The Ashes

Well after day one, 346/3 AUS, they should go on and make 600 with no problems considering the way England bowled. Then make England bat for the best part of 3 days.
Harmisons first ball showed what type of mental mind he is in and its not good, obviously not prepared for the match. Didn't help when Flintoff took him off after 2 overs, that was a bad decision. England need him to click on this tour, he can be a more dangerous bowler than Flintoff. He got a few edges that went down third man for four. Flintoff's captaincy was below par, kept on changing his field in the first hour, doesn't seem to say much when on the field.
Now if Strauss was captain, a few things could have been different, Panesar would have played no doubt and he would have used Harmison more. Flintoff doesn't have as much confidence in Panesar, it showed in the Lords test against Sri Lanka, whereas Strauss looked to use Panesar as soon as he could, for example the Old Trafford test against Pakistan, brought Panesar on and helped bowl Pakistan out on the first day.

Harmison must be dropped.
He's lost it mentally.

Almost all of the Aussie batsmen have been left out at one time and come back stronger, so I don't see it's so radical.

Looks like a good batting track but the bowling was generally poor.

Originally posted by kol
Well after day one, 346/3 AUS, they should go on and make 600 with no problems considering the way England bowled.

Too early to say, after Ponting and Hussey we have Clarke who is pretty weak, Gilchrist is in shocking form and then the bowlers.

With some decent bowling Aus could be rolled over for 400-ish.

I agree Flintoff is not Captain material though.
I don't think he's smart enough.

Originally posted by Varg
Too early to say, after Ponting and Hussey we have Clarke who is pretty weak, Gilchrist is in shocking form and then the bowlers.

With some decent bowling Aus could be rolled over for 400-ish.

I agree Flintoff is not Captain material though.
I don't think he's smart enough.

How can you say Clark is weak,go and get you head read mate or better still go and put it in the sand where it has obviously been,cause you have not been watching Michael Clarke,or were you referring to the other Clark.
Gilly will bat himself into form and then there is Brett Lee who is becoming somewhat of an allrounder .
You should go back and watch your tiddly winks cause cricket is not your game to watch or comment on.

Originally posted by Varg
Too early to say, after Ponting and Hussey we have Clarke who is pretty weak, Gilchrist is in shocking form and then the bowlers.

With some decent bowling Aus could be rolled over for 400-ish.

I agree Flintoff is not Captain material though.
I don't think he's smart enough.

I thought they should have stuck with Strauss as skipper.

The total could be anything with the form of Hussey and the way Ponting looked. Ponting will have one eye on a double and Hussey will certainly be looking at 3 figures. The total will depend on the first hour tomorrow.

I disagree saying Clarke is weak, he may not be at his best but with England struggling in the bowling department he could well come in and make some runs. Gilly is a legend and it would not surprise me at all if has banished his round the wicket demons and spanks a quick 50.

Dropping Harmison ? It would take a brave man to drop the most dangerous bowler have. I agree with dropping player but to do it mid series is not a good idea. If you drop him for the next test then there is no way you can bring him back for the rest of the series.

Should Mahmood come in (tall, quick & gets bounce) and fails then what.
Should England lose this test and the next only then I can see Harmy being dropped but there is a lot of cricket between now and then.

My prediction is Aus for make around 500.

Originally posted by kol
Well after day one, 346/3 AUS, they should go on and make 600 with no problems considering the way England bowled. Then make England bat for the best part of 3 days.
Harmisons first ball showed what type of mental mind he is in and its not good, obviously not prepared for the match. Didn't help when Flintoff took him off after 2 overs, that was a bad decision. ...[text shortened]... ord test against Pakistan, brought Panesar on and helped bowl Pakistan out on the first day.

I think Giles bowled extremely well and dont think Panesar would of done much better ,the two in at the moment are test and one day players of the year remember.

Originally posted by boarman
I think Giles bowled extremely well and dont think Panesar would of done much better ,the two in at the moment are test and one day players of the year remember.

I agree with the decision to play Giles despite all the commentators saying otherwise.

I do not think there is much to choose between them as bowlers but in the field Panesar is just shocking & Gilo is certainly better with the willow. An extra 20/30 runs from the number 8 can make all the difference.

Originally posted by dan182
I agree with the decision to play Giles despite all the commentators saying otherwise.

I do not think there is much to choose between them as bowlers but in the field Panesar is just shocking & Gilo is certainly better with the willow. An extra 20/30 runs from the number 8 can make all the difference.

Agree totally ,That Panesar would of cost them at least 15 to 20 runs in the field ,my dog catches better than him ,and i dont think he could catch a cold in the middle of Antarctica.
Giles is a better bowler,batter and fieldsman and certainly has more experience .
Panesar has really only bowled good once .

Originally posted by boarman
Agree totally ,That Panesar would of cost them at least 15 to 20 runs in the field ,my dog catches better than him ,and i dont think he could catch a cold in the middle of Antarctica.
Giles is a better bowler,batter and fieldsman and certainly has more experience .
Panesar has really only bowled good once .

