Big news as Brett Lee is ruled out of the opening two Tests with a rib injury. Sorry for the guy, he’s a very decent sort, and had worked hard for his comeback.
Whether his absence is bad for Australia is a tossup, or rather, would be if they had an actual spinner. He bowled really well against the Lions, but his Ashes record is actually pretty poor (averages over 40 against England). Johnson and Siddle were ahead of him in the pecking order after the South Africa series.
What it does do is put a lot of pressure on Clark’s none-too-reliable fitness, and reignites the spinner question. Smart money was on Australia going to Cardiff with a four-man pace attack, and relying on part time slow bowlers to fill in some overs. Lee going puts a big dent in that, and is McDonald really good enough to take his place? My bet for Wednesday’s lineup:
Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Hauritz
Clark
It’s not a bowling attack for the ages, that’s for sure. It still might be enough, but it’s a huge amount of pressure on Johnson in unfamiliar conditions.
Sadly, Hilfenhaus seems to have been forgotten. Clark does have a lot of experience of English conditions and would have been my pick anyway. (I am am still waiting for the selectors to call to ask for my opinion btw). Siddle has a nice high action and will do well I expect.
Let’s not forget that virtually the same attack helped beat RSA on their turf not long ago - and RSA is the top of the pecking order at the moment.
Yeah, Clark’s solid. Getting on a bit, though, and it remains to be seen what effect his recent injuries have had; like Flintoff, I’d be surprised if he plays all five Tests without something going ping. Siddle, yeah, has had a great start to his career, despite his alarming facial hair. Don’t think Ponting likes Hilfenhaus much; I seem to recall him getting fairly short shrift on the few occasions he has been picked. Not much point going for someone your captain has no confidence in, although I suppose the same goes for Hauritz.
And yeah, that attack did well in SA (in conditions not unlike Aussie ones), but largely because Johnson and Siddle carried the rest; are two reliable bowlers enough for a five test series, when neither of them’s played in England before?
I agree to a point, of course; if Siddle and Johnson both continue their recent form, it’s the basis of a sound attack. Same goes for us with Jimmy and Swann. It all depends if the new ball is hooping about, really. If Jimmy has it on a string I’d back us; if there’s nothing in the pitch, I’d back Johnson and Siddle to get more out of it.
If we couldn’t beat you guys with Warne and McGrath last time what chance do we have now? I have for a long time seriously wondered about Ponting as a captain and his batting seems to be slipping as well- there are quite a few inconsistent performers. However, I do like our batting depth and think our bowling attack (apart from spin) is good.
Starts Wednesday night here. I better put some beer in the fridge and put Dead Badger on my shit list in case the Poms win
Well, as McGrath would tell you 'til your ear dropped off, he was out for the two Tests we won. Your bowling lineup for Edgbaston read: Lee, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne. Dizzy was a broken man by then, and Kasprowicz isn’t even his mum’s favourite bowler, leaving Lee and Warne to do the work. Obviously Warne’s worth two lesser men, but nonetheless, it could’ve been very different but for that stray cricket ball under Pigeon’s toes.
All true. That said, we were all over Oz for tests two thru four, up until Simon Jones conked out just as we were enforcing the follow-on in the fourth and nearly lost it. He was in the form of his life and if he’d stayed fit for the last Test and a half, things wouldn’t have looked so tight.
Wish Sidebottom was on top line though. For a year or so he was first down on the team sheet and could both contain and get 'em out. I’d still like to see him in if he’s fit, but he’s not quite where he was and it’s anyone’s guess whether he will be again.
Unless McGrath could have suddenly become a batsman who would handle the English batting, I don’t think his absence was a factor; it was Englands bowling which won the Ashes.
That three-wicket win was after Jones broke down, though: round about the time we made Australia follow on in the Fourth Test, and prior to which we were looking like winning by an innings and plenty, and might well have done if we hadn’t been a bowler short. As it was, we struggled to get them out and were left with a nervy chase for a small total. And in the Third Test Australia were reduced to celebrating wildly at escaping with a draw. By their usual standards (and McGrath’s predictions of “5-0 to Australia”) that counts as “all over them”.
