Ashes 2021/22 and other cricket through the winter of 2021 thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd start a new thread for the winter cricket of 2021 that we (covid depending) have ahead of us. Obviously the World T20, but that has it's own thread...

The main event being the Ashes, with the dates below

Men's Ashes schedule
First Test: 8-12 December - Gabba, Brisbane (00:00 GMT)
Second Test: 16-20 December - Adelaide Oval, Adelaide (d/n - 04:00 GMT)
Third Test: 26-30 December - MCG, Melbourne (23:30 GMT, 25 December)
Fourth Test: 5-9 January - SCG, Sydney (23:30 GMT, 4 January)
Fifth Test: 14-18 January - Optus Stadium, Perth (02:30 GMT) (subject to change)

Women's Ashes schedule
Test: 27-30 January - Manuka Oval, Canberra (23:00 GMT, 26 January)
First T20: 4 February - North Sydney Oval, Sydney (08:10 GMT)
Second T20: 6 February - North Sydney Oval, Sydney (08:10 GMT)
Third T20: 10 February - Adelaide Oval, Adelaide (08:10 GMT)
First ODl: 13 February - Adelaide Oval, Adelaide (23:05 GMT, 12 February)
Second ODl: 16 February - Junction Oval, Melbourne (23:05 GMT, 15 February)
Third ODI: 19 February - Junction Oval, Melbourne (23:05 GMT, 18 February)

India have a busy winter, with New Zealand touring in November/December and then India head to South Africa for the boxing day test/January.
There's an interesting test series between Bangladesh and Pakistan in Bangladesh in Nov/Dec, which should be an entertaining watch. Unfortunately I don't see much cricket on the schedule for Pakistan/Sri Lanka (unless I am missing something!)
A few others on the future tours programme, but not confirmed yet as far as I see...

[guildfordbat]

...
The Aussie pace attack is very strong though. Cummins is absolutely outstanding, an all time great in the making.

I've heard Rory Burns say that Cummins is the most difficult bowler he's ever faced. Whilst I don't put Burns forward as the greatest cricketing judge of all time, he has 29 more Test caps than me and I doubt that number will decrease.

[king_carlos]

...
The Aussie pace attack is very strong though. Cummins is absolutely outstanding, an all time great in the making.

I've heard Rory Burns say that Cummins is the most difficult bowler he's ever faced. Whilst I don't put Burns forward as the greatest cricketing judge of all time, he has 29 more Test caps than me and I doubt that number will decrease.

Cummins in many ways is all the things that have made seam bowlers so effective in the last few years in their peak form.

Seamers have increasingly:

- Bowled at the stumps more due to DRS increasing LBW chances rather than bowling 'in the corridor outside off'
- Bowled quicker consistently due to fitness levels increasing *
- Bowled very accurately
- Used the wobble seam to remain dangerous with the older ball (Cummins has pretty much forgone reverse swing in favour of the wobble seam as it's so consistently effective with his skill level)

Cummins is all these things personified. This is purely anecdotal rather than backed by statistics but I don't think I've ever seen a bowler as quick as Cummins bowl as accurately. I've seen quicker bowlers and bowlers as accurate but I'm not sure I've seen any with the same combination. Maybe Malcolm Marshall at his peak. I consider Marshall the best Test seamer/quick ever though so that in itself is some compliment.

* Whilst there may have been more 'fast bowlers' in previous eras I think that bowlers are bowling fast more consistently now than ever before. When Jofra bowls in the mid-80s there are question marks put to his commitment for instance as we are used to seamers bowling consistently nearer their top speeds now. Michael Holding, an out and out speed merchant to challenge any quick on his day, used to bowl swing off a half length run-up on slow pitches to preserve his body. If a present day bowler did that it would be commented on like the end of civilisation by some commentators!

[Soul Requiem]

Steyn and Donald would be two that spring to mind straight away, the two finest overall genuine pace bowlers i've seen.

[VTR]

Interesting points, and I agree that if you look at other sports, with the constant raising of the bar in achievement levels, its fair to conclude that the fast bowlers of today have to be the most capable of consistently maintaining high speeds. So, as this is an Ashes thread, I will stick my neck on the block and say Harold Larwood, I bet he was bowling about 85mph for a sustained spell, which was probably terrifying at the time, but nowadays would make him about as terrifying as Chris Woakes. Who is a lovely bowler, but not one anyone fears. Am aware this one is a can of worms that's been opened and resealed a lot of times!

[king_carlos]

Steyn and Donald would be two that spring to mind straight away, the two finest overall genuine pace bowlers i've seen.

