The Ashes

[Scotty]

Great post BH.

The longer term future lies in the following guys:

Hughes
M Marsh
S Marsh
Khawaja
Lynn

Paine

O'Keefe ??
Copeland
Hazlewood
Smith

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I left off Hazelwood because of his back. Always a case of holding your breath with quick bowlers and back injuries. Cam White I think is a good cricketer, but will need to score a *lot* of runs to make the test team.

 

[Ash]

Johnson, if I recall correctly, had many problems with his back (I think he got stress fractures in his lower back?) that hindered his early career in Queensland. I think he basically lost his early twenties to the injury list, but not completely sure.

It can be overcome, but too many young fast bowlers think they need to bowl 150km/h every ball and end up over stressing themselves.

Another one here who'd like to see Cosgrove given a bit of a chance. He can't do any worse then most of the guys in the team, anyways.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's interesting listening to older quick bowlers about this and many of them maintain (Geoff Lawson is one) that the current generation don't do enough bowling out in the middle. That seems to be counter-intuitive to me, but then again I've never bowled at test level. I do agree, however, that match fitness is a lot different from gym fitness.

 

[lily]

Mark Cameron?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Thought about him, but he's pushing 30, which isn't ideal if we're wanting to build a team for the future.

 

[PaarlBok]

Look like the Saffer Xpats broke your cricket lot in the Ashes. Talked to Marais Erasmus and he enjoyed the Ashes and will be back in Aus for the One Dayers.

Another Saffer Xpat on his way to the England team, his dad stays a few blocks from me and just outside the gates of our Cheve sportfields and spend many hours on there. Was part of the Paarl Boishaai enemy front but coached my laaitie at U7 level cricket

Dawie Malan

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/236489.html

 

[Gagger]

Speaking of Saffer expats, how good a captain has Strauss been for the poms?

No the big "I am" on-field or with the media, but no backwards steps either. Just head down, lead by example, make the right calls. Reminds me of Taylor in many respects.

Finally choosing him over muppets like Flintoff and Pietersen is what's taken this pommy team to the next level.

 

[barbarian]

I don't think Strauss is very good tactically (he is more defensive than Ponting, and Swann suffers because of it) but obviously has got the players in the right mindset to dominate, which is half the battle as a captain. If you have guys like Anderson and Tremlett consistently putting the ball on a sixpence it doesn't matter what field you set, you will take 10 wickets fairly easily. Your job is made even easier if you have guys like Cook and Trott reeling of centuries with ease.

 

[PaarlBok]

Think Flower is also the perfect coach for their mix.

 

[Gagger]

Defensive isn't bad per se, it's just when you choose it. The "attacking" batting mindset with nothing to back it up has royally fucked us this series and the one before. Seems to me the Poms had smart bowling plans they executed well. We, well, if it didn't go to the boundary it was a win.

But you're right, Strauss a leader, Ponting clearly isn't.

I think we've got many of the parts to match this pommy team - see Melbourne. For me it's the leadership that's missing. That's not all Ponting, but it's a big part of it.

I've found myself as the RedsHappy or Gnostic of Australian cricket, but here I think it's right.

 

[PaarlBok]

Havent watch that much of the Ashes series but really enjoyed the SA vs India series. This series was simply a blue print for test cricket from day 1 of the first test through to the final day of the third test. A bloody shame it wasnt a five test series with PE and Wanderers losing out on tests. The India team was superb and deserve their current nr 1 ranking after we blew them away in test 1, they have came back and nearly clinched it on day 4 of the third test. I like to watch HarbaJan doing his business and the small maestro batting, for us Kallis is simply a test legend our quickest is simply nr1 but lack at the spinning department. Luckily the Tahir , the x Pakistani will make his debute in the One Dayers and if he perform as expected, SA will simply have the perfect bowling attack. Steyn the quickest , Morkel quick and lengthy, Totsie or Parnell two lefties and Tahir the leg spinner.

 

[barbarian]

Defensive isn't bad per se, it's just when you choose it. The "attacking" batting mindset with nothing to back it up has royally fucked us this series and the one before. Seems to me the Poms had smart bowling plans they executed well. We, well, if it didn't go to the boundary it was a win.

But you're right, Strauss a leader, Ponting clearly isn't.

I think we've got many of the parts to match this pommy team - see Melbourne. For me it's the leadership that's missing. That's not all Ponting, but it's a big part of it.

I've found myself as the RedsHappy or Gnostic of Australian cricket, but here I think it's right.

I don't think leadership is that bad.

Ponting is a strong presence within the team and no-one doubts who is in charge. I think with the type of side we have at the moment that is a very good thing. Looking at sides like the Pakis or even the Poms back about ten years ago where no-one really wanted the job and as a result it was a disaster. With Ponting we have no shortage of leadership, its just the quality that is in doubt.

