The Ashes Thread

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

First topic message reminder :

Some news from the Aussie camp

Chris Rogers will miss the first test with a head injury
Steve Smith has been promoted to bat 3 (hate it hate it hate it leave him alone)

[Stella]

Not convinced Rashid is a better bowler or batsman than Ali, and Alis contributed well with the bat. Perhaps hasn't bowled particularly well but hasn't really been needed outside of Lords and conditions have rarely suited spin bowling in this series. Rashid is really the latest player to become overhyped as a result of not being in the team.

OR there's no other half decent spinner in the county system? We will need two in the UAE, hence why his name keeps popping up. Whether he's better than Ali is anyone's guess.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Spinners out there I can think of....

Kerrigan - no idea how he's doing this season?
Riley - struggled since they changed his action over the winter
Panesar - barely played

Unless we go really left field with a youngster like Ravi Patel or mason crane

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

And really Rashid has earned a go with his county performances over the years. Ali/Rashid should be the two in UAE

[GSC]

The main reason his name comes up is the NZ ODI series, which is fine, but as a cautionary note, hes not the first player to be overhyped on this and the old 606 on that basis. Its kinda grass is always greener syndrome, players out of the team are always considered the answer.

[sirfredperry]

Panesar, after a long time out for personal reasons, is back playing for Essex. If he shows any form at all and his head is right he should, IMHO, be picked for the winter tour away to Pakistan.
There really aint that many options. Not may alternatives to Lyth at the moment, either. If there were he'd have been dropped by now.

[Stella]

The main reason his name comes up is the NZ ODI series, which is fine, but as a cautionary note, hes not the first player to be overhyped on this and the old 606 on that basis. Its kinda grass is always greener syndrome, players out of the team are always considered the answer.

He toured the west indies. Some on here thought he deserved a test during that series.

I think he warrants a game or three.

[alfie]

Re The Oval : if Anderson is fit , he plays. Agree with Sean you don't mess with side injuries ; but since he's been picked in the squad I'd say they must be fairly sure he is fine. And will have time to confirm that before the match actually comes around , since these aren't back to back Tests.
Not going to rest Broad either. You don't play the reserves in Ashes Tests - even dead ones.

Since Lyth remains in the squad , I presume he will play - else why not just leave him out immediately ? Might be his last chance : but even if Ali were to open in UAE , which might be quite a sound idea , he is unlikely to do so in SA ; so it will be Lyth or A N Other thereafter.
Which also probably means Rashid can wait for Dubai to make his debut. A good place to do so.
Really don't want Panesar anywhere near the team , with respect to Sir Fred. Sure his bowling would likely be effective in this coming series , and next visit to India maybe...but that is where it stops. Going back to him just delays development of a spinner who can be reasonably useful in all conditions ; and who brings a bit of batting and fielding which doesn't invite ridicule.
May take a while to get the perfect fit - a Swann doesn't arrive every week. But in the meantime at least Ali - and potentially Rashid - offer very valuable runs even when they aren't taking a lot of wickets.

Glad to see they have apparently resisted the temptation to try any experiments for the final Test , actually. Picking Kerrigan in 2013 did no one any good. Messing around with the team in these circumstances always strikes me as a bit disrespectful : of the Ashes tradition , the opponents , and the fans.
Besides : you don't want to give the Australians any free kicks. It doesn't take much to get their confidence surging again...

[GSC]

That was mainly because Ali was cack. Hes played a very underrated role in this success, very useful runs in the first innings of the last 2 tests

[Duty281]

Panesar, after a long time out for personal reasons, is back playing for Essex. If he shows any form at all and his head is right he should, IMHO, be picked for the winter tour away to Pakistan.
  There really aint that many options. Not may alternatives to Lyth at the moment, either. If there were he'd have been dropped by now.      

Panesar's not doing incredibly well. A respectable 4/112 in the first innings, but 0/57 currently on a fourth day pitch.

Another option, Ansari (who Olly has been championing), has taken 5/108 and 3/128. He could be a left-field option. He's averaged a touch over 30 this season with the ball, in spite of the difficult spinning conditions.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Ansari is really not a bad bowler at all - very handy and getting better.

Panesar has been out bowled by a part timer and a 20 year old. Think he is probably beyond selection now

[Gooseberry]

Spinners out there I can think of....

Kerrigan - no idea how he's doing this season?
Riley - struggled since they changed his action over the winter
Panesar - barely played

Unless we go really left field with a youngster like Ravi Patel or mason crane

Or Scott Borthwick who has a test average of 20....

