The Ashes 2010/11

[littlebabyjesus]

Broad may not be the best bowler currently but in many ways he's the best prospect. He's got to convert the occasional brilliance with bat and ball into regular brilliance.

He's only shown 'brilliance' with the bat once. And although I would not wish to downplay that innings too much, it was a fortunate innings against a team that lost its way. I am far from convinced that he'll ever be anything other than a useful lower-order hitter.

As for his bowling, he was supposed to be a 'prospect' two years ago. He's now played over 30 tests and his record is underwhelming. It seems nothing short of favouritism that Broad can put in a series of mediocre performances and not be dropped when the likes of Finn are not given such favours. His injury did England a favour in this series – his replacement, Tremlett, performed far better than Broad had been performing.

 

[Santino]

Yeah, I don't trust that Strauss and Flower pair. What have they ever done?

 

[embree]

Broad had been bowling well, without luck and creating pressure which paid off for other bowlers. Bowling's a team effort

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Broad had been doing ok. Tremlett provided a whole new level of penetration.

 

[Streathamite]

Question was the 2005 team better than the 10/11 team? They only won at home and narrowly but by a team containing some of the greatest players of the past 30 years. While the 10/11 team crushed Australia on home turf but against a team that was a shadow of its former self?

the 2005 team were up against a far better aussie team, and probably had more natural talent, but this side will achieve more; more determined and consistent

 

[Idaho]

As for his bowling, he was supposed to be a 'prospect' two years ago. He's now played over 30 tests and his record is underwhelming. It seems nothing short of favouritism that Broad can put in a series of mediocre performances and not be dropped when the likes of Finn are not given such favours. His injury did England a favour in this series – his replacement, Tremlett, performed far better than Broad had been performing.

I believe the practice is to give players a chance until their mid-20s and if they remain average, or just a bit better than average, then they make way for younger prospects who may develop further.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think I'd probably take the batting line-up from this team, the pace attack of that team, plus Swann. That the 2005 team didn't have a quality wicket-taking spinner is the biggest difference between the sides. Tough, though – would you choose Jones or Tremlett, for instance? I'm not sure.

 

[Teaboy]

Personally I think we need 6 or 7 world class seamers. There will always be injuries, so whether Broad is better than Tremlett is a bit of a redendant question. Anyway they've been rotating for a while now so strength is depth is vital.

One of the major problems with post 2005 was that we didnt have anybody coming through to replace the injured or too old. I'm really encouraged that Tremlett and Bresnan both came in to do a great job and we've got Broad, Shazad and Onions waiting in the wings.

The batting and keeping also looks pretty rosy at the moment, in fact in all looks good from here.

 

[Streathamite]

The batting and keeping also looks pretty rosy at the moment, in fact in all looks good from here.

nevertheless, we could do with another top-class opener/No 3, also as an insurance against injuries

 

[Idaho]

I don't think we need one at the moment. I just think we need to be looking and developing young batsmen.

Would be good if Rashid came good, but from all reports it's sounding less likely.

I've always thought that Broad was being groomed for captaincy. Especially with the cameo spouting the official team line for a day on TMS.

 

[DrRingDing]

I think I'd probably take the batting line-up from this team, the pace attack of that team, plus Swann. That the 2005 team didn't have a quality wicket-taking spinner is the biggest difference between the sides. Tough, though – would you choose Jones or Tremlett, for instance? I'm not sure.

Jones could produce more lateral movement. Depends on the track I suppose.

 

[paulhackett]

I'd go for something along the lines of this.. Vaughan, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Bell, Flintoff, Prior, Swann, Tremlett, Anderson, Jones. It doesn't look right though

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tough on Tresco, but yes, hard to squeeze him in. I'd drop Vaughan to 3 and have tresco opening with Cook, I think. Trott's made a mighty good start to his career but I'd still rather have Trescothick.

That's a damn good team

 

[Santino]

My line-up would basically be the current one but with Flintoff at 6 for Bell. Sorry, Bell. And sorry Hoggy.

 

[mattie]

What would happen if we tried the 2005 vs 2009 vintage Oz team, I wonder?

I tell a lie, I don't wonder at all.

 

[mattie]

My line-up would basically be the current one but with Flintoff at 6 for Bell. Sorry, Bell. And sorry Hoggy.

No Vaughan?

That's ruined my next question, I was going to ask who we all reckoned as Captain. Now it's a choice between Strauss, Freddie and KP.

 

[Santino]

I think it's two-times Ashes winning captain Andrew Strauss for me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My line-up would basically be the current one but with Flintoff at 6 for Bell. Sorry, Bell. And sorry Hoggy.

You'd have collingwood and Bresnan/Broad? Odd.

 

[mattie]

I think it's two-times Ashes winning captain Andrew Strauss for me.

I think even Freddie might have done the job on this tour.

 

[Santino]

You'd have collingwood and Bresnan/Broad? Odd.

I would keep the bowling attack together. Bowlers like that hunt in packs (Copyright 2005-10 all cricket writers) and picking and choosing from two squads wouldn't necessarily give you a good attack.

And Colly? Yeah. Better than 2005-era Bell, or 2005-era Vaughan for that matter.

 

[Idaho]

I'd keep the current side, but swap Flintoff for Collingwood.

 

[mattie]

So, no-one would take a batsman who flogged an in-his-pomp McGrath around the Oz grounds? Slightly different test to milking Johnson.

 

[Santino]

So, no-one would take a batsman who flogged an in-his-pomp McGrath around the Oz grounds? Slightly different test to milking Johnson.

He wasn't all that in 2005 though. One big score and not much else. You've got to temper fantasy selection with a little reality about consistency and form.

 

[twentythreedom]

not really, no

we won, by fucking miles. that's the point!

 

[kabbes]

If I were dropping a member of the 2009 team for 2005 Flintoff, it would have to be Colly rather than Bell, much as it pains me to lose Colly.

 

[kabbes]

Pietersen had another mediocre tour, actually, one big score aside. There's a place vulnerable to another 2005 player.

I'd still stick with the 2009 line-up though, Freddy aside.

 

[Teaboy]

Pietersen had another mediocre tour, actually, one big score aside. There's a place vulnerable to another 2005 player.

I'd still stick with the 2009 line-up though, Freddy aside.

His average was 70? One big score aside? It was a double century against australia in australia.

 

[kabbes]

His average was 70? One big score aside? It was a double century against australia in australia.

60, actually. And take out his single good innings (which, no matter how good, was still just one innings) and he averaged just 26.6 for the remaining five innings he played. That's not good.

For comparison, here are the averages for the other top batsman exclusing their highest score:

Cook: 88.5
Trott: 46.2
Bell: 42.8
Strauss: 32.9
Prior: 26.8

It gives you an idea of how consistent they were, rather than it being disguised by a single good performance.

 

[Santino]

It's good (in the context of team development) that KP is just another batsman among batsmen now. A strong, consistent side wins Test series, not star players.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

60, actually. And take out his single good innings (which, no matter how good, was still just one innings) and he averaged just 26.6 for the remaining five innings he played. That's not good.

For comparison, here are the averages for the other top batsman exclusing their highest score:

Cook: 88.5
Trott: 46.2
Bell: 42.8
Strauss: 32.9
Prior: 26.8

It gives you an idea of how consistent they were, rather than it being disguised by a single good performance.

Given that the team has seven frontline batsmen, each of whom gets two gos per match, how important is consistency? TBH if each of the top six makes a double hundred in a five-match series, that's one hell of a start.