English cricket 2015 - NZ, The Ashes, Pak and SA

Insanity said:
Not experienced enough yet.

More than the bowling, I am unsure about the Aussie batting in test cricket away from home.
  • Rodgers and Warner is a decent opening partnership at best.
  • Smith is yet to prove himself outside home conditions.
  • Clarke is the good one; unsure if he'll find his best form again.
  • Voges and Watson would need to top order to fire for them to useful. Cannot see them building big scores or chasing big runs if the top order fails.
  • Unsure about old man Haddin's ability to hold the lower order together now.
Still should be a good series as England also have their vulnerabilities and Aussies hardly ever back down. England have laid down the marker with their excellent performance in the first test, though.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true is it? Rogers and Voges have played a lot of First Class cricket up here in England, they have enough experience of the Duke ball and English pitches. Clarke has 100 tests under his belt. Watson was selected pretty much because of his experience surely. This leaves Smith and Warner as the inexperienced ones and they've been the best Australian batsmen around over the last 18 months. Smith was the best Australian batsman in the UAE and in the Caribbean too.

I think Haddin is past it and it's absolutely mental to me someone with such a huge technical flaw like Watson has 50 odd tests (even worse perhaps is his unwillingness to completely change his technique). I think now Australia's short-termist attitude with selection will really bite them in the arse. I know there's a pressure in Australia to win all the time and I know Rogers and Voges have scored lots of runs but really right now Australia need to be blooding young talent. Which in turn highlights another issue, where is the batting talent in Australia? Also as good as they are at producing quick all the new ones seem to be made out of glass.
 
yeah their average age is a touch under 46. experience isn't the issue.
 
Aussies will probably drop Watson and play Mitch Marsh in the next test.
 
KM said:
Aussies will probably drop Watson and play Mitch Marsh in the next test.
Click to expand...

Mental that after scoring back to back hundreds that they didn't drop Watson for Marsh from the get go.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Mental that after scoring back to back hundreds that they didn't drop Watson for Marsh from the get go.
Click to expand...

Yup. Marsh is clearly a better batsman than Watson. The rest of the team is fine.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
That's not strictly true is it? Rogers and Voges have played a lot of First Class cricket up here in England, they have enough experience of the Duke ball and English pitches. Clarke has 100 tests under his belt. Watson was selected pretty much because of his experience surely. This leaves Smith and Warner as the inexperienced ones and they've been the best Australian batsmen around over the last 18 months. Smith was the best Australian batsman in the UAE and in the Caribbean too.

I think Haddin is past it and it's absolutely mental to me someone with such a huge technical flaw like Watson has 50 odd tests (even worse perhaps is his unwillingness to completely change his technique). I think now Australia's short-termist attitude with selection will really bite them in the arse. I know there's a pressure in Australia to win all the time and I know Rogers and Voges have scored lots of runs but really right now Australia need to be blooding young talent. Which in turn highlights another issue, where is the batting talent in Australia? Also as good as they are at producing quick all the new ones seem to be made out of glass.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are older gentlemen and have played a lot of first class cricket but I think International cricket is an altogether different experience. The pressures, demands and challenges of international test cricket are much more than at any other level. This lot has hardly played and won together outside of Australia; I won't call them a particularly experienced unit just because of their age.

Regarding Watson, I think you answered it yourself in the second paragraph, that he is not good enough and has been standing at the same spot, or has regressed, since he started his career. Besides Clarke, who is their best and most seasonsed batter, I don't think we can call this unit experienced. Warner and Smith wil have to fire consistenly for the Aussies to give England a fight.

The bowling unit is in a similar boat: Starc hasn't done much in test cricket and if I am not mistaken, this is Hazelwood's first away series.

Not in anyway suggesting that this will be a walkover, England is far from a vintage team either, and Aussies do have a couple of game changers in their ranks.
 
Insanity said:
Yes, they are older gentlemen and have played a lot of first class cricket but I think International cricket is an altogether different experience. The pressures, demands and challenges of international test cricket are much more than at any other level. This lot has hardly played and won together outside of Australia; I won't call them a particularly experienced unit just because of their age.

Regarding Watson, I think you answered it yourself in the second paragraph, that he is not good enough and has been standing at the same spot, or has regressed, since he started his career. Besides Clarke, who is their best and most seasonsed batter, I don't think we can call this unit experienced. Warner and Smith wil have to fire consistenly for the Aussies to give England a fight.

The bowling unit is in a similar boat: Starc hasn't done much in test cricket and if I am not mistaken, this is Hazelwood's first away series.

Not in anyway suggesting that this will be a walkover, England is far from a vintage team either, and Aussies do have a couple of game changers in their ranks.
Click to expand...

