Australia have 2 new matchwinners for the Ashes !

First topic message reminder :

With bizarrely 2 ashes test series this year, it looks as though Australia are going to win at least one of these of not both of them. Firstly they have found this guy called Jackson Bird who bowls a menacing consistent line and length wicket to wicket and could be the new Glenn McGrath that Australia are looking for. Secondly they now have in Mitchell Johnson a second potential matchwinning bowling all-rounder who can bat consistently well in his new batting position at number 7 whilst still being a big menace and a threat with the ball when bowling. In contrast, our own team don't even have 1 bowling all-rounder who can score runs consistently well and also play a huge part as a bowler when we are out in the field bowling.

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

So what you're now saying is that you think the Aussie reserves would beat the English reserves.

Thanks for that.

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

Stuart Meaker is the quickest of all Aus / Eng quicks.

In the background you then have Bresnan, Onions if any of Anderson Broad Finn get injured. England also have the option of 2 world class spinners should it be required.

Hibbz wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

So what you're now saying is that you think the Aussie reserves would beat the English reserves.

Thanks for that.

Nope, I'm saying that should our premier strike bowler Jimmy Anderson get injured, we don't have any reserve pace bowlers who have enough quality to get us the wickets against what is likely to be a strong Australian batting lineup.

Strong? Even with the departure of MHuss? Not so sure. Decent, but not strong.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

Stuart Meaker is the quickest of all Aus / Eng quicks.

In the background you then have Bresnan, Onions if any of Anderson Broad Finn get injured. England also have the option of 2 world class spinners should it be required.

Is he heck faster than some of the young Aussie speedsters. Also if we have to rely on guys like Tim Bresnan as our 3rd pace bowler, this will be worrying for us as then we are unlikely to bowl out the Aussies before they can post 400+ on the scoreboard.

Fists of Fury wrote:Strong? Even with the departure of MHuss? Not so sure. Decent, but not strong.

Even with the departure of Mike Hussey, there looks to be enough batting choices left in Australian cricket that their selectors can choose from to replace him. E.g. his brother David Hussey, Chris Rogers, Shaun Marsh, Usman Khawaja, even play Brad Haddin at 6 as a batsman only.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

Stuart Meaker is the quickest of all Aus / Eng quicks.

In the background you then have Bresnan, Onions if any of Anderson Broad Finn get injured. England also have the option of 2 world class spinners should it be required.

Is he heck faster than some of the young Aussie speedsters. Also if we have to rely on guys like Tim Bresnan as our 3rd pace bowler, we are unlikely to bowl out the Aussies before they can post 400+,

England's pace line up are probably ranked in this order:

Anderson
Broad
Finn
Onions
Bresnan
Meaker

And yes, Meaker is reportedly the quickest according to those who netted with him in Brisbane last year.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Hibbz wrote:He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Never said that they would! All I was trying to do was to show the relative strengths of the 2 nations current pace bowling options/choices, and for us the cupboard of reserve pacers/speedsters look a bit bare when you compare it to the Australian cupboard of pacers/speedsters from which their selectors can choose from.

Stuart Meaker is the quickest of all Aus / Eng quicks.

In the background you then have Bresnan, Onions if any of Anderson Broad Finn get injured. England also have the option of 2 world class spinners should it be required.

Is he heck faster than some of the young Aussie speedsters. Also if we have to rely on guys like Tim Bresnan as our 3rd pace bowler, we are unlikely to bowl out the Aussies before they can post 400+,

England's pace line up are probably ranked in this order:

Anderson
Broad
Finn
Onions
Bresnan
Meaker

And yes, Meaker is reportedly the quickest according to those who netted with him in Brisbane last year.

According to Alec Stewart, he says that Meaker is a bit like that of a Darren Gough type of a pace bowler, well that is all well and good, but does he have the ability to control the ball with the same accuracy levels as Gough did in his peak bowling year of 2000 whilst retaining a high level of pace?

