The Australian team from an English perspective
Unusually, there seems to be a bit of debate about the Australian team for the Ashes. Traditionally Aussie teams have been pretty much self-picking, but ageing players are leading to a little bit of intrigue. Here's our opinion. And we're being honest.
You'll notice that we're sticking with Hayden, even though we think he's a bearlike rectum. On flatter Aussie pitches, flat-track bullies are to be coveted. He'll make sure he scores heavily just to irritate us. You can count on it.
We've also gone for Phil Jaques in the middle order. There's lots of hoo-ha about how Jaques, an opener, can't get into the side whatever he does. Well Australia's middle order's more fragile than it used to be, so stick him there. Why not? Australia have traditionally blooded batsmen at number six and then promoted them when they were more comfortable in Test cricket. It's a good ploy.
We've also gone for Michael Clarke rather than an all-rounder. We're not dead set on this, Watson could play. We just think that they've got to start picking Clarke at some point, so they may as well now.
Mitchell Johnson gets the third seamer's position, although Stuart MacGill would be just as good a choice against England, no matter what the pitch. In any case, there's no point picking any more old laggards to clog up the bowling attack - Kasprowicz, Gillespie, Stuart Clark or whoever. They may as well go with a wicket-taker. As with Michael Clarke, they've got to start picking some youngsters soon and Johnson seems to be the best of the bunch.
Finally, Brett Lee's above Shane Warne in the batting line-up. Click on Brett's name to find out why.
You'll notice that we're sticking with Hayden, even though we think he's a bearlike rectum. On flatter Aussie pitches, flat-track bullies are to be coveted. He'll make sure he scores heavily just to irritate us. You can count on it.
We've also gone for Phil Jaques in the middle order. There's lots of hoo-ha about how Jaques, an opener, can't get into the side whatever he does. Well Australia's middle order's more fragile than it used to be, so stick him there. Why not? Australia have traditionally blooded batsmen at number six and then promoted them when they were more comfortable in Test cricket. It's a good ploy.
We've also gone for Michael Clarke rather than an all-rounder. We're not dead set on this, Watson could play. We just think that they've got to start picking Clarke at some point, so they may as well now.
Mitchell Johnson gets the third seamer's position, although Stuart MacGill would be just as good a choice against England, no matter what the pitch. In any case, there's no point picking any more old laggards to clog up the bowling attack - Kasprowicz, Gillespie, Stuart Clark or whoever. They may as well go with a wicket-taker. As with Michael Clarke, they've got to start picking some youngsters soon and Johnson seems to be the best of the bunch.
Finally, Brett Lee's above Shane Warne in the batting line-up. Click on Brett's name to find out why.
Labels: Ashes, Australia, England, Phil Jaques
