Possible Ashes stating line-ups & England possible touring squad

[Pratters]

Personally I'm expecting England to play 11 players

You cannot be that sure given the injury prone nature.

 

[Johnners]

100% agree, hopefully those sides do step out on the Gabba on 23rd on November.

*quietly hopes aussie is slightly wrong *
Judging by how quickly McGrath got back into rhythm on tuesday i'd say Clarke is looking the Goods for the no.6 Spot. Unless Watto gets a proper chance to show his batting beforehand Clarke should have the inside running.

Also I think it would be a big for england to play only 3 "bowlers" as such, especially if Hoggy, Harmy & Freddie are all coming back from Injury...that being said...as an Aussie i would complain

 

[PhoenixFire]

England

1)Trescothick
2)Strauss
3)Bell
4)Collingwood
5)Pietersen
6)Flintoff
7)Read
8)Hoggard
9)Anderson
10)Harmison
11)Panesar

A little orthodox, but I'm worried about either Hoggard or Harmison coming in as high as 8, he doesn't seem good enough.


Australia

1)Jacques
2)Langer
3)Ponting
4)Martyn
5)Clarke
6)Husey
7)Gilchrist
8)Warne
9)Gillespie
10)Lee
11)McGrath

 

[howardj]

I've gone cold on Watson.

Don't think he should be at the 'Gabba on November 23.

 

[aussie]

Why not, surely it can't be on his recent performances?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia

1)Jacques
2)Langer
3)Ponting
4)Martyn
5)Clarke
6)Husey
7)Gilchrist
8)Warne
9)Gillespie
10)Lee
11)McGrath

Why on earth would Australia drop Hayden?

Clarke ahead of Watson is certainly plausible, but unless someone is injured Hayden and Langer will definitely open at the Gabba.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've gone cold on Watson.

Don't think he should be at the 'Gabba on November 23.

Why now, of all times? He's just had the best series of his career. Watson's a long way from being a major force in test cricket, but he's improved plenty in the last year or so and definitely deserves a run in the test side.

Only justification for leaving him out was if they planned to pick three seamers at the Gabba and wanted to play Clarke at 6 instead. Either way, Watson should definitely play a couple of tests.

 

[howardj]

To me he just doesn't seem right, mentally. Furthermore, I just don't think either discipline is good enough at this stage. People brag about his 79 the other day. It was the worst first 20 runs I've seen in a long time (I think he was dropped twice). Regarding the mental aspect of Watson, I remember when Pietersen was thrashing him about in an early ODI versus England in 2005, and actually sledging the bowler (Watson). Pietersen was screaming at him. I think he's on to the fact that Watson's fragile.

Finally, and most damagingly, Ponting has no confidence in his bowling, in the longer form of the game. I doubt he will bowl more than 10 overs in Brisbane, in which case they should just select a specialist number six batsman (Clarke, for instance).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm sure Ponting has more confidence in him now than he used to. He used to be very reluctant to bowl him in ODIs as well unless the match was safe or it was absolutely necessary, but that's not really the case any more, mainly because Watson has improved.

He's obviously a bit fragile, but I don't see how dropping him when he's actually playing well will help. I agree that the 79 wasn't the greatest innings you'll see, but he's obviously capable of playing quite well in the longer game, and should at least be tried. There will be four other bowlers in the team after all, so it's not as though the side will take a huge blow from playing him if he bowls poorly, and he certainly can't do any worse than Symonds.

 

[aussie]

I remeber that ODI Howard i think it was the game at Bristol when KP made that amzing 91, but i think he has improved in that area a lot. In the super test if you can remember when he was being smashed you could see he was taking it on a lot.

During the DLF he looked very confident about himself, in that 1st game vs the windies when they were running riot he kept his emotionns under control & was bowled very well & in return was throwing back verbal chants to the windies batsmen.

 

[howardj]

Fair enough - time will be the judge, I guess. For there is little doubt that he'll get picked for Brisbane. I'm strongly of the belief though (especially given the woes of Gilchrist) that we need a guy who can score runs at number six, much more so than a guy who can bowl overs. When you have McGrath, Warne and Lee in your team, Ponting's overwhelming instinct will be (almost no matter how they are bowling) to give them the vast bulk of the overs.

 

[NZTailender]

If I was Australia's selector, they'd lose every match.

SCG and Adelaide.
1. Mathew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Simon Katich (c)
5. Michael Hussey
6. Shane Watson
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Stuart MacGill
11. Glenn McGrath

Brisbane
1. Mathew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Simon Katich (c)
5. Michael Hussey
6. Shane Watson
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Nathan Bracken
11. Glenn McGrath

Perth and MCG.
1. Mathew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Phil Jaques
5. Simon Katich (c)
6. Michael Hussey
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Stuart Clark
11. Glenn McGrath

Ridiculous. Hopeless. Stupid. Those three words describe my selections...

 

[greg]

Posted this elsewhere but thought i'd try reposting on the main thread in the light of Flintoff's recent comments.

I would like this to be the team:

Tres/Colly
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Read
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

Unfortunately the selectors have made the mistake of picking Giles, so I suspect we will be looking at the above team with Giles instead of Dalrymple. So two no8s in the team, instead of a no7 and a no8. Giles is the better bowler but i don't expect the number of overs required of him to justify his position. Dalrymple is the bigger spinner of the ball, and would obviously give more variety to the attack.

Remember there is no reason why we can't play two spinners in every match. There is an extremely respectable case to be made for playing only four bowlers, so the need for "conditions to suit" isn't really an issue.

 

[tooextracool]

Posted this elsewhere but thought i'd try reposting on the main thread in the light of Flintoff's recent comments.

