Look at the English batsmen at the crease. Prior averages 41 and has 3 test hundreds and 19 50s in only 39 tests. Bresnan averages 32 and has one 50 in only 4 knocks. He has 3 first class centuries and 17 50’s and averages 27.
Next man in Graeme Swann has 4 first class centuries and 39 50s, with a highest score of 183.
Tremlett is a dud. His first class average is only 18 and he has only 7 half centuries.
England will grind us into the dirt tomorrow.
Surely they will cruise through the first session and play us out of the game. And then Swann will fuck us up big time.
He’ll have to jostle his way through Anderson, Bresnan and Tremlett - they’ll all be scenting blood with a 300-run cushion, five sessions to go, and the promise of some more swing. It’s great to see how Anderson’s matured, btw. He used to be a seriously talented one-dayer with occasional flashes of Test brilliance, but not often enough - and that was before Flintoff’s brief but illuminating period of serious bowlership, and also before Sidebottom was a shoo-in for a couple of seasons. This series he’s been England’s spearhead and we’re just hoping he stays fit and in form for a while.
But yes, Swanny’s due for a bit of a haul and a fourth or fifth day pitch with runs to play with will be greatly to his liking.
Cook is a shoo in at the top
There would be an argument that Watson has outperformed Strauss, but I wouldn’t buy it.
Trott at first drop.
Of the middle order, only Hussey merits inclusion so he’d replace Collingwood.
Prior has outkept Haddin and the joint team isn’t lacking in runs.
As a sop you might consider playing Haddin as a batsman @ #6
I’d go with a 4 pace attack
Anderson
Tremlett
Finn
Breslan/Siddle
Harris was the best of the Aussies, but injury precludes. Yes, balance and convention would bring the best slow bowler in (which is Swan), but he is not the match winning factor if you win the series 3-1. What that team wants is a bowling X-factor, who is Johnson, but the gap between his good and bad days is too big.
I reckon that there is an argument for Watson - he’d probably benefit from a side that had Cook opening with him and Trott at 3, so he could open his shoulders more with the knwledge that others could drop anchor around him. That has not been the case for the Aussies this series. That said, as PT points out - on performance, I don’t think he has outperformed Strauss and, on this series, he’s not a middle order bat - being as he hasn’t played there (though he probably should). For me he’d be first cab off the rank if any of the others got injured in this fantasy world.
I think Haddin has kept better than Prior the more I think about it. He has had to do an awful lot of hard work - more so than Prior - and has obviously been in the field a lot more. He also has the partnerships with Hussey that have kept Aus in the series in some respects. I’d have him in with Hussey and Siddle.
I’d pick Swann for a joint side because, though he hasn’t been an X factor, he’s been a lot tighter than Finn and I think Siddle has bowled better than Bresnan. Bottling an end up has been the England way this series and I’d look to replicate that.
Definitely give Swann a run. Personally I think any well rounded side needs a spinner, and Swann is far far better than anything Australia has provided in that department in this series.
I’m not sure of the actual numbers comparing Watson to Strauss, but I suspect they’d be pretty close. I really rate Watson, but not as an opener. Have a look at his batting style, he would be a great middle order batsmen, with the ability to open up his shoulders and score some quick runs, but also a solid enough technique to hold down an end if required for a while aginast an older ball. But I don’t think he has the technique to carry him through a full innings as opener, have a look at his scores this series, good average but no hundreds.
As an aside, It’s funny that Matthew Hayden seemed to have revolutionised the game for opening batsmen, shifting away from good technicians who can hold up an end and take the shine of the new ball to actually attacking the opening bowlers. But I don’t see anyone in the Australian team at the moment who can pull that off (Watson included) we need to go back to the mould of Langer & Taylor, solid accumulating batsmen, with good techniques who value their wicket, and don’t feel the need to play the big shots if they get tied down for an over or three.
And I see we’re two down already - one a run out - which is completely unforgivable in this situation.
