Retro Ashes - from 1990 onwards

[adub]

Have you seen McGrath, Warne, and Harris' records in England? Granted Billy didn't take any wickets in England after 1990, but then slip in say a Reiffel (30 @ 23 in 7 tests in England) and you're good to go. As good as our batting was it was the bowling that won all those series until 05 and had McGrath not stepped on a ball in 05 we would have won that series too.

 

[GIMH]

Some of these England picks are atrocious. Trott opening with no Cook in the side? Run that one by me???

Ramprakash? You what?

And sorry but Anderson gets in ahead of any other seamer.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Shocked that no one has picked Mark Ilott.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Caddick over Anderson?
Stewart over Cook as opener?
Stewart over Prior as keeper?

Disagree vehemently with all of these. I'm also surprised Broad is being excluded in favor of Fraser... Surely his batting makes him a better pick.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also Brett Lee over Gillespie? Whaaaa?

 

[watson]

Also Brett Lee over Gillespie? Whaaaa?

Not much between the bowling skills of Lee and Gillespie. But since Lee was a better hard hitting lower order batsman, and McGrath-Lee-Warne formed the most successful bowling TRIO in cricketing history, then I can't go past Lee;

Lee brought in a much higher match-winning quality and raised the Warne/McGrath win % by well over 10% to an incredible 79%. That is 4 out of 5 Tests. Lee had the best strike rate amongst all three. These three captured over 75% of all team wickets.

Blogs: The best bowling trios in Test cricket | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

But you do have point re Broad. Therefore Broad replaces Fraser - just. And only because of his batting.

 

[Tangles]

Agreed on McGrath, Warne and Lee. If the series was played in England then add Alderman to that. AB a glaring omission in those Aussie lineups.

 

[adub]

I'm also surprised Broad is being excluded in favor of Fraser... Surely his batting makes him a better pick.

Yeah, but Broad is a ****.

Seriously though you can make an argument for Broad, his batting is handy and when he gets it right with the ball he can be devastating. But Gus still has a better bowling record against much better batting than what Broad has had to play against. He and Goughy were lion hearted performers for England at a time when they were getting their arse's handed to them. Wouldn't die in ditch arguing for Jones and Fraser over Anderson and Broad, but I think the fact they're bowling to much weaker opposition makes the latter two look better than they actually are.

 

[adub]

Agreed on McGrath, Warne and Lee. If the series was played in England then add Alderman to that. AB a glaring omission in those Aussie lineups.

Very close run thing for mine, but seeing as the qualification is right at the end of his great career and he was batting exclusively 5-6 at that stage I couldn't play him over Tugga or Mr Cricket or consider him at 4 over Junior. Take the qualification period back 5 years though and of course he has to be in the side.

Also Clem only played 4 Ashes tests in 90/91 and apart from an excellent game in Brisbane wasn't much of a threat. Walk up start to any side including the 80s obviously.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Ok, Ok, I’ve taken into account some of the advice polietely offered on here, and I’d just like to make a few points –

A. The selection is based on general quality, rather than performances against Australia alone. I mean, I don’t want Peter Such in there do I? (for Heath)

B. Top Cat – I was of course referring to Phillip Hughes. I assume that number 10 is the natural batting position of Australia’s answer to Brian Lara now?

C. Seriously though, I get some of the points made. So –

1. Gooch
2. Trescothick
3. Stewart
4. Pieterson
5. Thorpe
6. Flintoff
7. Prior +
8. Broad
9. Swann
10. Gough
11. Anderson


Right, to address some points. Cook – I know he’ll go on to break record and has amassed some big scores; but (and people may disagree) he still feels like a conditions-dependent player. I’m equally unsurprised by him scoring 190 against mediocre opposition on a helpful pitch, or him getting plucked for 3 on a seaming one, whilst making the same errors he was 6 years ago. For me, there’s still a structural weakness in his play. Although, he may change my mind in the up and coming Ashes by scoring a 1000 runs. I still favour Stewart (now as a non-keeping number 3) above Vaughan. Although Strauss at 3 could tempt me to change my mind perhaps. Vaughan was obviously imperious in 02/03, but seldom have I ever seen a more fragile top order batsman when even slightly out of touch.

Anderson is in for Caddick. Although I still shudder about the treatment he received in 06/07, although he wasn’t exactly match fit at the time.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Also, I agree that Broad has done enough now to get in. Although Fraser was by no means a disgraceful choice.

I think that looks a pretty goddam good team now!

 

[MartinB]

I am supprised no one has mentioned Allan Border. Also Bruce Reid (if fit) would be worth considering.