Steyn's an all time great and was consistently very fast but bowled shorter spells than Cummins and in my opinion wasn't quite as accurate.

White lightning is another that justifiably challenges greatest ever XI discussions and bowled quick for long spells like Cummins but again I don't think even Donald was quite as accurate.

Cummins has an average speed in Tests of 143.3kph (89mph) with one of the tightest pitch maps I've ever seen from a seamer. He has Hadlee and McGrath esque accuracy at a top end quicks pace. It's remarkable.

That's not the only thing that makes a great bowler of course. Steyn and Donald were better new ball bowlers for instance and better strike bowlers. For consistent pace and accuracy I still think Cummins beats both though.

[king_carlos]

Interesting points, and I agree that if you look at other sports, with the constant raising of the bar in achievement levels, its fair to conclude that the fast bowlers of today have to be the most capable of consistently maintaining high speeds. So, as this is an Ashes thread, I will stick my neck on the block and say Harold Larwood, I bet he was bowling about 85mph for a sustained spell, which was probably terrifying at the time, but nowadays would make him about as terrifying as Chris Woakes. Who is a lovely bowler, but not one anyone fears. Am aware this one is a can of worms that's been opened and resealed a lot of times!

Comparing across eras is always a can of worms.

In the late '90s and early '00s it seemed that bowlers tagged with the dreaded "military medium" moniker by commentators such as Boycott would bowl mid-70s touching 80mph. As conditioning standards raised in the mid '00s to early '10s those types of bowlers seemed to be consistently bowling low to mid 80s. Bowlers such as Bresnan and Woakes who I've certainly heard handed that particular moniker even scraping 90 at times. It was a big shift in the pace of those medium-fast to fast-medium range bowlers that seemed to fly under the radar a bit.

Colin Ingram has spoken before about how good a job the camera angle looking slightly down from behind the bowlers head does of making things seem slower. That is of course why that angle was settled on as it allows the spectator to actually see what's happening! Those high definition cameras, that camera angle and abundant slow mo replays can sometimes warp the viewers perspective though. Ingram has a solid FC record, excellent domestic white ball record and 3 ODI tons but he's spoken about balls he played and missed against the quickest ODI bowlers he faced which he barely saw. He then watched them back on analysis and was amazed by the difference between watching on the screen in live speed and actually facing it. I found it a really interesting perspective.

[Soul Requiem]

Steyn and Donald would be two that spring to mind straight away, the two finest overall genuine pace bowlers i've seen.

Steyn's an all time great and was consistently very fast but bowled shorter spells than Cummins and in my opinion wasn't quite as accurate.

White lightning is another that justifiably challenges greatest ever XI discussions and bowled quick for long spells like Cummins but again I don't think even Donald was quite as accurate.

Cummins has an average speed in Tests of 143.3kph (89mph) with one of the tightest pitch maps I've ever seen from a seamer. He has Hadlee and McGrath esque accuracy at a top end quicks pace. It's remarkable.

That's not the only thing that makes a great bowler of course. Steyn and Donald were better new ball bowlers for instance and better strike bowlers. For consistent pace and accuracy I still think Cummins beats both though.

I tend to think that Donald and Steyn had more strings to their bow and bowled overseas a lot more.

The pitch map comes into it for me, accuracy isn't just bowling the same ball over and over again, it's being able to bowl the right ball at the right time which Steyn and Donald were superb at. There's also the small matter of who you're bowling at, with all due respect to Cummins the batsmen he's been up against are not up to the standard of the other two.

Cummins is very very good but at this point in time I don't consider him about fifth in this accuracy/pace question with Wasim and Ambrose being the other two.

[king_carlos]

Ambrose is a great shout actually for accuracy and pace. Such a wonderfully entertaining bowler as well.

Wasim I consider the joint best pace bowler ever along with Marshall from the covered pitch era but I'd be very surprised if he was as consistently quick as Cummins. With modern training he had all the ability to be but with conditioning where it was then I highly doubt it.

58% of Cummins Tests have been at home. Steyn is 56% and Donald is 53%. So Cummins and Steyn are very similar, Donald 5% more. In terms of number of Tests Cummins has of course bowled the least away from home but hasn't finished his career!

Cummins pitch maps are remarkable in part due to his ability to bowl different deliveries I think. When looking at pitch maps you basically want 2 very tight clusters for each Test. One on the right length for that pitch and one on a bouncer length. Which is exactly what Cummins is remarkable at. For a bowler such as Flintoff that used the yorker a lot you could argue a third cluster at yorker length but not many bowlers use the yorker that frequently in Tests due to it's high variance.

