Cricket: The Aussies - End of an Era?

[Archibald&Crooks]

I was up until the early hours watching the 2nd test and they were running a similar poll on TV down under. Is this a blip or the end of an era?

Over the last 18 months or so they've lost Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath, Hayden can't have long left although Hussey has come in and done well. They've lost to India and now for the first time in many years lost a series at home, with an away series to the Saffers coming up and the Ashes in England.........

In fact, if they lose the final test, they lose their long held No1 Test ranking.

So...whaddya think?

 

[riversmonkey]

I think India, South Africa and Sri Lanka (with the tandem spin threat of Mendis and Murali) will all overtake Australia in the rankings.

 

[Coyboy]

Only just noticed this thread, I don't see Australia in any sort of crisis as such they have just been blessed with three great players who all happened to play at the same time. Gilchrist less so but how often, or rather how many other teams have or had a keeper of his batting ability. McGrath and Warne though are legends. They are both unplayable at their best and embody that typical Australian winning attitude. That meant that players around them played better and the team was a success. I really don't know that we would have won the Ashes if McGrath hadn't stepped on a ball before the second test I think it was.

And with Matthew Hayden now retired, the Aussies will have to rebuild a lot of the team not just the attack. But Australia hasn't been crippled systematically by recent losses but they have merely been and are in transition. Moreover, some of the young cricketers coming through already look quite impressive. Siddle got eight wickets against SA and David Warner looked pretty good in the 20/20.

As far as the Ashes is concerned, with England in turmoil and the bowling attack unlikely to be as effective without (probably) S Jones, Hoggard and an in form bothered Harmison, I think it may be hard for either team to get twenty wickets and so it may be close by default but I think the quality will be much lighter than 2005. The Aussie bowlers may get a lot of movement here though.

As for world cricket, I think this has levelled the playing field more. Australia is always going to have a great conveyer belt of talent but I doubt they will be lucky enough to have the likes of Hayden, Ponting, McGrath and Warne in the same team. South Africa do look very good at the moment but are far from unbeatable and Australia still have Symonds and Lee to come back and, for me, the best batsman in the world in Ponting, as well as M Clarke who is getting better and better.

I don't see the current Aussie 'decline' similar to the one the West Indies suffered from and are suffering from still, as that was a cultural, social shift over there rather than a coincidental loss of three great players, well now four.

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Good post, Coybers. Just noticed this drivel of a thread myself (seriously, they let just any old - and I do mean old - git start threads these days, don't they? Oh my goodness, he's a Mod, too. Saints preserve us).


I watched more of the Aus-SA series than most on here, I'd guess. I was actually at day 2 of the 2nd Test and we left that day convinced Australia was still the best side in the world. Three astonishing days later the world sees a different tale.

You hit the nail on the head when you say Australia couldn't take 20 wickets. Even in winning the last test they didn't as Smith was only 'retired hurt'. If that hadn't happened, he would surely have saved the game given the extraordinary determination and application shown by the Saffas.

However, the lack of penetration in the Australian bowling is the second of two very large red herrings about the team.

The other one, by the way, was Matthew Hayden's position. I'm stunned he retired and it seems almost exclusively down to media pressure (every day The Age had numerous articles about him retiring when there was no need. The Aussies need senior players and he was just a bit out of nick. He'd almost played himself back in form by Sydney). But, either way, it didn't really matter whether he plays in the Ashes or not, as Jaques and Katich are still a terrific opening pair. Jaques was on fire before his knock.

Warner is still too raw to come to England, by the way (apart from the T20 WC, I suppose). He's not even played for NSW. It's one thing to have a good knock in a hit'n'giggle but he's no Test Cricketer (yet).

Going back to the Australian attack:

FACT 1: The attack used at Sydney will never, ever be able to win The Ashes, no matter who England select. They had best use of a pitch and an opposition with their best man out, plus had a massive crowd behind them and just couldn't do more than pick up odd wickets, normally to balls which misbehaved off cracks rather than any massive bowling genius. They bowled well, don't get me wrong, but it was bloody hard work and if they looked dead on their feet by the end of the game. It really shouldn't have been as hard as they made it look.

