Ashes 2011

booth70

The gulf in class between Pakistan's seamers and Australia's pie chuckers has been so vast that a team with a better disciplined batting line up would have thrashed the Aussies outright in this series rather than just scratching thro to a 1-1 draw like the Pakistanis did this morning....

Watching Australia bat and bowl these two test matches I would say their chances of retaining the Ashes this winter = ZERO

They desperately need a new captain....Ponting might be the greatest captain ever in terms of wins but he will probably remain the greatest captain never to have won a series in England (even against Pakistan) or India!!

mike65

Aussies 1 England 3

d'Oracle

Jeebus,

Do the knives ever get put away for Ponting?

djimi

If England dont bottle it then its their best chance of winning an Ashes series down under in a very long time. Big if tho...

djimi

And Im not convinced Australia do need a new captain tbh. If they had lost with the Pakistan series with the team they had 5 years ago then I think Id feel differently, but for the first time in as long as I can remember, Australia have an ordinary bowling attack and generally are not the force they were not so long ago, and I dont think a change of captain is going to do a whole lot about that. Lets face it, but for a monumental cock up on the first day of the last test but their batters (which can happen to anyone) they would have probably won the Pakistan series 2-0.

Cremated

Harris and Hauritz are likely to be back for the Ashes, that will certainly put more experience into the attack,

and sadly today the attack found the right form way too late.

Also it was a nice touch from the Pakistan team towards Rudi Koertzen at the end, I did really like that...

djimi

I missed the end of the game; what did they do?

booth70

djimi wrote: »

I missed the end of the game; what did they do?

Video link of the last days play

http://www.hostingcup.com/hvt7a9mjs8f8.html

Forward the video to the end to see what they did:)

djimi

Thats a nice gesture, fair play to them. I always find it a pogniant moment when a long standing test umpire retires. I think I was nearly as emotional as Dickie Bird was as he was walking off from his last test match!

Dozen Wicked Words

Can read very little into the aus performance in swingin english conditions. Playin on their own tracks will be completely different kettle of fish. It will hopefully be closer series than last aus home ashes but think aus will prob still win it. Hope i am wrong tho

booth70

booth70 wrote: »

Watching Australia bat and bowl these two test matches I would say their chances of retaining the Ashes this winter = ZERO

Not so sure now....watching Englands top order struggle against Pakistan must give the Aussies hope...of course the pitches in Australia except for the Gabba are 'batting' belters but still...

I thought Trott's innings yesterday 30 odd in 140 odd balls was about the most pointless innings in test cricket I have ever seen:(

Mothman

booth70 wrote: »

I thought Trott's innings yesterday 30 odd in 140 odd balls was about the most pointless innings in test cricket I have ever seen:(

You never saw Chris Tavaré bat...:)

Mothman

England Ashes squad will be named tomorrow. (Thurs)

Beasty

Not sure what Monty has done to deserve a recall ahead of Rashid

Andrew Strauss (capt)
Alastair Cook
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Ian Bell
Eoin Morgan
Matt Prior
Steve Davies
Stuart Broad
Tim Bresnan
Graeme Swann
James Anderson
Steven Finn
Chris Tremlett
Monty Panesar

Mr. Guappa

England Squad announced:

Strauss, Cook, Bell, Trott, Collingwood, Pietersen, Morgan
Prior, Davies
Bresnan, Broad, Finn, Anderson, Tremlett, Swann, Panesar

No surprises really, the only question marks seemed to be Panesar/Rashid and Tremlett/Shazad.

djimi

I dont understand bringing Tremlett; the guy simply isnt good enough to play for England and shown this repeatedly.

Panesar/Rashid is an interesting one. Rashid has the raw promise and on paper offers more than Monty, but Monty has the experience of test cricket which will stand to him in a series like this. I think the Aussies would have targetted whichever was brought tbh.

Inquitus

All the questionable calls only come into play if someone gets injured, I think its fair to say rightly or wrongly this is the nailed on starting XI for the 1st test.

Andrew Strauss (capt)
Alastair Cook
Jonathan Trott
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Ian Bell
Matt Prior
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
James Anderson
Steven Finn

Excluded
Chris Tremlett
Monty Panesar
Eoin Morgan
Steve Davies
Tim Bresnan

djimi

I agree with that lineup for the most part, but I think they have a choice to make between Bell and Morgan.