My prediction - Over by lunch tomorrow an innings and 150 runs.
The run out was terrible - quite what Watson was thinking, given he had scored at a run a ball to get up to around 40, I have no idea.
Aside this, I think that I agree with GS on Watson - at this stage, he is a middle order bat and you could probably do with more traditional run accumulators at the top of the order. It’s an interesting comment on Hayden - and dangerous to cast around for people who are emulators of previous players (we struggled for years trying to find the second Botham for instance, when we probably would have been better off picking a decent bat or a good bowler instead). It’s only now Flintoff has retired that we’ve finally stopped trying to get a proper all rounder in the side.
Nack on the game, Tremlett’s two wickets were pretty good too - the bouncer to Haddin in particular was pretty difficult to deal with.
Looks like Prior and Swann had some fun. Another good bowling performance, and it’s all over bar the shouting. It’s tough to bat after being out in the field for 2 1/2 days. Interesting that we couldn’t make any impression in the last half hour. We over-attacked in an attempt to force the result, and suddenly batting was a lot easier. Not the first time I’ve seen this. It really underlines how effective our bowling plan of strangling Australia has been, and how good a job we’ve done of implementing it.
Yes, Anderson has really arrived now. He’s gone from a swing specialist to top class seam bowler. Only Steyn is better right now.
Leaving out Swann would be a huge mistake. It’s not just about the wickets he takes, he also ties up an end and that’s been crucial to our strategy.
My combined XI:
Cook
*Strauss
Trott
Pietersen
Hussey
Bell
Haddin
Swann
Siddle
Tremlett
Anderson
Watson has out-performed Strauss with the bat. The openers most important job is to survive the new ball, and he’s been very successful at that, against a better attack than Strauss has been facing. The problem has been Ponting and Clarke’s complete lack of form, so Australia have been able to do nothing with the platform he’s given them. I disagree that he’s better suited to a middle-order bearth, he averages 50 as opener and it’s the position where number of starts is more important than number of big scores. However, 3 runs outs is appalling, and Strauss’ captaincy also gets him into my team.
Bresnan or Siddle is debateable. I’ve gone for Siddle as he put in two very good performances, and I think he’d have done better with more support.
Good points, I’ve gone for Haddin for the same reasons, although it was a close call.
My combined worst XI:
Hughes
Katich
*Ponting
Clarke
Collingwood
Smith
Prior
Johnson
Doherty
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus
Smith gets in ahead of North, because North at least managed to bowl tidily. Johnson is there because one magic spell doesn’t make a series, and most of the rest of the time he’s actively hurt his team. Prior doesn’t belong in there, but someone has to keep wicket. That just leaves one Englishman in the worst XI on ‘merit’, the now retired Collingwood.
Think Collingwood has made the right decision. The selectors might well have waited to see what his limited-over form was like before making a decision on him. He’s been a good player for us. His record isn’t amazing, but he made a lot of his runs in tough situations, his bowling was handy, and his fielding could be spectacular. Good to hear he is continuing in limited over cricket.
So quite fairly your Worst XI is dominated by Aussies but surely North’s 1 run is worse than Collingwood’s contribution - he would have been one of Australia’s best bowlers.
So basically in a worst team you end up with one Pom and it’s a toss of a coin whether he should be in the best team.
I guess it’s debateable which two out of Clarke, North and Collingwood should be in the worst XI. I’ve gone for Clarke and Collingwood, as they failed to contribute much over an entire series, whereas North only got a couple games.
Collingwood has bowled well (econ 2.35), but you can’t compare his performance to Hilfenhaus’ or Siddle’s, who have had to bowl more than 4 times as many overs.
I had forgotten that it had taken the selectors 2 tests to dump North. However I still think his batting average of 16.33 combined with his bowling average of 110.00 is far inferior to Collingwood’s 13.83 and 36.50 plus some fine catches. Also I note on looking at the averages the man you have nominated as worst spin bowler is actually Australia’s best spin bowler:
XJ Doherty 102.00
MJ North 110.00
MA Beer 112.00
Clarke and Smith took a total of no wickets between them.