As said in my previous post combined accuracy and pace don't mean he is a better bowler. Donald and Steyn are better with the new ball and stronger strike bowlers. I just think that sustained accuracy and pace in the current premier seam bowler is an interesting indication of where seam bowling has moved with DRS and conditioning changing trends.

It's a completely different discussion (and not a popular opinion) but I don't actually think batting was at a massively higher level as people say in the 90s. Australia were outstanding in that era and their batting was dominant of course.

A quick scan of series Donald played and there are great players in many series but not that many great batting lineups. For instance he played a series against India with greats in Tendulkar and Azharuddin but the next best bats would be Shastri (as an opener) and Manjrekar. A later series in which India had Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly also had Wasim Jaffer, Ajay Jadeja and Nayan Mongia rounding out the top 7. Laxman was also shoehorned into opening there!

Early Donald vs Windies series had the likes of Haynes, Lara and Richardson but also Phil Simmons, Keith Arthurton and David Williams with the gloves. Later Windies series have Lara and Chanderpaul but the next best bats would be Carl Hooper and Wavell Hinds.

New Zealand and England were weak batting lineups overall. The Pakistan series I've scanned had Inzi and the criminally underrated Saeed Anwar but not much else.

I think there can be a tendency with bygone eras to list 7 players in your head who played in the 90s for instance and think "that was a great batting lineup". With Sri Lanka I could rattle off Jayasuria, Atapattu, Aravinda de Silva, Sangakarra, Jayawardena and Tillakaratne who played in the 90s. They never actually played together though. Usually someone like Arjuna is their 3rd or 4th best bat though, similar to someone like Hooper or Hinds often being 3rd or 4th best for Windies.

Worth noting at this point that players such as Arjuna, Hinds, Hooper, Manjrekar and Shastri actually have worse records than Atherton despite Athers opening the batting in England. Atherton is a player you frequently brand as a poor batsman I believe Soul. Yet players such as those are frequently the 3rd of 4th best bats in teams I've looked at.

When actually looking at playing XIs the stronger teams then seem to have 2 or 3, sometimes 4 really good to great batsman then the others being average to poor. Which seems fairly similar to now really. India and New Zealand's batting is stronger than that currently in fact. Australia fit that bill exactly with 3 excellent bats then a mixed bag. England have 2 good bats then meh. SA have Elgar, Quinton and Markram then a mixed bag.

Even the great SA side that dominated in Steyns time had an opening bat in Alviro Petersen who's numbers are actually pretty poor when you factor in it being a strong batting era. If a better statistician than I were to compare Petersen and Burns numbers taking into account Petersen being in a batting friendly era and Burns a bowling dominant one I wouldn't be surprised if Burns is doing better actually. I'm somewhat a Burns skeptic there too.

It's also extremely hard to compare between eras as trends with conditions change so much. In the Noughties we were largely seeing batting friendly wickets and batting averages shot up. In the last 6-7 years we have seen far more bowling friendly pitches (and balls with pink ball tests plus the Dukes going round corners) with batting averages then going down.

I accept that's a very long post about a completely different topic though which usually ends up being an agree to disagree discussion but I'm on a delayed train and bored. 

[VTR]

Good post re the viewing angle KC, and enjoyed reading the longer post.

Just to return to that viewing angle, I have had the "joys" of watching quite a bit of international cricket from a side on angle. In terms of seeing the ball, it didn't really matter which pace bowler was bowling, I struggled to see the ball. One match Fidel Edwards was bowling, and I absolutely could not see it! Like you say though, on the TV, you would watch that and think the batsmen has a lot of time

Back to Larwood, without labouring the point, I just can't see how a guy who's after and possibly pre match routine was something like a pint of bitter and a fag could be anywhere the athlete someone like Brett Lee was. I have seen reports that he bowled at 100mph, which of course has got to be nonsense

[JDizzle]

Another slight tangent, but I read an excellent article from Cameron Ponsonby on Cricinfo yesterday about the speed gun basically lies!

Commentators and players have always talked about 'heavy' balls and gathering pace off the pitch, amongst other cliches so was interesting to see some of those effects quantified and why some bowlers feel faster than others. I am sure Nick Knight tucked Akhtar's 100mph comfortably off his hip for one!

This is my favourite stat:

"In the Caribbean in 2019, TV showed Jasprit Bumrah's release point was half a metre closer to the batter than Kemar Roach's. This gave Bumrah the effect of bowling 3.7mph faster than the speed gun was showing"

Bowling 0.5m closer to the batter than another seam bowler is insane. What an advantage to have that action. When we are dealing with a matter of milliseconds, that is huge - particularly with Bumrah's tough to sight action, another phenomenon which affects how fast a ball feels which is covered in the piece.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/looks-fast-feels-faster-why-the-speed-gun-is-only-part-of-the-story-1292343

[king_carlos]

A couple of very good batsman have mentioned Asif's ability to make it feel like the ball accelerated off the pitch which is really interesting.

