Ashes Squad Discussion (CLOSED)

[Arbuckle]

How is Hughes an under-performer, yet Watson is still in your side?

Also I don't think Kurtis Patterson is a test standard bowler yet.

I think Watson is going through a bad trot; I doubt Hughes will ever make it. Given the choice between the two of them at #3, I'd take Watson every time. As well as which, as I said, I'm assuming Watson will bowl.

As for Pattinson/Patterson, I've got an auto correct tool on here - and, though I changed spelling of a few other words, didn't notice that until now! But thanks.

 

[Caesar]

Guys, relax. It's just cricket, no need to get heated.

 

[Caesar]

I think Watson is going through a bad trot; I doubt Hughes will ever make it. Given the choice between the two of them at #3, I'd take Watson every time.

Watson's been going through a bad trot for almost two and a half years. At a certain point you've got to ask when a run of poor form starts to be regarded as a player's new level of ability.

Hughes has been pretty indifferent, but since he came back into the side at the beginning of the summer he's comprehensively outperformed Watson. Which is really depressing.

 

[Cursed Cat]

Faulkner's in the unfortunate position of being the type of player our side doesn't really need right now. Collectively our tail bats pretty long, so there is no pressing need for an allrounder at 8. It means he's got to earn his way into the side on the basis of his bowling, and he's not really there yet.

Right now all we need from an allrounder is someone who can bat in the middle order, bowl 15-30 overs without getting slogged all over the place, and maybe pick up a wicket or two. It's pretty unambitious but if they can do that then it's not unreasonable to expect our 4 specialist bowlers to do the rest (particularly on pace-friendly wickets).

I am sure Faulkner will play Test cricket at some stage, and when he does he will be a big asset to the side.

I like Faulkner a lot as a player too Caesar, but I agree with your post; at this stage he falls into the luxury selection category, along with Glen Maxwell imo - I honestly really enjoy watching both cricketers play when they're on song, but structurally I don't think either is an orthodox selection in most circumstances - Faulkner would do well to score a ton of runs next season; his bowling is nippy and more than handy, but he is no genuine strike bowler at Test level - so if he's to be a genuine all-rounder we'd need him batting at 6 or 7 (and I like the traditional order of having the keeper at 7); his current first-class record doesn't quite suggest he could lock down either of those spots.

I reckon the selectors will basically stick with the same squad that failed miserably in India; blokes like Maxwell and Doherty are obviously under the pump to keep their spots for the Ashes, but I doubt there will be wholesale changes.

Andrew McDonald and Ryan Harris will come under consideration, and the selectors will no doubt promote a young talent and reward an old hand, that's about it.

 

[Caesar]

McDonald is far and away the best allrounder in the country when fit and in form. I'd hope that he and Henriques get sent on the A tour, with the better performer making the Ashes squad.

 

[The Speaker]

Arbuckle obviously didn't watch any cricket over the summer.

Was talking the same nonsense about Siddle during the first Test, and duly disappeared for the rest of the summer.

 

[Arbuckle]

Arbuckle obviously didn't watch any cricket over the summer.

Was talking the same nonsense about Siddle during the first Test, and duly disappeared for the rest of the summer.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Aside from the fact I post very rarely on the site altogether as a rule, I made comments - from recollection - during the third Indian Test and now just after the last one. Surely I could have been on here a lot more often, and had numerous opportunities available to me during the series, if I'd wanted to make a real point of bagging Siddle?!

And I'm glad you think I "disappeared" during the South African series because Siddle was somehow doing well. That's quite bizarre, tbh. You do realise Australia lost the series, and Siddle (the alleged spearhead of the attack) couldn't even dismiss a bloke playing in his First Test for more than a day on a wearing pitch in the defining phase of that series, don't you?