And that does not include the very real chance he drops a top order player who then goes on to make a biggie.

Originally posted by dan182
And that does not include the very real chance he drops a top order player who then goes on to make a biggie.

True so true .

Originally posted by boarman
Agree totally ,That Panesar would of cost them at least 15 to 20 runs in the field ,my dog catches better than him ,and i dont think he could catch a cold in the middle of Antarctica.
Giles is a better bowler,batter and fieldsman and certainly has more experience .
Panesar has really only bowled good once .

Panesar's: 32 wickets at 32.40, economy 2.58
Giles: 140 wickets at 39.60, economy 2.84

Only bowled well once? He was England's top wicket taker last summer. He takes more wickets than Giles, at a better economy. And remember that all his tests so far are against India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - all teams supposedly good against spin.

And he's going to get better. Giles isn't.

(And all this is ignoring the fact that Giles has been out for a year)

Originally posted by mtthw
Panesar's: 32 wickets at 32.40, economy 2.58
Giles: 140 wickets at 39.60, economy 2.84

Only bowled well once? He was England's top wicket taker last summer. He takes more wickets than Giles, at a better economy. And remember that all his tests so far are against India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - all teams supposedly good against spin.

And he's going to ...[text shortened]... ter. Giles isn't.

(And all this is ignoring the fact that Giles has been out for a year)

Yes he has bowled good only once ,go through and look at his figures ,just because he has 32 wickets and a low economy doesnt mean he has bowled good on more than one occasion (one test match)
If Giles has been out for a year how can Panesar take more wickets ,you just said Panesar 32 wickets ,Giles 140 wickets.
You are failing to see that India,Pakistan and Sri Lanka are on the weaker side these days.

Originally posted by boarman
How can you say Clark is weak,go and get you head read mate or better still go and put it in the sand where it has obviously been,cause you have not been watching Michael Clarke,or were you referring to the other Clark.
Gilly will bat himself into form and then there is Brett Lee who is becoming somewhat of an allrounder .
You should go back and watch your tiddly winks cause cricket is not your game to watch or comment on.

Clarke started his career very well and did well in India but he has been poor for the last year or so. He's averaged something in the 20's, even less if you discount his 100 against Bangladesh.
I'm not saying he can't score runs but he WAS dropped from the squad and only recalled because of Watson's injury.
Gilly NEEDS to bat himself back into form because although he is a legend, he has been shocking recently.
Agreed that Lee and Warne are also capable of frustrating bowlers and scoring rapid runs, but equally they can be out cheap as they are not batsmen.
I did say Aus COULD be all out for 400ish after all.
Remember the Oval last year? Aus were cruising to a huge lead on the Sunday until Freddie skittled them.

Originally posted by Varg
Clarke started his career very well and did well in India but he has been poor for the last year or so. He's averaged something in the 20's, even less if you discount his 100 against Bangladesh.
I'm not saying he can't score runs but he WAS dropped from the squad and only recalled because of Watson's injury.
Gilly NEEDS to bat himself back into form because a ...[text shortened]... Oval last year? Aus were cruising to a huge lead on the Sunday until Freddie skittled them.

Yes but these Aussie pitches are a lot different to the slow pommy ones .
Yes Clarke was dropped ,a huge error on the selectors behalf ,he will prove them wrong ,plus if they need variety in the bowling he can turn his arm over also.
Watson is a good player but not yet test standard ,his bowling lets him down in the longer form of the game .

Originally posted by mtthw
Panesar's: 32 wickets at 32.40, economy 2.58
Giles: 140 wickets at 39.60, economy 2.84

Only bowled well once? He was England's top wicket taker last summer. He takes more wickets than Giles, at a better economy. And remember that all his tests so far are against India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - all teams supposedly good against spin.

And he's going to ...[text shortened]... ter. Giles isn't.

(And all this is ignoring the fact that Giles has been out for a year)

Oh boy you got to love stats.

I am happy to concede that Monty has a slight edge in the bowling department.

One thing the stats do not show is that only 7 of those wickets are against left handers, Aus are rich in lefties 4 of them against 3 right handers.
So the left arm spinner is going to have to work harder to get the left hander out (obviously not impossible).

The next thing to consider is the batting order.

Strauss (Solid player)
Cook (Very good prospect - untested)
Bell (Competant - but poor last ashes)
Collingwood (Competant - but probably will not win a game with the bat)
KP - (Eng best batter ?)
Freddie - (Great player, but skipper + bowling + batting Mmm)
Jones - (I have no idea why Read is not playing)

Now for the fun and in any order because none of them can bat
Harmy
Anderson
Monty
Hoggy

With that batting line up YOU HAVE to choose Giles to extend it. Lets not mention Monty's fielding.

In short Monty is not a good enough strike spinner (esp with all those left handers) to make up for the light weight batting order and his deficiencies in the field - SIMPLE.