Inquitus

djimi wrote: »

I agree with that lineup for the most part, but I think they have a choice to make between Bell and Morgan.

Bell had form and got injured, if I had to make a decision about that XI it would be Pietersen or Morgan, not Bell or Morgan.

Inq

djimi

I would agree except I dont think the selectors will consider not playing KP in the Ashes. Current form aside, he has a test average of 50 against Australia, and 54 in tests in Australia. Given that he lives to perform on the biggest stage, and the Ashes is just about as big a stage as they come, I think they will fully back him to hit form this winter.

Bell and Morgan are probably going to be competing for the same spot in the batting lineup (assuming Trott keeps his place and KP plays) then that to me is the logical to me that that is the choice the selectors will have. It could even be a case of picking two of Trott, Morgan and Bell, but I think Trott has done enough to keep his place, certainly for the first couple of tests.

simonrooneyzaga

Beasty wrote: »

Not sure what Monty has done to deserve a recall ahead of Rashid

52 Championship wickets at 25's. He's had a superb season and finally starting to take responsibility for his own game.

djimi wrote: »

I dont understand bringing Tremlett; the guy simply isnt good enough to play for England and shown this repeatedly.

How has Tremlett shown that he's not good enough to play for England?

He has very good pace, gets exceptional bounce (which will help a lot in Australia), can swing the ball and his career figures are exemplary.

From the 3 tests he has played he averages under 30 including 6 wickets for 92 match figures against India.

This year he has been exceptional domestically - 48 Championship wickets at 20 runs a piece, playing half the games on the batting friendly Oval pitches.

He has had his injury problems over the years which have hindered his development massively, but I think he could end up having a massive impact on the series.

Beasty

simonrooneyzaga wrote: »

52 Championship wickets at 25's. He's had a superb season and finally starting to take responsibility for his own game.

So Panesar takes 52 wickets in Division 2 while Rashid is taking 57 in Division 1, admitedly at a higher average (31), but at an equivalently higher strike rate.

In addition Rashid ended up 15th in the Division 1 batting averages, at just under 46, while Monty was averaging just 11 in Division 2. Then there's the fielding - 14 catches for Rashid. Monty? - well best not go into that comparison:D Rashid also topped the PCA County Championship rankings.

So I think my question remains unanswered.

djimi

Rashid offers infinately more to the team as a whole than Monty, end of story. The only thing he hasnt got is test experience. That said, this is not the series to be blooding a young lad like Rashid and giving him his first test cap so that might be the thinking behind selecting Monty ahead of him.

As for Tremlett, maybe Im being overly harsh on him, and I know hes had a good season this year, but honestly my opinion of him in the England team he falls into a similar bracket as the likes of Plunkett and Mahmood; "almost but not quite good enough". Admittedly tho he is a better prospect than either Plunkett or Mahmood. He just never really impressed me for England. I would love to see him come good for England tho; I think he has a lot potentially going for him and he is the type of bowler that England are crying out for.

crackit

Monty Python (as Blowers once memorably called him :P) isn't good enough for the top level. Luckily enough Australia aren't what they were so if he is called on he should make an impact. I don't expect him to be needed though because Swann is a class act and is likely to tear the guts out of Australia repeatedly. I reckon it's 2-1 (3-2) either way and Swann will probably be the difference if England win it.

Morgan doesn't start if the selectors have sense. He's averaging 32 after having only playd against Bangladesh and Pakistan. Take out his one big innings v Bangladesh and he's averaging 18.

England may have won the last 2 Ashes at home but they will prove more of a point if they can go over there and win it. If they really, really, really want it (which they must!) then its not the time to take risks on Morgan. I think Bell is suspect but he is more proven than Morgan. An average of 42 isn't half bad.

I will miss Warney sledging the Sherminator though

simonrooneyzaga

Beasty wrote: »

So Panesar takes 52 wickets in Division 2 while Rashid is taking 57 in Division 1, admitedly at a higher average (31), but at an equivalently higher strike rate.

