If I was picking the team

1. Matthew HAYDEN
2. Phil Jaques
3. Ricky PONTING
4. Michael HUSSEY
5. Justin LANGER

That's the top 5 - set in stone barring injury or someone suffering the mother of all slumps.

Jaques should be in the team, Hussey should bat no lower than 4 and we need someone solid and experienced at number five, ergo my batting order.

Then it gets difficult.

I'd probably plump for

6. Adam GILCHRIST (w/k)
7. Brett LEE
8. Shane WARNE
9. Jason GILLESPIE/Nathan BRACKEN
10. Stuart MacGILL
11. Glenn McGRATH
12. Damien MARTYN

A lot depends on Gilchrist's form - if that's the case then MacGill goes out and Martyn goes in at Number 6. It doesn't have to be Martyn either - it can be any batsmen waiting in the wings who is looking good come Ashes time.

I'd like to think Gillespie is coming back to life, but if he still looks pants then Bracken's the next best while also adding some variety.

The wildcards are Symonds and Watson. I'm not sold on either of them playing, but a case could be made if one of them looks like they're in form. Still, it'd have to be some sort of form.

Cheers.

Dear Mark,

I realise you were yet to become an Australian-ophile in early 2001.

Hayden was averaging 24 from 13 tests at that point, and had been ordinary against moderate attacks in 2000. Belief in his talent had to give way to the numbers eventually.

India was do or die for him. Everyone knew that, and I said if he failed Hussey should replace him for the Ashes. Thankfully he finally rewarded my faith.

My assertion about his greatness was before the West Indies tour of 2000-01 began.

No argument from me about backing Matthew Hayden Leo.
I backed Hayden to play Test cricket prior to his debut on the tour of South Africa in 93/94 !
BTW, I would stop being shallow for a change and put your statistics for Haydens first 13 Tests in your rubbish bin given how many years it took for Hayden to play them.
After playing the solitary Test in South Africa in 93/94 Hayden did not make the Test team again until 96/97,(5 or 6 Tests) and dropped.
Hayden returned to play one Test match in 99/00.

Total of 7 or 8 Test matches in how many years Leo?

1. Langer
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn/ Hodge
5. Hussey
6. Watson
7. Gilchrist
8. Lee
9. Warne
10. Clark/ Bracken
11. McGrath

Vs

1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Cook
4. Pieterson
5. Collingwood
6. Flintoff
7. Read
8. Plunkett/ Mahmood
9. Hoggard
10. Harmison
11. Panasar

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cricket:
No argument from me about backing Matthew Hayden Leo.
I backed Hayden to play Test cricket prior to his debut on the tour of South Africa in 93/94 !
BTW, I would stop being shallow for a change and put your statistics for Haydens first 13 Tests in your rubbish bin given how many years it took for Hayden to play them.
After playing the solitary Test in South Africa in 93/94 Hayden did not make the Test team again until 96/97,(5 or 6 Tests) and dropped.
Hayden returned to play one Test match in 99/00.

Total of 7 or 8 Test matches in how many years Leo?

Oh Gawd.

Next thing it'll be attacking Zim for not rating Langer high enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:
If I was picking the team

1. Matthew HAYDEN
2. Phil Jaques
3. Ricky PONTING
4. Michael HUSSEY
5. Justin LANGER

That's the top 5 - set in stone barring injury or someone suffering the mother of all slumps.

Jaques should be in the team, Hussey should bat no lower than 4 and we need someone solid and experienced at number five, ergo my batting order.

Then it gets difficult.

I'd probably plump for

6. Adam GILCHRIST (w/k)
7. Brett LEE
8. Shane WARNE
9. Jason GILLESPIE/Nathan BRACKEN
10. Stuart MacGILL
11. Glenn McGRATH
12. Damien MARTYN

A lot depends on Gilchrist's form - if that's the case then MacGill goes out and Martyn goes in at Number 6. It doesn't have to be Martyn either - it can be any batsmen waiting in the wings who is looking good come Ashes time.

What does Martyn have to do to earn a place in the team? Especially over a man who looked far from comfortable against the best Saffie quicks last summer.

PS - 'Move to NSW' is not a legitimate answer.

no way no how is langer going to 5.

langer will either be dropped or will open.

3 quicks and 2 spinners really is pretty stupid on most aussie pitches and leaves us looking weak batting wise as having a number 6 who is so out of form is just asking for trouble.

In fact now that i look at it thats the worst team anybdy has come up with so far.

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Lee
Warne
Clark
McGrath

thats my team as well, but replace clarke with jaques.

If the Top End series is to have any value as a selection guide, Watto must have cemented his place by now.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:
If I was picking the team
<snip>

There's a good reason why you're NOT picking the team!

If Watto keeps on, keeping on, untill the start of the Ashes he'll be making it very hard for the selectors not to pick him, but in any case post ashes should look something like this:

1. Jaques
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke (depending on the ashes)
6. Watson
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Lee
10. & 11. Will depend alot on Mcgrath retireing and ashes performance.

so you want watson picked for his recent form but you want clarke in over jaques... why?

clarke played very poorly in bangladesh and has no recent form in tests or otherwise to give him the running.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:

quote:

Originally posted by daydreamings:
Leo, you get a nose bleed if you can't discuss without using stats.

I happen to think you write a ton of rubbish on here, my opinions are just as valid as yours are. Live with it, kid.

The old 'stats' bleat again... I've spent the thread arguing for Hussey in 2001 and Marto in 2006 with barely a word about numbers, and you go back to the well. First resort of someone without any kind of logic to fall back on.