I'd place Onions ahead of Broad and should be ahead of him when we head down to NZ where I'd imagine Onions will be licking his lips looking at the pitches on offer down there. He deserves his chance in the side again. We'd have real variation with Anderson (swing and tremendous control), Finn (Fast and extra bounce with height) and Onions (wicket to wicket, skiddy bowler who bowls quicker than batsmen think).

Broad gets a lot of heat. He's not a subcontinent bowler. Worrying thing is his lack of pace. Some guys can bowl 90 mph when they're young but their bodies can't sustain it. I think he is managing it at the moment by bowling 80 mph and it makes him half the bowler.

Damien Fleming was a great example of this. After his injuries Jason Gillespie as well. Sad but true.

Only guy to come through the drop in pace and maintain the threat was glen McGrath. He was a once in a generation bowler though.

seanmichaels wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Fists, did you got your own gordy because you missed his presence on the boxing board?

I enjoy this chap. I think he may be a school boy wanting to get into sports journalism. He needs to use reliable sources instead of wiki though.

Fantastic.

Some lazy comments from both sides on here IMO.

This is not a poor Australian side; it is not a great side, nor even a very good one, but it is decent at least. Their recent run of results compares favourably with England's: they won in SL, performed better at home against SL (who England "only" beat 1-0, although that was partly down to the weather) and South Africa, and matched England's efforts against India (at home) and the West Indies (Australia were away). England have that massive performance of winning in India, which Australia will IMO struggle to get anywhere close to, but there is an overconfidence bordering on arrogance in some sections of the England fan-base and media (not least of all in the Times) which I find misplaced.

IMO Australia will at times compete with and even dominate England. This is largely because they now have a good (and at times very good) bowling attack. Siddle is bowling a much better length than during the previous ashes, and will be a handful. Pattinson and Starc if they can stay fit (big if) will be genuine threats. Australia also have strength in depth to match or even better England's in numbers, and arguably quality.

On the other hand, Bird is very much untested: he looks good but this is a really poor and out of focus Sri Lankan side - there's no way Cook would have gifted him the wicket the Sri Lankan opener did last night say. I'm not convinced by Hilfenhaus who at times looks pedestrian, and Johnson is very much as he was - on his day a world beater, but bowls quite a bit of filth - and that won't ever change, because his action is inconsistent.

But on the whole Australia's seam-bowling stocks are pretty good, and certainly far better than during the previous 2 ashes series. And if your bowlers perform, then you're in the game no matter what.

However England do have a clear advantage in the batting stakes (particularly with the retirement of Hussey) and spinners. I suspect England will look to get after Lyon, because that will force Clarke to overuse his seamers. Swann will enjoy the plethora of left-handers in the Aussie line-up, and apart from Clarke and Hughes, no one plays spin terribly well.

Australia also have issues with their slip cordron (so do England) and the outfielding is fairly even.

Most were writing off the Aussies before the series against South Africa, and I commented that I thought parts of the series at least would be hotly contested, and even dominated by Australia, for very much the same reasons. In fact, Australia overall dominated the first couple of tests, and arguably deserved at least a draw of the series for their efforts. I wouldn't be surprised if both ashes series were similarly well-fought affairs. England have the advantage on paper, but that's not where cricket is played.

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

Cummins:

1 test vs South Africa away
7 wickets
Avg: 16.71
Best figures: 6-79

Pattinson:

7 Tests
31 wickets
avg 22.09
Best figures: 5-27

For me these two are two great talents and I really hope for the cricket in general, that they can get back to fitness because aside from Finn, Roach and De Lange, these are 2 most exiting fast bowlers to come through the ranks.

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

Yep, reckon the only blessing for Australia is they've got a reasonable opener at 5 because he'll be facing a pretty new ball.

gboycottnut, a good day's job!!.
Terrific post as usual.
Johnson isn't quite a great with the ball though, he should be one by the end of that 2nd ashes series as well.

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

So you're now saying they'll pick neither of the matchwinners you've outlined in your original post?

And as for the number 6, maybe we should lend them Ravi?

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

Are you kidding me? No way the, GOLDEN boy will be left out, even without his bowling {no way} The Aussie fans and selectors love him even though a slightly above average cricketer, although good all-rounder, well, the best they HAVE.