In addition Rashid ended up 15th in the Division 1 batting averages, at just under 46, while Monty was averaging just 11 in Division 2. Then there's the fielding - 14 catches for Rashid. Monty? - well best not go into that comparison:D Rashid also topped the PCA County Championship rankings.

So I think my question remains unanswered.

The batting is irrelevant - Finn (also a batting donkey) will miss out if they play two spinners, making absolutely no difference to the batting. The team already bats down to 9, which is incredible. The second spinner is there to bowl.

I would way prefer a proven test bowler with 126 wickets to his name, who has toured Australia before and knows what its all about (and has just come back into great form), than a glorified drinks carrier.

Rashid has got a big future but this is not the time.

simonrooneyzaga

crackit wrote: »

Morgan doesn't start if the selectors have sense. He's averaging 32 after having only playd against Bangladesh and Pakistan. Take out his one big innings v Bangladesh and he's averaging 18.

England may have won the last 2 Ashes at home but they will prove more of a point if they can go over there and win it. If they really, really, really want it (which they must!) then its not the time to take risks on Morgan. I think Bell is suspect but he is more proven than Morgan. An average of 42 isn't half bad.

I will miss Warney sledging the Sherminator though

Bell will almost certainly come in to the team ahead of Morgan - it was interesting to read that Duncan Fletcher reckons Morgan and Bell should both play, with Trott moving up to open (a job I think he is more than capable of fulfilling) and cook missing out, but for the moment I would leave Morgan out unless he puts in some big scores in the warm up matches.

Danger_dave1

djimi wrote: »

Rashid offers infinately more to the team as a whole than Monty, end of story. The only thing he hasnt got is test experience. That said, this is not the series to be blooding a young lad like Rashid and giving him his first test cap so that might be the thinking behind selecting Monty ahead of him.

Rashid will get milked for alot of runs against Oz, He's never played in that atomsphere before, panesar has. Panesar has played with the entire squad before, so he'll know the front line bowlers at the other end if he's picked at sydney , or if Swann gets injured.

Now i havent seen any of panesar matches, i just hope hes worked on his variation.

Tremlett , he's got a ridiculous run up, he played well against india few years ago. I would certaintly rather him to shazad, not convinced by him at all.

Bell will go ahead of morgan in first test. If morgan had scored two more fifties against pakistan , he'd have locked the spot for the first test . I really cant wait its going to be great !

I just cant see Austrailia taking 20 wickets. You look at there attack , Johnson, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Hauritz. Dont see twenty wickets, mabye if conditions suit and they win the toss, and they get some favourable calls.

In saying that the english attack could have a tough time. Jimmy Anderson is going to struggle if he doest take wickets with new ball or at the Waca. So retain for england 1-0 to 2-0 .

d'Oracle

Monty was dropped cos of his lack of variation and being smashed around.
When he tried to add variation he got worse.

He is a one trick pony who got found out.
Bad call IMO.
Also Rashid can offer a bit more than a right to left spin option.
He can field and even bat a little.

Literally all monty offers is fast left arm othodox spin.

crackit

Fair call on Monty. He's not great by any stretch. He probably still is 2nd best though. england haven't had a spinner like Swann since Laker probably. Swann is so far ahead of any other english spinner its hard to quantify. If he falls out of bed and sprains his wrist the day before the 1st test then england may as well hand the urn over and go home.

djimi

d'Oracle wrote: »

Monty was dropped cos of his lack of variation and being smashed around.
When he tried to add variation he got worse.

He is a one trick pony who got found out.
Bad call IMO.
Also Rashid can offer a bit more than a right to left spin option.
He can field and even bat a little.

Literally all monty offers is fast left arm othodox spin.

The problem with the situation is that its a case of picking Monty who at least has test experience (quite a bit of it too, including an Ashes series down under), or picking Rashid or someone with equally little (ie none) test experience to be thrown into just about the toughest series you can play as an England player. Either way its not ideal. Maybe the idea of potentially ruining the confidence of a young lad like Rashid if he gets tonked was enough to make them not take the chance on him, given that its clear he has a future in the England set up.

d'Oracle

I can see the point alright.

But I feel that its a big risk either way.
And it seems to me that having a lad who can bat a bit and field well is better than being a man down in the field and having a rabbit at the end of a patchy batting order.