Matthew Hayden vs Mike Hussey

[Beny]

Nobody can challange that Hayden does not have the game for this compitition... All he needs to do is get his mental game in order.

[Seamer]

I agree Beny - it is all mental. It might also help if stopped being a smart-ass when fielding (sledging) so less pressure is on him when batting. I still think he will produce one or two crucial knocks before the series is over It must also be said that he is still getting starts, unlike certain English batsmen.

[anthman]

a) would England's decision to field that unchanged line-up have looked like such a great decision if McGrath hadn't stepped on a cricket ball? If Ponting had batted? If Lee had smashed a boundry instead of taking the single that gave Kasper the strike? England would be 2-0 and the series would be over, and you know it.

b) We're not fielding an unchanged line-up at Trent Bridge, and there's no point pretending we are. McGrath is out; Lee may well be out; Bringing in Watson probably involves dropping Katich (who looks in better nick than Hayden anyway). Bring in another in-form batsman at the top of the order will do more to stablise the team performance and give us a better chance of winning than hedging our bets with an all rounder of dubious quality.

b) If now is the WORST time to make a change, then when is the BEST time? when we're 2-1 down so we ARE panicking? 3-1 down when the series is lost?

d) Hayden's form slump doesn't extend back 7 tests like Clarke's (which was expected from such a young player anyway), he's only made 5 fifty's in his last 27 innings and is averaging 30ish.

By his own admission, getting dropped was the best thing that ever happened to Langer.

[John]

Don't you think Lee, Warne and Kaspar showed how to play England's bowling?
It also shows the tail can contribute more they can stay there.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by anthman

a) would England's decision to field that unchanged line-up have looked like such a great decision if McGrath hadn't stepped on a cricket ball? If Ponting had batted? If Lee had smashed a boundry instead of taking the single that gave Kasper the strike? England would be 2-0 and the series would be over, and you know it. .

We will never know, although i suspect that you are right - the Aussies would have won in a canter. But the fact is that England did the right thing choosing an unchanged side. For one, it would not have sent a good message to the English players that have taken them to no2 in the world, Secondly, they would have been repeating the same old mistake from previous tours when they ended up going through 18 odd players in a series due to players that failed once being dropped, thirdly, it would have had a hint of panic to the decision.

Originally Posted by anthman

b) We're not fielding an unchanged line-up at Trent Bridge, and there's no point pretending we are. McGrath is out; Lee may well be out; Bringing in Watson probably involves dropping Katich .

Change due to injury or for team balance is a different matter to dropping a player mid series due to a percieved form slump. If Watson comes in, it will be for team balance reasons as we will need the extra seam option when playing two spinners. Watson, if he plays, will likely replace either Lee, Dizzy or Kaspa - not Kattitch

Originally Posted by anthman

b) If now is the WORST time to make a change, then when is the BEST time? when we're 2-1 down so we ARE panicking? 3-1 down when the series is lost? .

Panic team changes are not the Aussie way. When was the last time the Aussies dropped a player mid-series due to a supposed lack of form. Slater in 1997 maybe, but he was dropped for other reasons apart from form and for a dead rubber. Have to go back to the dark days of the mid-eighties to think of another. Not the way the Aussies operate these days. Would have a hint of panic if they did.

Originally Posted by anthman

d) Hayden's form slump doesn't extend back 7 tests like Clarke's (which was expected from such a young player anyway), he's only made 5 fifty's in his last 27 innings and is averaging 30ish..

Well 30ish average is not good but not bad either. You mentioned Clarke but chose not to mention the Martyn precedent. How long was M.Waugh given to come out of his form slump - ages. And S.Waugh? Remember his long, long, long form slump before that famous century he scored at the SCG vs India? You may well have been there and i bet if you were you would have been yelling "Onya tugger!!" as opposed to muttering "well about time" to yourself
You should keep in mind these precedents antherman, before writing off a player, which it must be said, has a much bigger average than S.Waugh, M.Waugh and D.Martyn.

[anthman]

Actually I've never supported the way the Waugh's were carried. Just cause it's a precedent doesn't mean its a good one. All it does is stunt the development of younger players and put you in the position we're in now where half the squad will simultaneously retire after the World Cup. I didn't mind Marto so much cause I think we owed him about 6 years of test cricket. He also still scored runs during his lean year, he just didn't score centuries.

