Ashes - Your First Test Team [Archive]

SeinDude

23 Oct 2002, 15:12

My test team for 1st Ashes test:

1. Matthew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Mark Waugh
5. Steve Waugh - Captain
6. Damien Martyn
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Shane Warne
9. Brett Lee
10. Jason Gillespie (if fit)
11. Glenn McGrath

12th Man: Andy Bichel

Andy Bichel is unlucky to miss out but Brett Lee should be given a couple of tests at home to show what he is capable of before dropping him. Obiously this also depends on the fitness of Jason Gillespie.

I think both the Waugh brothers should retain their places in the team for the moment, but Darren Lehmann is ready and waiting for his chance which will come soon enough.

Cheers!!
SeinDude

DaveW

23 Oct 2002, 15:22

Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting (c)
Darren Lehmann
Martyn Love
Simon Katich
Adam Gilchrist
Andy Bichel
Shane Warne
Jason Gillespie (Brad Williams on stand-by)
Glenn McGrath

hourn

23 Oct 2002, 16:09

Originally posted by DaveW
Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting (c)
Darren Lehmann
Martyn Love
Simon Katich
Adam Gilchrist
Andy Bichel
Shane Warne
Jason Gillespie (Brad Williams on stand-by)
Glenn McGrath

no Martyn??? his form's not great but it hasn't been prolonged like it was for the Waugh's.

my team,

Matt Hayden
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting
Martin Love
Steve Waugh
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist
Andy Bichel
Shane Warne
Jason Gillespie
Glenn McGrath

Brad Williams 12th man

clucas91

23 Oct 2002, 16:33

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Bichel
McGrath

12th man: Martyn

Navy Master

23 Oct 2002, 17:00

Openers - Langer and Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Lehmann
6. S. Waugh
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Bichel
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath
The 12th Man, Williams

Sick of Brett Lee not getting wickets, sick of Mark Waugh throwing his wicket away for not much

bluechampion

23 Oct 2002, 17:13

The eleven.

1- Hayden
2- Langer
3- Ponting
4- Lehmann
5- S.Waugh
6- M.Waugh
7- Gilchrist
8- Warne
9- Bichel
10 -McGrath
11- Innes

12th man - one of Martyn / Lee / Hauritz

Gillespie in if fit.

This is the perfect series to blood one or two youngsters. To give them the taste of the big time. I suggest the bowlers in particular given the heavy schedual and the looming world cup. No disrespect to the English, but we have bigger fish to fry.

lamby29

23 Oct 2002, 17:23

My 11

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. S Waugh
6. Gilchrist
7. Lehmann
8. Watson
9. Warne
10. Bichel
11. McGrath

12th Man : Gillespie/Lee

Watson in the team as he is a pretty good all-rounder.
I have always felt that Australia's tail is a bit long so the inclusion of Watson could fix that.

Mark Waugh and Brett Lee have to go.

roostersgal4eva

23 Oct 2002, 17:45

Originally posted by clucas91
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Bichel
McGrath

I agree with all but the order!

Mine is
Hayden/Langer
Ponting
Lehmann
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie (lee in if dizzie's injured)
Bichel
McGrath

bunsen burner

23 Oct 2002, 17:48

There really are some people who aren't too clued up about cricket here:

Damian Martyn: Anyone who thinks he should be dropped has rocks in their head. I guess some people don't like him and they let that cloud their judgement. The guy has an average of nearly 50!

Watson: Firstly, he isn't up to it, and secondly, the Aussies have dominated for years without an allrounder. Why bring it one now? Fair enough if Watson's middle name was Botham, but it isn't.

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. S Waugh
6. Lehmann
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Gillespie
10. Bichel
11. McGrath

In: Lehmann, Gillespie
Out M.Waugh, Lee

* I thought Mark Waugh should have gone over a year ago. I don't think it is wise to have to greats retire at the same time

** Lee needs a re-train. Keeping him in the team is bad for his and Australia's long term. I don't rate Bichel, but Lee has to go for a while and there are no up and comings who are in form.

*** Lehmann gets the nod, but there are plenty of others just as worthy (Maher, Love, Katich, Hussey, Hodge). I think we need someone pretty young, and there is no one who is in form who fits the bill. I would like to have Lehmann have a go before Katich gets a long term gig.

hourn

23 Oct 2002, 18:30

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Damian Martyn: Anyone who thinks he should be dropped has rocks in their head. I guess some people don't like him and they let that cloud their judgement. The guy has an average of nearly 50!
Yea agreed there. Martyn doesn't deserve to be dropped although his last two series have been very ordinary indeed. Has a few poor tests to start the Ashes series and there will no doubt be words spread through the media.