 

[The Speaker]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Aside from the fact I post very rarely on the site altogether as a rule, I made comments - from recollection - during the third Indian Test and now just after the last one. Surely I could have been a lot more often, and had numerous opportunities to do so during the series, if I'd wanted to make a point of bagging Siddle?!

And I'm glad you think I "disappeared" during the South African series because Siddle was somehow doing well. That's quite bizarre, tbh. You do realise Australia lost the series, and Siddle (the alleged spearhead of the attack) couldn't even dismiss a bloke playing in his First Test for more than a day on a wearing pitch, don't you?

Third Indian test wasn't in summer.

I said you disappeared for the summer. You did, and you've returned to say the same things you said last time, despite Siddle having further cemented his role in the attack for the foreseeable future.

 

[The Passenger]

The reason why Butterworth and (to a lesser extent) Faulkner haven't been considered for Test cricket is that they both lack penetration. Like Nathan Bracken, Trent Copeland or Clint McKay. Faulkner might overcome this stigma (there's a lot of love for the guy), but I suspect Butterworth will always be a domestic player.

this is the big issue for both of them, particularly butterworth. faulkner has a little extra pace on him, plus being left handed helps. 5 clicks on faulks would be a major asset for him.

butterworth would be the sort of player who if called upon would be handy and certainly contribute, particularly in the right conditions, but is more than likely not gonna replicate his shield success in test cricket. if he were to play the instructions to a guy like pattinson or siddle or cummins (down the track) would be that you need to ramp the pace up.

 

[Arbuckle]

Third Indian test wasn't in summer.

I said you disappeared for the summer. You did, and you've returned to say the same things you said last time, despite Siddle having further cemented his role in the attack for the foreseeable future.

Again ... I'm a very infrequent poster on BigFooty. Period. Why you somehow want to read something far more into it than that, and dream up your own elaborate conspiracy theories about it, is beyond me tbh.

As for Siddle cementing his role? Rightio, whatever you reckon.

Personally, I don't really consider that anyone other than Clarke has improved their standing over recent months. Surely that goes largely without saying given the walloping they've just copped from India, and the badly botched series against South Africa. If Siddle (and his fans, for that matter) truly does regard himself as the leader of the attack, then there's clearly a lot of responsibility that he needs to take for those results.

Funnily enough, unlike you guys ... he pretty much accepted my line of thinking himself when he spoke to the media recently during the Third Test in India. I can't recall the exact words, but he said something like his bowling during the first two Tests (and the early part of the Third) had been very mediocre and he wasn't happy with the way he'd been going. I'm not sure what he thinks of his bowling again after the last one - when he, again, didn't do anything much of note - but I can only imagine it's the same.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I know Watson's been crap but for England's swing bowlers I think he could be the go as opener. Good judge of leaving the ball. Warner will fail miserably as will Hughes. Cowan's technique is solid and I think he'll do ok.

Khawaja, Doolan and S Marsh have to go on tour and wait for it....George Bailey. Just need another leader-type. Can't be any worse than some of the other top7 bats in India.......ok ok I've gone too far.

Liked the way Smith used his feet to the spinners but not a top 6 in my book.

Oh and i'd take Paine ahead of Wade, heck even Haddin.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I've got a simple formula for success:

1- Start with your best 2 players (MC, JP)

2- Fill the rest of the side with Tasmanians and Tas representatives.

You all know it makes sense.

Cowan
Fatty Cosgrove
Doolan
Clarke
Watson
Bailey
Wade
Paine
Faulkner
Patto
Bird

 

[Sprout]

Cowan
Watson
Hughes
Clarke
Smith
Warner
Paine
Siddle
Starc
Pattinson
Lyon

Bird, Khawaja and Haddin the first to come in for underperformers.

 

[evdo1706]

Bring M. Hussey back!