[Hammersmith harrier]

Ali opening, Rashid taking his number 8 spot, Bairstow dropping down to 7 to replace Buttler and Taylor coming in at 5 would be my ideal line up for the UAE series.

[Corporalhumblebucket]

According to radio commentator on the match, Panesar really did seem out of sorts when bowling on pitch helping spinners on day 4 of Essex's match against Surrey. Ansari's bowling has certainly come on a lot this season, to the point where he is clearly now one of Surrey's front line bowlers.  Whether he's (yet) of international quality as a bowler is, I would have thought, doubtful - but I suppose that is the issue with most of the candidates.

Maybe Graham Keedy could do a job in the short term

[VTR]

Am surprised no-one has mentioned Tredwell for the UAE. He could be the steady option alongside the more attacking Rashid. He won't run through a team, but he also very rarely gives anything away

[kingraf]

I see England become #2 in the world with a win at the Oval. The ICC rankings really are the biggest pile of garbage on the face of the earth.

[VTR]

I see England become #2 in the world with a win at the Oval. The ICC rankings really are the biggest pile of garbage on the face of the earth.

I think it just shows there is no clear order at the moment, very close from 2-7 so there is a lot of movement in those positions in the rankings which I think is a fair reflection of reality. Aus, NZ, Eng, SL, Ind, Pak all pretty close in my view depending on where the games are played.

[Duty281]

I think that's reasonable if England win 4-1.

South Africa are number 1. England v Australia/Pakistan/Sri Lanka, as VTR says, depends a lot of where the game is played. England and New Zealand are pretty level. England are clearly superior to India.

Presumably England will drop to 3rd after the loss in the U.A.E.

[kingraf]

It's less England's ranking, and more the maths that has gotten them there. Not to mention the fortune they have in having five test series. Imagine if Pakistan got a Five match series at Australia last year. Would have been Gains City points-wise. It's a patently unfair system.

[Gooseberry]

Its an unfair system which has the teams rated pretty much right though, and the same unfair system which saw their rating take a pooing when they lost a series 5-0. I guess they were just unfortunate then, as they were when they got eaten y team with two illegal bowlers who later werent available to face other teams.

Like any ranking system its reactive rather than predictive ad reliant on long term data rather than short term form. And any objective results based system in cricket will suffer from ll teams not playing enough to get a true picture of current form, not to mention the wild variations in conditions across the world.

If England eat a team 4-1 who by subjective rankings were significant favourites even allowing for home pitches what does that say about a subjective raking? Like the objective points based one theres a fair it of hat eating and readjustment of opinion of other teams going on.

Youre also making the same mistake people do when looking at the rugby ones (presumably just to give yourself a excuse to rant about england as usual ...yawn) and looking at position rather than rating points. What the rakings are really telling us is theres a bunch of teams who are pretty much the same and who would all e favourites against each other at home. The theres SA who are a notch up.

Look its not perfect ad it is what it is (largely ignored) ut the raking system in cricket is a dickins of a lot better than the soccerball one where you can lose significant numbers of points for eating teams comfortably.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Test Cricket and cricket in general would be a lot better if it was played in a league basis/format where the top 8 or so teams play each other home/away over a 3/4 year period, with a promotion/relegation system in place which would encourage the development of the game in up and coming countries, and if you could implement a "winnings" system, would also force/give incentive to teams to aim/play as hard as possible.

But the  BCCI, ECB and CA aren't interested in growing the game, only making as much money as they possibly can so it'll never happen.

[kingraf]

"(presumably just
to give yourself a excuse to rant about england
as usual ...yawn)"

Not half self-righteous are you? This isn't the first time I've complained about the ranking system. This is however the first time I've complained about the ranking system regarding England. It's a joke system. It doesn't have the teams "pretty much right", because the FTP itself is a joke programme. How can it be pretty much right when Pakistan haven't played India in the window period, while England have two tours there. Pakistan had to play Zimbabwe (admittedly lost a match), and Bangladesh in their window period. Talk about a no win situation. England get two Ashes, Two Indian tours, three NZ series'. Their potential for gaining points is greater should they win. Of course, their potential for losing points is also less if they lose.