Looking at them one by one:

Siddle - Good bowler. Quick. Honest. Bowls his ruddy heart out. He seems to get the most out of his talent and may do well in English conditions. At the MCG (his home pitch) he demonstrated a beautiful lesson of where to pitch the ball. The SA bowlers were all way too short in the first innings and Siddle's just-full-of-a-length balls accounted for 4 top batters. However, puzzlingly, he didn't follow that up with such a good length in the 2nd innings. At Sydney, he started averagely but then put in a great spell in each innings to knock several over. Still wasn't thoroughly convincing, though. Will need a lot of conditioning if he is to survive a full 5-match series.

Johnson - Magnificent. Could bat at 7 easily, wonderful fielder (his direct hits at Sydney were electric) but most importantly, he is now a genuine quality pacey swing bowler. He used to frustrate me as he bowled so wide but now he makes the batters play more and is reaping the rewards. Leads from the front and he will take lots of wickets for lots more years.

Bollinger - On debut the Aussie press raved about him. I didn't get the fuss. He is a fun lad (possibly even a larrikin) and was desperately unlucky with a couple of LBWs and a dropped catch but that shit happens in Test cricket. He needs either a little more pace or a lot more consistency if he's going to be a big success. Looks on the evidence on the admittedly unfair evidence of one text that he's going to be in and around the squad for sometime, but needs a lot of good guidance if he's ever actually going to make a proper name for himself.

Hauritz - Tight. Tried a few things. Solid with the bat. But looked about as penetrating as me after 16 pints and half a dozen shots of tequila. Which, as my hairdresser will tell you, is 'not very'.

McDonald - Credit for having his helmet knocked clean off his head and suffering a barrage of short stuff in both innings, then coming up smiling, but he still got out too cheaply. His bowling was tight but a 125-130kph bowler has little place in a Test side unless they're a damn fine bat. McDonald isn't. Also, he's ginger.

As I say, nothing to be too scared of. We should be this lot. However...


FACT 2: This almost certainly won't be their attack. Their attack should be:

Johnson + Lee + Clark + Krejza/McGain + Symonds/Watson/AN Other

That attack would kill us. Dead.

Clark's immense. Possibly the best seamer in the world and in England he'll be unstoppable. If Lee gets fit and gets his pace back up, he's quality. And see above for my thoughts on Johnson. Krezja and McGain are also big spinners of the ball. Probably neither would do anything major, but we do have a wonderful ability to collapse at even a moderate spinner.

The allrounder spot for the Aussies is very interesting. The general consensus Down Under is that Symonds has played his last Test. That amazes me, but so be it. Watson is made of glass, which is very sad for them and him, but not us. They may go in with 6 batters, but that's nuts in Test matches. It would certainly work to our benefit as they're abovementioned inability to wrap up innings would doubtless resurface.

Funnily, it seems likely that the number 6 spot will actually be taken by Brad Haddin. He's a good batsmen for sure but it's strange that Gilchrist's hung on for so long at 7 and when his replacement comes in, he bats higher. For me, Haddin looks a good player but if he's batting at 6 that's a huge opportunity for England. If we can dismiss him cheaply early in the series and get him under pressure, they're not just worried about a batsmen, they're worried about their gloveman.

I won't summarise the batting as frankly, and despite Ricky Ponting's insistence to the contrary, it's actually bloody good. You don't lose 2 tests because a) you fail to defend 413 and b) because the last 3 wickets in the 1st dig put on 275, and blame your batsmen.


I'll round off by saying that The Ashes will be won by the side whose fitness is best. If the Aussies keep their best bowlers out there, firing on all cylinders, they'll retain the urn comfortably. However, that's going to be tough, so if England can maintain as consistent a line-up as 4 years ago (again, unlikely) they have a superb chance. My tip - a 2-2 draw.

Anyway, I could continue but no-one's going to bloody read this as it is, so I'm off to bed.

Toodle-oo.