England had the luxury of making that decision because they have nothing to lose this series, and can afford to think long term because they know they will probably regain the Ashes as soon as Warne and McGarth retire. I don't think that analagy is applicable to Australia.

So what you're saying is that it's ok to promote and demote bowlers because of form, and to suit match conditions and team balance, but you can't do that to your batsmen? That may be "the Aussie way", but it's also completely illogical. If strengthening your batting line up by replacing an out of form batsman, to offset a bowling line up weakened by injury is not about team balance, what is it about?

30ish is bad if the team is structured around you averaging 65, and your middle order plays dumb cricket cause they're used to you having put them in a commanding position by the time they have to come in. They need to lift their game too, but Martyn - and to a lesser extent - Langer aside, we have a team full of attacking batters who are conditiond to try and score quickly. That is also "the Aussie way", and I think there is small chance of their batting style with miracalously change mid-series even though it is clearly not handling the English attack well. We've consistantly proved that by failing to chase small targets where the smallest amount of caution would have guarnteed the win. I remember waiting for the batting to "click" in India in 2001, it never did.

And it's not panicking. It's not like Hayden was in fantastic nick and played a couple of bad Ashes tests, he's been out of form for 18 months. On the basis of form he should never have been picked at all. All you're saying is that it's better for Australia to risk losig the Ashes than to admit they made a simple selection error by bringing in a already struggling batsman against a world class pace attack. If you don't take the necessary steps to correct that error at a juncture in the series where changing something can still help the team, you're just digging yourself a deeper hole. It's sort of like winning the toss and saying "Well we just lost our best bowler to injury, and this pitch looks like a bit of a road, but hell lets have a bowl anyway".

I can't agree with that. I don't see any point in reacting after the Ashes are lost when we can do something now. If we lose this series the first question that will be asked is why did we take a chronically out of form batsman in?

[Trescothick]

Originally Posted by Seamer

We will never know, although i suspect that you are right - the Aussies would have won in a canter.

Who knows, if we'd won the toss in Lords we would have instead been 2-0 up! Or lets go through all history books and debate what should have happened... Thats more aimed at the original poster as he seemed to be pouring the excuses in as we English fans do each time we lose!

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Trescothick

Who knows, if we'd won the toss in Lords we would have instead been 2-0 up! Or lets go through all history books and debate what should have happened... Thats more aimed at the original poster as he seemed to be pouring the excuses in as we English fans do each time we lose!

Come now Tresco, despite all the above factors, the English still only just won. Deep down, you know the truth, though i hardly expect you to admit it. Either way, the English won and that is a good thing as the series would otherwise be dead. Despite injuries ect, the Aussies will hit back and win 3 or 4-1 - to much class, but for the sake of the series, it was important England won that one. I am genuinely happy for the long suffering English fans.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by anthman

I can't agree with that. I don't see any point in reacting after the Ashes are lost when we can do something now. If we lose this series the first question that will be asked is why did we take a chronically out of form batsman in?

I take your point to a degree. I have been complaining of Gillespie continued inclusion so i am (sort of) contridicting myself by saying not changing the batting.
The point that i am trying to make is changes due to a percieved lack of form are unnecesary against England this series. They have a resonable bowling attack, but a pretty average batting lineup, and at the end of the day the Aussies will win this series pretty easily. England are improving but are no match for the Aussies yet - despit the loss of Lee and McGrath
Once we have won the series, i do agree we should start to rebuild in time for the return series in 18 months time. We have a pretty easy run up until then and will be the perfect time to inject youth while still winning series and keeping the no1 ranking.
After this series, Hayden and Gillespie should be the first to go. I would also like to see Gilchrist replaced at well. The only current players i would like to still be there in 18 months time are Ponting, Clarke, Lee, Warne and McGrath. The rest should be slowly phased out and replace with young talent. If we bite the bullet and do it, we should be well set to stay on top for the next 5-7 years
All in all, i agree with your overall sentiments. But we should start the renewal process after we win the series. Win the next two, and we can perhaps give a couple of the younger guys (Hussey, Tait) a go for the dead rubber.

[anthman]

Ok I can more or less agree on that. Would your position change if we were to lose at Old Trafford?