5 slick Aussie pacemen coming to Ashes 2009 in England

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by greg

I would be over the moon if Hogg comes to England in 2009 as the main spinner as he clearly isn't good enough as his record at Warwickshire showed.I would be far more worried about facing MacGill if he was to regain his form as at least he has a decent record to fall back on.

Hogg doesn't even average 2 wickets a match in his first class career,imagine how we would be ridiculed by the Aussies if our spinner had such a pathetic record.

Well to be fair to him he was bowling on some pretty dead tracks under a captain who was utterly clueless about how to handle any kind of spinner let alone someone as unorthodox as Hogg. Although being consistantly out bowled by Mark Wagh is not something you want to put on your CV . Still given his batting down at 7 was one of the main reason we ground our way remorselessly to the championship I'll forgive him.

However as Seamer points out Hogg has improved beyond all recognition in the last couple of years particularly when it comes to maintaining control and he seems now capable of picking up wickets when batsmen look to play him defensively. No longer just sitting back and waiting for the batsmen to attempt an attacking shot against the wrong on. He'll never rip through an international side but could do an effective Gilesesque job at 8 until something better comes along.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Seamer

I don't hold any illusions. Australia will still win more than they lose,[...] but they will cop a few more losses than what they have in the past. Particularly against teams with batsmen that will attack them.

Australia are not the side they were is 2005, how can they be? - Warne has proved to be irraplacable, as has McGrath to a lesser exrent.

I have read comments about Lee, but in 2009 unless the England batting tranforms he will be to fast for them - IMO simple as that.

(If) Flintoff - Harmison and jones are fit - then England have the better pace attack, and the lesser batting - same as in 2005 and England won back the Ashes on that occasion.

A lot depends three of Flintoff - Harmison - Jones or Trescothick being fit, and on form, if so then Lee and Tait will be put under pressure in particular if Vaughan regains his form also - but if not Lee and Tait will be to strong for the England top order, + the (Keeper) and any all rounder who England try and replace Flintoff with.

I believe that England have been poor against pace since the 1060,s, and Lee and Tait have the pace to worry England even if they go for some, the only hope England have in 2009 - is if they have bowlers to bowl back at Australia just as hard and fast, with Hoggard swinging the ball.

Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison/Flintoff
Panesar.

This likely England bowling attack IMO will not be strong enough against the attack Australia can put out.

As an afterthough if I was an Australian selector - I would without doubt play the four best seamers, and use occasional bowlers to give them spells.

[Rachael]

Cook and Vaughan have no problems handing "pace": that's their strength. Bell just ignores the speedsters: he likes the loose balls and is superbly compact and light on his feet - he'll be far more worried about Clark. Pietersen is likely to take the speedsters on.. but has the game to cope: he could destroy them.

We don't really know who's favourite to fill the 5-6-7 positions (Shah, Collingwood, Bopara, Ambrose, Foster or whoever) but in terms of coping with speedsters like Lee and Tait... it shouldn't matter until the second new ball is taken.

Bottom line: Clark, Johnson and Hilfenhaus are far more than mere speedsters... and THEY are the guys who should be worrying the England coach.

[acker]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Australia are not the side they were is 2005, how can they be? - Warne has proved to be irreplaceable, as has McGrath to a lesser extent.

I beg to differ

Rather than being a lop sided unit with an over reliance on two players, of which one rolled his ankle stepping on a cricket ball. Leaving us exposed for 3 tests as an extremely lop sided unit with an un healthy over reliance on one player.

The 5 paceman I have nominated Lee, Johnson, Clark, Tait and Hilfenhaus may not be as individually brilliant as McGrath but are in the sum of the whole unit is far greater than the 2005 squad

Which included the very young Tait. And to which Lee has made significent improvement.

The flaccid names Gillespie and Kasprowicz no longer appear on our team sheets. We no longer pick bowlers on their ability to hold up an end and maybe remove some tail enders.