1. Taylor (C) / Langer (with Border/Waugh/Warne as Captain)
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Border
5. S. Waugh
6. Clarke / Hussey
7. Gilchrist +
8. Warne
9. Gillespie / McDermott
10. Reid / Harris (not sure if I would want both in the same side)
11. McGrath

Also Alderman would be useful in England

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not much between the bowling skills of Lee and Gillespie. But since Lee was a better hard hitting lower order batsman, and McGrath-Lee-Warne formed the most successful bowling TRIO in cricketing history, then I can't go past Lee;

As usual, Anantha Narayanan's ridiculous stats blogs tell us nothing useful. The fact that Australia somehow won more games when Lee played with McWarne than when Gillespie dud with them can be down to a hundred different reasons. It doesn't make Lee the better bowler

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, but Broad is a ****.

Seriously though you can make an argument for Broad, his batting is handy and when he gets it right with the ball he can be devastating. But Gus still has a better bowling record against much better batting than what Broad has had to play against. He and Goughy were lion hearted performers for England at a time when they were getting their arse's handed to them. Wouldn't die in ditch arguing for Jones and Fraser over Anderson and Broad, but I think the fact they're bowling to much weaker opposition makes the latter two look better than they actually are.

Nah... Broad absolutely ripped apart probably the best Indian batting lineup ever. Apart from Dravid, no one had a clue against him that summer.
The consistency argument is a valid one though... Fraser was never as horrible as Broad can be, but then Broad sometimes turns into Marshall on crack

 

[adub]

Nah... Broad absolutely ripped apart probably the best Indian batting lineup ever. Apart from Dravid, no one had a clue against him that summer.
The consistency argument is a valid one though... Fraser was never as horrible as Broad can be, but then Broad sometimes turns into Marshall on crack

I think we're on pretty much the same page. With a five man bowling attack you can probably also make the case that you have cover for the days when Broad is poo, but I still prefer Gus. Just have a soft spot for good honest toilers who make the most of what they have over show ponies who should be better than they are (or at least more consistently good).

 

[flibbertyjibber]

So basically pick a majority of players who got flogged and ignore the winners then. Good plan.

 

[watson]

As usual, Anantha Narayanan's ridiculous stats blogs tell us nothing useful. The fact that Australia somehow won more games when Lee played with McWarne than when Gillespie dud with them can be down to a hundred different reasons. It doesn't make Lee the better bowler

I didn't say that Lee was the better bowler - 'Not much between the bowling skills of Lee and Gillespie' is what I said.

Overall, I think that Lee brings more to the team than Gillespie, that's all. But I have no fixed opinion on the matter.

 

[adub]

So basically pick a majority of players who got flogged and ignore the winners then. Good plan.

England are no doubt a better team than Australia atm. But that has far more to do with how much worse we are than our peak than how much better you lot are. Gus would clean up our current line up. I do find it amusing that people are so hot to get Broad in the team. Says a lot about the quality of what you've got to pick from I suppose. If he was Australian he'd be battling Mitchell Johnson for...

well certainly not for consideration in this selection.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

England are no doubt a better team than Australia atm. But that has far more to do with how much worse we are than our peak than how much better you lot are. Gus would clean up our current line up. I do find it amusing that people are so hot to get Broad in the team. Says a lot about the quality of what you've got to pick from I suppose. If he was Australian he'd be battling Mitchell Johnson for...

well certainly not for consideration in this selection.

This is my view too. This is why I sided with some of the 90s players above today's lot.

Gooch, Stewart, Thorpe - they'd feast on today's Australia team. So would Fraser in my opinion. Imagine how Gus could prey on the impatience and general lack of test technique of the current Aussie batsmen.

 

[watson]

England are no doubt a better team than Australia atm. But that has far more to do with how much worse we are than our peak than how much better you lot are. Gus would clean up our current line up. I do find it amusing that people are so hot to get Broad in the team. Says a lot about the quality of what you've got to pick from I suppose. If he was Australian he'd be battling Mitchell Johnson for...

well certainly not for consideration in this selection.

Broad: 10 x 5-fers and 2 x 10-fers in 62 Tests. Strike Rate = 59.5 Ave = 30.58

Fraser: 13 x 5-fers and 2 x 10-fers in 46 Tests. Strike Rate = 61.4 Ave = 27.32

On those numbers there's not much between them tbh. So it boils down to what type of bowler do you want to partner Anderson/Gough? A more aggressive bowler, or a more consistent methodical bowler?