Ponting quaking in his boots

[Goatman]

As I recall, the consensus was that - one or two stirling efforts of the "plucky" variety aside - the only one who should have shown up was Vaughan, as the rest were totally out of thier depth........

Bowler wise, I remember Langer being interviewed and saying we shoudl all watch out for Harmison, because that was the first time my brother, Pilsbury, intoned that famous phrase "What? That useless lanky geordie git? You're kidding?".

Jones looked good for his 4 overs. And I think Caddick came back at the end of the series, having been battered embarrasingly all along, to win us the dead rubber with a 7-for. Predictably, in the second innings. I think it says it all that White was the most steadfast performer on that tour.........

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

. You guys are assuming that your attack will get better.

. You discount that at 36 McGrath may still be a good bowler.He has a low impact action and is in good condition after missing almost a year.

No Beny we know just how good our bowlers are, Jones will be fine again after a rest.We have Flintoff and Harmison as fit as any bowlers in the world, and don't be fooled when people tell you Flintoff is not fit.
A rested and fit Jones is as good as most bowlers in the world.
Think of an English bowler by the name of Gough Beny, when you talk about McGrath, he can't, and wont go on for ever.

Originally Posted by Beny

But lets assume for a second that england have an awsome bowling line up. You still have to beat our batsmen. And your batting line up is not even close to the Aus Line up.

Our batting will only be facing your ageing and ordinary bowlers, while yours I am afraid will be shot down by the likes of Harmison and Flintoff, and in some English conditions, Hoggard will be a threat.

Originally Posted by Beny

The team we take to england in 2005 may not be as good as it has been. That dosent mean that it wont still be formidable. We may have some younger inexperianced players but we will still have plenty of peaked proformers. You guys havent beaten us in a series for decades

Yea by the time 2005 comes I see your point, you could well be relying on players such as Tino Best, and Edwards, to back your "peaked" players up.

I would not lose heart if I where you Beny, Australia's time will come again.Oh we havent beaten you for decades, well it was 1981, and we had 2 players Willies and Botham, Botham in particular wiped the floor with Australia.

I can think of a couple of players who may just do the same.

[Rachael]

The first thing to say is that it was all played on grounds that were typically too batsmen friendly for words: the Aussies were certainly not so sure of themselves as to prepare wickets that might lead to a contest. The first Test set the tone: Hussain saw so little in the pitch that he took a gamble on a few wispy clouds that lasted all of the first hour of play... and then had to just sit back and hope.

That Test saw 1200 runs in 4 days. As I recall, things didn't improve thereafter.

Take a look at the day 1 cricinfo bulletin from the 1st Test: "Andrew Caddick and Matthew Hoggard had the Australian openers jumping around in the first couple of overs, especially Hoggard who made Langer uncomfortable when swinging the ball away from the right hander"... and Jones was doing OK as well.. until, of course, our 3rd choice 3rd seamer (replacing Gough and Harmison who were both out injured) buggered his knee and left us up a creek without a paddle.

Some respectable batting from the entire top order enabled us to post what on any half decent pitch would have been a very respectable total (325)... and we were basically on course for a perfectly decent start to the series until one madcap session on the fourth day saw us give away a stack of wickets for bugger all runs for no very obvious reason other than lack of stomach for a fight.

Set the tone really: Aussie tails up, our heads bowed.. and we hadn't really done much wrong. Sadly.. as with the solid performances in the first two Tests in Sri Lanka this winter.. folk only remember the negative bits.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The first thing to say is that it was all played on grounds that were typically too batsmen friendly for words: the Aussies were certainly not so sure of themselves as to prepare wickets that might lead to a contest.

Yes for once they where not sure of what to make of the England team, and the new crop of bow;ers

Originally Posted by Rachael

Set the tone really: Aussie tails up, our heads bowed.. and we hadn't really done much wrong. Sadly.. as with the solid performances in the first two Tests in Sri Lanka this winter.. folk only remember the negative bits.

Yes out heads were bowed because once again we had been outplayed, but this time at least we had a reason,yes we batted good at times, then captitulated, thier was only negative things to to remember from that tour, it was a disaster from the minute Simon Jones was injured.

As for Shri Lanka, there well have been some possatives, come out of it, but the fact remains we should have done better than that.
For years we have been getting good individual results from players, but the fact remains England as a team where terrible.

[tbenson]

Originally Posted by Beny

The team we take to england in 2005 may not be as good as it has been. That dosent mean that it wont still be formidable. We may have some younger inexperianced players but we will still have plenty of peaked proformers. You guys havent beaten us in a series for decades, long before the players we see today emerged. McGrath Gillespie and warne may be gone!! or INjured!! but there are plenty of talented people ready to take their place.

For information, McGrath is 34, not 36.

The Team you bring in 2005 may not as good as it has been? Is this an admission that Australia are on the decline? You seem to discount the fact that England currently have one of the best Test sides they've ever had in the history of their game in terms of recent results. You seem to dwell on past history. You guys havent beaten us in a series for decades What relevance does that statement have in respect of Australia and England playing a series in 2005? Because England have not beaten Australia in a Test Series for decades means they won't do it in 2005?

