Skip to main content

First thoughts on the Ashes

The only minor surprise for me in the 2013 Australian Ashes squad announced last week was the selection of James Faulkner ahead of Moises Henriques as the second all-rounder. Minor because given  the Shane Watson shenanigans of recent times, I would have thought that Inverarity and co would have opted for a second batting all-rounder (which is what Henriques clearly is). Instead they've gone with a bowling all-rounder in Faulkner and it'll be interesting to see what happens if Watson's batting woes in Test match cricket continue in the first two Tests. As for the rest of the squad, given the way the inexperienced batting performed in India, Rogers and Haddin were always going to make it in to the team and the choice of Khawaja over Smith appears sound too given that the latter's strength is in playing spin bowling. The batting still looks as unsettled and shaky as the Indian fast bowling line-up and its here that the series will be won or lost for the Aussies. The return of Harris at the expense of Mitchell Johnson was always on the cards as soon as the former regained fitness. All in all, I'd have to agree with (what seems to be) the unanimous view that this is the best the Aussie selectors could have done. Not sure about the "worst squad since 1985" comments given I didn't see that team in action.

I don't however agree with Matt Cleary's first XI. I think Australia are at their best when they play with a solid opening pair capable of long partnerships, depth in batting, and strong pace bowling. While the last can be achieved with more or less any of the fast men in the squad, the first two are easier said than done given that they have five opening batsmen in the squad! My line-up for Trent Bridge would be (in batting order): Rogers, Cowan, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Watson, Haddin, Siddle, Harris, Pattinson, Lyon. Warner's temperament is still too suspect for my liking and I've always thought that Watson fits in better in the middle order given his ability/tendency to score attacking fifties. Harris and Pattinson will likely not play all five games so the fact that there is solid back-up in Starc and Bird is a good thing.

Turning to England, in my opinion they are not the runaway favourites that everyone's making them out to be especially given how they struggled against NZ. The fitness of two of their four match-winners is still in question and were Pietersen and Swann (especially the latter) not able to pull through, the series suddenly takes on a different look. Their back-up seam bowling is also more questionable when compared to their opponents though they will be playing at home.

Starting to build up nicely this and though my early stage prediction would be a 2-1 win for the English, I'm sure I'll change my mind a few times between now and July 10 :-)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...
1 comment
Read more

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?
Post a Comment
Read more

A kick up the backside

Its very interesting (and revealing) that so many Indian cricketers pull up their socks and become better players once they've been dropped from the side and left out in the cold for a while. The trend is even more prevalent currently when the selectors have a larger pool of good players to choose from. Dravid (from the one-day team), Kumble, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvraj, Zaheer, Harbhajan, the list goes on. In fact, the only people I can think of who haven't been dropped at any point in recent years are Tendulkar (in any form of the game), and Dravid (from the Test team). This article in the TOI attributes their post-drop performance improvements (at least in Yuvraj's case and a few more as well) to anger. I'm not too sure I agree. I think its more a generic Indian mentality of taking things easy and getting soft and comfortable too easily. Its a national trait and one that needs great guarding against. I've discovered the hard way how getting physically unfit or slack...
Post a Comment
Read more