Watson: Firstly, he isn't up to it, and secondly, the Aussies have dominated for years without an allrounder. Why bring it one now? Fair enough if Watson's middle name was Botham, but it isn't.
Agree there as well. Not upto as of yet, maybe in a few years time.

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. S Waugh
6. Lehmann
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Gillespie
10. Bichel
11. McGrath

In: Lehmann, Gillespie
Out M.Waugh, Lee
agreed except Love were Lehmann is and Love at 4, Martyn at 6.

* I thought Mark Waugh should have gone over a year ago. I don't think it is wise to have to greats retire at the same time
Agreed

** Lee needs a re-train. Keeping him in the team is bad for his and Australia's long term. I don't rate Bichel, but Lee has to go for a while and there are no up and comings who are in form.
Paul Rofe is very young (born 1980) and was one of the leading wickettakers in Sheffield Shield last season. I swear to god i've mentioned his name about a dozen times on this board. In order of Australian quicks it goes 1. McGrath, 2. Gillespie (whose form is absolutely terrible), 3. Bichel/Lee, 4. Bichel/Lee, 5. Williams, 6. Rofe.

*** Lehmann gets the nod, but there are plenty of others just as worthy (Maher, Love, Katich, Hussey, Hodge). I think we need someone pretty young, and there is no one who is in form who fits the bill. I would like to have Lehmann have a go before Katich gets a long term gig.
Martin Love's form from last season was unbeliavable and there is no reason why he couldn't keep it going. Although Lehmann is probably more deserved because of long-term brilliance, i think Love should get the nod because he can take a more permenant spot in the Australian batting line up.

BUBBALOUIS

23 Oct 2002, 18:35

Elliott
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
S.Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Bichel
McGrath

Abba Lonie

23 Oct 2002, 19:14

Taylor
Elliott
Boon
M Waugh
Bevan
Border
Moody
Zoehrer
May
Angel
Alderman

We would still win.

Kane McGoodwin

23 Oct 2002, 19:25

Originally posted by Navy Master
Openers - Langer and Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Lehmann
6. S. Waugh
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Bichel
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath
The 12th Man, Williams

Sick of Brett Lee not getting wickets, sick of Mark Waugh throwing his wicket away for not much 100% agree with you side. Similar to Jars too, but reckon Martyn should bat ahead of Lehmann.

NICK THE PIE MAN

23 Oct 2002, 19:26

Lee definatly needs some time back with NSW to get his sh*t together. But geez, we need in the future when McGrath goes.
(McGrath retiring is a scary thought) :(

M.Hayden
J.Langer
R.Ponting
D.Lehmann
S.Waugh (c)
D.Martyn
A.Gilchrist (vc)
S.Warne
A.Bichel
J.Gillespie
G.McGrath

bunsen burner

23 Oct 2002, 19:36

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS
Elliott
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
S.Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist
Warne
Gillespie
Bichel
McGrath

Elliott? The guy who has had his chances and isn't up to it? Why would you break up Hayden and Langer who are Australia's first good opening partnership since Taylor and Slater.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention - Hayden and Langer have the best opening partnership record in history. Yes, better than Greenidge and Haynes.

And there's more! Traditionally the hardest spot to bat is #3. Ponting is the first good #3 we have had since Boonie. Why would you move him?

I would suggest that your irrational views indicate that you are in denial. Elliott must be your favourite player. Let me bring you down lightly - THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT ELLIOTT WILL (OR SHOULD) MAKE THE ASHES TEAM, yet alone squad.

Are you aware that he had to give up his Victorian vice-captaincy because of his bad form? I think maybe you are dellusional and need help.

clucas91

23 Oct 2002, 19:50

Elliott did top the 1997 Ashes tour batting averages including a fine 199. He was dropped pretty soon after that...Pretty harsh.

hourn

23 Oct 2002, 21:29

It was a bit harsh on Elliot getting dropped when he did, but whats done is done and Hayden and Langer have since picked up the ball and ran with it while Elliot is still about 15 yards behind them.

But in saying that, I wouldn't be all that dissapointing if Elliot was given another test run if there was some injuries to our top order batsmen. But in terms of forcing his way back into the team through form, well i dont think that'll happen.