Let's look at the situation which saw Australia momentarily usurp South Africa as the #1 team last year. Despite Aus having been Whitewashed in India, lost 3-0 in England, lost 1-0 at home to South Africa, and drew 1-1 at home to NZ in the window period - they still made #1. In that time, SA lost one series (by one freaking match) and a total of four games. So how did Aus get to #1? Easy, the more they lost, they less points they lost, which meant when they turned it around... They needed only an eight match charge (Which left 8-8 in their last four series, not even a positive record) to climb to #1, because they lost so many points in the preceding time, that they gained more than they would have had they kept their India and England defeats respectable. It's like the cricketing equivalent of starting to give Derby 15 points for a win in that season they sucked, and deducting 30 points from Chelsea if they lose to them. And then when Derby get to #1, they are once now rewarded only three points again.
insanity.

[seanmichaels]

It's less England's ranking, and more the maths that has gotten them there. Not to mention the fortune they have in having five test series. Imagine if Pakistan got a Five match series at Australia last year. Would have been Gains City points-wise. It's a patently unfair system.

It rewards sides who actually have a half decent schedule against top teams. Personally I think a side playing 3/4 tests a year including series against the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe doesn't deserve to be at the top of the rankings.

[seanmichaels]

If England win 4 tests in this 6 week schedule they'll have won just one less game than sA since 2013.

[Gooseberry]

"(presumably just
to give yourself a excuse to rant about england
as usual ...yawn)"

Not half self-righteous are you? This isn't the first time I've complained about the ranking system. This is however the first time I've complained about the ranking system regarding England. It's a joke system. It doesn't have the teams "pretty much right", because the FTP itself is a joke programme. .

Containing you anger for one minute, which teams do you think (will) have their ratings wildly wrong?

Where are the currnet ratings/rankings not pretty much right, I mean without arguing paper rock scissors ...more blantant hugely obviously incorrect relative ratings.

What do you expect the ICC to do ...ask India and Pakistan to stop pointing nuclear weapons at each other so they can play a test series, and hope the Jihadis are on holiday?
Undo several hundred years of politics and corruption so England and Zimbabwe can be in the same continent without feeling uncofmrtable about it?


The point about football league scoring vs test rankings is utterly facile. Thats a league that takes place over 8 months vs a test schedule that with all the best will in the world couldnt be completed on anything better than a 4 year cycle for home and away series. The swings in form are far greater, and you are still basing results on a smaller number of games than a socce rleague schedule does. Thats the reality any cricket team raanking system has to face up to. Its why they dont call it a league.
Do all the international soccer teams play each other home and away with each result counting for 3 points?

[kingraf]

SA tests since 2013,
2-0 vs NZ
3-0 vs Pakistan
1-1 vs Pakistan (away(
1-0 (1) vs India
1-2 vs Australia
1-0 (1) vs Sri Lanka
1-0 vs Zimbabwe
2-0 (1) vs West Indies
0-0 (2) vs Bangladesh.

England
0-0 (2) NZ
2-0 (1) West Indies
3-0 (2) vs Australia
0-5 vs Australia
0-1 (1) vs Sri Lanka
3-1 (1) vs India
1-1 (1) vs New Zealand
4-1 vs Australia

Doesn't mean much when you've played 12 more tests

[seanmichaels]

A Test series is that, a test. sA aren't putting themselves through the physical demands of Australia and England because they are happy to pick up their IPL paychecks instead of participating in 5 match series. There is also little appetite for test cricket in sA.

No doubt they have arguably the best side in the world but to me at the moment it is like them having a ferrari and using it a couple of times a week to pop down the local shop for a pack of cigs.

[Hammersmith harrier]

It means exactly as Michaels suggests, SA aren't willing to test themselves regularly, too concerned in protecting their averages.

[VTR]

To be fair to SA, and a few of the other countries, the ICC is being run as a closed shop by Eng/Ind/Aus now, so only those countries have access to the longer series.

A bit unfair to say the SA players are protecting their averages or not willing to test themselves - they simply aren't able to play in longer series. I think we can all agree the Eng-NZ series deserved more than 2 Tests, but was never going to be more with yet another Ashes series on in the same season

[kingraf]

Lol, I think you guys actually believe the garbage you're spewing. How playing Two test series protects your average is beyond me. Probably explains the large amount of Bangladeshi players rocking near Bradman numbers. Playing short series does not in any way help your average. If anything it does the complete opposite, as the player has to immediately come to terms with the conditions. England have shown how easy that is in their first Test against India on 2012. Ricky Ponting's struggles in Asia during two Test series also show it probably isn't the smartest way to protect your average.

Guess the Australians don't play IPL then, given the fact that they have a Five match series? Or that Indians themselves don't play IPL, since they have one Five match series, and two other four match series. Your results in Test cricket are unite embarrassing given the fact that we are apparently only half assing it.