Hibbz wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

So you're now saying they'll pick neither of the matchwinners you've outlined in your original post?

And as for the number 6, maybe we should lend them Ravi?

Well I did say that this XI above is one that gives them more of a safety first option of at least coming away with a draw rather than one that necessarily increases the chances of winning a test match by the playing of the 2 matchwinners I have mentioned at the start of this thread topic.

msp83 wrote:gboycottnut, a good day's job!!.
Terrific post as usual.
Johnson isn't quite a great with the ball though, he should be one by the end of that 2nd ashes series as well.

If MJ had a great 3 next Ashes, he would still not be a great!!

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

Are you kidding me? No way the, GOLDEN boy will be left out, even without his bowling {no way} The Aussie fans and selectors love him even though a slightly above average cricketer, although good all-rounder, well, the best they HAVE.

Who is this GOLDEN boy fellow then you have in mind? Is it Shane Warne?

skyeman wrote:

msp83 wrote:gboycottnut, a good day's job!!.
Terrific post as usual.
Johnson isn't quite a great with the ball though, he should be one by the end of that 2nd ashes series as well.

If MJ had a great 3 next Ashes, he would still not be a great!!

Well if MJ had a great 3 next ashes, he won't give a monkey's whether he is a great in anyone else's eyes as he will see himself as being a great in his own eyes.

HA, but great for him, would be, 15 wkts per series, and still on the losing side.

skyeman wrote:HA, but great for him, would be, 15 wkts per series, and still on the losing side.

Well that is assuming of that he gets a game during the 2 ashes series such is the number of pace bowlers at which their selectors can from. Hopefully for us, the Aussie selectors will pick him along with Hilfenhaus and Sid Viscious as their pace bowlers for the first test as England have played them in 2 ashes tests now and hence have a good idea of facing their bowling styles. As for the other guys like Starc, Pattinson,Cummins, hopefully the Aussie selectors do not see sense in selecting any of these 3 as they can be really lethal when bowling - If only their great former opener Andrew Hilditch was still there in his role as their chairman of selectors, where he did a fantastic job during the 2009 and more especially that wonderful 2010 ashes test series!

Honestly, with their batting line up {Clarke the exception} I may be proven wrong, but i can not see it being a problem for our attack.

Aussies will be the more afraid.

Mike Selig wrote:Some lazy comments from both sides on here IMO.

This is not a poor Australian side; it is not a great side, nor even a very good one, but it is decent at least. Their recent run of results compares favourably with England's: they won in SL, performed better at home against SL (who England "only" beat 1-0, although that was partly down to the weather) and South Africa, and matched England's efforts against India (at home) and the West Indies (Australia were away). England have that massive performance of winning in India, which Australia will IMO struggle to get anywhere close to, but there is an overconfidence bordering on arrogance in some sections of the England fan-base and media (not least of all in the Times) which I find misplaced.

IMO Australia will at times compete with and even dominate England. This is largely because they now have a good (and at times very good) bowling attack. Siddle is bowling a much better length than during the previous ashes, and will be a handful. Pattinson and Starc if they can stay fit (big if) will be genuine threats. Australia also have strength in depth to match or even better England's in numbers, and arguably quality.

On the other hand, Bird is very much untested: he looks good but this is a really poor and out of focus Sri Lankan side - there's no way Cook would have gifted him the wicket the Sri Lankan opener did last night say. I'm not convinced by Hilfenhaus who at times looks pedestrian, and Johnson is very much as he was - on his day a world beater, but bowls quite a bit of filth - and that won't ever change, because his action is inconsistent.

But on the whole Australia's seam-bowling stocks are pretty good, and certainly far better than during the previous 2 ashes series. And if your bowlers perform, then you're in the game no matter what.

However England do have a clear advantage in the batting stakes (particularly with the retirement of Hussey) and spinners. I suspect England will look to get after Lyon, because that will force Clarke to overuse his seamers. Swann will enjoy the plethora of left-handers in the Aussie line-up, and apart from Clarke and Hughes, no one plays spin terribly well.