Deestroy

23 Oct 2002, 21:37

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Lehmann
5. S. Waugh
6. Martyn (hasn't done much lately, but who better could be brought in?)
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne
9. Bichel
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath

12th man - Williams

DaveW

23 Oct 2002, 21:47

Elliott hasn't done enough in recent times to deserve a spot in the Test side. Hussey, Maher and Cox are all better chances.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 00:01

Elliott wouldn't even come into the selectors considerations at the moment. He is way way down the batting pecking order.

hourn

24 Oct 2002, 00:03

Elliot isn't all that off the boil.

Had a top season last season - was right up in the runscorers of the Sheffield Shield at a healthy average, and although 25 and 21 isn't a great start to the season, its not the worst.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 00:14

Originally posted by hourn
Elliot isn't all that off the boil.

Had a top season last season - was right up in the runscorers of the Sheffield Shield at a healthy average, and although 25 and 21 isn't a great start to the season, its not the worst.
Boil or no boil, he wouldn't even enter the selectors minds. Hayden and Langer are under no threat as an opening pair, so there would be no reason to consider Elliott. Jimmy Mayer is different because he can play down the order and is in red-hot form at the moment.

hourn

24 Oct 2002, 00:18

Originally posted by bunsen burner

Boil or no boil, he wouldn't even enter the selectors minds. Hayden and Langer are under no threat as an opening pair, so there would be no reason to consider Elliott. Jimmy Mayer is different because he can play down the order and is in red-hot form at the moment.

yes true they're not going to drop them for a while to come, but if an injury happend to one of them, Maher would be the replacement. Then if a second injury came to Maher or the remaining opener who would come in then do you think??

I think it could go either way between Elliot, Blewett and Hussey. And either selection wouldn't dissapoint me as there are pro's and con's about both.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 02:01

Originally posted by hourn

yes true they're not going to drop them for a while to come, but if an injury happend to one of them, Maher would be the replacement. Then if a second injury came to Maher or the remaining opener who would come in then do you think??

I think it could go either way between Elliot, Blewett and Hussey. And either selection wouldn't dissapoint me as there are pro's and con's about both. Selectors don't look that far down the track. They cross those bridges when they come to them. Like I said (and you did too), Elliott is way down the pecking order. I reckon Cox would get a call up before Elliott too.

Darky

24 Oct 2002, 02:21

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Love/Bevan
Lehmann (don't care who you drop, this bloke should have been in for all of the last 13 years)
S.Waugh (I guess that century saved his arse)
Gilchrist
Warne
Bichel
Gillespie
McGrath
12 - B.Lee/Kremerskothen

hourn

24 Oct 2002, 10:27

Originally posted by Darky

12 /Kremerskothen

:eek: after seeing him in your other post i thought i'd go check him up, and the reason i've never noticed him getting big scores is because he hasn't.

He's only got 4 half centuries from nearly 40 innings without a century, but he is obvioubsly consistent with an average 33.14. Bowling he's just under a wicket a game with an average in the mid 40's.

It's a bit premature to give him a go yet, but he does have time on his side.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 10:41

Michael Bevan.

Here is another guy that I have to question. It's amazing how many people use their hearts rather than their heads. He's a great ODI player, maybe the greatest, but he is NOT good enough to play test cricket for Australia. The reason? He has a weakness (the short ball), and anyone who knows anything about test cricket knows that to be a test batsman, you have to be the complete package. If you have a weakness, the opposition will work it out and you will get worked out. Bevan's name would not have crossed the selectors minds for a number of years.

I'm glad some of you aren't selectors, because quite frankly, some of you don't know what you are on about. Selectors don't pick their favourite players, they pick the best players.

nolsey77

24 Oct 2002, 10:46

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
S.Waugh
M.Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Bichel
Jason Gillespie ( Brad Williams)
McGrath

Hauritz (12th)

If Mark Waugh is dropped Id pick Mike Hussey, Martin Love or Jimmy Maher.

Martyn and Marky Mark change positions in the batting order.

dr nick

24 Oct 2002, 10:54

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Michael Bevan.

Here is another guy that I have to question. It's amazing how many people use their hearts rather than their heads. He's a great ODI player, maybe the greatest, but he is NOT good enough to play test cricket for Australia. The reason? He has a weakness (the short ball), and anyone who knows anything about test cricket knows that to be a test batsman, you have to be the complete package. If you have a weakness, the opposition will work it out and you will get worked out. Bevan's name would not have crossed the selectors minds for a number of years.