Originally Posted by Ernest

I have read comments about Lee, but in 2009 unless the England batting transforms he will be to fast for them - IMO simple as that.

Johnson is matching him for pace bowling into the wind. And Tait is quicker than both of them. If Lee seems to be fast for them, Tait and Johnson are going to terrify them.

Originally Posted by Ernest

(If) Flintoff - Harmison and jones are fit - then England have the better pace attack, and the lesser batting - same as in 2005 and England won back the Ashes on that occasion.


A lot depends three of Flintoff - Harmison - Jones or Trescothick being fit, and on form, if so then Lee and Tait will be put under pressure in particular if Vaughan regains his form also - but if not Lee and Tait will be to strong for the England top order, + the (Keeper) and any all rounder who England try and replace Flintoff with.

Flintoff 31, Jones, 30, Harmison 30, Hoggard 33, Trecothwick 33, Vaughan 34, Sidebottom 31 and Collingwood 33

Are you stuck in a time-warp up there "Ern"

I know "2005" was a great memory for you, but unfortunately muscles age and people get slower. Which is what we learned in 2005. Great players especially bowlers such as McGrath and Warne can have prolonged careers spanning well into their 30's.

But with toilers such as Kasprowicz and Gillespie, there test use by date is much younger. They should not have went on that tour. Hence Australia identified the problem that we were retaining bowlers for to long who had slipped behind the pecking order of younger bowlers.

Of the above I think there are very big question marks on the viability of Hoggard, Jones, Sidebottom and even Flintoff (as a bowler) being able to with any degree of honesty. Being able on the wrong side of thirty, to sustain the amount of pace bowling pressure necessary to be competitive against Australia.

It is a shame that the England pace attack has failed to maintain the steady improvement that got it to the level of 2005. And now the teams supporters are looking back-wards to the same players 4 years into the future to replicate the same result.

I hope English cricket does not revert back to the "draw is as good as a win" days of Alec Stewart and Mike Atherton.

Unfortunately I also think the Australian batting power has moved forward from that of 2005 also.

Originally Posted by Ernest

I believe that England have been poor against pace since the 1060,s, and Lee and Tait have the pace to worry England even if they go for some, the only hope England have in 2009 - is if they have bowlers to bowl back at Australia just as hard and fast, with Hoggard swinging the ball.

Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Harmison/Flintoff
Panesar.

This likely England bowling attack IMO will not be strong enough against the attack Australia can put out.

I believe the England batters in particular Bell and Pieterson and spinner Monty Panesar pose as Australia's biggest dangers in 2009.

Originally Posted by Ernest

As an afterthought if I was an Australian selector - I would without doubt play the four best seamer's, and use occasional bowlers to give them spells.

I agree although I do see the opportunity for Cameron White to force his way into the team possibly at the expense of a seamer on a spinning track. Probably bowling in combination with Michael Clarke.

I think Australia is about to enter the great void of "life after Warne"
But our bowling will for now remain strong due to our current bumper crop of over exceptional paceman.
We will do what we did prior to Warne rely more on spinners with similar talent levels to Kerry O'Keeffe.

[flanflinger]

Who can I disagree with first...

Ern - you are living in the past mate, we have been through this so often it is painful to type...

1. Rachael is right Vaughan and Cook are more than equipped for fast bowling, and Bell is much more susceptible to good line and length bowling than pace...

Lee will be 33 in 2009, I wonder if he will still be able to draw on raw pace, or whether like many fast bowlers in their mid thirties, he has to find other ways to get wickets. Tait will be still quick, if they can keep him off the trainers bench long enough. Johnson is not in the same bracket, and should be looking to work batsmen out rather than blast them. The other candidates are not "fast" bowlers, so this may not be an issue at all

2. We cannot keep looking at hoping to get Trescothick, Flintoff and Jones fit, as the only solution. Trescothick will not play at the top level again (IMO), and Jones may be the same. I think Flintoff will be back, but he may have to radically change his action for him to bowl without further injuries. This means we need to be thinking of guys like Anderson, Broad and Tremlett in the bowling stakes, and Cook, Bell etc in the batting.