Agreed about the two-run margin in the Second Test, but again, up to Vaughan claiming the extra half hour on the last day but one, England were storming away with it. That last half hour saw Australia score a lot of runs, and we got only one last-minute wicket out of it.
It seems odd to talk about a two-run margin as being “not all that close”, but up until the last-wicket heroics, Australia didn’t look in the match at all.
You don’t think Glenn “Miserly” McGrath could’ve knocked three runs off our total at Edgbaston? Or winkled out Hoggard or Gilo at Trent Bridge? I quite agree, it was our bowling wot won it. But the batsmen still had to set and chase targets, and on the two occasions we won they did only just enough.
Malacandra, sure, relatively speaking we were all over them, but the point is just that the margins were still slender, and the absence of an all-time Aussie great was keenly felt. Even single-handed, Warne very nearly defended a lead of 129. You can never say what might’ve been, but Gillespie, Kasper and Tait didn’t total half a McGrath. But then as you rightly point out, poor Jones’s knee knack was just as damaging.
Anyway, enough speculation. Because I spend far too much time reading them, I’m going to plug a few cricket blogs I believe will greatly improve anyone’s enjoyment of the Ashes:
[ul][li]King Cricket - the grandaddy of cricket blogs. Notable for Rob Key obsession, pictures of animals being indifferent to cricket, and match reports that on no account mention the cricket. Oh, and Matthew Hayden hate.[/li][li]Cricket With Balls - prolific, perverted Australian blog responsible for starting the cult of Sehwagology. Obsessed with Natalie Portman. Here he is on Nathan Hauritz.[/li][li]Last of the Summer Whine - ostensibly a blog about Yorkshire cricket, written by Len, their kitman, who reveals all sorts of backroom secrets. Will have lots of Ashes stuff too, though.[/ul][/li]Far better than the inevitable stream of crap punditry that will flow from the regular media. Oh, Kevin Pietersen is really motivated to win, you say? Gosh. And Ponting wants his players to put their hands up? Well I never.
I’m a little surprised that Ponting is waiting until tomorrow morning to announce his eleven. Not so much that he is, but his excuse for doing so: he suggested he was a bit wrong-footed by Lee’s injury. Seems like an uncharacteristic admission of weakness…surely most teams these days have solid backup plans for when pace bowlers inevitably break down.
I’m thinking he’s going to go with Hilfenhaus. Hauritz has never impressed, frankly, and I don’t think this one’s going to go the full five days (barring weather interruptions).
Australia pulls a mild surprise by choosing both Hauritz and Hilfenhaus, dropping Stuart Clark. England chooses to bat and only manages 97/3 by lunch, Johnson and Hilfenhaus taking their first Ashes wickets. An intriguing start, IMHO Australia a little bit on top after that session.
Yeah, three soft dismissals to boot. Hey ho, KP + Colly are a pretty good combination all told, perhaps just because they end up salvaging our innings so often. Big afternoon session.
Surprised by the decision to leave out Clark; what’d he get, 26 wickets at 17 in the last series? Would’ve thrown caution to the wind and picked him and Hilfenhaus instead of Hauritz. That said, Hauritz has spun a couple already, so maybe encouraging signs for England with their two spinners. I still think that’s a mistake, though; we’ve sort of tricked ourselves into playing two by the sheer novelty of having better spinners than Australia. I think Onions was well worth the spot over Monty, who’s had a torrid time of late.
Agreed, Monty seems in a terrible spinner’s rut of “bowl the same ball over and over again, hope for results.” As a sometime spinner myself, the siren call is always “maybe this one will turn and he won’t middle it, I can’t risk bowling the arm ball this time.” Monty doesn’t seem to be getting loop or turn or anything these days.
Not that suprised with the selections. Clark has had a lot of injuries and his career seems to be on a downward curve, and Hilfenhaus is more of a swing bowler. They had to pick Hauritz on a pitch offering some turn, a slow pitch is no place for an all-seam attack.
On paper, there isn’t a lot to choose between the teams, but the Aussies have a much better record of turning good positions into wins.