As for bowling plans, you can have all the bowling plans in the world but if your bowlers can't keep a consistent line then you will be reamed on any ground in the world. I would suggest we had quite complex plans for each batsmen, but our bowlers were intent on spraying the ball around like a mad woman's piss. Not much Ponting could do about it but put a man on the square leg boundary, which he was forced to do all too regularly.

At the end of the day the two things that cost us were bowling and batting. Oh, and fielding too. I suspect even if our captain was some brilliant lovechild of Border, Taylor and Waugh, and theirs a retarded swamp rat the result still would have been 3-1.

 

[Gagger]

I don't think leadership is that bad.

Ponting is a strong presence within the team and no-one doubts who is in charge. I think with the type of side we have at the moment that is a very good thing. Looking at sides like the Pakis or even the Poms back about ten years ago where no-one really wanted the job and as a result it was a disaster. With Ponting we have no shortage of leadership, its just the quality that is in doubt.

Exactly, and quite an understatement. Having a (c) next to your name and a big gob is quite different to leading. In any case, I don't think anyone is any doubt of who's in charge of England.

Baabaa, you seem loathe to put some responsibility for this on Ponting. I admire the loyalty. But what I've seen over the years is a guy who inherited a great team that almost couldn't lose, and then preside over a gradual decline into something that is now of historical shitness, and getting worse.

HE HAS NOW LOST THE ASHES 3 TIMES, one of which actually had players like McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist in the side. Should he stay for a crack at a fourth?

Yes, Australia's talent stocks have taken a hit, but a good captain and leader would adapt his decision and style to fit with that, and Ponting hasn't. We need someone who can galvanise a team of challengers to knuckle down and grind out wins and even draws where necessary. Not act as if I'm still #1 in the world "so I'll throw the bat at it or fuck it"

To be frank, our approach as a team in this regard has shamed me a bit as a supporter. At times like this when the chips are down I'd like to be able to say and think that at least we gutsed it out and behaved admirably, like real competitors - like the Border or early Waugh days. But we haven't.

How Ponting behaves and what he represents is not what I regard as Australian cricket. The cricket I remember from when we were pantsed in the 80's to when we'd pulled ourselves up into the dominant force of the late 90's and early 00's. Unfortunately, Ponting's era is what the rest of the world now thinks of us as.

[/rant]

 

[Hodgy]

I am most definately not moaning about the fact that they were illegal dismissals, and therefore rightly both were not out. Clearly neither you, nor Konze can find the effort to actually address my concerns, which I can spell out again if you like:

1. IMO a bowler being over the line by a very small amount (the amount that umpires can't pick up without replays) does not affect the standard of the delivery, and therefore is extremely unlikely to affect whether a batsmen gets out or not.

but its a law, you have to have some part of your foot behind the line, it either matters or it doesn't, same as a ball bouncing infront of the rope is 4 and over it is 6, same as a ball bouncing an inch infront of Hughes or going straight into his hands is the difference between being out and not out. Frankly, bowling with your foot behind the line is dead easy, take a step backwards, if bowlers are obsessed with pushing it so close then presumably they must think it matters. England don't bowl anywhere near as many no balls as other teams, because they practice not too.

2. Taking into account point 1. Why allow umpires use this technology for such a minor aspect, and therefore hold up the game even further than we already have. If they see a no ball at the time of the delivery, then call it, if they don't then don't call it. It isn't critical to hold up the game for this aspect.

surely you've answered your own question already in the thread, the delivery was illegal, the technology proved it, therefore a wicket did not fall, I'd say that was pretty critical.

3. Surely you both agree that finding out whether a batsmen has edged a ball (or not) or whether a ball pitches in line or not is much more critical than seeing if a bowler has gone over by 10mm? In this case, then why not allow umpires to also use the technology for these other cases? Of course the response will be that the DRS allows the batting or bowling teams to use technology to check these areas - well there is no reason that the batting team can't use the DRS to check for no balls as well - just have the non-striker look at the bowler's feet when he is delivering the ball.

if you're out off that delivery and the umpire thinks it might be a no ball, I'd say checking that would be exactly as critical as whether a batsman nicked it or not. I haven't seen an umpire refer a no ball when a wicket has not fallen, have you? Do you also object to checking whether a ball went for 4 or was pulled back by a fielder? IMO, where you've decided to draw the line with technology is entirely arbitrary (probably because of what has happened in this series) and has no logical basis to it whatsoever.

As for the DRS system, I think its a revelation, having been dead set against technology being used initially. You only need to have watched both test matches going on over the last week, the Saffas have been over appealing, behaving like sulky kids when they didn't get decisions, feeling hard done by, whinging on the field, only for it to be shown that the umpire was correct. I think we've seen a development of how the DRS is used by the teams even in this Ashes series, teams have started to use it only when fairly sure (except for catches, when the umpires refer it, not the players). Yes there is the odd kink to be ironed out; the Bell situation probably just a cock up by the umpire, rather than a flaw in the system. Point is, there may still be the odd mistake made, but there are a hell of a lot less of them than there were.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ponting clearly is not the answer as captain any more. To me there is no doubt. When actually is the answer is another question and one not easily answered. But like I said in my War and Peace pt II post earlier, there is hope and we have the young blokes are there. We'll be fine.

