Australian Batting vs English Batting

[Rachael]

In another thread (here) a poll revealed how most of us think England and Australia match up "player for player". That poll had limitations though.. and in two seperate polls I'd like to see how the English and Australia attacks square up as bowling units and how the England and Australian batting line ups measure up as units.

This thread is for the batting.

For Australia: Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Lehman, Clarke, Gilchrist, WArne, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, McGrath.

For England: Trescothick, Strauss, Butcher, Vaughan, Thorpe, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Hoggard, Jones / Anderson, Harmison.

The question is simple: which batting line up brings the most to the party.. and by how much?

[Milo]

Gilchrist himself is almost worth the entire England tail (7-11). They will struggle to get runs against a full stength Aussie bowling line up. The batting, slightly weaker than what it was is still head and shoulders above England's. There is even a case to say that Engalnd's batting is no better than the days when we could put out a to 6 of

Atherton, Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart.

They were soundly hammered by every player the Aussies bought over (including Reiffel and Hughes). Strauss and Trescothick will do very well to see off the new ball on more than a couple of occasions in the entire series. I cannot believe how anyone thinks England stand a chance next year.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Milo

Gilchrist himself is almost worth the entire England tail (7-11). They will struggle to get runs against a full stength Aussie bowling line up. The batting, slightly weaker than what it was is still head and shoulders above England's. There is even a case to say that Engalnd's batting is no better than the days when we could put out a to 6 of Atherton, Trescothick, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Stewart.

I introduced a scale in another thread:

1 - Not genuine Test class - perhaps not really applicable here
2 - Journeymen - the likes of Knight / Saggers / Croft
3 - Heavyweight - in the league of Chanderpaul / Kallis (bowling) / Vettori (bowling)
4 - Seriously Impressive - moving into the level of Kirsten / Vaas / Kumble
5 - Outstanding - up there with Lara / Marshall / Warne

I stand by my verdicts on the batting:

Hayden (4-5) vs Tresco (3 on a good day)
Langer (3-4 batting) vs Strauss (too early to tell, but maybe 3-4)
Ponting (4-5 batting) vs Butcher (3+)
Martyn (4) vs Vaughan (4)
Lehman (4) vs Thorpe (4)
Clarke (too soon to say, but 4+) vs Flintoff (ditto, but maybe 3)
Gilchrist (4-5 batting) vs Jones (too soon to say but at best 2 batting)

All of which is my way of saying that on the batting side England remain basically at least one top / middle order man down on the Aussies: put Bell in at 6 against Clarke, put Flintoff in at 7 against Gilchrist and we'd STILL be down on the Aussies on several counts (like Hayden vs Tresco)... but at least any imbalance would be evened up slightly by having Jones come in at 8.

If we can't HAVE an extra batsman then we're just going to have to accept that our batting doesn't match up.

ps. I'm not sure any of the remaining players really count as Test class batsmen.. but Warne, Giles and Hoggard can certainly "doa job" and the others (on both sides) are better than many tail-enders we've seen through time. I'm not sure either tail can claim (on the evidence to date) to be stronger than the other.

[Maranello]

Agree Milo. Man for man, the Aussies are streets ahead.

If we did a theoretical Eng-Aus team, the only one of the five English specialist batsmen who would be even considered for a place in the Aussie line-up is Thorpe - he could probably fight for a place in the Australian team with Lehmann and Clarke. The only other possible is Vaughan instead of Langer, but any selector would be mad to break-up the most successful opening partnership for since Greenidge & Haynes.

On the other hand, every one of the Aussie top six could play in the England team. In fact, Katich, who is not even good enough to make the Aussie top-six, would walk into the England set-up.

Case closed really!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. I'm not sure any of the remaining players really count as Test class batsmen.. but Warne, Giles and Hoggard can certainly "doa job" and the others (on both sides) are better than many tail-enders we've seen through time. I'm not sure either tail can claim (on the evidence to date) to be stronger than the other.