Yes, that Bumrah stat is fascinating. It shows how basic a lot of cricket analysis still is that it took so long for people to spot that. Something as simple as looking at release points from side on as well as the batsman's perspective!

Whilst front foot no balls can be absolutely infuriating it's also interesting to note that for a bowler such as Starc who probably has size 14 or 15 (i.e. 30cm long) feet that taking that risk of being just behind the line can actually take his release point far enough forward to have that type of effect at the pace these fellas bowl. 50cm closer from Bumrah feels 3.7mph faster to the batsman. There's a potential 30cm there for Starc in having heel just behind the line rather than his toes on it.

[king_carlos]

Good post re the viewing angle KC, and enjoyed reading the longer post.

Just to return to that viewing angle, I have had the "joys" of watching quite a bit of international cricket from a side on angle. In terms of seeing the ball, it didn't really matter which pace bowler was bowling, I struggled to see the ball. One match Fidel Edwards was bowling, and I absolutely could not see it! Like you say though, on the TV, you would watch that and think the batsmen has a lot of time

Back to Larwood, without labouring the point, I just can't see how a guy who's after and possibly pre match routine was something like a pint of bitter and a fag could be anywhere the athlete someone like Brett Lee was. I have seen reports that he bowled at 100mph, which of course has got to be nonsense

I was at a county game that Harmison was bowling at around his prime. From side on it was absolutely futile trying to follow the game. I moved behind the arm and from a bit higher up the stands (trying to somewhat replicate the TV angle) there was a bit more point to watching! Cracking day out at the cricket with my dad though.

Frank Tyson is another in that bracket from seeing footage of his run up and release. The somewhat ungainly run up and buckled front leg doesn't scream express pace. No doubt he was incredibly naturally gifted and extremely fast for his time though given the pitches they played on, protective equipment, amateur players, etc. Lord knows I wouldn't have wanted to take time off work as a postie to face Typhoon with no helmet!

When speeds around those marks are listed for quicks from previous eras it does need to be taken with a handful of salt though.

[KP_fan]

[quote="king_carlos"]

...
The Aussie pace attack is very strong though. Cummins is absolutely outstanding, an all time great in the making.

I've heard Rory Burns say that Cummins is the most difficult bowler he's ever faced.
Seamers have increasingly:

- Bowled at the stumps more due to DRS increasing LBW chances rather than bowling 'in the corridor outside off'
- Bowled quicker consistently due to fitness levels increasing *
- Bowled very accurately
- Used the wobble seam to remain dangerous with the older ball (Cummins has pretty much forgone reverse swing in favour of the wobble seam as it's so consistently effective with his skill level)

Cummins is all these things personified.

I was surprised when I checked his stats....that Cummins has played only 34 tests in 10 years of his career.
and while away games are only almost a third ........he has played only 4 tests in subcontinent and averages 30 odd for his 14 wickets
His wickets have come essentially in 3 pace friendly countries.....aus, Eng and SA
He has to show he can deliver in subcontinent and UAE....and I Hope he gets to play more in those countries

[king_carlos]

It's really a four year career for Cummins. Debuted as a teenager in 2011 but didn't play his second Test until 2017 due to all the injuries. As mentioned a few times my argument isn't that he's the best bowler ever. He has a fantastic record but has only played 34 Tests thus far. I just think there's a good chance that there hasn't previously been a bowler that is consistently so fast with that accuracy.

Tim Southee has sneakily developed a very good record in Asia for a guy who once seemed an out and out swing bowler. 48 wickets in 13 Tests at 25.5 with an economy of 2.7 is very respectable for a seamer in Asia.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/ashes/james_anderson_out_of_ashes_opener_chris_woakes_set_to_play_in_brisbane.html

[Duty281]

https://www.thecricketer.com/Topics/ashes/james_anderson_out_of_ashes_opener_chris_woakes_set_to_play_in_brisbane.html

Sounds like they're taking a precautionary measure and preserving him for the pink-ball test. But Woakes coming in seems to indicate it'll be all-seam with no Leach, which would be the lunatic selection we expect of England. I still remember when they played Giles ahead of Panesar in 2006 for the first two tests.

[king_carlos]

5 seamers would be a hilariously England start to a series.

Woakes does add batting depth though. He's also very capable at bowling around the wicket to left-handers which should be important against Warner, Harris and Head.