No one would disagree that Australia are currently the best Test Side in the world, No one would disagree that Australia continue to dominate world Test Cricket. But Australia are aging, all their current players bar one or two are 30 or over, and have seen their best years. Many are approaching the end of their playing days. Gilchrist is 34, Elliot is 34, Harvey is 32, Hayden is 33, Hogg is 33, Kasprowicz is 32, Langer is 34, Lehmann is 34, McGill is 33, Martyn is 33, Warne is 35, even Brad Williams is 30! Many of these players will be retired in 3 or 4 years.

How are they going to deal with a young, eager, aggressive England side who have won 10 out of their last 11 Test Matches, ranked No. 2 in the ICC Test rankings, have in Flintoff the best all-rounder in the world and in Harmison the best pace bowler in the world? This England side will be really fired up for the Ashes series, this is the best England side Australia have ever seen in recent years and they're going to be playing an Australian side on a decline, on the way down with many players approaching retirement.

How much do Australia want to win? How much do England want to win?

You can talk about how England haven't beaten Australia in decades, Australia have never recently played an England side this good, who don't know a lot about losing, and have a lot to prove to the world. Write them off at your peril.

T

[Goatman]

All good points, T son of Ben.

As I said, before if AUS go in expecting to roll Crusher Vaughans men over easily, or expecting them to fold they will probably get beaten. Unfortunately, AUS do not have much of a track record of complacency:- they tend to apply themselves close to fully even against minnows. I expect them to win the series, but look forward to ENG competing and making them work harder than they have had to work in some time.......

[Rachael]

It strikes me that we face two possible scenarios for the Ashes contest of next summer:

{i} We prepare good batting strips on which Hayden, Gilchrist and their buddies can bat us out of the game in just 3-4 sessions... and hope that we ride our luck and match them at their own game with our (to my mind seriously inferior) would-be Aussies (basically Vaughan and Vaughan alone in that class.. Butcher or Key in 2-3 games out of 10... Tresco a little and often.. and god only knows how many cameos from Freddie and Jones).

{ii} We prepare tracks as challenging as those the Sri Lankan groundsmen prepared for the recent Aussie tour to the land of Murali... and back our grafters (notably Thorpe and Butcher consistently, Tresco if he puts his mind to it, Vaughan if he stops believing his own press, Strauss if he really is the new Thorpe, and Giles and Hoggard lower down the order).

I'm still fairly resigned to the fact that if we take option 1 we will get absolutely stuffed: that's playing to the Aussies strengths.. and to be honest.. creates a contest in which we would have no answer to the pressure exerted through the sheer class of McGrath and Warne.

If we take option 2? I think we should be there or thereabouts. Such matches would become much more of a lottery.. with a cameo from Gilchrist or Flintoff as likely to turn things as a marathon effort from Ponting or Thorpe... but I reckon Harmison, Hoggard, Giles, Anderson and Flintoff can compare more favourably with the ball in a scenario 2 type series than in a scenario 1 type series.

Trouble is.. the ECB will be so afraid of lost revenue from matches ending in 3-4 days that they may sacrifice our best chance of actually competing withour betters.

[Goatman]

I reckon we should completely baffle them by playing 2 tests on coconut matting and one on a potato field. A real, genuine potato field. With potatoes growing in it. With a freshly ploughed square. We could play the other two on a flimsy platform floating on the North Sea. That'd confound the buggers! Not much good walloping a six if you have to then turn round and chuck your guts up before retiring seasick!

More seriously, we certainly shouldn't prepare tracks that are too flat, or that are a lottery. That would do no-one any good, and would be no kind of spectacle. We do need to ensure that the pitch is good and fast and nice and bouncy, as the one chance we do have of winning is to gamble on Harmison, Fred and Jones the Knee being abel to carry the day against the aging but still highly able McGrath, my own personal favourite Gillespie and whichever second rater they select to back them up. So AUS should be expecting to see plenty of green when they go out to bat. Its likely that the pitches will not deteriorate too fast, as it is in everyones interest for the test to go for 5 days but I doubt they will be as solid as the ones they put up for WI. I remember Styris complaining of the "sub-standard" pitches they were expected to play in in several of the tests, though those tests did tend to go the distance so they coulnd't have been that bad. I would expect something like that. INdeed, the ideal would be the pitches that were prepared for us in the WI, but I doubt they can simulate those conditions in the Birmingham area.

[Goatman]

This is all completely premature of course. Before the big show down, ENG have to come through the SA series and the travails of ZIM. AUS, apparently, travel to IND and then play hosts to NZ, PAK and WI!

Lots of cricket to come yet. We'll know a lot more what to expect in 6 months or so time.....

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sadly.. as with the solid performances in the first two Tests in Sri Lanka this winter.. folk only remember the negative bits.

With all due respect, fraternity and, of course, affection Rach - those positives were all of the "Plucky Paula" variety. Yes, yes all very brave and all that but the bottom line is that they diddn't really compete, and its silly to pretned otherwise. That team wasn't good enough, diddn't look good enough and from the first session it was clear that they would never get into the series. There were some positives, but they were very limited. Too limited to dwell on when there was so many negatives.

The SL series was similar:- ENG A did do well to draw those two tests, but for Gods sake they were draws! They never looked remotely like winning any of the tests. The only postive we can take from that series, in reality, was the fact that it did reasonbaly well considering it wasn't our first choice team.