Australia also have issues with their slip cordron (so do England) and the outfielding is fairly even.

Most were writing off the Aussies before the series against South Africa, and I commented that I thought parts of the series at least would be hotly contested, and even dominated by Australia, for very much the same reasons. In fact, Australia overall dominated the first couple of tests, and arguably deserved at least a draw of the series for their efforts. I wouldn't be surprised if both ashes series were similarly well-fought affairs. England have the advantage on paper, but that's not where cricket is played.

Trouble is mick, you need to look at workloads. If someone had picked apart my stats earlier one would have seen the Aussie bowlers took a comparable amount of wickets in 8 or 9 tests as England did in 13 or 14.

I was however ready with a reply on that. The saffas had to play 7 or 8 tests last year and were seriously feeling the pace. They have nothing in reserve after the 3 seamers and kallis. The young Aussies can't play 2 tests in a month without falling apart. I'm pretty sure the current line up is the only fit combination they have. England feel the strain but have experience in onions, bresnan etc to bring in and have done so when necessary a lot recently. The spinners have also reduced work rate (see overs bowled stats).

Trust me, after 10 tests in 12 months Australia will be rag and bones. Potential or not you can't throw that workload on young, unproven young bowlers. Pattinson was supposed to destroy us last time and he didn't make the 3rd week of the tour. Guess what, he has hardly played since. England have worked in youngsters like Finn and broad but have had backup to rest them. The Aussies vision of throwing in fast bowlers in their early twenties is ruining careers. It reminds me of England's search for fast bowlers in the nineties. Good players never made it as too much was expected too soon.

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
Watson
Wade
Johnson
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
One from many

Don't make me laugh

This batting is

It could well be that the Aussie selectors will play it safe and go with this XI for the first ashes test match in England this summer :-

1 Warner
2 Cowan
3 Hughes
4 Clarke
5 Watson
6 Khawaja / Rogers
7 Wade
8 Siddle
9 Hilfenhaus
10 Starc
11 Lyon

As both Starc and Johnson are left-arm quicks, I doubt the selectors will pick both unless they go with the 5 bowlers strategy they are currently using in this 3rd test V Sri Lanka. Anyway the batting looks more solid with either Khawaja or Rogers batting at 6 with Wade coming in at 7.

Are you kidding me? No way the, GOLDEN boy will be left out, even without his bowling {no way} The Aussie fans and selectors love him even though a slightly above average cricketer, although good all-rounder, well, the best they HAVE.

Who is this GOLDEN boy fellow then you have in mind? Is it Shane Warne?

Yep, sorry, my mistake, you had him in at 5. Too quick with my eyes.

seanmichaels wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:Some lazy comments from both sides on here IMO.

This is not a poor Australian side; it is not a great side, nor even a very good one, but it is decent at least. Their recent run of results compares favourably with England's: they won in SL, performed better at home against SL (who England "only" beat 1-0, although that was partly down to the weather) and South Africa, and matched England's efforts against India (at home) and the West Indies (Australia were away). England have that massive performance of winning in India, which Australia will IMO struggle to get anywhere close to, but there is an overconfidence bordering on arrogance in some sections of the England fan-base and media (not least of all in the Times) which I find misplaced.

IMO Australia will at times compete with and even dominate England. This is largely because they now have a good (and at times very good) bowling attack. Siddle is bowling a much better length than during the previous ashes, and will be a handful. Pattinson and Starc if they can stay fit (big if) will be genuine threats. Australia also have strength in depth to match or even better England's in numbers, and arguably quality.

On the other hand, Bird is very much untested: he looks good but this is a really poor and out of focus Sri Lankan side - there's no way Cook would have gifted him the wicket the Sri Lankan opener did last night say. I'm not convinced by Hilfenhaus who at times looks pedestrian, and Johnson is very much as he was - on his day a world beater, but bowls quite a bit of filth - and that won't ever change, because his action is inconsistent.

But on the whole Australia's seam-bowling stocks are pretty good, and certainly far better than during the previous 2 ashes series. And if your bowlers perform, then you're in the game no matter what.