 

[Coyboy]

Good post, Coybers. Just noticed this drivel of a thread myself (seriously, they let just any old - and I do mean old - git start threads these days, don't they? Oh my goodness, he's a Mod, too. Saints preserve us).


I watched more of the Aus-SA series than most on here, I'd guess. I was actually at day 2 of the 2nd Test and we left that day convinced Australia was still the best side in the world. Three astonishing days later the world sees a different tale.

You hit the nail on the head when you say Australia couldn't take 20 wickets. Even in winning the last test they didn't as Smith was only 'retired hurt'. If that hadn't happened, he would surely have saved the game given the extraordinary determination and application shown by the Saffas.

However, the lack of penetration in the Australian bowling is the second of two very large red herrings about the team.

The other one, by the way, was Matthew Hayden's position. I'm stunned he retired and it seems almost exclusively down to media pressure (every day The Age had numerous articles about him retiring when there was no need. The Aussies need senior players and he was just a bit out of nick. He'd almost played himself back in form by Sydney). But, either way, it didn't really matter whether he plays in the Ashes or not, as Jaques and Katich are still a terrific opening pair. Jaques was on fire before his knock.

Warner is still too raw to come to England, by the way (apart from the T20 WC, I suppose). He's not even played for NSW. It's one thing to have a good knock in a hit'n'giggle but he's no Test Cricketer (yet).

Going back to the Australian attack:

FACT 1: The attack used at Sydney will never, ever be able to win The Ashes, no matter who England select. They had best use of a pitch and an opposition with their best man out, plus had a massive crowd behind them and just couldn't do more than pick up odd wickets, normally to balls which misbehaved off cracks rather than any massive bowling genius. They bowled well, don't get me wrong, but it was bloody hard work and if they looked dead on their feet by the end of the game. It really shouldn't have been as hard as they made it look.

Looking at them one by one:

Siddle - Good bowler. Quick. Honest. Bowls his ruddy heart out. He seems to get the most out of his talent and may do well in English conditions. At the MCG (his home pitch) he demonstrated a beautiful lesson of where to pitch the ball. The SA bowlers were all way too short in the first innings and Siddle's just-full-of-a-length balls accounted for 4 top batters. However, puzzlingly, he didn't follow that up with such a good length in the 2nd innings. At Sydney, he started averagely but then put in a great spell in each innings to knock several over. Still wasn't thoroughly convincing, though. Will need a lot of conditioning if he is to survive a full 5-match series.

Johnson - Magnificent. Could bat at 7 easily, wonderful fielder (his direct hits at Sydney were electric) but most importantly, he is now a genuine quality pacey swing bowler. He used to frustrate me as he bowled so wide but now he makes the batters play more and is reaping the rewards. Leads from the front and he will take lots of wickets for lots more years.

Bollinger - On debut the Aussie press raved about him. I didn't get the fuss. He is a fun lad (possibly even a larrikin) and was desperately unlucky with a couple of LBWs and a dropped catch but that shit happens in Test cricket. He needs either a little more pace or a lot more consistency if he's going to be a big success. Looks on the evidence on the admittedly unfair evidence of one text that he's going to be in and around the squad for sometime, but needs a lot of good guidance if he's ever actually going to make a proper name for himself.

Hauritz - Tight. Tried a few things. Solid with the bat. But looked about as penetrating as me after 16 pints and half a dozen shots of tequila. Which, as my hairdresser will tell you, is 'not very'.

McDonald - Credit for having his helmet knocked clean off his head and suffering a barrage of short stuff in both innings, then coming up smiling, but he still got out too cheaply. His bowling was tight but a 125-130kph bowler has little place in a Test side unless they're a damn fine bat. McDonald isn't. Also, he's ginger.

As I say, nothing to be too scared of. We should be this lot. However...


FACT 2: This almost certainly won't be their attack. Their attack should be:

Johnson + Lee + Clark + Krejza/McGain + Symonds/Watson/AN Other

That attack would kill us. Dead.

