal to go on and make a big score once he's in, which is at least something Burns has shown he can do.

Harris out!

 

[TheJediBrah]

You can't have watched Harris and thought he's a more convincing test player than Burns. It isn't possible. Has different but just as obvious technical issues, and also lacks the wherewithal to go on and make a big score once he's in, which is at least something Burns has shown he can do.

Harris out!

Harris has done it consistently in the Shield. Burns has done it a couple of times on nice decks against weak attacks (and with a lot of dropped chances). Going to take a bit more for me to convince me that Burns has really shown that he can succeed as an opener in Tests, long term. If we are getting a nice batting surface like Lord's 2015, I would back Burns. Otherwise I'd pick Bancroft, or if we really need to Harris. Drawback of Harris is that he's somewhat similar to Warner, even just both being lefthanders gives the opposition bowlers an easier time being consistent.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Burns' test average of 40 is misleading, he's had a very easy run. Played 11 of his 16 matches at home on what have almost exclusively been roads. And 8 of those against NZ/WI/SL whose attacks left a lot to be desired. Even Burns' only overseas hundred was against a lacklustre NZ. This was all during the time period where Aus was making 3/500 declared every second innings, and Don Voges had his run.

You can't look at Burns' Test stats and think it's a good relative indicator to how he will perform in Tests in general, or compare it to Harris & Bancroft

 

[aussie tragic]

England Ashes training squad announced with final squad to be named after the Ireland Test.

England Ashes training camp: Moeen Ali, Jimmy Anderson, Jonny Bairstow, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler, Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Lewis Gregory, Jack Leach, Joe Root, Jason Roy, Ben Stokes, Olly Stone, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood.

Note: Wood injured with side strain for up to 6 weeks, Anderson still recovering from calf injury, and 'Jofra Archer has also suffered a side injury and won't be considered for Test selection until he rests and returns from Barbados later this month.'

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/eng...-test-roy-anderson-australia-lords/2019-07-18

 

[Burgey]

Genuinely have never heard of Burns, Leach or Stone. Have some vague recollection of Denly and only realized yesterday Buttler was even back in the test side, let alone vice captain (which is hilarious)

4-0 Australia. Won't even break a sweat.

 

[Burgey]

Burns' test average of 40 is misleading, he's had a very easy run. Played 11 of his 16 matches at home on what have almost exclusively been roads. And 8 of those against NZ/WI/SL whose attacks left a lot to be desired. Even Burns' only overseas hundred was against a lacklustre NZ. This was all during the time period where Aus was making 3/500 declared every second innings, and Don Voges had his run.

You can't look at Burns' Test stats and think it's a good relative indicator to how he will perform in Tests in general, or compare it to Harris & Bancroft

You literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris. The kid is so mentally soft he makes Khawaja look like Allan Border ffs. There is nothing going on between the kid's ears, in a cricketing sense.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris. The kid is so mentally soft he makes Khawaja look like Allan Border ffs. There is nothing going on between the kid's ears, in a cricketing sense.

not really yapping up Harris, just yapping down Burns. I've seen multiple people saying something along the lines of "Surely Burns should be the obvious choice, look at his average, hundred in his last game etc." which is pure ignorance regarding the circumstances of his runs.

I watched the whole innings of his 180 against SL last Test, it was not inspiring. Very friendly batting track, he gave plenty of chances and the bowling attack was easily worse than any Shield attack that would have ben trotted out that summer.

I'm just trying to urge people think a bit more about what they're looking at, especially when it comes to stats. And yes I do think Harris should be given a bit more of a run before he's discarded entirely, he was one of our best players last summer against a very strong Indian bowling line up and has utterly dominated the Shield for the last few years.

You literally said "don't look at stats" then turn around and rely on stats to yap up Harris.

Also not sure what you mean by this

 

[marc71178]

The main thing I'm seeing here is someone suggesting an English XI without Broad.

I know he hasn't been bowling well but it does anyone think there's actually a genuine chance that he won't be picked, considering how hard cricket boards find it dropping long standing players?

Pretty sure they did it last winter although that was more condition-related.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Stone?

Yeah lets pick a bloke who is going at 4s domestically, what could possibly go wrong

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Stone?

Yeah lets pick a bloke who is going at 4s domestically, what could possibly go wrong

Picked solely on the fact he has pace. Would imagine Archer replaces him for ashes fitness permitting.

 

[Francis9898]

The main thing I'm seeing here is someone suggesting an English XI without Broad.

I know he hasn't been bowling well but it does anyone think there's actually a genuine chance that he won't be picked, considering how hard cricket boards find it dropping long standing players?

Of course he'll be picked, they don't have the balls to tell him he's been poor for 2 years. He gets in 'cause his name is Broad, not because he's been bowling well. I'm sure he'll make me eat it but as we stand now, there are better options.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Picked solely on the fact he has pace. Would imagine Archer replaces him for ashes fitness permitting.

Yeah thought so, Stone is pretty rapid. From what I have seen he doesn't look test class, not very accurate and doesn't really swing it much, but I haven't seen enough to be confident on my opinion

 

[Jarquis]

He's getting picked in part because of this - Specsavers County Championship Division Two, 2018 Cricket Team Records & Stats | ESPNcricinfo.com