But the Australian tail bats with Gilchrist, who has a Test average of 50+ and genuine class. The English tail has to rely on Jones at no.7, who is not quite the same thing. Another argument for moving Flintoff to no.7 and including another batsman.

[vosser]

Perspective can be brought to this poll as well by looking at Australia's batting second string, the likes of Simon Katich, Michael Di Venuto, Michael Bevan, Matthew Elliott, Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Jim Maher, Andrew Symonds, Greg Blewitt, Phil Jaques, Brad Haddin (who would also walk into the Eng team as a keeper/bat) and Stuart Law. Somehow a top six of Trescothick, Strauss, Butcher, Vaughan, Thorpe and Flintoff still doesn't look strong. Possibly only Thorpe, Vaughan and Flintoff standing a fightiong chance in amongst this lot.

And there is still Cameron White, captaining his state side at the age of 20, a tall leg break bowler and a solid middle order bat.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by vosser

Somehow a top six of Trescothick, Strauss, Butcher, Vaughan, Thorpe and Flintoff still doesn't look strong. Possibly only Thorpe, Vaughan and Flintoff standing a fightiong chance in amongst this lot.

It does, I think compared to the Aussie second string, Vaughan and Co come out on top - but its not the Aussie second string they will be facing in the Ashes!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

It does, I think compared to the Aussie second string, Vaughan and Co come out on top - but its not the Aussie second string they will be facing in the Ashes!

Interesting line of thinking, that: truth is that whilst England's 1st XI would compete (on the batting front) with the Aussie 2nd XI... and might even (if only by virtue of experience) have a slight edge... there might not be much in it.

I'd put a different spin on this line of thinking though: England have already started moving ONTO their next generation of batsmen.. and are actually.. for the first time in a generation or two.. finding new folk coming through for themselves.

Consider a team of players who are new to Test cricket this summer, just starting to look the part in test cricket this summer or emerging on the fringes for selection this winter:

1. Strauss
2. Key
3. Pietersen
4. Bell
5. Collingwood
6. Flintoff
7. Jones

Put that up against the equivalent Aussie crowd and whilst I suspect the Aussies would look the stronger outfit (recalling that Katich and Clarke would be included).. they wouldn't be streets ahead.

Ps. what would the Aussie line up read? Something like

3. Matthew Elliott
4. Simon Katich
5. Michael Clarke,
6. Andrew Symonds
7. Brad Haddin

With 2 from Brad Hodge, David Hussey, Jim Maher, Greg Blewitt, Phil Jaques and Michael Di Venuto.

That's a pretty awesome line up, really: Katich looks capable of rivalling Thorpe for class, Clarke looks to have the world at his feet, even more so than does Bell, Symonds looks like another batting Flintoff, Haddin is possibly the second best wicket-keeper batsman in the game - that's tough opposition.

[The Great DonTalon]

I'll be brief here and say that both teams have very sexy looking batting lineups.

Australia's is the more run sauvy of the two but England's has a look of tough consistency especially if all goes well with the lower order which should do quite well if that guy you hate so much ( one Flintoff ) does well along with Giles and the Keeper.

[Zainub]

I can't think of any team, England or any one else who can manage on paper (in theory every thing is possible) but in principal Australia have a batting line up that is {1} the best in the world, by far {2} very, very far ahead of their nearest rivals, who they are is debateable, but no team can post a top 7 (consider that Katich was dropped) in which all seven are arguably world class players that could walk into any other side right now.

In my opinion, England's strength in the recent past has been their bowling - a Steve Harmison on fire, a Mathew Hoggard that thinks, a Giles with confidence, plus a Flintoff that always kept chipping in - the affect was such that in the Carribean even when some of the top order was out-of-form England won 3 test matches comfortably. Hoggard Harmison Giles and Flintoff have set up test matches for England all summer last season - it will be a test of their skills against the Aussies but it will still be the deciding factor as far as the final result of the Ashes in concered IMHO. Bowlers as the cliche goes win you test matches.