Clark's immense. Possibly the best seamer in the world and in England he'll be unstoppable. If Lee gets fit and gets his pace back up, he's quality. And see above for my thoughts on Johnson. Krezja and McGain are also big spinners of the ball. Probably neither would do anything major, but we do have a wonderful ability to collapse at even a moderate spinner.

The allrounder spot for the Aussies is very interesting. The general consensus Down Under is that Symonds has played his last Test. That amazes me, but so be it. Watson is made of glass, which is very sad for them and him, but not us. They may go in with 6 batters, but that's nuts in Test matches. It would certainly work to our benefit as they're abovementioned inability to wrap up innings would doubtless resurface.

Funnily, it seems likely that the number 6 spot will actually be taken by Brad Haddin. He's a good batsmen for sure but it's strange that Gilchrist's hung on for so long at 7 and when his replacement comes in, he bats higher. For me, Haddin looks a good player but if he's batting at 6 that's a huge opportunity for England. If we can dismiss him cheaply early in the series and get him under pressure, they're not just worried about a batsmen, they're worried about their gloveman.

I won't summarise the batting as frankly, and despite Ricky Ponting's insistence to the contrary, it's actually bloody good. You don't lose 2 tests because a) you fail to defend 413 and b) because the last 3 wickets in the 1st dig put on 275, and blame your batsmen.


I'll round off by saying that The Ashes will be won by the side whose fitness is best. If the Aussies keep their best bowlers out there, firing on all cylinders, they'll retain the urn comfortably. However, that's going to be tough, so if England can maintain as consistent a line-up as 4 years ago (again, unlikely) they have a superb chance. My tip - a 2-2 draw.

Anyway, I could continue but no-one's going to bloody read this as it is, so I'm off to bed.

Toodle-oo.

Interesting profile on the Aussies, I haven't got time to go into much detail but I'd say that I cannot see four tests being won because I see both sides struggling to take twenty wickets because both sides are better batting sides. It could come down to form of players like Freddie and Lee, not to mention Steve 'blow hot and cold' Harmison but I see at least a couple of tests ending in stalemate.

Then there's the weather.

 

[Houdini]

Thats a long post Bill, whats it about?

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Thats a long post Bill, whats it about?

I read the word 'penetration' early on, which held my interest but it turned out the sexual content was zero

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Tossers.

If it's outrageous, controversial comments you'd like, how about this:

The Aussies will miss one player more than McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer. He is... Darren Lehmann.

Boof may not be such a great player, or indeed matchwinner. But they seriously need a good player, with average of over 40, in the top 6, who can also bowl good enough spin to take wickets and tie down an end. If Lehmann (who also knows English conditions well) were 5 years younger, he'd be he difference between the sides as you could keep Haddin at 7 and play an all-seam attack of Johnson, Lee, Clark and Siddle, which has just about everything.


As it is, I can't fathom why Andrew Hilditch (who gets a pasting in the Aussie press, fairly, I reckon) doesn't rate Cameron White for the longer game. He had very good (although not brilliant) figures with bat and ball in 2008 and is captain of the best state side in all formats of the game. He's got a smashing attitude and yet he's seen as solely a one-day player. Go figure.

 

[Coyboy]

Tossers.

If it's outrageous, controversial comments you'd like, how about this:

The Aussies will miss one player more than McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer. He is... Darren Lehmann.

Boof may not be such a great player, or indeed matchwinner. But they seriously need a good player, with average of over 40, in the top 6, who can also bowl good enough spin to take wickets and tie down an end. If Lehmann (who also knows English conditions well) were 5 years younger, he'd be he difference between the sides as you could keep Haddin at 7 and play an all-seam attack of Johnson, Lee, Clark and Siddle, which has just about everything.


As it is, I can't fathom why Andrew Hilditch (who gets a pasting in the Aussie press, fairly, I reckon) doesn't rate Cameron White for the longer game. He had very good (although not brilliant) figures with bat and ball in 2008 and is captain of the best state side in all formats of the game. He's got a smashing attitude and yet he's seen as solely a one-day player. Go figure.

