Print

[Nickauger]

I understand I am not going to get any love from an all English forum.

I DO however watch alot of English first class cricket - how many of you watch Australian first class cricket??

Routinely humiliated?

We got hammered in one Ashes series in our annus horribilus.

We have lost the odd test before and since, but by and large, we have been competitive. Even with the shyte selections and players losing all sense of form that they once possessed all at once.

We are in regeneration mode right now and it will take time. We are roughly where you guys were in 1992 when Gooch and co were retiring.

Do you honestly think it will take us 13 years to win an Ashes series again?

I will let you ponder that thought.

You seem to be assuming that Australia are the only team that will do any improving over the next 5 years.

[Vic Nicholas]

Sure you heard, but Paine's finger didn't heal properly and he is out for another 3-4 months.

Without his keeping, Paine wouldn't make it in the team as a batsman, as there are far better options out there.

Wade is the clear choice. He is solid, averaging 40.16 over his career, and isn't overly aggressive, as his strike rate of 49.57 shows. I'm sure the selectors probably don't want to bring another new player to the team, but when Haddin is dropping catches, not scoring any runs, and unsure of himself (doesn't know whether to play naturally and attack, or be patient) there is absolutely no advantage keeping him in the team. Would be much better off bringing in Wade now, and giving him time to develop prior to the next ashes series.

Wade has scored 316 in 6 innings at 63.20 this year, so I am at a loss as to why they presist with Haddin who isn't performing, and worse still, isn't sure of himself. I know stats aren't everything, but in this case I think they are important, as Haddin isn't offering anything to the team atm.

It has become a no brainer - hasn't it?

Wade is in great form and on an upward curve and Haddin is on the descent.

[Vic Nicholas]

You seem to be assuming that Australia are the only team that will do any improving over the next 5 years.

I am not assuming anything.

Just based on Australia's past history, we regenerate faster than anybody every time.

We will not take 13 years to win the Ashes back.

[langer17]

He started off good this year, but got injured a little while ago, so that meant he missed out

Bollinger is a way back now, behind the likes of Harris, Siddle, Pattinson, Cummins, Hillfenhaus, Cutting and Hazelwood.

Also Starc, Faulkner and a bolter in Jackson Bird.

[Nickauger]

I am not assuming anything.

Just based on Australia's past history, we regenerate faster than anybody every time.

We will not take 13 years to win the Ashes back.

Ok mate, find me proof and I shall listen. Of course no-one is anywhere near as good as Australia in any sense of the word.

[Manormanic]

Just based on Australia's past history, we regenerate faster than anybody every time.

We will not take 13 years to win the Ashes back.

Dunno about that speed - you had a pretty woeful run throughout the 80s! 

I don't personally think the 13 year comment is relevant - unless a team develops a team of galcticos a la Waugh, Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill then you're not likely to see such a long run of victories any time soon, and its important to stress that whilst the 91,93,95 England sides were worse than woeful, they also fielded some very decent sides against Australia during that period - 97 was a decent team, 01 a team on the up and 03, had they had everyone fit, very competitive. 

[uknsaunders]

Stronger team?

In - Watson, Wade,Hauritz (I know it won't happen lol)
Out - Marsh, Haddin, Lyon

Bat deeper, extra seamer.

[mdl_1979]

Watching what has been some very exciting Test cricket over the lasst few months it has become apparent that there are a lot of very average Test teams around the world at the moment and one very good one.  Most of the top tier of Test teams have some gaping holes in their line ups.

Australia: Promising bowling attack, but an inexperienced top order, and players that routinely struggle against the moving ball.  A wicketkeeper who is a liability.

India: An ageing batting line up with an opener (Gambhir) who looks all at sea, and a bowling attack that lacks firepower

South Africa: Lacking an opening batsman and a decent no. 6.  Wicketkeeper is finished as a Test batsman.

Sri Lanka: Bowling attack missing the stars of Murali, Malinga and Vaas, and a captain who barely deserves a place in the batting order

Pakistan: Promising side but hurt by the fact that they can't play at home at the moment, and a batting line up that lacks inspiration

England: The only hole in the side would appear to be at no. 6 but there are a host of top quality young batsmen waiting to fill the spot.  Top 5 batters are world class, and the best keeper/batsman in world cricket (now Sangakkara doesn't keep anymore).  Best spinner in the world, and a conveyor belt of excellent seam bowlers who can bowl well in all conditions in Test cricket.

[langer17]

Stronger team?

In - Watson, Wade,Hauritz (I know it won't happen lol)
Out - Marsh, Haddin, Lyon

Bat deeper, extra seamer.

Watson wont bowl much at all. All his injury problems come from his bowling, so he would only bowl a couple of overs here and there. His batting and body improved out of sight when he stopped bowling, but he started bowling more again, which led to his batting and body suffering.

[alba caerulea]

Not boring.

Just the fact that stats show that Anderson (arguably Englands best bowler) averages about the same as Mitch Johnson (Australia's worst bowler in your eyes) and they have played a similar amount of tests - save for the fact that Johnson has never had the opportunity to fill his boots against Bangladesh as we have never played them in the entirety of Johnsons career of five years.

If Johnson was afforded four tests against Bangladesh, I am sure he could get his average below that of Andersons again (even in his current form).

Very boring. Sky Sports don't have a list of averages up between the hours of play and the winner is determined from this. They show the competition of two teams playing against each other. It is sport, opposing teams playing against each other in a pressure situation - and Anderson comfortably out-performed every Australian bowler on the field.

