How can we win the Ashes?

Think that the moment Rogers was picked, it was quite apparent that he would make the 11...no point in picking a 35 year old and not playing him... I have read every possible comment about Watson on ROAR... utter +ve to utter -ve...yet no one has him batting at No. 3..think he can do a good job at no. 3 with his aggressive\counter-attacking style needed at 3...also khawaja must play..too good to be left out for so long...i mean how worse can he perform than the ones already playing... so the batting line uo CAN be : Cowan Rogers Watto Khawaja Clarke Warner Haddin Please leave out Hughes...as it is he's wasted a spot in this squad...cant see him being up to it... what say roarers ?

Bertie (no doubt an Oldfield fan). If I was completely wrong about Hughes, how is it that the selectors stick with him. You need to be careful with making your claims in absolutist terms. Now you've made some good points about Hughes and I accept that he has had technique problems. hardly the first top batsman to have what are considered poor technique problems. Even if you refer back, Bradman was accused by some of having a technique that wouldnt work at test level. There is no locked in standard of technique in any sport. Everyone has their own idiosyncratic style issues. But I agree that there are some batsmen who dont make the next step to test cricket, though many like Rogers, Bevan, Hodge and it seems Cosgrove, who because of a bias against some aspect of their play, are never given the opportunities they deserve except in small amounts. The point you seem to be missing is that Hughes is 24 years old. He was thrown into the test arena probably before he was ready at 20 and has been found out by good test bowling. He's hardly the first. I remember the same arguments being tendered against Hayden...technique was wrong, good first class player but not test player etc.. I think you, like so many in the public, expect all the goodies at once. It just doesnt happen that way. Hughes has already adapted his play using more care flicking at the ball outside the off stump. He has developed a stronger onside play. He is being more temperate with his shot selection. This isnt just me talking, this is commentators discussing Hughes development...and that's the word...development. In India, most batsmen when they first visit that country for test cricket are found out. Very different pitchers than they are used to, against bowlers and batsmen well adapted to those conditions. Hughes failed though towards the end of the tour he was beginning to adapt. But so did Warner and Watson. Cowan only managed to maintain his 32.7 average because he does have a good defensive technique. But his scoring technique is fragile and that is why he keeps getting out early. He sits there defending and barely scoring for an hour or two and then starts to open up and generally gets out. If Cowan was 24 I would say persist with him and help him to develop safe attacking strokes. But at 30, most players have reached close to their peak as is evidenced if you look at their histories. Some will improve a little, some have purple patches, but generally their averages fall back to something close to what they had previously. Now I am not saying unequivocally that Hughes will make it as a test batsman. But the potential shown at this stage of his career suggests he will. Khawaja and Warner similarly. As for Doolan, Maddison and Burns, all goods batsmen on the rise, especially the latter two. But lets not rush them especially with Australian batting at the fragile level it presently sits. Same with Silk and Bostisto. Top batting talents but as you rightly point out, they need to go through their apprenticeship and learn as much as they can at first class level and address their respective flaws as best they can before being thrown into the test arena. Because you can be sure that what Hughes, Warner and Khawaja have been experiencing, will be also experienced by them. If there are some experienced batsmen around them though (which hasnt been happening for this lot) then it may soften the transition