I'm glad some of you aren't selectors, because quite frankly, some of you don't know what you are on about. Selectors don't pick their favourite players, they pick the best players.

but bevan is very good against spin, and deserves to be in at least the squad when touring the sub continent, especially where the pitches dont bounce and you have the likes of mohammad sami, or some no name indian opening the attack. 80% of overs are spin.

he should not be picked for games on austalian, english or carribean soil though.

dr nick

24 Oct 2002, 10:56

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
M Waugh
S Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist
Warne
Bichel
Gillespie / (Lee)
McGrath.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 11:01

Let's have a look at this rationally (from the selectors eyes.

1. Hayden
2. Langer

Very succussful opening pair. They wouldn't even be considered changing.

3. Ponting.

Hardest position to play, and hardest player to find. They may have tossed up moving him, but I would say it would have been dismissed pretty quickly.

4. Mark Waugh.

Probably the most debatable position. There are probably selectors who support him, and others who don't. Some will want him to last the ashes because he has a good ashes record, and some will want to blood someone else ASAP.

Lehmann is the obvious. But there are 2 problems; 1) Australia is an ageing team and Lehmann is old. Might be time to get a long term prospect, 2) The selectors don't seem to like Lehmann. Lehmann has 2 things in his favour; 1) is loyal and has always performed in the baggy green, and 2) there are no youngsters that really stand out, and Lehmann just might fill in until they find the right person.

5) Steve Waugh

Plenty of debate about this one. Is a champion and deserves a good send off. His captaincy ability and recent century should enable him to play the ashes.

6) Martyn

Solid - at the moment. This will change if he fails to deliver in the ashes, but at the moment he is safe. I would say that they will discuss him moving up the order if Mark Waugh is dropped. Has the best technique in the team.

7) Gilchrist

It might be mentioned if he gets a promotion up the order, but I think this will be dismissed. The way he plays the game is perfect for a #7. If we already have a big score, he can play his natural game and score runs quickly without worrying too much whether he gets out. If it isn't broken, why fix it?

8) Warne

Safe as houses

9) Lee

Will come under tough scrutiny. His form is against him. Also Bichel's form was impressive recently. They night opt to give him a rest hoping he will come back better. The fact that the Ashes are on bouncy Aussie oitches might save him. They might give him a go at the SCG before they make a proper judgement.

10) Gillespie

If fit, his place isn't in doubt

11) McGrath

Safe as houses.

So, realistically, the only places up for grabs are mark Waugh's, Brett Lee's, and Steve Waugh's. All these people talking about Elliott, Bevan, and Watson (to a lesser degree) are being ridiculous.

Dogwatcher

24 Oct 2002, 11:01

Here's one out of left field for you. Ben Johnston from SA.
No he's not a popular name, but maybe if he lived elsewhere he'd have a shot.
Finished last season in excellent form and started off this season well. A run glut over the next month when SA play four shield matches could throw his name before the selectors - as it did for Blewett all those years ago.
His form strike, with M. Waugh and S. Waugh, on the brink either during the season or at completion, stands him in good stead.
The fact that SA don't play hte Poms in a first class match does, however, go against him.
But... is he up to it tempermentally? I'm not sure, other more informed people may be able to answer that for me.
I'm not suggesting he's an automatic inclusion, as there are some reasonable names ahead of him, but he's a roughie - especially, maybe this is just paranoia, if he played for another state.
As for the arguement that Elliot deserves another shot - stop dreaming. His form is terrible and stories surrounding his rleationship with other players in the team suggest even more so that he is not a chance - too introverted from what I've read.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 11:02

What has everyone got against Martyn? The guy averages 50 odd and is pretty safe in the team at the moment.

Dogwatcher

24 Oct 2002, 11:13

I totally agree with you on Martyn Bunsen, great player and a great fielder. Future Australian leader.

Jars458

24 Oct 2002, 11:21

Originally posted by Dogwatcher
But... is he up to it tempermentally? I'm not sure, other more informed people may be able to answer that for me.

Ben Johnson in my opinion is not up to test level in fact no where near.

He is a solid shield player who did do very well last year but before that was sturggling to even hold his place in the side.

His technique is not overly good and plays far too much wide outside off stupp and gets caught in the slips/gully a fair bit.

Whilst he is a good player for SA - he will not make it at test level.

Anyway, if the selectors don't give Lehmann a chance, Johnson has no hope.

Its will be a crying shame if Boof dosn't get picked next even though he is 32. He has done his time, been a great team man and has kept his mouth shut when he has had much to complain about.