[alfie]

I generally don't like going in without a proper spinner - and not convinced they will do so here anyway. However if the worst weather predictions prove accurate there might not be a great deal for Leach to do - or indeed hours of play in which to do it.

Which also helps make the "early rotation" of Anderson understandable : he is much more likely to be a match winner in Adelaide under lights than in Brisbane . Theoretically , anyway... it is a move they might regret if he is missed too much in this vital first game : up to the others to show what they can do.
With the five matches so close together though I reckon on balance using Anderson for Adelaide , Melbourne , and the fifth match makes the most sense : and Brisbane/Adelaide/Melbourne would be courting a breakdown!

With the prevailing weather pattern and the new version of the Kookaburra I am not that worried about England's bowling , to be honest. Hope I am not hexing them but I fancy they will do a decent job - and a much better one than four years ago with all those 600 totals and Marsh (!) centuries .

Batting is the tricky bit...

[alfie]

Also noted that Ponsonby article that JD instanced above. Was indeed an interesting read.

Not much one can do to match the Bumrah advantage : some actions are just different. But some of the other variations in delivery are probably just as significant.

As to this matter of generally increased pace being sustained in recent times : I am not so sure. Yes the bowlers are probably "fitter" and should be more capable of bowling at speed for longer : but on the other hand they don't get rest days or much down time between matches ; or less important games in which they can take it a bit easier. I think back to , say , 1981 : Bob Willis bowling some extremely lengthy spells (not just at Headingley) which I'm not sure anyone does these days - and he wasn't taking it at all easy !

Hard to compare speeds off old film but I suspect the likes of Larwood and Tyson were indeed as fast as they have been portrayed : the reason they are so remembered is surely that they were outliers , no ?  I've no doubt the overall pace levels among fast bowlers were lower than today ; but that doesn't mean individuals were not exceptionally quick. More recently : Jeff Thomson's exploits in 1974/5 are now some 46 years ago but is anyone going to suggest he wasn't as quick as anything we see today ? And his action didn't make him any easier to pick up.

Cummins is a very fine bowler. I think I will wait until he's finished his career before trying to allocate his place in the pantheon...

[sirfredperry]

England announce 12 for the 1st Test. Anderson is not included. He is fit, apparently, but they presumably don't want to overwork him.
Pope gets the nod over Bairstow which is the right call for me. Leach I think will play and it's just a question of which seamer misses out.

[alfie]

Not really unexpected. In fact that is the twelve I thought would be lined up - though which bowler they will leave carrying the drinks is anyone's guess. Could make a case for any combination of those listed.

Olly will be pleased that Pope has been selected for the first game ; though if it turns out to be a real bowlers' pitch the batsmen may not feel they've been done any favours. If England keep the same top six throughout the series it will be (a) a major shock and (b) presumably will mean they are seriously contending to win back the Ashes !

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

1. Pope over Bairstow - hurrah! Back him for the full 5 tests no matter what please England. Give the kid a chance to cement himself please

2. Anderson surely isn't fully fit, sorry I am not buying they're resting him for the 1st test, that seems some media fodder/bluster to me. I would be concerned about his involvement in this series if he's already carrying a niggle before we've even started

3. Don't go in with five seamers - Trevor Bayliss was often meh on test match cricket but always think he was right in saying something along the lines of there is never any need for five seamers, because if conditions are that seam friendly your first four should be doing the job. Play Leach ffs

4. On the discussion above, Harold Larwood wasn't as quick as 100mph or the guys we see today. The dude had a follow through of a spinner and wicket keepers were stood like 10 yards behind the stumps to him, not halfway to the boundary. Wicket keeping standards must have plummeted to incredible depths if he actually was the fastest bowler ever

[VTR]

Agree on the Anderson thing. He is in England's best 11, the first Test is critical, no way am I buying that this is all part of the masterplan, for him to come in and swing England to certain victory in the pink ball Tests

Good observations on Larwood as well. Also, as KC referred to postmen playing, which got me thinking if he was the 90-100mph bowler in the era where amateurs played, he'd have killed a lot of people. Might revise my estimate to be more like 80mph, so about as quick as peak Paul Collingwood

[alfie]

I hope your faith in Pope is realised , Olly. So far he has been more promise than achievement ; but I agree he looks to have huge potential. The question mark might be facing spin - which might not be a big factor this week. I actually fancy he may find a home at three but not sure this series will be when he gets there.

I don't think Jimmy has a niggle. He doesn't have a great record in Brisbane and I think keeping him for Adelaide/Melbourne makes more sense. It might be a good sign that they are actually thinking ahead and looking to deploy "horses for courses" ; to make the most of what might arguably one advantage they have over Australia in a more easily interchangeable group of bowlers. We will see.