However England do have a clear advantage in the batting stakes (particularly with the retirement of Hussey) and spinners. I suspect England will look to get after Lyon, because that will force Clarke to overuse his seamers. Swann will enjoy the plethora of left-handers in the Aussie line-up, and apart from Clarke and Hughes, no one plays spin terribly well.

Australia also have issues with their slip cordron (so do England) and the outfielding is fairly even.

Most were writing off the Aussies before the series against South Africa, and I commented that I thought parts of the series at least would be hotly contested, and even dominated by Australia, for very much the same reasons. In fact, Australia overall dominated the first couple of tests, and arguably deserved at least a draw of the series for their efforts. I wouldn't be surprised if both ashes series were similarly well-fought affairs. England have the advantage on paper, but that's not where cricket is played.

Trouble is mick, you need to look at workloads. If someone had picked apart my stats earlier one would have seen the Aussie bowlers took a comparable amount of wickets in 8 or 9 tests as England did in 13 or 14.

I was however ready with a reply on that. The saffas had to play 7 or 8 tests last year and were seriously feeling the pace. They have nothing in reserve after the 3 seamers and kallis. The young Aussies can't play 2 tests in a month without falling apart. I'm pretty sure the current line up is the only fit combination they have. England feel the strain but have experience in onions, bresnan etc to bring in and have done so when necessary a lot recently. The spinners have also reduced work rate (see overs bowled stats).

Trust me, after 10 tests in 12 months Australia will be rag and bones. Potential or not you can't throw that workload on young, unproven young bowlers. Pattinson was supposed to destroy us last time and he didn't make the 3rd week of the tour. Guess what, he has hardly played since. England have worked in youngsters like Finn and broad but have had backup to rest them. The Aussies vision of throwing in fast bowlers in their early twenties is ruining careers. It reminds me of England's search for fast bowlers in the nineties. Good players never made it as too much was expected too soon.

But England's search for fast bowlers in the 1990's was ineffective back then due mainly to a lack of young candidates coming through into first class county cricket who had that genuine raw pace factor that the then England selectors (Ted Dexter and co) were looking for. I do remember however that some guy called David Millns who played for Leicestershire was considered for one of the tests V Pakistan in 1992 but he sadly never made it as a serious injury ruined that one chance he had and when he did recover from whatever injuries plagued him, he wasn't the same bowler again as he couldn't bowl as fast as he could before the injuries.

skyeman wrote:

msp83 wrote:gboycottnut, a good day's job!!.
Terrific post as usual.
Johnson isn't quite a great with the ball though, he should be one by the end of that 2nd ashes series as well.

If MJ had a great 3 next Ashes, he would still not be a great!!

Sky you didn't get the drift.
Have you seen the who after Kapil thread?

No you didn't. You googled that. The prime example is Neil foster who had gas.

skyeman wrote:Honestly, with their batting line up {Clarke the exception} I may be proven wrong, but i can not see it being a problem for our attack.

Aussies will be the more afraid.

But our pace bowling with the exception of Anderson looks a bit fragile at present. It looks likely that the steady bowling option of medium pacer Tim Bresnan will play as the 3rd seamer with either Stuart Broad or Steven Finn as Anderson's new ball partner, Not a pace attack that is likely to have the Aussie batsmen hiding for cover somewhere in their changing room.

seanmichaels wrote:No you didn't. You googled that. The prime example is Neil foster who had gas.

Neil Foster never was never a pace bowler who had out-and-out express pace.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:No you didn't. You googled that. The prime example is Neil foster who had gas.

Neil Foster never was never a pace bowler who had out-and-out express pace.

Ok Geoff.

gboycottnut wrote:

skyeman wrote:Honestly, with their batting line up {Clarke the exception} I may be proven wrong, but i can not see it being a problem for our attack.

Aussies will be the more afraid.

But our pace bowling with the exception of Anderson looks a bit fragile at present. It looks likely that the steady bowling option of medium pacer Tim Bresnan will play as the 3rd seamer with either Stuart Broad or Steven Finn as Anderson's new ball partner, Not a pace attack that is likely to have the Aussie batsmen hiding for cover somewhere in their changing room.