Muy interesante, I think Lehman has been tipped for the England job. What is the Aussie feeling re the Ashes, do they think they will beat us easily again?

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Not at all. They were shitting it before the farce with Pieterson and Moores. I'm really hoping that they think that means we're in shambles, when actually there's still plenty of time to put things right.

Just found out today that the England Cricket Team are coming to KL for 2 weeks training and matches in February. I've been given the heads up for some interviews, coverage, etc, so will see who and what I can relay on here.

By the way, Lehmann is going to be a shit-hot coach one day. Already is, really. Would be magic for England but don't think it'll happen.

 

[Coyboy]

Good post, Coybers. Just noticed this drivel of a thread myself (seriously, they let just any old - and I do mean old - git start threads these days, don't they? Oh my goodness, he's a Mod, too. Saints preserve us).


I watched more of the Aus-SA series than most on here, I'd guess. I was actually at day 2 of the 2nd Test and we left that day convinced Australia was still the best side in the world. Three astonishing days later the world sees a different tale.

You hit the nail on the head when you say Australia couldn't take 20 wickets. Even in winning the last test they didn't as Smith was only 'retired hurt'. If that hadn't happened, he would surely have saved the game given the extraordinary determination and application shown by the Saffas.

However, the lack of penetration in the Australian bowling is the second of two very large red herrings about the team.

The other one, by the way, was Matthew Hayden's position. I'm stunned he retired and it seems almost exclusively down to media pressure (every day The Age had numerous articles about him retiring when there was no need. The Aussies need senior players and he was just a bit out of nick. He'd almost played himself back in form by Sydney). But, either way, it didn't really matter whether he plays in the Ashes or not, as Jaques and Katich are still a terrific opening pair. Jaques was on fire before his knock.

Warner is still too raw to come to England, by the way (apart from the T20 WC, I suppose). He's not even played for NSW. It's one thing to have a good knock in a hit'n'giggle but he's no Test Cricketer (yet).

Going back to the Australian attack:

FACT 1: The attack used at Sydney will never, ever be able to win The Ashes, no matter who England select. They had best use of a pitch and an opposition with their best man out, plus had a massive crowd behind them and just couldn't do more than pick up odd wickets, normally to balls which misbehaved off cracks rather than any massive bowling genius. They bowled well, don't get me wrong, but it was bloody hard work and if they looked dead on their feet by the end of the game. It really shouldn't have been as hard as they made it look.

Looking at them one by one:

Siddle - Good bowler. Quick. Honest. Bowls his ruddy heart out. He seems to get the most out of his talent and may do well in English conditions. At the MCG (his home pitch) he demonstrated a beautiful lesson of where to pitch the ball. The SA bowlers were all way too short in the first innings and Siddle's just-full-of-a-length balls accounted for 4 top batters. However, puzzlingly, he didn't follow that up with such a good length in the 2nd innings. At Sydney, he started averagely but then put in a great spell in each innings to knock several over. Still wasn't thoroughly convincing, though. Will need a lot of conditioning if he is to survive a full 5-match series.

Johnson - Magnificent. Could bat at 7 easily, wonderful fielder (his direct hits at Sydney were electric) but most importantly, he is now a genuine quality pacey swing bowler. He used to frustrate me as he bowled so wide but now he makes the batters play more and is reaping the rewards. Leads from the front and he will take lots of wickets for lots more years.

Bollinger - On debut the Aussie press raved about him. I didn't get the fuss. He is a fun lad (possibly even a larrikin) and was desperately unlucky with a couple of LBWs and a dropped catch but that shit happens in Test cricket. He needs either a little more pace or a lot more consistency if he's going to be a big success. Looks on the evidence on the admittedly unfair evidence of one text that he's going to be in and around the squad for sometime, but needs a lot of good guidance if he's ever actually going to make a proper name for himself.

Hauritz - Tight. Tried a few things. Solid with the bat. But looked about as penetrating as me after 16 pints and half a dozen shots of tequila. Which, as my hairdresser will tell you, is 'not very'.