I'd prefer to have a spinner aboard. But if they don't think Stokes is up to many overs and the weather is seriously dodgy ...

I doubt Larwood was anywhere near 100mph ! But I do believe he was seriously quick. Not many players today are threatening 100 either , by the way ; though I would agree there are more bowlers around with high eighties average speeds now than in any previous era.

Getting very close to Day One Ashes : my anticipation only dampened by a fear that we might see a lot of umbrellas...

[JDizzle]

If it is going to bucket it down for five days and you think it might do a bit, I can see the logic behind leaving out Leach if he isn’t ever going to get a well worn pitch to bowl on this game.

But surely you play an extra batter in that case? Bairstow I guess. Sure, Buttler or Bairstow might end up batting 8, but if the best argument against it is it might hurt their feelings it isn’t a good argument!

Agree with Olly five seamers is a waste. Is overs are going to be limited, how many is the fifth bowler going to bowl?

In short, if the weather looks okay then play Leach (even if spinners do tend to get smashed in Aus - we need to see him). If it looks like rain, then play an extra bat and cope with three seamers + Stokes + Root.

[Mind the windows Tino.]

Agree on the Anderson thing. He is in England's best 11, the first Test is critical, no way am I buying that this is all part of the masterplan, for him to come in and swing England to certain victory in the pink ball Tests

This.

Leaving him out if he is fully fit is some level of arrogance by England. I've read reports that he is "bowling well in the nets" and the "ball is swinging and for longer than normal". So we leave out our premier bowler who is fully fit? Australia haven't had the greatest prep (nor have we but we have played more test cricket recently) and this is probably our best chance to catch them cold and start the Ashes with momentum.

I get he doesn't have a great record at Brisbane but which England bowler does.

Broad has some success against left handers and in particular Lil' Davie but that is primarily in English conditions. Woakes, as much as I love him, has a terrible overseas record. Robinson hasn't ever played a test overseas, let alone in Australia.

Who are Silverwood and Root expecting to be more dangerous in the 1st test. One of the above? I don't get that.

Lets hope it is a stroke of genius and we are not 1-0 from the start.

[alfie]

Agree on the Anderson thing. He is in England's best 11, the first Test is critical, no way am I buying that this is all part of the masterplan, for him to come in and swing England to certain victory in the pink ball Tests

This.

Leaving him out if he is fully fit is some level of arrogance by England. I've read reports that he is "bowling well in the nets" and the "ball is swinging and for longer than normal". So we leave out our premier bowler who is fully fit? Australia haven't had the greatest prep (nor have we but we have played more test cricket recently) and this is probably our best chance to catch them cold and start the Ashes with momentum.

I get he doesn't have a great record at Brisbane but which England bowler does.

Broad has some success against left handers and in particular Lil' Davie but that is primarily in English conditions. Woakes, as much as I love him, has a terrible overseas record. Robinson hasn't ever played a test overseas, let alone in Australia.

Who are Silverwood and Root expecting to be more dangerous in the 1st test. One of the above? I don't get that.

Lets hope it is a stroke of genius and we are not 1-0 from the start.

Strokes of genius have been rare on recent tours of Australia.

I see the argument but still am unsurprised by the selection . It may of course be an injury they don't want to talk about but what would really be the point ? If he doesn't make Adelaide it will be all too obvious anyway and if he does it makes no real difference. I suspect he is thought to be a bit light on for warm up overs and unfortunately only has nets to fix that anyway.
If you subscribe to the "rotation" theory at all then it makes sense to pick each bowler for the matches that are thought to suit them best. Otherwise you are doing what they've tended to do in the past : pick the preferred attack and keep them going until they burn out...

[guildfordbat]

...

My inclination would be for Australia to play six frontline batsmen and the quality bowling quartet of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon. It's the quality that permits me to only pick four bowlers. For the first two Tests anyway. Then consider further in the light of results and individual fitness / performances. However - and this should also be on your bingo card, Olly  - keep in mind that bowlers tend not to get too tired when they're taking wickets.

This is what I suggested three weeks ago for Australia's bowling attack and why I'm with Olly, VTR, Tino etc about Anderson. Pick the best quality you have and go hard from the start.

No Anderson means to me that he has some sort of injury which would certainly be very concerning for the series or our selectors are trying to be too clever.

Following Alfie's post, I would say that I don't dismiss rotation as a concept. However, I am probably more influenced by Danny Blanchflower's words (don't worry - Alfie and Sir Fred will understand) that ''we should equalise before they score''.