I would like this to be the team:

Tres/Colly
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Dalrymple
Read
Hoggard
Harmison
Panesar

Unfortunately the selectors have made the mistake of picking Giles, so I suspect we will be looking at the above team with Giles instead of Dalrymple. So two no8s in the team, instead of a no7 and a no8. Giles is the better bowler but i don't expect the number of overs required of him to justify his position. Dalrymple is the bigger spinner of the ball, and would obviously give more variety to the attack.

Remember there is no reason why we can't play two spinners in every match. There is an extremely respectable case to be made for playing only four bowlers, so the need for "conditions to suit" isn't really an issue.

do you honestly rate dalrymple the bowler? i mean if he cant take wickets in ODI cricket and in FC cricket, why would he do so in tests?

 

[greg]

do you honestly rate dalrymple the bowler? i mean if he cant take wickets in ODI cricket and in FC cricket, why would he do so in tests?

That's not what i said. I am quite in favour of the four bowler strategy. We just cannot go into an Ashes test with Flintoff at 6, Read at 7, and rabbits from 8-11. (it's a marginal call whether Flintoff is good enough to be a consistent no6, and I don't think Read is better than a no8). However the MAIN argument advanced by those against this strategy is that the workload on the bowlers will be too much, especially over a five match series.

Given what i have said above (and there are clear signs emerging from the England camp that they are thinking similarly) the obvious conclusion from the squad picked is that Giles will be the fifth bowler (sadly the squad picked shows a clear lack of proper thinking about the teams that England will want to be putting out - too many pace bowlers and not enough batsmen). Incidentally i also prefer this solution because i think that having anyone else as the fifth bowler will cause Monty to be underutilised, especially in the first innings of tests (see Lords vs Sri Lanka).

I do not expect Giles to be much of a threat as a fifth bowler. Given that it seems obvious to me that Dalrymple would be a much better selection. A substantially better batsman who would better fit the needs of the team by allowing Read to bat at eight. You wouldn't consider picking him as a first choice spinner, but that is not the point. He would bring more to the team as fifthbowlerandno2spinner/lower order batsman than Giles would.

The secret worry of course for many England fans is that Fletcher will find a way to get Giles into the team as the no1. spinner and leave Panesar out.

 

[aussie]

fair idea Greg, i honestly would have picked Dalrymple in my Ashes squad instead of Giles since picking two left-armers is a bit of a waste to be.

Has you said even though the feeling is England should go into the test with 5 bowlers, i'm not so sure, i am a big Chris Read fan but i have my doubts on how he will go with the bat in Australia, plus picking him @ 7 gives England such a LONG tail which will be an issue. Thats why i am starting to look at the idea of possibly playing 4 seamers & 6 batsmen & Read.

 

[greg]

fair idea Greg, i honestly would have picked Dalrymple in my Ashes squad instead of Giles since picking two left-armers is a bit of a waste to be.

Has you said even though the feeling is England should go into the test with 5 bowlers, i'm not so sure, i am a big Chris Read fan but i have my doubts on how he will go with the bat in Australia, plus picking him @ 7 gives England such a LONG tail which will be an issue. Thats why i am starting to look at the idea of possibly playing 4 seamers & 6 batsmen & Read.

I assume you must mean four bowlers (including Panesar). If it's marginal whether the bowlers would be overworked with Panesar in the team, it's a certainty without.

 

[tooextracool]

That's not what i said. I am quite in favour of the four bowler strategy. We just cannot go into an Ashes test with Flintoff at 6, Read at 7, and rabbits from 8-11. (it's a marginal call whether Flintoff is good enough to be a consistent no6, and I don't think Read is better than a no8). However the MAIN argument advanced by those against this strategy is that the workload on the bowlers will be too much, especially over a five match series.

I would definetly not go in with 4 bowlers for Brisbane when all those pace bowlers are currently injured and are injury prone. With Flintoff as captain that makes the situation worse because of the fact that he over bowls himself. For me its a no brainer for the first test, 4 bowlers + flintoff and 5 batsmen + read. Flintoff may not be the most consistent no 6 but hes scored runs all over the world now and they should have faith in him. If all the bowlers are fit and firing after the first few tests, i would consider playing the extra batsmen but until then its the 5 bowler plan for me.

Given what i have said above (and there are clear signs emerging from the England camp that they are thinking similarly) the obvious conclusion from the squad picked is that Giles will be the fifth bowler (sadly the squad picked shows a clear lack of proper thinking about the teams that England will want to be putting out - too many pace bowlers and not enough batsmen). Incidentally i also prefer this solution because i think that having anyone else as the fifth bowler will cause Monty to be underutilised, especially in the first innings of tests (see Lords vs Sri Lanka).

I do not expect Giles to be much of a threat as a fifth bowler. Given that it seems obvious to me that Dalrymple would be a much better selection. A substantially better batsman who would better fit the needs of the team by allowing Read to bat at eight. You wouldn't consider picking him as a first choice spinner, but that is not the point. He would bring more to the team as fifthbowlerandno2spinner/lower order batsman than Giles would.

The secret worry of course for many England fans is that Fletcher will find a way to get Giles into the team as the no1. spinner and leave Panesar out.

i can see your reasoning behind the extra batsman, but I dont really see the point in going in with dalrymple who doesnt look threatening with the ball and hasnt taken wickets or scored runs in FC cricket. For me either pick a genuine batsman or a genuine bowler instead rather than wasting a spot on dalrymple.

 

[aussie]

I assume you must mean four bowlers (including Panesar). If it's marginal whether the bowlers would be overworked with Panesar in the team, it's a certainty without.

Well no i meant 4-seamers, but on second thought i guess your right here, if 4 bowlers are to play it should be 3 seamers & Panesar.

 

[howardj]

It now seems pretty likely that Vaughan will play some part in the Ashes series.