Having an equal right to express your opinion doesn't make it equally valid.

Just because I have a different opinion to you doesn't mean I am wrong and I am dim. You were the first to lower yourself and use little insults, not me. That shows your class. I've played and watched just as much Cricket probably more than you, I can tell you are not very old so I'd guess at a lot more than you.

quote:

Just because I have a different opinion to you doesn't mean I am wrong and I am dim

doesn't exclude the possibility either

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:
If the Top End series is to have any value as a selection guide, Watto must have cemented his place by now.

Aye, be he's no Sniffy.

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:
If the Top End series is to have any value as a selection guide, Watto must have cemented his place by now.

Since he wasn't in the team in Bangladesh, I can't see how he would be 'cementing his place'. He doesn't have a place.

Why do people take an instant dislike to Leo?

Cos it saves time...

quote:

Originally posted by shakes:
no way no how is langer going to 5.

langer will either be dropped or will open.

3 quicks and 2 spinners really is pretty stupid on most aussie pitches and leaves us looking weak batting wise as having a number 6 who is so out of form is just asking for trouble.

In fact now that i look at it thats the worst team anybdy has come up with so far.

Australian pithces have been playing flatter and flatter over the past few seasons.

That means the bowlers are going to do an enormous amount of work. We're also cramming 25 days of Test Cricket into a 44-day period. That's going to put a lot of strain on our bowlers.

Hence playing 5 bowlers - whether it be with an extra spinner or an "all-rounder" like Watson is something that needs to be given a lot of thought.

Are we going to make Warnie bowl 3 million overs and force him to carry the entire attack on his shoulders again?

And anybody who knows me will know that I won't rest until MacGill is in the team playing alongside TGM. I think that is a key to success.

And is there anybody else who can see the merit in having Langer at 5? Clarke, Martyn, Katich - they're iffy. I just can't see us having a string of middle order collapses with Hussey at 4 and Langer at 5. And if our middle order doesn't collapse we're going to score a lot of runs.

We lost the Ashes last time out - stale thinking isn't going to win them back.

Cheers.

quote:

And is there anybody else who can see the merit in having Langer at 5?

Funnily enough, I was wondering a similar thing just last night. If you tell him that it was Steve Waugh's position, he would take the role very seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Leo:

quote:

Originally posted by JGK:
If the Top End series is to have any value as a selection guide, Watto must have cemented his place by now.

Since he wasn't in the team in Bangladesh, I can't see how he would be 'cementing his place'. He doesn't have a place.

Well, the selectors have already indicated that he's a frontrunner for no. 6, so if he keeps performing he's doing his chances no harm. Remember he wasn't dropped from the Test side, he just got injured again

We lost the ashes because our seamers bowled tripe and our top 7 were done inby the early reverse.

the type of team we picked had nothing to do with it, we played crap and we lost.

Plus didn't you watch ponting in bangladesh? the bloke can barely handle 4 bowlers let alone 5, macgill didn't even get a bowl in that first test till bangladesh had 300 on the board.

Picking a 5th bolwer would just leave us a batsman short and a bowler with no work to do.

As for langer at 5, it's simply not going to happen if they don't want langer to open he will be dropped.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:

quote:

Originally posted by shakes:
no way no how is langer going to 5.

langer will either be dropped or will open.

3 quicks and 2 spinners really is pretty stupid on most aussie pitches and leaves us looking weak batting wise as having a number 6 who is so out of form is just asking for trouble.

In fact now that i look at it thats the worst team anybdy has come up with so far.

Australian pithces have been playing flatter and flatter over the past few seasons.

That means the bowlers are going to do an enormous amount of work. We're also cramming 25 days of Test Cricket into a 44-day period. That's going to put a lot of strain on our bowlers.

Hence playing 5 bowlers - whether it be with an extra spinner or an "all-rounder" like Watson is something that needs to be given a lot of thought.

Are we going to make Warnie bowl 3 million overs and force him to carry the entire attack on his shoulders again?

And anybody who knows me will know that I won't rest until MacGill is in the team playing alongside TGM. I think that is a key to success.

And is there anybody else who can see the merit in having Langer at 5? Clarke, Martyn, Katich - they're iffy. I just can't see us having a string of middle order collapses with Hussey at 4 and Langer at 5. And if our middle order doesn't collapse we're going to score a lot of runs.

We lost the Ashes last time out - stale thinking isn't going to win them back.

Cheers.

Good thinking, Hass, you've reminded me of previous thoughts I've had about playing two 37/38 year olds in a crowded schedule. We need 5 serious options. I've got real doubts about Watson, but he is performing, at the moment.

So, with a punt:

Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Hussey
Langer
Gilchrist
Watson
Lee
Warne
Bracken (Left armer and Gabba specialist, MacGill for flatter wickets)
McGrath

In wings: Clark, Gillespie

.

quote:

Originally posted by Hass:
And is there anybody else who can see the merit in having Langer at 5? Clarke, Martyn, Katich - they're iffy.

That is true. But so is Jaques, who you put down as a guaranteed selection. I can see Hoggard making mincemeat out of that technique if he gets any swing at all. Being 1/10 ain't gonna help the cause.

And having Warney at 7 is hardly going to enhance our middle order. So whatever you gain by having Langer at 5 you lose it again with your chosen bowling attack.

quote:

Originally posted by shakes:
Plus didn't you watch ponting in bangladesh? the bloke can barely handle 4 bowlers let alone 5, macgill didn't even get a bowl in that first test till bangladesh had 300 on the board.

Picking a 5th bolwer would just leave us a batsman short and a bowler with no work to do.

I wasn't paying that much attention in Bang