 

[Selective Retention]

Not sure what planet you guys are living on. Last two seasons:

Faulkner: 20 matches, 798 runs at 28.5 with no centuries and 5x 50s
Henriques: 9 matches, 629 runs at 57.18 with 1 century and 5x 50s

I love Faulkner and he's got a big future, but he is not remotely close to playing in the top 7 for the Test team yet. I can only presume that everyone has the attention span of a goldfish and are reacting to his last innings.

The only two allrounders in the country I'd consider having in the Test side right now are McDonald and Henriques, and Henriques has a bit to prove before he gets to own the spot.

Career stats there Caesar?

6 months ago you had people calling for Liam Davis for the test side on the back of 9 matches. It's a small sample size which is skewed enormously by a 161*.

 

[Selective Retention]

Faulkner's in the unfortunate position of being the type of player our side doesn't really need right now. Collectively our tail bats pretty long, so there is no pressing need for an allrounder at 8. It means he's got to earn his way into the side on the basis of his bowling, and he's not really there yet.

Right now all we need from an allrounder is someone who can bat in the middle order, bowl 15-30 overs without getting slogged all over the place, and maybe pick up a wicket or two. It's pretty unambitious but if they can do that then it's not unreasonable to expect our 4 specialist bowlers to do the rest (particularly on pace-friendly wickets).

I am sure Faulkner will play Test cricket at some stage, and when he does he will be a big asset to the side.

Well not really we are currently picking an all rounder at #7.

If Henriques and Maxwell aren't good enough to bat in the top 6 (performances and career FC average suggest so), then take the guy that can do just as good with the bat and actually look threatening with the ball.

Faulkner averages 30 with the bat, he is 22 and has a lot more scope with his batting.

Picking nothing all rounders like Henriques and Maxwell is getting us nowhere. Faulkner is 90% there as a bowler and more than handy with the bat. The other two wouldn't even be 70% there as either a batsman or bowler.

 

[Caesar]

Career stats there Caesar?

6 months ago you had people calling for Liam Davis for the test side on the back of 9 matches. It's a small sample size which is skewed enormously by a 161*.

Two seasons is two seasons. Even if you ignore the 161, Henriques is still comfortably in front. He has been a different player the last two years compared to what he was earlier in his career.

Henriques' career stats are comfortably ahead of Faulkner's anyway. By any metric, he is the better batsman.

Well not really we are currently picking an all rounder at #7.

If Henriques and Maxwell aren't good enough to bat in the top 6 (performances and career FC average suggest so), then take the guy that can do just as good with the bat and actually look threatening with the ball.

Faulkner averages 30 with the bat, he is 22 and has a lot more scope with his batting.

Picking nothing all rounders like Henriques and Maxwell is getting us nowhere. Faulkner is 90% there as a bowler and more than handy with the bat. The other two wouldn't even be 70% there as either a batsman or bowler.

Henriques has been one of the best middle order batsmen in the Shield the last two years. He fully justifies selection in the middle order on the basis of his batting alone. If he didn't, he wouldn't be in the side.

 

[Selective Retention]

Absolutely no way he would justify test selection as a batsman.

People absolutely rip Paine apart for only having scored one FC century, Moises is no different.

If he had justified his spot as a batsman he would be batting in the top 6, he isn't for a reason.

 

[courtjester]

As an England supporter this is the XI I would least like us to be facing on day one of the first Test:

Cowan
Rogers
Hughes
Clarke
Bailey
Warner
Haddin
Starc
Siddle
Pattinson
Lyon

In reserve I'd have: Watson / Smith / Johnson / O'Keefe / Wade / Khawaja / A.N.Other quick

Yeh, this is a good way to look at it. Our best XI (best chance of winning the Ashes) is nothing like what we'll play over there. I'd reckon this is what we need:

- Cowan
- Rogers
- Warner
- Cosgrove
- Clarke
- Smith
- Haddin
- Siddle
- Pattinson
- Harris
- Lyon

Bailey/Starc/Bird/Agar or O'Keefe/Faulkner

 

[Caesar]

Absolutely no way he would justify test selection as a batsman.

