Leave Out The Best-add 2 To The Rest..>

[Ernest]

We have had a lot of talk about Flintoff-Harmison for England.
Well I think Warne and McGrath have been talked a lot about for Australia, and quite right as well.
But there are 18 more players.
So lets pretend the big four are not available, and we have to pick 2 players for England, and 2 players for Australia, who would they be?.
Would this make it easier for the doubters to believe England would have a better chance of winning the Ashes series, even though England have to omit Flintoff and Harmison.

Who would replace Flintoff and Harmison to give England a real chance, and who would Australia pick, have they got depth to their squad?.

[Beny]

Warne would be replaced by McGill and McGrath would likely be replaced by either Lee or Bracken.

It'd be closer, but we'd still win eaisily.

[Leafy Seadragon]

I think it would certainly increase England's chances considerably. Would it make a difference to the series outcome? I'm not sure that I can see the English consistently bowling out the Aussies without Harmison and/or another having a very good series. Similarly, without McGrath, the Aussies would need either Lee or Tait to find test form big time. Assuming that their replacements had moderate series, I could see it finishing 2-1 or 2-0 Oz, with one/two more draw(s). I think that the Oz backup attack (Gillespie/ Kaspa/ MacGill/Lee) is probably better and certainly more experienced than England's (Hoggard/ Jones/ Giles/ Anderson - unsure?) although question marks hang over both sides. I think that the Oz batsmen stack up better than their English counterparts, but if the backup bowlers weren't at the top of their game, the English bats are certainly good enough to take advantage.

[Ernest]

Beny/LSD,
I think it would be difficult fir England without Flintoff and Harmison, but I think Warne can be replced with McGill,but I doubt Australia could replace McGrath just like that, it would be an ifun, ifun LEE bowled accurate, close call, if not, still close call, because it would depend on Anderson, who has had ab accurate start to the season, (when I looked), but who would replace Flintoff.
To close to call.

[Beny]

How is it too close to call?

We get arguably the second best leggie in the world and one of the fastest bowlers in the world, who is possibly in some of the best form of his life at the momment, sending down 160km/h balls right where they need to be.

And you get a guy who has hardly impressed at the top level. As for Flintoff, Pieterson would be my guess. You'd be missing out on perhaps you're most important bowler behind a fit Harmison, but at least the batting would be ok.

[Trescothick]

Well i would call up Bell and Collingwood. With Pietersen already in the team it would be a very exciting game although i know for a fact i want Harmison and Flintoff in the team so lets hope this doesn't happen!!

[Beny]

Two batsmen to replace an all-rounder and a bowler?

[Paoli]

Australia comfortably.

MacGill can replace Warne. In the year that Warne had off for his drug ban, MacGill took sixty wickets and was the best performed bowler in the world behind Ntini. Lee can replace McGrath. Well not replace literally, but is a good enough inclusion. Who do England have capable of taking Harmison's spot??? Jim Anderson. Okay, Hoggard, Jim Anderson, Jones, Giles and I'd pull a real cat out of the bag and choose Craig White to take Flintoff's spot.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

Australia comfortably.

MacGill can replace Warne. In the year that Warne had off for his drug ban, MacGill took sixty wickets and was the best performed bowler in the world behind Ntini. Lee can replace McGrath. Well not replace literally, but is a good enough inclusion. Who do England have capable of taking Harmison's spot??? Jim Anderson. Okay, Hoggard, Jim Anderson, Jones, Giles and I'd pull a real cat out of the bag and choose Craig White to take Flintoff's spot.

Anyone else see much of MacGill over here last year?? He may take a few wickets but he won't give that control Warnie gives the Aussies in the field. Warne and McGrath have such amazing control it allows the other bowlers who are more profligate to succeed. Without them the English batting would enjoy themselves so much more.

I won't comment on the England bowling without their best two!!

[Milo]

I voted for the top one (as I believe England would have a better chance of winning) but the second option also applies. Australia would still win the series.