Paz on 13/11/2006 at 15:45
Fellow fans of English cricket, we are going to have to endure an awful lot of Aussie crowing fairly soon - so I think it's wise that we suitably lower our expectations. I'm concerned about our chances. Extremely concerned.
~ Michael Vaughan is still out injured. We'll badly miss his captaincy, and even if he returns in time, he'll be severely lacking in match practise.
~ Flintoff HAS returned from injury, but has yet to find any kind of form (indeed, he hasn't really had time to). I'm not sure how much he's going to be able to bowl either - which may mean that England have to pick an additional bowler, weakening the batting somewhat.
~ I've not seen Pietersen have a good innings for about five hundred years.
~ Trescothick has issues. Is he over them?
~ Looks like the batting so far has been so terrible that we've considered bringing back Jones as wicket keeper. Because his batting is .. uh... fairly crap, but slightly less crap than Read's, presumably (not sure about this!)
~ The Ashes 2005 bowling attack looks to have been a peak. Simon Jones is still injured, Harmison is Mr. Inconsistant ... possible replacements like Mahmood and Anderson don't look good enough.
Um, can anyone try to make me feel slightly more optimistic about this please? At the moment I'd be happy with "non-catastrophic loss."
I think we may have to turn to Plan B: claim Monty Panesar (a new bowler who actually can do the business, hooray!) has been racially abused and get the matches declared null and void. The resulting drawn series would allow us to retain the urn.
[edit] I forgot the biggest reason for our forthcoming defeat - the games are only being shown live on Sky. Twats.
Jakeyboy on 13/11/2006 at 16:32
Our chances of batting out for a draw every game to retain The Ashes don't seem very high, so I think we're actually gonna have to win a game or two if we wanna do well.
Last year, it seems was a bit of a fluke, we sneaked one of the victories, and had that game gone the other way I feel the series would have been a completely different kettle of fish. For any results we're gonna need a lot of hard work, I am a bit pessimistic.
Players:
Michael Vaughan: Definitely missed. No real replacement.
Freddy is clearly still suffering from the victory parade (still got newspaper clippings of him covering my wall). He'll need to up his game if we're in for a shot.
Bringing back Jones to the stumps a great decision. He's an excellent keeper and can do very well with the bat, good at staying one end of the strip in troublesome times.
As far as bowlers though, Panesar could be a great hope. I've said for a while to bring Croft* back into the equation, he's still an excellent player but they seem to have forgotten about him. Haven't really got any consistency with fast bowlers do we? Hoggard perhaps, but another unreliable man.
I'd say with us short of the team from last summer, the score will run around about 3 - 1 to Australia, fairly comfortably.
Don't forget, we own the *real* ashes and they never leave England!
*Croft is friends with a couple of people in our cricket team, and during the summer he came down to play for our 2nd team in a friendly. He was pissed from the night before, but mustered a mere 177 (after 100 he was giving catching practice) and 1 - 4 from 1 over. I wish I was bad enough to play in that team, unfortunately I was in the first team that day so I missed the show.
Para?noid on 14/11/2006 at 01:57
I think we are pretty fucked because the team is in shambles, particularly with morale - Strauss has lost his buddy Trescothick to the booze, Flintoff has no Vaughan to help him out, Pietersen has gone completely blind and Panesar is being called an Indian or something hilariously inoffensive.
At any rate this is what I'd do:
<img src="http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/100/asddjd0.png">
Paz, I trust that comment about retaining the ashes by getting the matches cancelled was sarcasm
ercles on 14/11/2006 at 06:36
Seeing as our Prime Ministers XI (pretty much Australia A) comfortably beat you, and you're still struggling against New South Wales, my money's on the home side. Let the pommy bashing begin! Ah the newspapaers take me back to when we hosted the Rugby World Cup (only this time you don't have Martin Johnson).
Brian The Dog on 14/11/2006 at 10:32
Quote Posted by Paz
Um, can anyone try to make me feel slightly more optimistic about this please? At the moment I'd be happy with "non-catastrophic loss."
OK, I think it's going to a not-quite-as-humiliating-loss-as-it-could-be loss :D
England normally do better at home, and since we only just won last time round, I can't see too much to cheer about. England's bowling has always been better than our batting over the past few years, and the bowling department is looking a bit light-weight at the moment. We will really miss Vaughan and Jones.
Noid's team looks about right for me, but I'd be surprised if they actually went with 2 spinners. Personally I'd go with Anderson rather than Mahmood, but they're very similar anyway. Although please tell me that's not the actual batting
order, I'd be very surprised if Collingwood batted below Read, and Panesar at 8...
Legion of Zombies on 14/11/2006 at 11:17
It's going to be a whitewash no doubt about it.
Para?noid on 14/11/2006 at 12:32
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Noid's team looks about right for me, but I'd be surprised if they actually went with 2 spinners. Personally I'd go with Anderson rather than Mahmood, but they're very similar anyway. Although please tell me that's not the actual batting
order, I'd be very surprised if Collingwood batted below Read, and Panesar at 8...
Yeah, that isn't the order, Trescothick and Strauss are in the wrong order too
Anyway, if not Mahmood, then Harmison, not Anderson! To be honest I never know which bowlers to pick because performances vary so wildly depending on conditions and morale and personal issues
Ajare on 14/11/2006 at 12:46
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Yeah, that isn't the order, Trescothick and Strauss are in the wrong order too
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6146688.stm) Any order involving Trescothick is wrong, now.
I guess it may be for the best, but I can't help but feel that a team without a player called 'Banger' is a poor team. Come on Monty. :(
Brian The Dog on 14/11/2006 at 12:50
Seeing as Trescothick won't be going ((
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/6146688.stm) story), then things look even worse! Looks like Cook will get the nod as a replacement.
Grrr, beaten to it by Ajare.
At least it will simplify things for the selectors!
Paz on 14/11/2006 at 13:09
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Paz, I trust that comment about retaining the ashes by getting the matches cancelled was sarcasm
Pretty much.
So, no Trescothick ... but at least Pieterson has potentially woken up in time.
Who opens now? Strauss and Bell? Arrghh.