International cricket is a different environment but Rogers and Voges have more experience in English conditions than anyone else in their team. Hazelwood just played in the West Indies. If we're going by teams not playing a lot and winning together than the same applies for this England team (Lyth, Ballance, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Wood all have at most one international summer behind them). To me this Australian team looked like a side that thought they could just turn up and blow England away. The bowling plans were erratic and half hearted and the batting was overly aggressive at times. They had enough time to do their homework and try to psyche out Ben Stokes with his bat sweep idiosyncrasy but they didn't look like they had a single bowling plan for any one of the English batsmen other than bowl fast and see what happens.

I do think this whole 'adapting to the conditions' stuff is mostly rubbish too, New Zealand and Sri Lanka have done just fine up here recently (two teams not renowned for being great travellers). As much as England are more formidable at home and the Australians are no longer as formidable away this is as good a chance Australia have to win a series here since what 2001? Obviously the huge difference for England was scoreboard pressure, it gives the English bowlers space to persist with plans and not get too funky, if Haddin catches Root on 0 we aren't even having this debate are we really? The rest of the series will be much closer and I still think the Australians will nick it but it was such a far cry from the last Ashes series it was unbelievable really.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
International cricket is a different environment but Rogers and Voges have more experience in English conditions than anyone else in their team. Hazelwood just played in the West Indies. If we're going by teams not playing a lot and winning together than the same applies for this England team (Lyth, Ballance, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Wood all have at most one international summer behind them). To me this Australian team looked like a side that thought they could just turn up and blow England away. The bowling plans were erratic and half hearted and the batting was overly aggressive at times. They had enough time to do their homework and try to psyche out Ben Stokes with his bat sweep idiosyncrasy but they didn't look like they had a single bowling plan for any one of the English batsmen other than bowl fast and see what happens.

I do think this whole 'adapting to the conditions' stuff is mostly rubbish too, New Zealand and Sri Lanka have done just fine up here recently (two teams not renowned for being great travellers). As much as England are more formidable at home and the Australians are no longer as formidable away this is as good a chance Australia have to win a series here since what 2001? Obviously the huge difference for England was scoreboard pressure, it gives the English bowlers space to persist with plans and not get too funky, if Haddin catches Root on 0 we aren't even having this debate are we really? The rest of the series will be much closer and I still think the Australians will nick it but it was such a far cry from the last Ashes series it was unbelievable really.
Click to expand...

I really do not know what we are arguing here. You believe that England aren't being given enough credit for win in the first test? Because I don't think we are saying much different barring a few nuances and definitions; pedantic, I may add. :)

I am not dusputing that England is in a similar boat; I mentioned in both my posts that this English team has it's vulnerabilties, and they showed those in the past series against both Sri Lanka and the Kiwis. Though under home conditions, it's advantage England here, imo

About a single decision(s), I think their significance is much lower in test cricket. The beauty of the format is that it gives you multiple chances to correct your mistakes and misses, you just need to be good enough.

The last Ashes was in Australia, where this team is much stronger and a match for anyone in the world. Plus, they had Harris, Haddin & Clarke were a couple of years younger & Johnson was in the form of his life.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Mental that after scoring back to back hundreds that they didn't drop Watson for Marsh from the get go.
Click to expand...
Its mental that he has been picked for the last 2 years tbh.

But he has gone this time, media is starting to really lay into him and he has never been good enough.
 
Cooksen said:
Its mental that he has been picked for the last 2 years tbh.

But he has gone this time, media is starting to really lay into him and he has never been good enough.
Click to expand...
He really hasn't. When he came out to bat in this match and I saw he's still only averaging 35 with the bat I was baffled as to why he's been persevered with in test cricket. For someone who does most of his batting on pitches with plenty of runs in, that's poor.

Thought the same when I saw Haddin's current stats.
 
As stupid as it sounds, i still see Watson playing at Lords. He shouldn't, but he will i feel.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
He really hasn't. When he came out to bat in this match and I saw he's still only averaging 35 with the bat I was baffled as to why he's been persevered with in test cricket. For someone who does most of his batting on pitches with plenty of runs in, that's poor.

Thought the same when I saw Haddin's current stats.
Click to expand...
After Flintoff did well in 2005 Cricket Australia has been begging for an allrounder in the team that has saved his arse.
 
Cooksen said:
After Flintoff did well in 2005 Cricket Australia has been begging for an allrounder in the team that has saved his arse.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did wonder if that was part of it.

We picked some shocking players, after Botham, just because we were desperate to find another.
 
Darren Lehmann hasn't ruled out the possibility of changes for the next test, so there's a start. If only they had the fight for the battle ahead. Jim Maxwell tweeted:
Australia didn't bat long enough to be saved by the rain. No nets today then.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Yeah, I did wonder if that was part of it.

We picked some shocking players, after Botham, just because we were desperate to find another.
Click to expand...
That and Ponting was a massive fan too.