McDonald - Credit for having his helmet knocked clean off his head and suffering a barrage of short stuff in both innings, then coming up smiling, but he still got out too cheaply. His bowling was tight but a 125-130kph bowler has little place in a Test side unless they're a damn fine bat. McDonald isn't. Also, he's ginger.

As I say, nothing to be too scared of. We should be this lot. However...


FACT 2: This almost certainly won't be their attack. Their attack should be:

Johnson + Lee + Clark + Krejza/McGain + Symonds/Watson/AN Other

That attack would kill us. Dead.

Clark's immense. Possibly the best seamer in the world and in England he'll be unstoppable. If Lee gets fit and gets his pace back up, he's quality. And see above for my thoughts on Johnson. Krezja and McGain are also big spinners of the ball. Probably neither would do anything major, but we do have a wonderful ability to collapse at even a moderate spinner.

The allrounder spot for the Aussies is very interesting. The general consensus Down Under is that Symonds has played his last Test. That amazes me, but so be it. Watson is made of glass, which is very sad for them and him, but not us. They may go in with 6 batters, but that's nuts in Test matches. It would certainly work to our benefit as they're abovementioned inability to wrap up innings would doubtless resurface.

Funnily, it seems likely that the number 6 spot will actually be taken by Brad Haddin. He's a good batsmen for sure but it's strange that Gilchrist's hung on for so long at 7 and when his replacement comes in, he bats higher. For me, Haddin looks a good player but if he's batting at 6 that's a huge opportunity for England. If we can dismiss him cheaply early in the series and get him under pressure, they're not just worried about a batsmen, they're worried about their gloveman.

I won't summarise the batting as frankly, and despite Ricky Ponting's insistence to the contrary, it's actually bloody good. You don't lose 2 tests because a) you fail to defend 413 and b) because the last 3 wickets in the 1st dig put on 275, and blame your batsmen.


I'll round off by saying that The Ashes will be won by the side whose fitness is best. If the Aussies keep their best bowlers out there, firing on all cylinders, they'll retain the urn comfortably. However, that's going to be tough, so if England can maintain as consistent a line-up as 4 years ago (again, unlikely) they have a superb chance. My tip - a 2-2 draw.

Anyway, I could continue but no-one's going to bloody read this as it is, so I'm off to bed.

Toodle-oo.

Interesting thoughts on the bowlers, I only saw snippets of the tests and then the highlights, normally the first and last hour. I saw Johnson bat and he did really well, maybe they could have him as an 'all rounder' and play another or how is Shaun Tait doing? He has had injuries and a bit of a mare against India, but he did well in his debut over here in 2005.

I am not convinced that the attack you suggest would necessarily kill England unequivocally. That is based more on my knowledge of Clark and Lee than the others. While Lee is awesomely quick and Clark is fairly similar to McGrath, I think the England batting line up could do well. Lee is out for about five months I think which doesn't give him a lot of time to get fit and England did well against him in 2005.

I think the very fact that this bowling attack will not have been together recently or at all will pose problems for the Aussies as some have not played on English soil before and the spinners may not get much change out of the wicket. Further, many of our batsman play spin pretty well and have played against Warne, meaning they have played against the greatest.

I see a batting lineup of Strauss, Cook, Bell (Shah), KP, Collingwood, Freddie as pretty strong. It could, on the one hand be vulnerable, in terms of Strauss' added responsibility, Cook's glass ceiling of 60s, Bell's form or Shah's inexperiece, KP's 'situation, Collingwood's inconsistency and Flintoff's responsibility as a bowler. Those are weaknesses but I think they will be offset by home support, KP's batting ability and mental strength transcending politics and the natural talent of our batters.

I think Strauss will do well as captain. I really didn't think KP was a good idea and back in 2006 Strauss would have been a wiser, more pragmatic choice than Freddie. It seems the England made the same mistake again making our best player captain. He is intelligent, an England regular and has been captain of Middlesex. Whether he can outcaptain Ponting is anybody's guess but while, as I said, Ponting is an awesome batter- his captaincy has come into question I think in Oz no?