Can't see Bressy playing for England for awhile {Test's}, until he regains form in the county season.

NZ away, could be a couple of new names, but come the summer, back to the four man attack. imo Anderson, Broad, Finn and Swann.

England > Australia

As for the double-header this year, my prediction:

England 3-0 Australia
Australia 1-2 England

MY prediction for the Ashes in England : England - 4/0 or 5/0 (depending on weather and Lord's pitch)
Could be closer in Aus. Don't think Aus have a cat in a hell's chance of winning even a Test in England without Hussey.

Duty281 wrote:England > Australia

As for the double-header this year, my prediction:

England 3-0 Australia
Australia 1-2 England

There is no way I can see us beating Australia 3-0. Australia nearly beat South Africa in the first 1 or 2 tests before christmas, so they aren't going to roll over as easily as teams we have beaten by 2-0 or 3-0 scorelines like the West Indies and before them Pakistan in 2010.

ShankyCricket wrote:MY prediction for the Ashes in England : England - 4/0 or 5/0 (depending on weather and Lord's pitch)
Could be closer in Aus. Don't think Aus have a cat in a hell's chance of winning even a Test in England without Hussey.

Of course they have a chance of winning at least 1 test if they use Mitchell Johnson in the role as a half all-rounder who bats at number 7, and they also pick this new pace bowler Jackson Bird to bowl in the Glenn McGrath role with the key aim of targeting our key opener and team captain Alastair Cook, just like what McGrath used to do to Mike Atherton when he was England captain.

gboycottnut has once again kicked off an interesting argument. I suspect his initial offering is slightly tongue in cheek ( or deliberately provocative , if you like ) but never mind , it has drawn a crowd

My own view is that it is rather too early to tell how " matchwinning" the new Aussie bowlers will be. Beating up Sri Lanka and and mastering England in their own conditions are two different things. But I wouldn't be writing off the Australian attack based on what happened two years ago , it has improved.

I would agree that the current stable of pace bowlers in Australia is notable for depth , at least. A reasonable three man attack could be crafted from any of about eight fast bowlers , fitness permitting , which is probably better than any other country at present. However in a practical sense only three or , at most , four will play at a time ; and it is by no means clear which are really the best either in general or in potential English conditions. The first hurdle for Australia is picking the right five to put on the plane in the first place. Not sure a tour of India will make that any clearer.
I do not think Australia will seriously consider picking five bowlers. They very rarely do. Even when they had Gilchrist they retained a full set of batsmen.

I like what I've seen of Bird. Early yet , but he looks the type to do well in England. I am leaning towards rating him over Hilfenhaus for the into wind spot.
Siddle has definitely improved. Even so I think he'll be less dangerous in England than on home ground , but still a logical selection for the heavy work. My third choice would be between Starc and Pattinson ( both to tour). I am unconvinced by Johnson , who still looks very inconsistent to me , but I won't be surprised if he tours. He should never play alongside Starc ( I see from the newspaper that Shane Warne agrees with me there ).
That might produce a decent attack , with Lyon for spin ; but I would still expect England to get solid runs more often than not against it. Provided of course Cook's opening partner , Compton or ? , is fit for purpose , and a reasonable number six is settled in...we should have a better idea on this after the NZ series x2.
Aussie batting looks a bit iffy. Fancy England , especially at home , will be able to make life hard for them. Which is why I think England will win at home. But I am not assuming it will be easy , and I won't hazard a guess re the return series in Australia until the first one is played.

alfie wrote:gboycottnut has once again kicked off an interesting argument. I suspect his initial offering is slightly tongue in cheek ( or deliberately provocative , if you like ) but never mind , it has drawn a crowd

My own view is that it is rather too early to tell how " matchwinning" the new Aussie bowlers will be. Beating up Sri Lanka and and mastering England in their own conditions are two different things. But I wouldn't be writing off the Australian attack based on what happened two years ago , it has improved.