Paarl, that Saffer v India series is one of the best I've watched in a good while. Bloody brilliant cricket throughout. I wish South Africa had been able to finish them off though. I don't feel that India fully deserve their top ranking, but it's up to others to knock them off I guess.

EDIT: and it would be remiss of me not to offer my congrats to England. They could scarcely have played better cricket than they've played in this series. We may have been ordinary but conversely they were very, very good when games were there to be won. Hats off to them.

 

[barbarian]

I honestly think leadership is low on the list of reasons for our failure. Ponting should shoulder a lot of the blame though because he didn't score a fucking run all series. That had a far greater impact than his leadership.

In terms of tactics, field changes, bowling changes and other captaincy things I thought Ponting was OK. He made no obvious errors.

Yes he has lost the Ashes three times but it is far more complex than that. In the end the real decider of all three series were top order batting and bowling control. How much control does the captain have over these factors? You seem to think a lot, but I think very little.

Yes, Australia's talent stocks have taken a hit, but a good captain and leader would adapt his decision and style to fit with that, and Ponting hasn't. We need someone who can galvanise a team of challengers to knuckle down and grind out wins and even draws where necessary. Not act as if I'm still #1 in the world "so I'll throw the bat at it or fuck it"

This is the paragraph I have the most problems with.

Adapt his decisions and style to cope with lessened talent? How exactly? Put everyone back on the boundary to cope with Johnson's erratic lines?

I agree our discipline with the bat was poor, but I would suggest that doesn't come from a mindset that we are still #1 in the world. Rather it is that our batsmen were woefully out of form and the English bowlers exploited that ruthlessly. As it was most of our dismissals din't come from 'throwing the bat', rather timidly poking forward in defence and edging to keeper and slip. No-one has been caught going the tonk.

I agree we should be able to grind out wins and draws. But the responsibility for that rests with all 11 players. Obviously a bit must come from captain and coach, and at the moment they aren't doing a good job.

But I am not sure dropping Ponting is the answer. It may be. If Clarke was in form I think the debate about captaincy would be over. But there is no obvious successor, and by throwing someone into the job from Shield Cricket could be disastrous.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Barbs, some good points there. With Punter, we need to consider him in two parts: Ricky the captain and Ricky the batsman.

Ricky the captain has the look of a man who is exhausted. Even though he is, in my opinion, a limited captain tactically, he does nothing less than give 100% out there. Unfortunately I think he's mentally shot now. His un-edifying outburst at the MCG was a culmination of the stress and frustration he would have been feeling at our fairly ordinary performances over the last year. You're right in that an in form Clarke would have the job and that would be the end of it, but I'm still not convinced Ricky is the man to continue. He's not going to be around long enough to lead us to the top of the hill again, so a younger more energetic man is the answer IMHO.

Ricky the batsman has let his side down, though he is far from alone there. As a number three batsman, your position is critical to the success of the side and in Ricky's case he's done very little to help the team. England bowled very intelligently to him, but by the same token he was impatient at times. He's not solely to blame for our batting calamities of course, but had he averaged more than about 19 in this series some of this disaster might have been spared. I don't think he can continue at first drop. I do think he may still have a future batting at 4 or 5, however.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've been having a good laugh at the reaction of a couple of former England captains about the result. Whilst they are right to laud their teams performance, they have variously said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...-michael-vaughan/story-e6frf3gl-1225984205581

"If Australia aren't careful, these young players will be scarred," Vaughan said.

I doubt it, Michael. Most of this team probably won't play in the next Ashes series, quite possibly including Mitch Johnson and Phil Hughes, the two he specifically mentioned. If they are playing in two years time, it will be because they've recovered whatever form they previously had. We won't persist with guys having as poor series as they have. In fairness, he did also say that Khawaja, Siddle and Smith looked alright.


And now my old mate Beefy, always good for an overblown quote.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...-from-ashes-loss/story-e6frf3gl-1225984196192

A lot of what he says is spot on, but he's saying:

"I keep hearing from the Australian camp that they've done really well," Botham said.

Who the hell from the Aussie camp has been saying that, apart from a clearly delusional Andrew Hilditch?

In any case, as much trouble as Beefy thinks we're in, he and the rest of the England press gallery would do well to remember that we have turned these situations around countless times, including a comprehensive series victory in 1989, just two and a half years after losing at home. The situations aren't completely the same of course, as history rarely repeats, but I find it hard to believe that the most successful test playing nation in the games history won't find a way to climb off the canvass and win again.

 

[barbarian]

"If Australia aren't careful, these young players will be scarred," Vaughan said.

Yeah, just as Strauss, Cook, Pieterson, Bell and Anderson were so horribly scarred by losing 5-0 in 2006.