[Mind the windows Tino.]

However, I am probably more influenced by Danny Blanchflower's words (don't worry - Alfie and Sir Fred will understand) that ''we should equalise before they score''.

Haha! Never heard that one before.

I think he was the guy who said "if you're not interfering with play, why are you on the pitch" when talking about offsides? Could be wrong though.

Love that quote above though, GB.

[alfie]

...

My inclination would be for Australia to play six frontline batsmen and the quality bowling quartet of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon. It's the quality that permits me to only pick four bowlers. For the first two Tests anyway. Then consider further in the light of results and individual fitness / performances. However - and this should also be on your bingo card, Olly  - keep in mind that bowlers tend not to get too tired when they're taking wickets.

This is what I suggested three weeks ago for Australia's bowling attack and why I'm with Olly, VTR, Tino etc about Anderson. Pick the best quality you have and go hard from the start.

No Anderson means to me that he has some sort of injury which would certainly be very concerning for the series or our selectors are trying to be too clever.

Following Alfie's post, I would say that I don't dismiss rotation as a concept. However, I am probably more influenced by Danny Blanchflower's words (don't worry - Alfie and Sir Fred will understand) that ''we should equalise before they score''.

Pick the best , etc...sure. Only thing is I am not sure that 39 year old Jimmy is actually "best" for Brisbane in a (probably) three pace man + Leach and some assistance from Stokes attack. It may be that this is a surface on which the pace of Wood and the various abilities of Broad and Robinson/Woakes might be more effective. (With the caveat that if Australia get right on top with the bat they will miss his control - though in that case the game is probably lost anyway)
And I say this as a huge Anderson fan ! It goes against the grain for me to say it and part of me would love to see him running out tomorrow ; but I'd been expecting this selection for some time and am prepared to give it a try without any prejudice...

Honestly much more bothered about the batting.

[GSC]

Yeah I don't have much issue with prioritising the games Jimmy plays based on where he will have most impact. We know at this point he's not gonna play all 5

[sirfredperry]

Another of the Danny Blachflower-isms, said after he was dropped by Billy Nick in 1958: "It's not the good players that are a luxury in a poorly-performing team. It's the bad players that are a luxury."

[VTR]

What's the basis for Anderson having most impact though? Is this based on the last tour, where he did well in the Pink Ball Test, but the Aussies still did better, so it was a thrashing anyway. I mean this could be a stroke of genius, but I'm still calling a level of over thinking comparable to when they called Liam Dawson the main spinner to make Moeen feel better

[dummy_half]

Yeah I don't have much issue with prioritising the games Jimmy plays based on where he will have most impact. We know at this point he's not gonna play all 5

Also being reported that Jimmy had a little calf niggle last week, although has had two net sessions bowling full on in the last couple of days. Makes sense to give him another week to get up to full fitness and just hope that the other bowlers )and the weather) do well enough in the first test to keep us in the series. In truth my biggest concern with the bowling attack is that Mark Wood is the only outright fast bowler we have available, and when he breaks, which he inevitably will, we will have quite a samey line up of seamers, at least in terms of pace.

Of course, the bowling options are an embarrassment of riches compared to the batting though.

[Duty281]

I view this tour as similar to the tour of India earlier this year - if England win one test, it's an achievement. I'm seeing some dangerous levels of optimism by other England fans, not necessarily on here. If England were to win this series it would be the greatest shock of them all. Nothing points to an England win, everything points to an Aussie hammering. Nine Aussie wins out of the last ten tests played between the two in Australia highlights the sheer gulf, which has only gotten wider, not narrower. 5-0, three innings defeats and Root resigns is my final prediction.

Though interestingly I discovered that England's all-time winning record in Ashes tests is better in Australia than it is in England, which seems bizarre - England have won 31% of the tests played between the two in England, compared to 33.5% in Australia. This is mostly down to the disparity in draws in the two countries - 19% of Ashes tests in Australia have been draws, compared to 39% in England.

On Anderson, if he's only 80% fit or worse it makes perfect sense to rest him, especially with the second test being immediately afterwards.

On five seamers - it's utter lunacy, but it seems England will be going for that option as they have become overexcited about the green on the wicket.

On the weather - it's probably not saving England. There's likely some rain going to hit on day one, the other four days may pass through mostly dry with only the odd shower.

Fastest bowler? Fred Trueman. Wicketkeepers used to stand on the boundary rope against his bowling, and Fiery Fred would mark out his run-up with a pint glass, which he took a swig from before every delivery. Real men in them days, lad. I'll sithee.