I would agree that the current stable of pace bowlers in Australia is notable for depth , at least. A reasonable three man attack could be crafted from any of about eight fast bowlers , fitness permitting , which is probably better than any other country at present. However in a practical sense only three or , at most , four will play at a time ; and it is by no means clear which are really the best either in general or in potential English conditions. The first hurdle for Australia is picking the right five to put on the plane in the first place. Not sure a tour of India will make that any clearer.
I do not think Australia will seriously consider picking five bowlers. They very rarely do. Even when they had Gilchrist they retained a full set of batsmen.

I like what I've seen of Bird. Early yet , but he looks the type to do well in England. I am leaning towards rating him over Hilfenhaus for the into wind spot.
Siddle has definitely improved. Even so I think he'll be less dangerous in England than on home ground , but still a logical selection for the heavy work. My third choice would be between Starc and Pattinson ( both to tour). I am unconvinced by Johnson , who still looks very inconsistent to me , but I won't be surprised if he tours. He should never play alongside Starc ( I see from the newspaper that Shane Warne agrees with me there ).
That might produce a decent attack , with Lyon for spin ; but I would still expect England to get solid runs more often than not against it. Provided of course Cook's opening partner , Compton or ? , is fit for purpose , and a reasonable number six is settled in...we should have a better idea on this after the NZ series x2.
Aussie batting looks a bit iffy. Fancy England , especially at home , will be able to make life hard for them. Which is why I think England will win at home. But I am not assuming it will be easy , and I won't hazard a guess re the return series in Australia until the first one is played.

Well the only reason that Australia kept a full set of 6 frontline batsmen whilst only playing 4 frontline bowlers when Gilchrist played test cricket from 1999 to 2007 was because they had the luxury of having 2 of the greatest matchwinning bowlers in the history of the game (McGrath and Warne) in the same bowling attack, and hence there wasn't a need for them to go with a 5 man specialist bowling attack. It would have been interesting to see what the Aussie selectors would have done had Gilchrist still been playing test cricket in the 2010 ashes series as that Aussie bowling attack was the poorest I have seen since the dark days of Australian cricket in the summer of 1985, when with an average bowling attack lacking any genuine world class matchwinners (Billy McDermott, Geoff Lawson, Simon O'Donnell, Craig Matthews, Bob Holland) the selectors back then decided to play their wicketkeeper Wayne Phillips at 6 so that this 5 man bowling attack could be used against an England team led by Lord Gower, with players such as Tim Robinson, John Emburey,Phil Edmonds,Paul Allott, Jonathan Agnew getting a game or two at one time during that memorable summer.

Well yes , they did have some handy bowlers in the Gilchrist era. And it is true Phillips actually batted at six on a couple of occasions in 1985 , once when O'Donnell and Matthews were apparently supposed to be a combination of bits and pieces that would allow a five bowler attack (although Matthews bowled only nine of 141 overs !) and then in apparent desperation in the next match...it was not a conspicuous success...
On the other hand I recall Michael Bevan batting at seven in Adelaide against West Indies as part of a four bowler attack (!) Amazingly , he took 4 wickets in WI first innings , and Australia won.
My point though is that Australia generally don't like going with five/five. And I am pretty sure they aren't going to try it in England with M Johnson as the designated all rounder.

Both sides have a lot of fast bowling reserves;

England - Anderson, Finn, Broad, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker .... Tremlett
Australia - Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Bird

The only problem England have is that Broad has looked out of sort for 6 months now, Bresnan has struggled since his elbow operation and Tremlett is just returning from injury. That makes our reserves look a fair bit weaker than going into last summer but it's still nothing to complain about. IMO we should go with Anderson, Finn and Onions for the NZ series but I'm pretty sure Broad will start after his rest.

Looking at the Ashes I reckon Hilfenhaus and Starc are two guys who could excel in English conditions. After those Pattinson and Bird from what I've seen also look like two who could do well here. Both accurate but Pattinson has a fair bit more pace in him.

