Porter went for a few boundaries but some were streaky. Also a few lbw shouts. He's doing fine. Great to see Clarke out for 0. I don't know much about Moore but he's very tall
Porter went for a few boundaries but some were streaky. Also a few lbw shouts. He's doing fine. Great to see Clarke out for 0. I don't know much about Moore but he's very tall
Redmurph on here works with his girlfriend, she went mental when he told her he got two in two.
Alastair Cook (capt), Adam Lyth, Gary Ballance, Ian Bell, Joe Root, Ben Stokes, Jos Buttler (wk), Moeen Ali, Stuart Broad, Mark Wood, James Anderson, Adil Rashid, Steven Finn. Good to see Finn back in the reckoning.
Australia 254 for 5. Watson in good nick was bowled, voges dug in but run out, hilariously. Not such a bad Essex performance, though the run rate is 4.9
I have taken the liberty of comparing the 2005 and 2015 Ashes (likely) XIs to see whether we've improved or moved backwards in a decade. Feel free to agree/disagree!
This is based on the XI that played the first 4 tests in 2005 and the possible starting XI this month, with Finn and Rashid left out. I have given them marks out of ten.
Openers 2005 - Strauss (9) and Trescothick (9) 2015 - Cook (9) and Lyth (6)
So, a decade has moved on, but we still adopt the two-lefties approach to opening batsmen. (In my view this is better than having a left-right combo). Despite England's 2015 vintage having the highest run scorer ever in the team; I think '05 edges it. (Maybe that's not the best choice of words).
Middle order 2005 - Vaughan (8) Bell (7) Pietersen (8) 2015 - Ballance (7) Root (9) Bell (9) Bell has, without doubt improved as a player in the last decade; Root looks to be the absolute genuine article; and Ballance has shown he *can* do it, but there are still doubts as to whether he will. Vaughan, despite dodgy knees was stlil a very good player in '05 and Pietersen was all about reputation at that time. So, 2015 is a better vintage, by 25-23 (which is all down to the experience and improvement in Ian Bell).
No contest here - Flintoff was the world's best all-rounder in 2005 - and no-one has come near him since. However, Ben Stokes has got everything about him to compete at the highest level. He needs to add wickets, but he can certainly justify his place as a batting all-rounder.
Keeper 2005 - Geraint Jones (8) 2015 - Buttler (9)
I am a big fan of both of these keepers. Geraint Jones made the absolute best of his ability, particularly in pushing the scoring rate on - often outscoring Freddie at the other end. For Buttler, what he lacks in the keeping department, he makes up for, in spades, with the bat. If the Aussies take more than 100 overs to take the first five wickets, he could thrash a tiring attack to all parts. And, if he's in much sooner than that, he has the technique and quality to re-build the innings. The (small) question marks about his keeping, particularly when standing up, can be mitigated by the fact that the ECB are simply not going to prepare any pitch that spins: we don't have a good enough spinner. Potential match-winner.
Spinner 2005 - Giles (6) 2015 - Ali (8)
No-one ever believed that Ashley Giles was a "rival" to his opposite number in 2005, Shane Warne. His job was to hold one end up - whether with the bat or ball - and let the proper work be done by his partner. Huge respect for what he did in '05, but he was miles away from being the best spinner in the world. Ali, however, is a different matter. He's a seriously talented batsman who, even at number 8, can change the course of a match. And, while we won't be playing on any bunsen burners this year (see above), he can give the ball a tweak when the workhorses need a rest.
Attack 2005 - Hoggard (9) Simon Jones (9) Harmison (9) 2015 - Anderson (10) Broad (8) Wood (8)
The 2005 attack of Hoggard, Simon Jones and Harmison - with Freddie Flintoff - was unequalled. The almost-perfect mix of raw pace (Harmison), effort (Flintoff), guile (Hoggard) and hooping swing (Jones). But, unlike 2005, the current vintage have something they were lacking: experience of winning. Anderson (England's leading wicket taker ever) and Broad have won every Ashes series in which they've played; and Stokes and Wood have never lost the Ashes at home.
So, my total scores for the two teams are
2005: 93/110 2015: 92/110
Not much in it. But, if I were to do the same for the two Aussie XIs, the gap, I believe, would be much bigger. A team of players, none of whom have lost the Ashes in England against a team of players, none of whom have won it in England. Bring it on!
Giles, whilst he was never gonna be a world beater as a spinner, was better than he is given credit for! He was an experienced head and knew how to keep it tight and choke the batsmen and often other bowlers were rewarded for his hard work! In my view he did more than just keep one end tight.
We have to judge Ali on his bowling as that is what he is in the side for! Whilst he has the potential to be a good spinning all rounder there is no way he is there yet.. He is inexperianced and can be expensive. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of his I just think we are using him wrong and it's a little too early for him to be primary spinner...