People absolutely rip Paine apart for only having scored one FC century, Moises is no different.

If he had justified his spot as a batsman he would be batting in the top 6, he isn't for a reason.

Paine's century was six years ago. Henriques has scored as many centuries and 50s in his last 2 seasons as Paine has in his entire career. No difference? Come on, take the blinkers off.

You could bat Henriques above Wade if you wanted to, he regularly bats above Haddin for NSW. He has one of the better batting records in the Shield over the last 2 seasons, which justifies his position in the middle order if he brings his bowling.

In no way, shape or form is Faulkner a better batsman than Henriques. And in no way, shape or form does he justify a position in the Test side any higher than 8.

 

[TassieEagle]

I've got a simple formula for success:

1- Start with your best 2 players (MC, JP)

2- Fill the rest of the side with Tasmanians and Tas representatives.

You all know it makes sense.

Cowan
Fatty Cosgrove
Doolan
Clarke
Watson
Bailey
Wade
Paine
Faulkner
Patto
Bird

We disowned Watson, well at least I did.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I've got a simple formula for success:

1- Start with your best 2 players (MC, JP)

2- Fill the rest of the side with Tasmanians and Tas representatives.

You all know it makes sense.

Cowan
Fatty Cosgrove
Doolan
Clarke
Watson
Bailey
Wade
Paine
Faulkner
Patto
Bird

IMHO, that's actually a pretty good side. When you throw Hilf, Butterworth and more recently Ponting into the mix, you can see why Tasmania has been a reasonably strong side over recent years.

 

[Spitz]

Wow. Thanks for contributing so well to my point. I didn't think an own goal would be coming that readily.

Do you feel like making a clip of, say, every ball of the second innings (when he was utterly hopeless) and the rest of the crucial part of that series (when he was also utterly hopeless)?

Own goal? Rofl

You look like a clueless idiot.

What do this lot have in common?

Craig McDermott
Merv Hughes
Brett Lee
Michael Kasprowicz
Morne Morkel
James Anderson
Stuart Broad
Steve Finn
Chaminda Vaas
etc etc etc


Oh thats right............ they all have higher bowling averages than Peter Siddle.

Siddle would of gotten a game in our great side, let alone this one.


You want to drop the only guy with genuine heart and fight in the team?

And I'm the idiot.......................

 

[Jeremy Jordan]

I have the feeling its going to be a very depressing English summer for our cricketers.

I find it strange that people want to bring back Harris who is a huge liability in regards to getting injured every second game and Hilfy, who the English batters showed little to no respect for whilst belting him around in the last Ashes series.

Patto (clearly our best bowler), Bird (the unknown, but should get the first chance after showing abit over the summer) and Siddle (probably the only bowler from the last Ashes series who has improved) should be our seamers, and our spinner can be anyone that has ever bowled a cricket ball and got it to turn even the slightest, as thats where our spin bowling stocks are at.

Our batting lineup is bordering on putrid, so i think we can probably pick any 6 guys off the street (Clarke can keep his spot) and they would produce the same as the current lineup.

 

[BarneyBent]

Watson's been going through a bad trot for almost two and a half years. At a certain point you've got to ask when a run of poor form starts to be regarded as a player's new level of ability.

Hughes has been pretty indifferent, but since he came back into the side at the beginning of the summer he's comprehensively outperformed Watson. Which is really depressing.

Plus, Hughes actually showed improvement throughout the India series, and after a few (very) poor innings, worked out a method against the sort of bowling he'd never faced before that actually worked for him. Watson showed no such improvement or adaptability. For me, that is far more important to his selectability and future chances of success than simply considering his performance in isolation.

I've always been a staunch supporter of Watson, but I'm getting sick of his failures and his inability to adapt. Hughes wasn't convincing, but at least he learned. Hughes will be a much better batsman for this tour. I'm not sure I can say the same of Watson.