Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Ashes 2015
Comments
-
Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.0 -
Well Haddin's keeping in Cardiff was pretty poor so I doubt they'll notice much difference!CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.0 -
"Haddin Dropped The Ashes"killerandflash said:
Well Haddin's keeping in Cardiff was pretty poor so I doubt they'll notice much difference!CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
0 -
I doubt they will drop Watson now that Haddin has puled out due to personal reasons. That's a lot of experience gone in one fail swoop.1
-
My favourite Haddin moment.
5 -
Looks like he has been dropped . Shame . I was looking forward to watching another double LBW .CHG said:1 -
Ali a doubt with a side injury.0
-
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
1 -
I agree Chizz, Watson not playing will show that all is not well in the Aussie camp, there is supposed to be a divide in the team over Watson, if this is exploited then things will start to go wrong very quickly with them.
Marsh is a better bowler than his 164 average, after all he has only played 4 tests and hasn't really needed to bowl that much, tall bowler that can swing it, but not anything that will send tremors through the England batting line up.
Good signs, lets hope we can keep our foot on their throat at Lords.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2015/content/story/898553.html
0 - Sponsored links:
-
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies2 -
That will be a blow, he had a great first test, let's hope Rashid is ready!Weegie Addick said:Ali a doubt with a side injury.
0 -
Quick, call up Botham!Chizz said:
when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket?CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.1 -
Is Watson their KP?0
-
In terms of talent - no where near. In terms of the rest of the squad hating his guts - absolutely.The_President said:Is Watson their KP?
2 -
Apparently, yes..!killerandflash said:
Giles was a limited bowler, but what he could do though was hold up an end. You knew the Aussies would never take him apart, so that during long days in the field on non turning pitches he could bowl long spells with the quicks rotating at the other end, thus keeping them nice and fresh. On similar non turning pitches, will Ali be able to cope with the likes of Warner and Smith attacking him?Chizz said:
That's interesting. Because I think there's a massive gulf between the two. I have compared them in the role of number eight batsman and spinner who's role is to give the quicks a break. In terms of batting, Giles knew which end of the bat to hold - without question. But, in his entire career, he only made a highest Test score of 59. Ali, meanwhile has a highest Test score of 108* despite having only played in 11 Tests. In terms of bowling, they are closer. Giles' Test best was 5/59, while Ali's is 6/67. Both Ali's batting and bowling averages are 8 better than Giles'. So, in terms of numbers, it's unarguable.LenGlover said:Not a bad analysis at all.
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
0 -
For what reason?kentaddick said:
In terms of talent - no where near. In terms of the rest of the squad hating his guts - absolutely.The_President said:Is Watson their KP?
0 -
I suspect it's because he dictated for a long time whether he was going to be able to bowl or not. So, Australia ended up picking three teams - one with Watson the all rounder, one with Watson the batsman and one without Watson.The_President said:
For what reason?kentaddick said:
In terms of talent - no where near. In terms of the rest of the squad hating his guts - absolutely.The_President said:Is Watson their KP?
He's also only picked up 9 wickets against England at an average of just under 70. He ain't no Kallis.1 -
We have a disproportionate number of left hand bats which somewhat neutralises the leggie though which is why Lyon, as an offy, bowled as much as he did.killerandflash said:
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies0 -
Cook reckons that Ali will play, good news indeed!0
- Sponsored links:
-
But then leggies should be able to make it go both ways, or at least have enough variety to give lower order batsmen problems. I recall him getting Bell out in 2013 at Lord's after Bell had got a tonLenGlover said:
We have a disproportionate number of left hand bats which somewhat neutralises the leggie though which is why Lyon, as an offy, bowled as much as he did.killerandflash said:
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies0 -
They should indeed but isn't Smith more of a batsman who bowls rather than a full blown leggie in his own right?killerandflash said:
But then leggies should be able to make it go both ways, or at least have enough variety to give lower order batsmen problems. I recall him getting Bell out in 2013 at Lord's after Bell had got a tonLenGlover said:
We have a disproportionate number of left hand bats which somewhat neutralises the leggie though which is why Lyon, as an offy, bowled as much as he did.killerandflash said:
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies0 -
Most of Moeen's wickets (apart from Warner) were from the Aussies trying to bat him out of the attack, which was clearly an Australian strategy in the 1st innings. In the second innings, while the spinners picked up 5 wickets, it was the seamers, especially Broad, who posed the big threat.Chizz said:
Apparently, yes..!killerandflash said:
Giles was a limited bowler, but what he could do though was hold up an end. You knew the Aussies would never take him apart, so that during long days in the field on non turning pitches he could bowl long spells with the quicks rotating at the other end, thus keeping them nice and fresh. On similar non turning pitches, will Ali be able to cope with the likes of Warner and Smith attacking him?Chizz said:
That's interesting. Because I think there's a massive gulf between the two. I have compared them in the role of number eight batsman and spinner who's role is to give the quicks a break. In terms of batting, Giles knew which end of the bat to hold - without question. But, in his entire career, he only made a highest Test score of 59. Ali, meanwhile has a highest Test score of 108* despite having only played in 11 Tests. In terms of bowling, they are closer. Giles' Test best was 5/59, while Ali's is 6/67. Both Ali's batting and bowling averages are 8 better than Giles'. So, in terms of numbers, it's unarguable.LenGlover said:Not a bad analysis at all.