Nice analysis, but I think your scores are pretty generous to a few players!
The current Bell (as opposed to the 2013 Bell) is more like a 7 than a 9, while the 2005 Bell is probably less than 7, he had a poor series and unlike KP had no weight of runs to justify his inclusion, but rather a timely century (against Bangladesh) that took Thorpe's place.
Jones and Butler both have weaknesses as keepers so I'd knock 1 point off.
Ali can take wickets, but I can imagine the Australians really targeting him, they could knock him out of the attack
Wood has talent, but is far less experienced than the 2005 bowlers, so I'd knock 1 point off. Similarly Stokes
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
That's interesting. Because I think there's a massive gulf between the two. I have compared them in the role of number eight batsman and spinner who's role is to give the quicks a break. In terms of batting, Giles knew which end of the bat to hold - without question. But, in his entire career, he only made a highest Test score of 59. Ali, meanwhile has a highest Test score of 108* despite having only played in 11 Tests. In terms of bowling, they are closer. Giles' Test best was 5/59, while Ali's is 6/67. Both Ali's batting and bowling averages are 8 better than Giles'. So, in terms of numbers, it's unarguable.
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
Nice analysis, but I think your scores are pretty generous to a few players!
The current Bell (as opposed to the 2013 Bell) is more like a 7 than a 9, while the 2005 Bell is probably less than 7, he had a poor series and unlike KP had no weight of runs to justify his inclusion, but rather a timely century (against Bangladesh) that took Thorpe's place.
Jones and Butler both have weaknesses as keepers so I'd knock 1 point off.
Ali can take wickets, but I can imagine the Australians really targeting him, they could knock him out of the attack
Wood has talent, but is far less experienced than the 2005 bowlers, so I'd knock 1 point off. Similarly Stokes
Agree with all of this. Particularly agree about Bell. No way should he be given a 9 on current form, 7 at best. Nice analysis though
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
That's interesting. Because I think there's a massive gulf between the two. I have compared them in the role of number eight batsman and spinner who's role is to give the quicks a break. In terms of batting, Giles knew which end of the bat to hold - without question. But, in his entire career, he only made a highest Test score of 59. Ali, meanwhile has a highest Test score of 108* despite having only played in 11 Tests. In terms of bowling, they are closer. Giles' Test best was 5/59, while Ali's is 6/67. Both Ali's batting and bowling averages are 8 better than Giles'. So, in terms of numbers, it's unarguable.
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
Giles was a limited bowler, but what he could do though was hold up an end. You knew the Aussies would never take him apart, so that during long days in the field on non turning pitches he could bowl long spells with the quicks rotating at the other end, thus keeping them nice and fresh. On similar non turning pitches, will Ali be able to cope with the likes of Warner and Smith attacking him?
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
That's interesting. Because I think there's a massive gulf between the two. I have compared them in the role of number eight batsman and spinner who's role is to give the quicks a break. In terms of batting, Giles knew which end of the bat to hold - without question. But, in his entire career, he only made a highest Test score of 59. Ali, meanwhile has a highest Test score of 108* despite having only played in 11 Tests. In terms of bowling, they are closer. Giles' Test best was 5/59, while Ali's is 6/67. Both Ali's batting and bowling averages are 8 better than Giles'. So, in terms of numbers, it's unarguable.
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
Giles was a limited bowler, but what he could do though was hold up an end. You knew the Aussies would never take him apart, so that during long days in the field on non turning pitches he could bowl long spells with the quicks rotating at the other end, thus keeping them nice and fresh. On similar non turning pitches, will Ali be able to cope with the likes of Warner and Smith attacking him?
It's a good question. But, in my view, if, in any Test match, Ali is bowling to Warner and Smith, we've lost it already. For England to win, we have to take the wickets of the least technically-gifted players (like Warner, Smith, Watson - if he plays) with our best bowlers, bowling seam and swing, on pitches offering some help. If our attack can't penetrate those players, it doesn't matter who are spinner is.
So, I have scored the 2005 teams 102-93 in Australia's favour. It puts it into perspective the massive gulf between the two teams in 2005, which England bridged, brilliantly, using every trick in - and out of - the book.
This time, while England's score has dropped - in my view - Australia's has fallen even further. Some might argue that Johnson deserves more because of his wickets in the last series. But this time, it's in England, where his average is 5 runs per wicket worse than his overall average. Some may also point to the fact that Harris is more likely to play than, say, Hazlewood. I merely chose the XI that played in the Aussies' last Test match. So, by my reckoning, based on where the players are right now, ahead of the series, England are about half-a-point per player ahead of their opponents.
As has been said a number of times already: bring it on!
Nice analysis Chizz, but I wish I shared your optimism!
Some of the 2005 Aussies were in retrospect slightly past their peak, so the gap to England wasn't as great as perhaps it might have looked.