As for the Rankings. Given the fact that the Rankings are closely linked to the FTP, and that the FTP is in fact a pile of sh.it which doesn't even get followed, it follows that the Rankings programme is ergo, a pile of Poopie.

[Hammersmith harrier]

It however does help your average playing the four worst teams one after another, where is the achievement of winning a two match series anyway?

You are so biased in favour of SA that you will not accept or see any criticism of the 'greatest team ever', what a bullcrap thread that was.

[kingraf]

Indeed nothing says I think they're the best team ever, like having The Australian and West Indies era above them.

Funny they are the four worst teams, and yet you failed to beat two of them in the last twelve months. Embarrassing. Especially given the fact that they don't even take the format seriously.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Three five match series against Australia and one against India kind of sh1t all over that argument, two teams willing to properly test themselves overseas.

[seanmichaels]

I never once mentioned averages and the fact you are highlighting that as opposed to the fact that as HH says, sA's fixtures over the last few years have been embarrassing says it all really.

Sure England lost a few series during a difficult period but at least we have filled stadia and retained an appetite for the format.

[GSC]

5 test series in general are too long to be honest. 3s a reasonable number for all but the biggest series.

[seanmichaels]

Depends on oppostion. This is why there should be a two tier system. 5 test series against top tier, 2 test series against lower tier

[kingraf]

Too bad India have failed that away Test then. Repeatedly.

[alfie]

Not sure how much that last group of posts have to do with the Ashes...
But it has certainly served to get a few people a bit cranky

Look , the rankings are what they are : an attempt to put some kind of values on to an otherwise hard to quantify bunch of unrelated contests.  They are never going to be "perfect" ; as in providing a totally accurate picture of the relative strengths of a group of teams who play each other in almost random fashion over a period of years - with some pairs rarely meeting and others going toe to toe every few months....and by the time what might loosely be termed a "cycle" is over : retirements , development of new players , changes of coach and just general wear and tear have often combined to render comparisons of any two teams seriously out of date...
In other words : anyone who thinks the rankings are ever going to be an absolute summary of the actual current state of all teams is in dreamland.  They (generally) show a team that is really outstanding with a suitable gap to the rest. The only time that goes wrong is when a team goes into decline , whereupon they can be a bit slow to record it.  But as for ranking everyone in order - forget it.
Right now they say SA is a cut above the others. And the next four or five are fairly close .  What's wrong with that ?

It can be interesting to see how teams can move up and down the table ; but it just isn't worth getting worked up over. (Well not to me anyway.) And I seriously doubt any alternative system would satisfy everyone either.

As for some teams playing each other more often , that is another issue...

[VTR]

Good points alfie. If England go 4-1 they aren't a bad shout for a marginal number 2 ranked team surely? Inconsistent like a lot of teams but with some decent series results in the last few years

The Ashes are on today anyway, the women's Ashes that is!

[Stella]

Three five match series against Australia and one against India kind of sh1t all over that argument, two teams willing to properly test themselves overseas.

India gave up half way through last time they were here. Five tests was about two too many.

[kingraf]

Not sure how much that last group of posts have to do with the Ashes...
But it has certainly served to get a few people a bit cranky

Look , the rankings are what they are : an attempt to put some kind of values on to an otherwise hard to quantify bunch of unrelated contests.  They are never going to be "perfect" ; as in providing a totally accurate picture of the relative strengths of a group of teams who play each other in almost random fashion over a period of years - with some pairs rarely meeting and others going toe to toe every few months....and by the time what might loosely be termed a "cycle" is over : retirements , development of new players , changes of coach and just general wear and tear have often combined to render comparisons of any two teams seriously out of date...
In other words : anyone who thinks the rankings are ever going to be an absolute summary of the actual current state of all teams is in dreamland.  They (generally) show a team that is really outstanding with a suitable gap to the rest. The only time that goes wrong is when a team goes into decline , whereupon they can be a bit slow to record it.  But as for ranking everyone in order - forget it.
Right now they say SA is a cut above the others. And the next four or five are fairly close .  What's wrong with that ?

It can be interesting to see how teams can move up and down the table ; but it just isn't worth getting worked up over.  (Well not to me anyway.) And I seriously doubt any alternative system would satisfy everyone either.

As for some teams playing each other more often , that is another issue...

It's possibly hard to believe, but I wasn't even bothered by it. I definitely didn't think England's ranking in any way had anything to do with South Africa (can you spell "rear view mirror"?). It is amusing though that I've complained about the ranking system for this long, and yet I suddenly have an anti-English agenda. England beating Aus 4-1 only warrants a shift if they are the only team to beat Aus 4-1 having had a five match series. This is true. But only because they are the ONLY team who get a five match series against Aus. Ergo the scoreline alone is not in and of itself the end all and be all. Aus could have faced Pakistan in eight tests last year in Dubai and they would have lost 8-0. I really don't understand how its difficult to see that the system favours teams which play more.