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
0 -
He first got into the team as a bowler who could bat, but then he turned into the no. 1 ranked batsman!LenGlover said:
They should indeed but isn't Smith more of a batsman who bowls rather than a full blown leggie in his own right?killerandflash said:
But then leggies should be able to make it go both ways, or at least have enough variety to give lower order batsmen problems. I recall him getting Bell out in 2013 at Lord's after Bell had got a tonLenGlover said:
We have a disproportionate number of left hand bats which somewhat neutralises the leggie though which is why Lyon, as an offy, bowled as much as he did.killerandflash said:
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies0 -
...and back againMcBobbin said:
He first got into the team as a bowler who could bat, but then he turned into the no. 1 ranked batsman!LenGlover said:
They should indeed but isn't Smith more of a batsman who bowls rather than a full blown leggie in his own right?killerandflash said:
But then leggies should be able to make it go both ways, or at least have enough variety to give lower order batsmen problems. I recall him getting Bell out in 2013 at Lord's after Bell had got a tonLenGlover said:
We have a disproportionate number of left hand bats which somewhat neutralises the leggie though which is why Lyon, as an offy, bowled as much as he did.killerandflash said:
But then Watson only bowled 13 overs in the whole match in Cardiff. In the second innings while Starc visibly went through the pain barrier, Watson only bowled 5 overs, which doesn't suggest they have much faith in his bowling these days. Back in 2013, he only picked up 2 wickets during the Test seriesChizz said:
Mitchell Marsh is a batting all-rounder. That's not what Australia desperately need, with the score 1-0 and doubts over Mitchell Starc's fitness. It smacks of panic - if true - to me. Yes, their batting was abysmal in Cardiff, but they need to take twenty wickets at Lord's. So introducing a bowler with an average of 164.00 with the ball seems muddle-headed at best.CHG said:Mitchell Marsh I think will improve their team, Neville is probably going to be a more solid batter than Haddin has been of late but is not as good a keeper.
Watson and Haddin are two big personalities in the Aussie set up though, big sledgers, that will be missed I am sure.
Shane Watson is the ACB's highest-paid cricketer. To ditch him after one Test, especially when losing Haddin's experience too, looks like the wheels are, if not coming off, loosening nicely. He may be a walking lbw, but, when the chips are down, do you want someone in your team who can lean on the experience of 3,700 runs and 75 wickets, or someone with 262 runs and one wicket? For this Test, I know who I would choose. Happily, it looks like the Aussies are going in the other direction.
I'm surprised Steve Smith didn't bowl at all, just to try something different, as everyone knows England struggle against leggies2 -
We will never have a better chance to go 2-0 up in the Ashes than this, from the outside it looks like the wheels are falling off big time for the Aussies - Clarke's not so subtle dig at CA for not being informed of Watson's axing, being a prime example.
Bat first - score big - then start the squeeze on their batters again.0 -
That's counting chickens if ever I saw it! They are still a very good team, while England have already shown twice this year that they can make a winning series lead disappear. England's attacking philosophy means that inevitably it will sometimes go wrong. My hope is that they can consolidate here and look to attack more later in the series. My fear is that Starc and Haslewood will love the Lords slope, and rip through the batting; then Clarke and Smith will find form and bat us out of the game. Lyons will (based on the 2013 result) be very dangerous in the second innings too.Kenny Achampong said:We will never have a better chance to go 2-0 up in the Ashes than this, from the outside it looks like the wheels are falling off big time for the Aussies - Clarke's not so subtle dig at CA for not being informed of Watson's axing, being a prime example.
Bat first - score big - then start the squeeze on their batters again.
Maybe both teams will get 600 and it will be a tame draw; maybe it will rain all weekend? Who knows...it's cricket!1 -
Voges out .. Watson 3, Smith 4 and Marsh 62
-
He is ?Lincsaddick said:Voges out .. Watson 3, Smith 4 and Marsh 6
0 -
Australia win the toss and will bat
1
