Vaughan stands down as England captain!

[Uncle Buck]

Quite depressing reading, basically in your anaylsis, we have perhaps 12-18 players of "test standard" but in reality only half of these are really fit and definately good enough to be there.

Would question whether it is as high as 18. We won the Ashes by using 12 players. However we players started getting injured post 2005, (Jones, Vaughan, Flintoff etc), the replacements as a rule did not look up to the part.

 

[London Calling]

Would question whether it is as high as 18. We won the Ashes by using 12 players. However we players started getting injured post 2005, (Jones, Vaughan, Flintoff etc), the replacements as a rule did not look up to the part.

Ultimately this is our problem. The other tests sides that are clearly better than us, have the depth of players, especially to compete as a team and over a series.

In some respects in 2005 we did a Greece, performed to our best, using tactics that utilised our strenghths, even then we nearly threw it away on a number of occasions.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Ultimately this is our problem. The other tests sides that are clearly better than us, have the depth of players, especially to compete as a team and over a series.

In some respects in 2005 we did a Greece, performed to our best, using tactics that utilised our strenghths, even then we nearly threw it away on a number of occasions.

Not sure that is true at all.

Australia had a golden generation of players. The team that comes over next year is likely to be the weakest Aussie side in a while, they have lost Warne, McGrath, Langer, Gilchrist and McGill. The two bowlers alone are nearly impossible to replace.

I am not sure this South Africa side is all that great. Yes they have beaten us, but if we had gone in with 5 bowlers, we would have been more competitive. Their fast bowlers looked good in spells, they have nothing in the spin department and wicket keeper wise, they are going to suffer soon, as Boucher cannot go on forever. Also the quota system does not help them, nor does the fact that players come over here to play as Kolpaks, they have lost Rudolph due to this.

Sri Lanka are strong at home, weak away. Windies are still not a force, New Zealand have been hit by a number of retirements, Pakistan, whilst producing players, still seem to have issue. India are starting to suffer as players are pulling out of international stuff due to IPL money.

If England actually picked their strongest 11, which has to have 5 bowlers in it, that 11 stayed fit and the selectors stopped doing stupid things, then they would be more than competitive. However to do this, we need a Fletcheresq character as coach, which gave the selection some direction and Moores is not that man.

 

[London Calling]

Not sure that is true at all.

Australia had a golden generation of players. The team that comes over next year is likely to be the weakest Aussie side in a while, they have lost Warne, McGrath, Langer, Gilchrist and McGill. The two bowlers alone are nearly impossible to replace.

I am not sure this South Africa side is all that great. Yes they have beaten us, but if we had gone in with 5 bowlers, we would have been more competitive. Their fast bowlers looked good in spells, they have nothing in the spin department and wicket keeper wise, they are going to suffer soon, as Boucher cannot go on forever. Also the quota system does not help them, nor does the fact that players come over here to play as Kolpaks, they have lost Rudolph due to this.

Sri Lanka are strong at home, weak away. Windies are still not a force, New Zealand have been hit by a number of retirements, Pakistan, whilst producing players, still seem to have issue. India are starting to suffer as players are pulling out of international stuff due to IPL money.

If England actually picked their strongest 11, which has to have 5 bowlers in it, that 11 stayed fit and the selectors stopped doing stupid things, then they would be more than competitive. However to do this, we need a Fletcheresq character as coach, which gave the selection some direction and Moores is not that man.

So you reckon if we picked the UB best 11 the ashes next year would be tight!

 

[Uncle Buck]

So you reckon if we picked the UB best 11 the ashes next year would be tight!

I think they need to bring in the fast bowlers, certainly 3 of the Ashes 4. As I said, it will be the weakest Australian side to come over here since the 1980’s, but we seem incapable of picking our strongest 11 (when all fit). Oh and I would try and get Moody in as coach (as should have been done when Fletcher went).

The problem is, with the current selectors, I cannot predict who will be playing in India (if all are fit), let alone in 11 months time.

 

[London Calling]

I think they need to bring in the fast bowlers, certainly 3 of the Ashes 4. As I said, it will be the weakest Australian side to come over here since the 1980’s, but we seem incapable of picking our strongest 11 (when all fit). Oh and I would try and get Moody in as coach (as should have been done when Fletcher went).

The problem is, with the current selectors, I cannot predict who will be playing in India (if all are fit), let alone in 11 months time.

so your getting your excuses in early

 

[Uncle Buck]

so your getting your excuses in early

Not really.

I do not think the England side are actually that bad, the problem is that England have not picked their best side this summer. They also seem incapable of picking a balanced side. However the successful period from 2003 until the Ashes win in 2005 was essentially built around a settled side. Changes in the batting were fairly rare, Stewart and Hussain retired, Key never really settled, Thorpe, was probably incorrectly edged out, although it should never have been between Thorpe and Pietersen in 2005, it should have been Thorpe or Bell and Butcher was the other batsman that was around that time and he lost his place to Key, who Bell then replaced.