As for the bowlers who would you go for? I would say there aren't really certainties. I don't think we can have two spinners so it's one of Swann or Monty. I think Anderson will get a lot of movement here which was our key to winning the Ashes last time but he has yet to be consistent. It will be interesting to see Rashid in the WIndies and I am just not sure about Harmison at all. I don't think he has the right attitude or will to win. Ideally, I would love S Jones back and Sidebottom if he can stay fit. If it were now, I would go with an attack of Freddie-Monty-Anderson-Sidebottom-Harmison. If Jones is fit, I would put him in for Sidebottom. Prior to keep.

The other problem we have whomever we play as bowlers is not being able to bat very far down the order. Johnson, Lee and Clark are decent with the bat, I am not sure about the others, but a big England frailty over the years has been our tail and other than Sidebottom who is capable, I am not sure you could rely on any others.

If I had to go for a winner, though I think a draw is very likely, I would go for Australia unfortunately. I think the are uncertainties in England's attack, a new captain and too much politics and uncertainty regarding coaches. It will be close though I think.

 

[riversmonkey]

Tait featured in the last 20/20 game and looked very sharp indeed. He could well replace Brett Lee for the Ashes if he continues to progress, though question marks remain on his mental state, and whether his body would last in the longest form of the game . I think a pace attack of Tait/Johnson/Siddle would cause England plenty of problems. With one out of Bollinger, Clark (who both have County Experience) and a spinner in support.

As for England I'm hoping Ford gets the coaching job and recalls Rob Key. My England Team for the Ashes would be.

Strauss (c)
Cook
Key
KP
Collingwood
Prior (WK)
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Harmison
Anderson

 

[Bill_Oddie]

The thing with Tait is, he has to bowl quick. In his comeback in state cricket he was bowling in the mid 130s and while he got good swing and snagged a few scalps, that isn't going to cut it against a good Test batting line-up. I didn't see him in the T20, but if he's back at 145kph+ then he's got every chance of going to SA and then it's a short step to the Ashes.

Coyboy, I'm afraid due to the time difference and the outrageous prices it costs to watch Test cricket here (about 30 quid sterling for a series on either during the night or while I'm at work) I haven't seen enough of England over the past couple of years. Shame really as I used to know the county scene inside out (even 2nd XIs). It helped that I knew a guy at Sussex and netted at Trent Bridge twice a week. In fact in 2001 I was able to predict ten out of eleven of the 2005 Ashes XI.

Based on highlights and reports, I agree absolutely with your analysis, though. The bowlers is obviously a tough one. Harmison needs confidence and if he tours the Windies like he did last time, then he'll be fine. I'm not confident, though. Broad I like and think he needs to play. The Aussies are bound to have at least one younger bowler in the side and Broad would be as good if not better than any of Bollinger, Hilfenhaus (underrated though. I like what I've seen, actually. Forgot to mention him above), and probably Tait or Siddle. Sidebottom's a must (the Aussies kept mentioning him, so think they have a bit of fear - maybe it's the frizzy hair). I didn't realise Anderson was the world's 8th highest wicket taker in 2008 until last week, so I guess he should play, but I share our reservations over his consistency. On the spinner, I love Swann's enthusiasm and desire. He's the sort of player KP would want around him. But I think Strauss will feel more comfy with someone that will turn the ball away from the right handers - especially as it's Ponting and Clarke that we'll have most trouble dismissing.

It really will matter on which attack stays fittest. Confidence and momentum will be critical. Although, I think if England go behind they would be more likely to come back than a less experienced Aussie side.

Rivermonkey, it's interesting you say about Key. Shane Warne was effusive in praise of the tubby Kentishman on Channel 9. I know he's done well as county skipper. I guess he's matured and developed well since I watched him almost in tears fielding on the boundary in front of Bay 13 at the MCG 6 years ago.

My England team, for what it's worth:

Strauss
Cook
Shah
Pieterson
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
Broad
Sidebottom
S Jones (Anderson)
Panesar

12 - Swann