This has nothing to do with your nationality or the nationality of other forum members - its to do with you talking absolute rubbish quite often. No-one cares that you watch alot of cricket, most people on this forum do. If you rate Johnson as an equal or better bowler than Anderson then I would suggest you begin watching another sport '24/7' because cricket obviously isn't for you

[Manormanic]

Watching what has been some very exciting Test cricket over the lasst few months it has become apparent that there are a lot of very average Test teams around the world at the moment and one very good one.  Most of the top tier of Test teams have some gaping holes in their line ups.

Australia: Promising bowling attack, but an inexperienced top order, and players that routinely struggle against the moving ball.  A wicketkeeper who is a liability.

India: An ageing batting line up with an opener (Gambhir) who looks all at sea, and a bowling attack that lacks firepower

South Africa: Lacking an opening batsman and a decent no. 6.  Wicketkeeper is finished as a Test batsman.

Sri Lanka: Bowling attack missing the stars of Murali, Malinga and Vaas, and a captain who barely deserves a place in the batting order

Pakistan: Promising side but hurt by the fact that they can't play at home at the moment, and a batting line up that lacks inspiration

England: The only hole in the side would appear to be at no. 6 but there are a host of top quality young batsmen waiting to fill the spot.  Top 5 batters are world class, and the best keeper/batsman in world cricket (now Sangakkara doesn't keep anymore).  Best spinner in the world, and a conveyor belt of excellent seam bowlers who can bowl well in all conditions in Test cricket.

Few things I disagree with but otherwise a reasonable summary.  Dilshan does deserve a place in the Sri Lankan side, but he is not and never will be a test match opening batsman - he needs to be coming in at five or six.  I wonder what happened to Tharanga, who looked okay a few years back, or whether someone like Prasanna could be moved up the order?

The Yarpies - good side, but they bottle too easily.  Rudolph deserves his run in the side (and I am not just saying that because he was such a great servant to Yorkshire) but is not necessarily best suited to the top order - Id have had Prince opening, Rudolph at five and De Villiers six personally.

India....erm, not sure they have that much to offer.  Dravid apart, the batsmen all look shot (appreciate that with SRT that is a nerves issue as much as anything) and their bowling is shamefully weak!

[Village Trundler]

Can't say I agree with Bollinger being hard done by..... Injured in T20 committments (and alegedly under the weather from the celebrations), he was ordinary for a few tests, then declared unfit.

Dropped back to shield to find some fitness and form, he has only managed to front for 2 games, took 4 wickets in 1 innings and still only has 5 for the season at an average of about 60.

Hauritz is a different story..... While he is not the biggest turner of the ball and not ideal on subcontinental tracks, he is the best spinner on home tracks, and he scored 2 shield centuries last year (noone scored more than 3). His problem was Ponting was a horrendous captain of spin. Warne ran his own show and was a magician anyway..... A young spinner, who is not and will never be Warne was bound to lose confidence in Ponting's sides because he treated spinners as a defensive way to rest the seamers instead of as an attacking option.

Fitness is critical as this Australian team rebuilds....Particularly amongst bowlers while there is no go through some overs (effectively too). I think thats why Bollinger and Harris are being discarded until they have proven fitness over a decent period.... Marsh, I'd write him off too til he works on his fitness, but in the absence of choice, he will be picked.

The frustration is this exciting new BiG bAsH farce is on for 2 months so there is no real way to prove match fitness.

[Vic Nicholas]

Very boring. Sky Sports don't have a list of averages up between the hours of play and the winner is determined from this. They show the competition of two teams playing against each other. It is sport, opposing teams playing against each other in a pressure situation - and Anderson comfortably out-performed every Australian bowler on the field.

This has nothing to do with your nationality or the nationality of other forum members - its to do with you talking absolute rubbish quite often. No-one cares that you watch alot of cricket, most people on this forum do. If you rate Johnson as an equal or better bowler than Anderson then I would suggest you begin watching another sport '24/7' because cricket obviously isn't for you

Again you miss the point.

Anderson out performed the Australian bowlers in ONE series.

Where was he in 2006/07 and 2009?

In fact, in the 2009 Ashes, Hilfenhaus, Siddle AND Johnson ALL out performed Anderson.

Comfortably too.

He had one very good series against the worst and most demoralised Australian team in living memory. Throw in some cheap wickets against Bangladesh and you suddenly have the new superstar Anderson. Extremely overrated.

I don't think that Johnson circa 2011/12 is better than anybody....but Johnson 2008/09 was as good as anyone in the world. He is finished now, so no point discussing him other than as a reference point as to how good Anderson and Broad actually are.

[Vic Nicholas]

Dunno about that speed - you had a pretty woeful run throughout the 80s! 

I don't personally think the 13 year comment is relevant - unless a team develops a team of galcticos a la Waugh, Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn, Ponting, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, MacGill then you're not likely to see such a long run of victories any time soon, and its important to stress that whilst the 91,93,95 England sides were worse than woeful, they also fielded some very decent sides against Australia during that period - 97 was a decent team, 01 a team on the up and 03, had they had everyone fit, very competitive.

We beat the English in series in 1980 (3-0 whitewash), 1982/83 (2-1) and 1989 (4-0).

The 1980's were a black time in Australian cricket, yet we still beat the English in 3 out of 6 series.

I also for the record didn't suggest that Australia would be dominat for 13 years, I clearly stated that "it will not take us 13 years to win the Ashes back" after our rebuild, in reference to England taking that long after Gooch and co retired.

We will be very competitive again within five years.

[Buzz]

The 1980's were a black time in Australian cricket

We will be very competitive again within five years.

until you have been a pom or a west Indian, you don't know what a black time is.

and 5 years? I think you are already more than competitive now. you might not be the best, but the aussies are significantly better than they were 12 months ago and are getting stronger.