He did play his best cricket under Ponting but him and Clarke pretty much hate each other as Clarke things he is not good.
 
Insanity said:
I really do not know what we are arguing here. You believe that England aren't being given enough credit for win in the first test? Because I don't think we are saying much different barring a few nuances and definitions; pedantic, I may add. :)

I am not dusputing that England is in a similar boat; I mentioned in both my posts that this English team has it's vulnerabilties, and they showed those in the past series against both Sri Lanka and the Kiwis. Though under home conditions, it's advantage England here, imo

About a single decision(s), I think their significance is much lower in test cricket. The beauty of the format is that it gives you multiple chances to correct your mistakes and misses, you just need to be good enough.

The last Ashes was in Australia, where this team is much stronger and a match for anyone in the world. Plus, they had Harris, Haddin & Clarke were a couple of years younger & Johnson was in the form of his life.
Click to expand...

The Australian team has plenty of experience was my main point then I rambled on about other stuff. I think it's pretty ridiculous to have guys like Voges and Rodgers in the team and then even feel that the team lacks experience. I'm pretty confident guys like Rodgers, Voges, Watson and Haddin are all pretty much being picked right now for that.
 
Oz need Smith and Clarke in form to have a chance of winning this series. I would be surprised if their 5-7 get big scores
 
ArmchairCritic said:
The Australian team has plenty of experience was my main point then I rambled on about other stuff. I think it's pretty ridiculous to have guys like Voges and Rodgers in the team and then even feel that the team lacks experience. I'm pretty confident guys like Rodgers, Voges, Watson and Haddin are all pretty much being picked right now for that.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that they were picked as the older heads in the team; the issue is that 2 of them are not up to the mark these days and the other two do not have much international experience.
 
If the Aussies drop Watson, what's Mitchel Marsh's bowling like?
Anyway, this series is far from over yet. The Aussies still have one hell of a bowling attack even if their batting is still suspect. Bowlers win you test matches and the Aussie bowlers could still easily win this series.

A lot has been written about Australia's weakness' but you have to give England credit where credit is due.
England's batting (if inexperienced) does look strong on paper with all these talented youngsters. And batting all the way down to no. 8. (After that Wood & Broady are no mugs either.) All they needed was a bit of confidence and a new coaching set up has seemed to have brought that much needed confidence.
Root especially is the outstanding batsman on either side. He's made for test cricket and imo is already the no. 1 test batsman in the world, a better player for test cricket than AB de Villiers even. I think Root's averaging 56, that's incredible when you consider he's already played 28 tests in a period when the English batting has mostly been really awful. Very very impressive. And at 24 he's only going to get better & better.
As for the England's bowling, you know Anderson & Broad will take wickets in England and you can only be impressed they way Wood has adapted to Test cricket. I'm still not convinced by Moeen's spin, but he does have the knack of taking wickets at crucial times and he's a proper top order batsman.
 
Peter Lalor @plalor
BREAKING Brad Haddin is not expected to play at Lord's. Personal reasons He has not been dropped. more to follow ...
 
Cooksen said:
Averages 43ish in the shield, clean hands and a patient batsman.
Click to expand...

OK. Having a patient batsman as WK is not bad actually. Australia are used to Gilchrist and though not at same level, still clean hitting of Haddin and they had their own style of changing games so this might be something different.
 
For those watching on Sky, are you seeing frequent pictures of Jimmy Anderson appearing to run on the danger area?
 
Mitchell Nicholas said:
Stupid shot from Warner - he just couldn't help himself.
Click to expand...

Don't really understand Australia's approach towards Ali. He's a below average Test bowler but Australia are taking him too easily and playing him like he's some sort of a rookie Sunday league bowler. Just play him like a conventional spinner and he won't take more than 3 wickets per game but will still leak around 4 runs an over.
 
Samid said:
Don't really understand Australia's approach towards Ali. He's a below average Test bowler but Australia are taking him too easily and playing him like he's some sort of a rookie Sunday league bowler. Just play him like a conventional spinner and he won't take more than 3 wickets per game but will still leak around 4 runs an over.
Click to expand...
It was bordering on disrespect and it seems like they don't respect him.
 
The Aussie's thing with spinners was always to show no respect and get after them so it's not anything new. In fairness India had the approach to Ali last year as well.
 
I
Samid said:
Don't really understand Australia's approach towards Ali. He's a below average Test bowler but Australia are taking him too easily and playing him like he's some sort of a rookie Sunday league bowler. Just play him like a conventional spinner and he won't take more than 3 wickets per game but will still leak around 4 runs an over.
Click to expand...
India approached Ali the same way last time.
 
Well done Rogers. Brilliant innings.
 
Great play from the Australians, but this is a pretty boring pitch for cricket. Would rather play another four games at Cardiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.