The big difference could be the spinners with Swann and Panesar a class apart from the Lyon. An interesting series beckons!

alfie wrote:Well yes , they did have some handy bowlers in the Gilchrist era. And it is true Phillips actually batted at six on a couple of occasions in 1985 , once when O'Donnell and Matthews were apparently supposed to be a combination of bits and pieces that would allow a five bowler attack (although Matthews bowled only nine of 141 overs !) and then in apparent desperation in the next match...it was not a conspicuous success...
On the other hand I recall Michael Bevan batting at seven in Adelaide against West Indies as part of a four bowler attack (!) Amazingly , he took 4 wickets in WI first innings , and Australia won.
My point though is that Australia generally don't like going with five/five. And I am pretty sure they aren't going to try it in England with M Johnson as the designated all rounder.

I also remember Michael Bevan batting at 7 at the start of the South Africa tour in 1997 as the coaches/selectors thought that they can use him as a chinaman type of spin bowler to complement Warne's legbreak's!

king_carlos wrote:Both sides have a lot of fast bowling reserves;

England - Anderson, Finn, Broad, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker .... Tremlett
Australia - Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Bird

The only problem England have is that Broad has looked out of sort for 6 months now, Bresnan has struggled since his elbow operation and Tremlett is just returning from injury. That makes our reserves look a fair bit weaker than going into last summer but it's still nothing to complain about. IMO we should go with Anderson, Finn and Onions for the NZ series but I'm pretty sure Broad will start after his rest.

Looking at the Ashes I reckon Hilfenhaus and Starc are two guys who could excel in English conditions. After those Pattinson and Bird from what I've seen also look like two who could do well here. Both accurate but Pattinson has a fair bit more pace in him.

The big difference could be the spinners with Swann and Panesar a class apart from the Lyon. An interesting series beckons!

I disagree with you. England at the moment don't have a lot of pace bowling reserves with test experience other than Onions and Bresnan who can slot in at a moment's notice should either Anderson, Broad, or Finn get injured on the eve of a test match. In contrast the Aussies have a wide choice of pace bowlers who have at least some test match experience behind them waiting in the wings (Pattinson, Cummins, Rhino Harris, John Hastings) should anything happen to either Sid Viscious, Big Ben, Mitch Johnson and Mitch Starc.

gboycottnut wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Both sides have a lot of fast bowling reserves;

England - Anderson, Finn, Broad, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker .... Tremlett
Australia - Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Starc, Cummins, Pattinson, Bird

The only problem England have is that Broad has looked out of sort for 6 months now, Bresnan has struggled since his elbow operation and Tremlett is just returning from injury. That makes our reserves look a fair bit weaker than going into last summer but it's still nothing to complain about. IMO we should go with Anderson, Finn and Onions for the NZ series but I'm pretty sure Broad will start after his rest.

Looking at the Ashes I reckon Hilfenhaus and Starc are two guys who could excel in English conditions. After those Pattinson and Bird from what I've seen also look like two who could do well here. Both accurate but Pattinson has a fair bit more pace in him.

The big difference could be the spinners with Swann and Panesar a class apart from the Lyon. An interesting series beckons!

I disagree with you. England at the moment don't have a lot of pace bowling reserves with test experience other than Onions and Bresnan who can slot in at a moment's notice should either Anderson, Broad, or Finn get injured on the eve of a test match. In contrast the Aussies have a wide choice of pace bowlers who have at least some test match experience behind them waiting in the wings (Pattinson, Cummins, Rhino Harris, John Hastings) should anything happen to either Sid Viscious, Big Ben, Mitch Johnson and Mitch Starc.

On the contrary. I believe with the likes likes of Dernbach, Bresnan, Onions, Meaker and even Woakes, England have a slightly more internationally experienced back up.

Starc and Bird have less than 50 first class matches between them and Starc's bowling average is over 30!

seanmichaels wrote:Starc and Bird have less than 50 first class matches between them and Starc's bowling average is over 30!

But they have the test match experience now and that is what counts more than playing in county or state level matches. As for Starc's average being over 30 well that should come down over time as he gets better.

Harris is always injured, forget about him. That leaves Siddle, Hilfenhaus (doubt he will play) and Johnson as bowlers with plenty of test match experience.
We have, Jimmy and Broad plus Finn, Onions and Bresnan, who have played a few tests between them.