Of the current team, Steve Smith is top of the world rankings (above ADV), he deserves 10. If Harris is fit and plays, he deserves a 10 (he got 24 wickets at 19.58 in 2013). Both Mitchells are much improved since their previous visits here, and are better batsmen than Broad, Wood and Jimmy too.
I think its also important to remember that test cricket has changed in ten years. Now, the Aussies will be looking to attack Ali (any spinner), trying to hit bounderies and put him on the back foot. Therefore we need to have a spinner that can take it to them, and not just hold up an end. If Giles was bowling in todays test arena he would be smashed around the park. I would pick Rashid personally. He can spin it both ways and looks to take wickets. He will get hit for runs, but that could work in his favour if he is agrressive. We have Root who can bowl some decent off spin if needed
I think its also important to remember that test cricket has changed in ten years. Now, the Aussies will be looking to attack Ali (any spinner), trying to hit bounderies and put him on the back foot. Therefore we need to have a spinner that can take it to them, and not just hold up an end. If Giles was bowling in todays test arena he would be smashed around the park. I would pick Rashid personally. He can spin it both ways and looks to take wickets. He will get hit for runs, but that could work in his favour if he is agrressive. We have Root who can bowl some decent off spin if needed
Agree with this. The spinners were thrashed about yesterday by the likes of warner, Watson and Marsh. Won't be any different for England. If you are going to get hit, might as well take someone with you. Like new Zealand, this is an aggressive Aussie team who will be hard to come. I just hope the conditions favour our quicks.
I think no matter what the conditions are the Aussies have it covered. If the pitch is quick they have Johnson and Starc, if it's swinging conditions they have Harris and Hazlewood. If it spins they have Lyon. I would produce slow wickets with little bounce.
Starc is an amazing one day bowler. His test match stats are not amazing, 60 wickets at 32, will be interesting to see how he goes in this series, he cant rely on quick yorkers getting batsmen out who are being aggressive as they are in ODIs.
No I won't! It's a genuine estimate as to his relative merit, at this stage of his career. He's played five Test matches; none of which have been in the UK. He's taken 24 wickets - well short of, for example, Moeen Ali. And he's yet to make a hundred - in aggregate. His highest score is below 40.
I am sure he has bags of potential; I am sure he'll take lots of wickets in his career; and I am sure he'll score plenty of runs. But I have only scored players on what they have already done.
So no, I won't regret giving an honest assessment of someone who has, so far, played exactly the same number of Test matches in England as I have!
The way Harris bowled in the 2013 and 2013/14 series, his fitness could be a major factor in who wins the series, as England really struggled against him.
Comments
Good to see Finn back in the reckoning.
This is based on the XI that played the first 4 tests in 2005 and the possible starting XI this month, with Finn and Rashid left out. I have given them marks out of ten.
Openers
2005 - Strauss (9) and Trescothick (9)
2015 - Cook (9) and Lyth (6)
So, a decade has moved on, but we still adopt the two-lefties approach to opening batsmen. (In my view this is better than having a left-right combo). Despite England's 2015 vintage having the highest run scorer ever in the team; I think '05 edges it. (Maybe that's not the best choice of words).
Middle order
2005 - Vaughan (8) Bell (7) Pietersen (8)
2015 - Ballance (7) Root (9) Bell (9)
Bell has, without doubt improved as a player in the last decade; Root looks to be the absolute genuine article; and Ballance has shown he *can* do it, but there are still doubts as to whether he will. Vaughan, despite dodgy knees was stlil a very good player in '05 and Pietersen was all about reputation at that time. So, 2015 is a better vintage, by 25-23 (which is all down to the experience and improvement in Ian Bell).
All-rounder
2005 - Flintoff (10)
2015 - Stokes (9)
No contest here - Flintoff was the world's best all-rounder in 2005 - and no-one has come near him since. However, Ben Stokes has got everything about him to compete at the highest level. He needs to add wickets, but he can certainly justify his place as a batting all-rounder.
Keeper
2005 - Geraint Jones (8)
2015 - Buttler (9)
I am a big fan of both of these keepers. Geraint Jones made the absolute best of his ability, particularly in pushing the scoring rate on - often outscoring Freddie at the other end. For Buttler, what he lacks in the keeping department, he makes up for, in spades, with the bat. If the Aussies take more than 100 overs to take the first five wickets, he could thrash a tiring attack to all parts. And, if he's in much sooner than that, he has the technique and quality to re-build the innings. The (small) question marks about his keeping, particularly when standing up, can be mitigated by the fact that the ECB are simply not going to prepare any pitch that spins: we don't have a good enough spinner. Potential match-winner.
