Somerset vs AUS

First topic message reminder :

Somerset

Marcus Trescothick (C)
Nick Compton
Christopher Jones
James Hildreth
Craig Kieswetter
Alexander Barrow (W)
Peter Trego
Craig Meschede
George Dockrell
Jamie Overton
Gemaal Hussain


Australia

Edward Cowan
Shane Watson
Phillip Hughes
Usman Khawaja
Michael Clarke (C)
James Faulkner
Bradley Haddin (W)
Peter Siddle
James Pattinson
Mitchell Starc
Nathan Lyon

alfie wrote:Sounds like KP_fan is putting his money on Australia  

Can't deny there isrisk involved in making changes to the team at this point , considering Root has been doing so well in the middle order. But there was risk involved in 2005 too , when England chose to pension off the reliable Thorpe and include Pietersen and Bell in their lineup...that one worked quite well.
No guarantees , and I am sure Flower and co will be kicked to death on here if it all goes pear shaped ; but whatever happens you can't accuse the selectors of taking the easy road...we will see over the next few weeks.

my money is on a drawn series.....which is factoring Australia's ascendancy and England's 20% suboptimal team..trying to fix what ain't broke

msp83 wrote:

Olly wrote:I'm not really sure how people make the Aussies favs for the Ashes honestly.

We have the better batting line up.
We have the better bowling line up.
Our fielding is usually quality.

Pietersen, Cook, Trott and Prior, v Clarke certainly means England have the better batting lineup comparatively. Anderson, Broad, Finn and Swann v Pattinson, Siddle, Starc, Lyon, Faulkner and Watson. Anderson and Swann are unrivaled in terms of skill and experience. But both Finn and Pattinson are extremely talented young fast bowlers who could be match winners on their day. Broad and Starc also have their inconsistencies as well as quality performances, though Broad's greater experience has to be a favorable factor. But with Watson and Faulkner for backup, Australia are better served there. So eventually England are ahead, but not by all that much.

So are you saying the Aussies have the better bowling attack?

Olly wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Olly wrote:I'm not really sure how people make the Aussies favs for the Ashes honestly.

We have the better batting line up.
We have the better bowling line up.
Our fielding is usually quality.

Pietersen, Cook, Trott and Prior, v Clarke certainly means England have the better batting lineup comparatively. Anderson, Broad, Finn and Swann v Pattinson, Siddle, Starc, Lyon, Faulkner and Watson. Anderson and Swann are unrivaled in terms of skill and experience. But both Finn and Pattinson are extremely talented young fast bowlers who could be match winners on their day. Broad and Starc also have their inconsistencies as well as quality performances, though Broad's greater experience has to be a favorable factor. But with Watson and Faulkner for backup, Australia are better served there. So eventually England are ahead, but not by all that much.

So are you saying the Aussies have the better bowling attack?

Not exactly. What I am trying to say is that Australia have got a very good bowling attack. While Anderson and Swann do give England an advantage, the rest are all at a broadly equal level. If Swann and Anderson give England an advantage, if they play the all-rounder Faulkner and the batting all-rounder Watson, Australia also go in with out something that England do not really have, a quality 5th bowling option that can keep their other 4 bowlers fresher besides adding to the variations available. England's still is the better attack, but not by all that much. Besides, England's batting isn't at its strongest either. Hoping and wanting England to win, but I expect a closer series than many expect.

Our bowlers won't need a 5th bowler to keep fresh. They'll have skittled the Aussies out and be back in the changing rooms within 60 overs  

Olly wrote:Our bowlers won't need a 5th bowler to keep fresh. They'll have skittled the Aussies out and be back in the changing rooms within 60 overs  

But the way England have been batting of late, the bowlers could be back out in the field sooner than they would hope to. 2 very good bowling units, one good batting unit, one average unit.

msp83 wrote:

Olly wrote:Our bowlers won't need a 5th bowler to keep fresh. They'll have skittled the Aussies out and be back in the changing rooms within 60 overs  

But the way England have been batting of late, the bowlers could be back out in the field sooner than they would hope to. 2 very good bowling units, one good batting unit, one average unit.

I'd back our guys to come through with the bat. Not been great of late agreed, but Trott/KP have shown they are in good nick recently, Cook's form is shaky, but you don't keep a player of his quality down for too long. Bell needs a good series, Root is an enigma. Bairstow is the only one I am really worried about. Prior is a boss

Would be very surprised if Australia opted to play five bowlers. Not their usual plan at all - even when they had Gilchrist they nearly always went with the full set of batsmen so I doubt they would be risking shortening this rather fragile batting lineup...

Of course it may well be that Faulkner would make just as many runs as the sixth batsman anyway...Siddle and Starc outbatted most of the top order in India  

In any case Watson is a handy enough fifth bowler (when he isn't sooking/injured) They will keep England honest.

Alfie, Lehman did mention that he might consider a 5 man attack, and Faulkner did play both the warm-up games. And Clarke apart, none of the Australian batsmen have been demanding a team spot through consistent performance of late. Watson has found form in the warm-ups and he's an experienced batsman. Rogers was picked to provide experience and a sense of solidity to that lineup. Haddin will be the wicketkeeper batsman. The 3 remaining positions, no one has put a strong claim. Faulkner can bat for sure, and I won't be surprised at all if he is in the mix along with Cowan, Hughes, Khawaja, Smith and Warner for the 3 remaining positions. And I would certainly love to see him in action ahead of an absolute lottery like Hughes, or an out of form and out of game time David Warner.

it's a firm 50% option in aus's mind to play faulkner.
his pkaying will depend on how good watson feels as a bowler.

my 6th batsman choice will be Smith...he has X factor

Mat wrote:

JDizzle wrote:Good to hear about Leach Mat. He's a good cricketer and he deserves his chance and I wouldn't be surprised to see him getting some runs soon, good operator. And Worcs do love a dibbly dobbly all rounder.  

It's our speciality!

Indeed - Basil d'Oliveira was dibbly bobbly bowler (as well as - of course - an excellent batsman).  

KP_fan wrote:it's a firm 50% option in aus's mind to play faulkner.
his pkaying will depend on how good watson feels as a bowler.

my 6th batsman choice will be Smith...he has X factor

He would be my choice too. I do think this talk of playing Faulkner is just a smokescreen , but we will see soon enough.

KP_fan wrote:

VTR wrote:

KP_fan wrote:
you get it right.....as you usually do 
because you are neitehr panicking nor subconciously tyring to turn a blind eye.......to the ascendancy of Australia...being a neutral fanUnlike a lot more emotionally attached fans here.....

Except you're not neutral are you - you constantly snipe at pretty much everything England do. Bizarre and tiresome behaviour given you are a "KP Fan"

I criticize India also amply and whole heartedly.
Being a fan doesn't  mean you go blind to the folies of your side or any others that you follow...unless off-course you are called "Duty281"

That's quite right, old chap. When England toured India, you talked a lot about the very realistic possibility of India tonking England 4-0. Then there was silly old me, harping on for ages about the absurd scoreline of England winning 2-1.

Oh hang on a minute....