[king_carlos]

Jimmy just isn't going to play 5 back to back Tests anymore so has to be managed. The same with Broad. It's the downside of having two seamers their age. They need to be managed like an out and out quick. Does there come a point where if fans don't want rest and rotation then they don't want Anderson and Broad either?

That comes back to England just playing too much cricket of course. This will be our 13th Test this year and it would've been the 14th without a cancelled Test in the summer. Lunacy.

Pope ahead of Bairstow was one of my hopes. If we play Leach as well then I wont have many quibbles with the selection. That doesn't make it a strong side mind.

[king_carlos]

Overcast in Brisbane. showers overnight. more rain this afternoon likely. It’s Tom Waits’ birthday and the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Also the anniversary of the murder of John Lennon. There’s a waxing crescent moon. Not positive all of this is relevant…

[Pal Joey]

That pretty much sums it up.

It's dry there as I type but some reporter was mentioning the inevitable afternoon storm.


https://www.606v2.com/t70472-2021-22-ashes-tipping-competition#4014515

[Duty281]

Appears as though Leach will be picked ahead of Broad. That would be the proper balance, but I don't get why England are picking Woakes ahead of Broad, especially with Anderson out. Woakes has never been much cop overseas, and Broad adds vital seniority and experience to the bowling attack. I feel as though Broad is starting to be phased out, it has been a tough year with the ball for him.

[James100]

Appears as though Leach will be picked ahead of Broad. That would be the proper balance, but I don't get why England are picking Woakes ahead of Broad, especially with Anderson out. Woakes has never been much cop overseas, and Broad adds vital seniority and experience to the bowling attack. I feel as though Broad is starting to be phased out, it has been a tough year with the ball for him.

Agree with this. If the choice is Leach or Broad, then I'd go Leach for the balance. But it doesn't have to be, and I'd pick Broad over Woakes to partner Wood and Robinson,

[alfie]

Glad to see it isn't raining this morning (yet) but a bit concerned if they are as rumoured leaving out Broad. Maybe he's not as up to speed as the younger bowlers after a limited preparation but I'd have thought it was a good idea to have at least one of the old masters on deck first up in this series. And he was all over Warner at their last meeting - though of course the conditions here are different.
Seems it might be handing away a bit of a psychological advantage so I hope the extra batting , speed and younger legs compensate...

At least this means Leach plays so it will stop everyone from going nuts over unbalanced attacks

[GSC]

Well no Broad is a big call. A lot resting on Robinson and Wood given Woakes' record overseas

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

I am about as big a Chris Woakes fan as anyone, but agree with posts on here, him over Broad is a bold call considering Woakes’s previous overseas efforts.

No Broad or Anderson for the 1st test!

[king_carlos]

With the fragile Wood our only pace bowler the other two front line seamers will likely need to get through a lot of overs with a ball not doing much. Is Broad still built for that?

Jimmy being 39 can make Stu look a spring chicken but he is 35 after all with recent injuries.

[alfie]

My gut doesn't like the idea of no Broad and no Anderson. I hope that is just an emotional response and the decision that team management has come to is the "right" one for the current circumstances...

Ah well at least if it all goes downhill everyone will have a useful stick with which to beat the captain and coaching staff

Tails it is and Joe is batting first !

[king_carlos]

Worth noting with the no Anderson and Broad thing that in 2019 when the last Ashes series ended the common consensus of most fans and pundits was that we didn't want to arrive at the Gabba in 2021 with Anderson and Broad opening the bowling.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

With the fragile Wood our only pace bowler the other two front line seamers will likely need to get through a lot of overs with a ball not doing much. Is Broad still built for that?

Jimmy being 39 can make Stu look a spring chicken but he is 35 after all with recent injuries.

Woakes is hardly a beacon of health himself tbf KC

But no matter, it’s down to the batters for now with Root winning the toss!

[Duty281]

Good news! England are batting first. Bad news! England are batting first.

Maybe a toss that a captain doesn't really want to win. If England can get through the morning session with only two or fewer lost, it sets up an excellent platform...but this morning session is going to be bloody difficult. Loads of green, bit of cloud, new ball, Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood at full tilt. Frightening stuff.

[guildfordbat]

Good news! England are batting first. Bad news! England are batting first.

Maybe a toss that a captain doesn't really want to win. If England can get through the morning session with only two or fewer lost, it sets up an excellent platform...but this morning session is going to be bloody difficult. Loads of green, bit of cloud, new ball, Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood at full tilt. Frightening stuff.

Although even worse is BT Sports' Matt Smith blabbing on to 'Harmie' about 'the Gabbatoir'.

[Duty281]

Have to fill the time with something!

[Sponsored content]