Again the bowling was always fairly settled, especially from 2004 onwards. In South Africa Anderson did replace Jones for one test, but Jones was brought back, but other than that it tended to be the 4 quickies plus the Wheelie Bin.

Look at the last 18 months and bowling wise at various times we have played Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Sidebottom, Anderson, Saj, Plunkett, Broad, Tremlett, Pattinson (sp), Giles and Monty. From the Windies series in 2004 until the Ashes the fast bowlers used were generally four from Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Jones and Anderson.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Not sure that is true at all.

Australia had a golden generation of players. The team that comes over next year is likely to be the weakest Aussie side in a while, they have lost Warne, McGrath, Langer, Gilchrist and McGill. The two bowlers alone are nearly impossible to replace.

I am not sure this South Africa side is all that great. Yes they have beaten us, but if we had gone in with 5 bowlers, we would have been more competitive. Their fast bowlers looked good in spells, they have nothing in the spin department and wicket keeper wise, they are going to suffer soon, as Boucher cannot go on forever. Also the quota system does not help them, nor does the fact that players come over here to play as Kolpaks, they have lost Rudolph due to this.

Sri Lanka are strong at home, weak away. Windies are still not a force, New Zealand have been hit by a number of retirements, Pakistan, whilst producing players, still seem to have issue. India are starting to suffer as players are pulling out of international stuff due to IPL money.

If England actually picked their strongest 11, which has to have 5 bowlers in it, that 11 stayed fit and the selectors stopped doing stupid things, then they would be more than competitive. However to do this, we need a Fletcheresq character as coach, which gave the selection some direction and Moores is not that man.

Having been in SA for a while I have been keeping half an eye on the SA cricket scene.

This SA side is a good side, and I dont think there is too much shame in losing to them, but they are in a similar position to England in that they do not have strength in depth, particularly bowlers. Steyn is obviously their prime attacking bowler and Morkel is coming on well, but Ntini looks a bit passed it to me, Kallis does not want to bowl much and Nel and Mondeki aint good enough imo. What is impressive about SA in this series is that all of their top 6 have scored centuries except their "best" player - Kallis, and if one of them gets injured they can call on Duminy who is pretty good as well.

If they have their best 11 playing, it will be interesting to see how they get on against the Aussies later in the year.

The quota system is an odd one though - they are playing Paul Harris, why Im not sure, when they have a good prospect in Tshabalala, who is obviously from the correct background and can actually spin the ball!! Have not worked that one out yet.

As for England, has Flintoff coming back unwittingly thrown a spanner in the works?? I would like them to pick Broad again for the 4th test - he aint going to learn how to bowl against the best batsmen if he does not play against them, but I dont see how Colly, Bopara, Flintoff and Broad can all play in the same side? Is Colly going to be in the Ashes team - if not drop him now. I can only see Harmison coming back if he is going to tour - if he isnt then whats the point? Can we have Flintoff batting at 6 without Matt Prior? Will Matt Prior be able to catch the ball occasionally?? There just seem to be lots of issues arising suddenly after what has been a settled period for the English team all because Flintoff is back (which is of course a good thing).

 

[London Calling]

Not really.

I do not think the England side are actually that bad, the problem is that England have not picked their best side this summer. They also seem incapable of picking a balanced side. However the successful period from 2003 until the Ashes win in 2005 was essentially built around a settled side. Changes in the batting were fairly rare, Stewart and Hussain retired, Key never really settled, Thorpe, was probably incorrectly edged out, although it should never have been between Thorpe and Pietersen in 2005, it should have been Thorpe or Bell and Butcher was the other batsman that was around that time and he lost his place to Key, who Bell then replaced.

Again the bowling was always fairly settled, especially from 2004 onwards. In South Africa Anderson did replace Jones for one test, but Jones was brought back, but other than that it tended to be the 4 quickies plus the Wheelie Bin.

Look at the last 18 months and bowling wise at various times we have played Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Sidebottom, Anderson, Saj, Plunkett, Broad, Tremlett, Pattinson (sp), Giles and Monty. From the Windies series in 2004 until the Ashes the fast bowlers used were generally four from Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Jones and Anderson.

Good points hopefully see u at a game,

 

[Storer68]

Aren't you Australian? Did you see the Ashes 2005? About 20 minutes in Harmison scarred Ponting and not one Englishmen went to see how he was. That was Vaughan's instruction and Ponting complained about it vehemently arguing that this was cricket not war. That series was unflinchingly agressive and just a continuation of Vaughan's approach in SA (where he made a real enemy out of Smith) and WI previously. Vaughan was a VERY tough captain.

Which of course rebounded on us so spectulalry when we tried to defend the Ashes.

Ponting merely fought fire with fire and the result was Aussie Annihalation.......