Spinner
2005 - Giles (6)
2015 - Ali (8)
No-one ever believed that Ashley Giles was a "rival" to his opposite number in 2005, Shane Warne. His job was to hold one end up - whether with the bat or ball - and let the proper work be done by his partner. Huge respect for what he did in '05, but he was miles away from being the best spinner in the world. Ali, however, is a different matter. He's a seriously talented batsman who, even at number 8, can change the course of a match. And, while we won't be playing on any bunsen burners this year (see above), he can give the ball a tweak when the workhorses need a rest.
Attack
2005 - Hoggard (9) Simon Jones (9) Harmison (9)
2015 - Anderson (10) Broad (8) Wood (8)
The 2005 attack of Hoggard, Simon Jones and Harmison - with Freddie Flintoff - was unequalled. The almost-perfect mix of raw pace (Harmison), effort (Flintoff), guile (Hoggard) and hooping swing (Jones). But, unlike 2005, the current vintage have something they were lacking: experience of winning. Anderson (England's leading wicket taker ever) and Broad have won every Ashes series in which they've played; and Stokes and Wood have never lost the Ashes at home.
So, my total scores for the two teams are
2005: 93/110
2015: 92/110
Not much in it. But, if I were to do the same for the two Aussie XIs, the gap, I believe, would be much bigger. A team of players, none of whom have lost the Ashes in England against a team of players, none of whom have won it in England. Bring it on!
My primary disagreement is with a two point gap between Giles and Ali. I'd reduce it to one or even score them equally.
We have to judge Ali on his bowling as that is what he is in the side for! Whilst he has the potential to be a good spinning all rounder there is no way he is there yet.. He is inexperianced and can be expensive. Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of his I just think we are using him wrong and it's a little too early for him to be primary spinner...
I would give Giles 7 Ali 4.
The current Bell (as opposed to the 2013 Bell) is more like a 7 than a 9, while the 2005 Bell is probably less than 7, he had a poor series and unlike KP had no weight of runs to justify his inclusion, but rather a timely century (against Bangladesh) that took Thorpe's place.
Jones and Butler both have weaknesses as keepers so I'd knock 1 point off.
Ali can take wickets, but I can imagine the Australians really targeting him, they could knock him out of the attack
Wood has talent, but is far less experienced than the 2005 bowlers, so I'd knock 1 point off. Similarly Stokes
But what's important is what they do for the team. Ali *can* turn an innings that has a bad start into a decent score. Whereas you never got the impression that Giles would turn a 60/6 into a 350 all out. And this year's Tests are not going to be played on turning pitches. So the Ashes won't necessarily be won by the team with the best spinner; they'll be won by the team that can avoid capitulation, reinforce winning positions and "edge" the key moments. For my money, Ali is brilliantly suited to do those jobs, whereas Giles was, if not a walking wicket, an easily-overcome obstacle to the tail-enders.
Of course, we might even see Adil Rashid play instead. If so, it will be because the strategy to win on slow, seaming wickets has failed and we'll be onto plan "B".
Langer - 10
Hayden - 10
Ponting - 10
Martyn - 8
Clarke - 9
Katich - 8
Gilchrist - 10
Warne - 10
Lee - 9
Gillespie - 8
McGrath - 10
Total - 102
Warner - 9
Marsh - 8
Smith - 9
Clarke - 9
Voges - 8
Watson - 7
Haddin - 8
Johnson - 8
Starc - 7
Hazlewood - 7
Lyon - 8
Total 88
So, I have scored the 2005 teams 102-93 in Australia's favour. It puts it into perspective the massive gulf between the two teams in 2005, which England bridged, brilliantly, using every trick in - and out of - the book.
This time, while England's score has dropped - in my view - Australia's has fallen even further. Some might argue that Johnson deserves more because of his wickets in the last series. But this time, it's in England, where his average is 5 runs per wicket worse than his overall average. Some may also point to the fact that Harris is more likely to play than, say, Hazlewood. I merely chose the XI that played in the Aussies' last Test match. So, by my reckoning, based on where the players are right now, ahead of the series, England are about half-a-point per player ahead of their opponents.
As has been said a number of times already: bring it on!
Some of the 2005 Aussies were in retrospect slightly past their peak, so the gap to England wasn't as great as perhaps it might have looked.
Of the current team, Steve Smith is top of the world rankings (above ADV), he deserves 10. If Harris is fit and plays, he deserves a 10 (he got 24 wickets at 19.58 in 2013). Both Mitchells are much improved since their previous visits here, and are better batsmen than Broad, Wood and Jimmy too.
You'll regret this.
I am sure he has bags of potential; I am sure he'll take lots of wickets in his career; and I am sure he'll score plenty of runs. But I have only scored players on what they have already done.
So no, I won't regret giving an honest assessment of someone who has, so far, played exactly the same number of Test matches in England as I have!
Just looked at his first class averages as well, 147 at 31, very ordinary.
Harris, Johnson and Hazlewood will be the ones that worry me more, thankfully Harris looks like he wont be fit for the first test.