[VTR]

Three five match series against Australia and one against India kind of sh1t all over that argument, two teams willing to properly test themselves overseas.

India gave up half way through last time they were here. Five tests was about two too many.

It was a very odd performance, a good showing to be 1-0 up after two Tests then three consecutive abject capitulations to lose 3-1, with the further embarrassment of losing quite a few wickets to Chris Jordan's bowling.

[Gooseberry]

Aus could have faced Pakistan in eight tests last year in Dubai and they would have lost 8-0. I really don't understand how its difficult to see that the system favours teams which play more.

So is the system is unfair on England because they lost points in the 5-0 pasting in Aus or because might gain some if they win 4-1 in the return fixture?

The flaws in your logic are getting hilarious.

[Duty281]

Shock horror - a test ranking system favours teams which play more test cricket! Who ever would have thought that the more test cricket played by a nation meant there was more opportunity to gain (or lose) points?

The problems that Kingraf has highlighted appear to be more with the scheduling and number of tests played, than how the actual ranking system works.

[kingraf]

Duty - By definition, once that is the case, then the system comes undone. You can't defend the Rankings by saying England will deserve it because they would have beaten Australia 4-1. They are the only team with that opportunity! It's very different than saying they are the only team which can. If you wanna get technical, a 4-1 isn't even a whitewash, which has been inflicted on Australia twice in the last three years, so it's not even a unique achievement.

Gooseberry - Yep, you weren't here, but I said the exact same thing when England lost 5-0. Please find a new English cause to defend. I don't think we're gonna agree, so I won't bother any further.

[CaledonianCraig]

I despair.

Give me test match cricket any day over limited overs cricket. Sadly, it seems, more stock and importance in the cricketing world is put on cricket played in a thrash and bash manner wherein wickets fall (or are given away) far too cheaply in the pursuit of keeping up the run rate or runs are scored too freely by overly defensive field settings due to a team trying to protect their total. Sorry but that isn't for me. In a way it is a little like watching five-a-side football usurping 11-a-side. Mind-boggling.

Rant over.

[temporary21]

To be balanced, I do think that SA should play longer series against big opposition, 5 tests against Aus etc. To be fair though I dont think SA deliberately do that to protect anything, its the ICC whos at fault there.

I care not for the rankings, I would be all for big teams playing longer test series

[VTR]

cricket played in a thrash and bash manner wherein wickets fall (or are given away) far too cheaply

Enough about Australia's batting at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge!

[Gooseberry]

cricket played in a thrash and bash manner wherein wickets fall (or are given away) far too cheaply

Enough about Australia's batting at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge!

It is quite amussing to see all the same pundits who trashed England for being too negative and not playing enough IPL now queueing up to point out that the Aussies are too agressive and play too much IPL/BBL.

And betwen those two extremes we had county cricket being blamed for producing crazy "results" wickets which encouraged players to be aggressive and put the bat on ball. Now its the lack of movement on Aus pitches and from the Kook balls that means they forget how to leave when it swings.

If youre losing whatever you were doing was wrong.

[VTR]

cricket played in a thrash and bash manner wherein wickets fall (or are given away) far too cheaply

Enough about Australia's batting at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge!

It is quite amussing to see all the same pundits who trashed England for being too negative and not playing enough IPL now queueing up to point out that the Aussies are too agressive and play too much IPL/BBL.

And betwen those two extremes we had county cricket being blamed for producing crazy "results" wickets which encouraged players to be aggressive and put the bat on ball. Now its the lack of movement on Aus pitches and from the Kook balls that means they forget how to leave when it swings.

If youre losing whatever you were doing was wrong.

Indeed! It's absolutely hilarious that Australian domestic cricket is currently being panned for having too few teams leading to too little FC cricket played and poor technique from not using the Dukes ball, whereas after the whitewash in Aus, English cricket had far too many teams and wasn't producing the 90mph bowlers needed because its too easy to be effective at 80mph with the Dukes ball.

I think we are best classifying most punditry into the cesspit of reactionary drivel, best ignored unless you want a good laugh

[LondonTiger]

so go away for a couple of weeks to a wifi free zone and rteturn to fine wqe have won two tests in less than 5 days of total play.

Should go away more often.

[Sponsored content]