I think he can do what Haydyn, Langer and Martyn have done with their second or third chances.

Whislt we talk a lot about youth, you need players who have proven they can play at the hightest level. The Baggy green should not come too cheaply.

If Boof takes over from Mark - he is 5 years younger - then when S Waugh retires you can put the youngester in at six and you get a smoother transition.

For me someone like Michael Clark from NSW would be the ideal player but he needs more first class experience first.

I hope Boof makes it. To see him bat for Australia at Adelaide Oval would be just awesome.

Time that teh selectors rewarded his great play for many many yeras and his loyalty.

He has been State player of the year, three years in a row for God's sake. That means he IS the next best.

Rant over.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 11:35

Originally posted by nicko18

but bevan is very good against spin, and deserves to be in at least the squad when touring the sub continent, especially where the pitches dont bounce and you have the likes of mohammad sami, or some no name indian opening the attack. 80% of overs are spin.

he should not be picked for games on austalian, english or carribean soil though. Sort of proves you don't know what you're talking about. This is an excellent cricket team, and you want to drop someone everytime we tour the sub-continent so Bevan can have a go? Sorry, doesn't work that way. In test cricket, you are either the full package, or you don't play at all - particularly during periods of strength like the Aussies are going through at the moment.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 11:41

Okay, so the general consensus is that the one position that is definately up for grabs is Mark Waugh's (I'm not going into the Martyn thing because regardless of what other ssay, I don't believe the selectors are even contemplating dropping him at this stage).

Out: Waugh
In: ????

Hypothetically, who should replace Mark Waugh and why? Should they slot straight into #4, or should there be a shuffle.

Candidates that have been mentioned:

Lehmann
Love
Maher
Katich
Johnson
Clarke
Hussey

I'm sure I've forgotten one or two, but I'm not even going to humour the clued-up people by naming Elliott or Bevan.

DaveW

24 Oct 2002, 11:52

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Sort of proves you don't know what you're talking about. This is an excellent cricket team, and you want to drop someone everytime we tour the sub-continent so Bevan can have a go? Sorry, doesn't work that way. In test cricket, you are either the full package, or you don't play at all - particularly during periods of strength like the Aussies are going through at the moment.

It's a valid point though. Don't forget Australia's middle order has crumbled against spin and lost us the Test tours of India in 1996, 1998 and 2001. Lehmann and Bevan are two of the best players of spin, yet neither was in the side in that 2001 series.

bunsen burner

24 Oct 2002, 11:56

Originally posted by DaveW

It's a valid point though. Don't forget Australia's middle order has crumbled against spin and lost us the Test tours of India in 1996, 1998 and 2001. Lehmann and Bevan are two of the best players of spin, yet neither was in the side in that 2001 series. Who would you drop? Lehmann has a case because he is a good allround batsman. Bevan shouldn't even rate a mention.

hourn

24 Oct 2002, 12:09

i dont think its wise to drop players based on where you are playing. It just causes to much disruption to a team, and doubt into a players mind coming into a series where he may be in trouble because the pitches dont suit him.

Wont be good for the team in the long run.

As for positions in doubt.

Obvioubsly Mark Waugh's is in doubt, and Brett Lee's.

We everyone thinks Gillespie's spot is in no doubt is beyond me. The guy's taken 26 wickets at 42 from his last 10 test matchs. That is worse than Lee.

If Steve Waugh, Gillespie, Martyn or Lee and M. Waugh (If they're picked) have poor Ashes series though, they will be under heavy scrutiny (particuarly Lee and M. Waugh).

Hayden, Langer (although his recent form isn't to great either), Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath could have the ****test of **** ashes series and they'd still be safe for the next tour as it would be dismissed as a poor series and nothing more.

Darky

24 Oct 2002, 13:13

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Who would you drop? Lehmann has a case because he is a good allround batsman. Bevan shouldn't even rate a mention.

For an Indian tour, drop the third quick. Bevan's spin is useful and his obsessive fitness allows him to bowl long spells. Gets a heap of bounce because of his wristy technique and is hard to play because of the way "chinaman" turns. "chinaman" is a great weapon against left-handers too, although India don't have a heap of them, and the Indians would probably be as adept as anyone at playing them.

If his bowling was worked on, he'd be more than handy as a number 6/7/8 batsman and lighten the batting load on Gilchrist on these sub-tropical tours.

Results aren't too common in that part of the world, as they tend to rack up their 5-600(dec), so it may not be the difference between a win and a draw, but it might be the difference between a draw and a loss.