Acker onto you...

Love your comments about England's "ageing" bowlers, but how old are they compared with Clark, Lee, MacGill and Hogg. Johnson and Tait are young - but not that young Johnson is 26 just three years younger than Harmison Sidebottom and Flintoff . Which means he is older than Anderson, Tremlett, Plunkett and Broad....

As for Tait, if he can play more than two Tests in a row, I will be surprised. For me he is a bit like Simon Jones. I can't see Jones playing again, and I can't see Tait playing into his 30's either.

At the moment I am more worried by the batters than the bowlers. If Hayden and Gilchrist are still on the park, Hussey and Jaques continue to impress, with Clarke and Ponting in the side too, the key thing for any team will be how to stop them scoring runs, and allowing a weaker bowling attack to flourish.

I would like to see a side bat first, put on 550+ and see how Lee, Johnson, Clark and MacGill cope when the pressure is on them. In years gone by they have been able to take wickets consistently because of Warne and McGrath. For me it was a real pity that Sri Lanka did not have the bottle to back their batters in the first Test, it might have made a huge difference, but instead they saw Australia pile on the runs, and that allowed their relatively inexperienced attack to take charge.

[darksideofthemoon]

Australia's batting is so strong Lee, Johnson, Clark and McGill didnt even bat in the series against Sri Lanka.

[Milo]

Some Australians still cannot accept that they lost the 2005 Ashes. Before that series, all we heard was that in Gillespie they had the second best pace bowler in the world (he had just performed best in India) and that Kasprowicz was a class act (he was gong to rip us apart because he's just taken 50 odd wickets at 25 over the previous 18 months). Of course, once McGrath got injured they showed they could not handle the pressure of leading the attack. England put 400 on the board and the previously imprerious Aussie batting line up folded under the pressure of a big total.

The series ended the careers of Kasprowicz and Gillespie (except as a batsman in Bangladesh) and now we hear that they were never really that good - in fact they were over the hill. Maybe just maybe, Clark will be over the hill come 2009 (just like Gillespie).

Funny really isn't it!

[Rachael]

In fairness to both Kasprowicz and (more importantly) Gillespie... they both were... and remain... very good bowlers... and in the innings that changed the momentum of the series (on that 1st day at Edgbaston)... neither were as dire as one Brett Lee (recall 17-1-111-1, econ 6.52).

I do find it odd that the bowlers get blamed though: what did for the Aussies was the batting. The Lords performance with the bat was shocking enough (with more wickets given away in one Test than should be witnessed in an entire series) but the Edgbaston and Old Trafford games should have been drawn, and drawn easily - get Boycott and Gavaskar in on either pitch against ANY attack and they would have been immovable for days on end!

There's nothing a side can do about pitches that leave good bowlers with no realistic chance of taking wickets... but in such games, the batsmen must at least ensure that the side does not lose: sadly, about the only batsman who showed some appreciation of what was needed was one Brett Lee - who emerged as one of the players of the series, for me, for the example he set at the crease.

[Milo]

My point was that I have often heard how the injury to McGrath cost Australia the Ashes (which may well have been the case), exposing their real lack of depth, when previous to the series we heard that they would have the best four bowlers on show.

People talked up Gillespie and Kasprowicz (me included) just as we are now beginning to hear that Clark (who may have run out of steam by 2009) and a couple of players who have hardly played any first class games are going to rip England apart.

I don't think many people could correctly predict half the XI who will play the first test for either side in the 2009 Ashes. It would be quite an interesting exercise.

[acker]

Don't get to worried about Macgill

I think he will be extremely lucky to play another test in Australia, with out worrying about playing a test touring with Australia.

His pie chucking exploits against Sri Lanka in Hobart, have probably got him crossed out of every Australian selector's book.

Most likely permanently.