The only substantive change I’d make from your line-up is Pryor over Haddin.
But remove the Adelaide results and Swann’s taken just 7 wickets at an average of over 60 and conceding just under 3 per over. So he hasn’t taken the wickets, nor has he tied up an end. The stats might change if he takes the last three wickets, but I doubt Anderson, Tremlett & Breslan will give him the ball.
So if the criteria was the best 4 bowlers in the series, he wouldn’t make it. But yes, for the best team he’d be selected … particularly as none of the selected batsmen have any bowling credentials.
Beer has done much better than Doherty did. He offered control and some threat in this test, while Doherty went for 4 an over. Comparing averages over single tests is pretty meaningless.
Why remove the Adelaide results? Swann won the match for us there with his 5 wicket haul. If Australia had survived a bit longer the rain would have saved them, and would have been 1-0 up going into the final two tests. Potentially a different series then.
The raw figures don’t tell the whole story. Swann bowls more overs than the pace bowlers, so they get more rest, and are more effective as a result. Tired bowlers give away a lot more boundaries. Swann has removed Hussey twice when he has been set. That variation is important, if a player gets in against the seamers it’s important to try out a different area of their technique. Finally, a high percentage of Swann’s wickets have been batsmen instead of tail-enders. Bowling average is not a terribly good indication a player’s performance. It says nothing about the pitches they’ve played on, the bowlers they’ve bowled in partnership with, the quality of the batting faced, the actual batsmen they’ve got out, or the impact on the match. Swann is currently ranked as the world’s no 2 bowler. I can guarantee none of the Australian batsmen would prefer to face him instead of an all-seam attack.
Now let the alcohol flow, the songs of victory be sung and the bloodletting begin!
Anyone offering odds on the 2013 series?
“Swann is currently ranked as the world’s no 2 bowler.”
Indeed he was at the start of this series. During this series he hasn’t been England’s no 2 bowler. I reckon he wasn’t their no 3 bowler. YMMV.
I am sure some bookies will do. I would only go so far as to say that it will be a lot closer than this series (though it could hardly be much more one sided - England have only really been behind in Perth and the first 3 days at Brisbane). A lot is going to depend on whether Australia can develop 2 or 3 top order bats, fix the problems with Mitchell Johnson and find a decent spinner (or develop Beer or Smith into the role). If a similar unit to this one comes out to England, they should get it handed to them again - but I doubt that we will see an Australian side this bad when they tour North again., even if the faces are the same, they will likely have developed/changed their games.
For England, it’s a big series coming up at home against India. Can they kick on and challenge India and South Africa for the number 1 ranking? I’d like to think so but they’re going to have to want it just as much as they seemed to want this series, putting in the same level of prep and getting it right mentally.
Be an interesting ODI series coming up now with the World Cup around the corner. I think the Aussie ODI side to be better than their Test unit and England need to try to continue the development in this bit of the game we’ve had under Flower.
Rolf Harris, can you hear me Rolf Harris? your boys took one hell…etc etc.
Very happy that we polished it off in style. The overall discipline at the crease and in the field was excellent with only very few exceptions (are you listening KP? and Mr. Strauss). That, more than anything, bodes well for India in the summer.
Also, I have the feeling that there is plenty in the tank in terms of batting and bowling. We didn’t miss Broad with the ball but I do think there is big potential for him as a true all rounder. Nice to have him in our pocket along with the Tremlett/Bresnan/Finn conundrum.
Big praise for Andrew Strauss as a captain as well. In that capacity at least he barely put a foot wrong. Sensible fields, sound strategy, not afraid to change and experiment. Couple that with bowlers able perform to order and it is a winning combination.
Looking forward to the ODI’s now. Those not in the test team may well be spurred on to greatness.