Bearfax mate, you're totally wrong about Hughes. Statistics don't tell the whole story. Statistics are important, but they must be looked at through the prism of context (which to a great extent means looking at the player's technique and temperament). Also Phil Hughes' county runs have come in Div 2, which means we have to take his statistics with buckets of salt. Basically you just have to face this. There are some players who do very well at f/c level, but because they lack technique and/or temperament, they can't cut it at Test level. Graeme Hick is the classic example. Usually what happens is that at first class level, there are a few world class bowlers in the entire competition. This means that the batsman's technical weaknesses aren't exploited. Then they step into the Test arena, where they find potentially (as in England's case) a team of world class bowlers who will target the batsman's weaknesses and destroy them. This has happened to Phil Hughes in about 3 series already. Why, pray tell, do you defend him? It means that there are other batsmen, who mightn't do so well at first-class level, who are better equipped than batsmen like Phil Hughes, because they have the technique and temperament. England, in about 2000, found themselves in the position where they had batsmen who did really well in county cricket, but weren't cut out for Test cricket. Rather than persevering with such batsmen, they put faith in batsmen who hadn't done as well in county cricket, but had more technique, talent and temperament. Batsmen like Michael Vaughan. And come 2005, it paid dividends. Test batting is all about 3 components; technique, temperament and talent. You can be slightly lacking in one of those departments and compensate for it in another. But Phil Hughes is completely lacking in technique so he's incorrigible. He has no footwork, which means he really struggles with forward defensive strokes, leg-side play (less important) and the short ball. Also his balance is all wrong. He frees up his arms and moves his body weight towards square leg to smash the ball through cover. That's kind of like an inside-out forehand in tennis. It's not a shot you should base your game around (particularly in cricket). He has appalling technique. He mightn't get found out at first-class level. But he has been found out repeatedly at Test level, so he's not worth it. I agree that Cowan doesn't fill one with confidence. I say we start with Cowan. And if he flops, we bring in Nic Maddinson (a technically strong batsman who, although he hasn't a great average, has a few seasons of Shield cricket under his belt and had a good finish to the last season) or Michael Klinger (who is doing well with Gloucestershire). We should also invite Sam Robson, as he would walk into the Aussie team now. In the middle order, we need Khawaja (because he needs a proper run, like Hughes has been undeservedly afforded and because Khawaja has overall decent technique). If our middle order fail, we can consider Alex Doolan or even Joe Burns. And by the way your point about Cowan's age is irrelevant. 30 is hardly terribly old these days in cricket. We just want to win the Ashes. We have an ok batch of younger batsmen who are just starting out in the Sheffield Shield. If Cowan were to do well in Test cricket, it would work out nicely because it would give the younger batsmen time to establish themselves in the Shield (if they can).

Joe root scored a brilliant 100. A bad sign for aussies????

Coulter-Nile can slog, That's why he's in ODI favour.

Coulter-Nile is a Mickey Arthur fave because he plays for WA... He's not even a well-performed Shield player yet.

Jacques retired from first class cricket in Australia and is playing county cricket in England. He is going OK but not great.

Cuzza if only we had batsmen who could meet your high expectations but the cupboard is bare and what we have are a bunch of kids who may become top test batsmen. Who else would you select. Cowan is a good defensive batsman but he is 30, averages less than 33 in tests and less than 40 in first class cricket up against a 24 year old batsman who was thrown into the test arena at 20, has been dropped two or three times and sill has a test average slightly above Cowan. His experience in England has been mixed but having a 47 average is better than only a few present Australian batsmen who've played there. Cowan has less than 33 on English soil. I'm not sure what your argument is about here because I'm not suggesting Hughes is going great guns and Khawaja has barely had a chance. But they both did well enough in England suggesting they can handle the conditions unlike in India. But other than what happened in India, his stats are superior to Cowan's and he has youth on his side. Or is this just about a personal bias in favour of Cowan because you like him but dont like Hughes

Well siddle is no mcgrath or hughes but he should play the ist test and in case fails miserably then he shud be axed. champions trophy is in england nd if coulter nile bowls well then he shud b picked bcoz i think he's got that xtra factor that the team needs desparately!

Bowling short of a length doesn't work in England? I am pretty sure McGrath and Hughes, as well as many others, would disagree about that. Pick Couter-Nole based on one day white ball form? Too many have been picked using this criteria and it don't work? By the way, who is Couter-Nile?

Siddle bowls a shortish length which is not suitable in english conditions. When he bowls a fuller length he becomes a deadly bowler but he take too much time to figure it out. He'll definitely play the ist test but if he doesnt perform well then we should not continue with him. I think selectors should have picked coulter nile in the ashes squad. hes in the champions trophy squad and i think if he performs well then he shud b added in the squad.

Shaun "Class is permanent" Marsh?!

Indeed. Other than Pattinson (who's played 10 Tests) there isn't even any consensus on which bowlers should be picked.

who would you have instead of Hughes then? thats all we have?

I don't understand how people are so against Cowan but then pick Hughes and Watson. Personally I'm not a Cowan fan but when compared to the recent performances of Hughes and Watson he comes out looking like a decent test batsmen. Personally wouldn't pick any of them. Also siddle is ranked 5th on the icc rankings, ahead of Anderson and swann. With no other aus bowler inside the top 30 siddles spot is safe.

He means second division County Cricket.

The talents of the tailend have been overstated, They generally have not been scoring under physical threat or when the ball is zipping about.. Great fighting efforts but they are not up to entering the fray with the ball under 50 or 40 overs old on english wickets. Same with Haddin and Wade. They need the blokes ahead to occupy before they can be effective. I think the spot that will be vital wiill be no. 3 and also it will likely take 3 tests to get the right man there. That bloke is Khawaja. He's not going to be Ricky Ponting but he will be ave 40 and the blokes below will benefit. 6 bats, no allrounders. Crease occupation is essential. The bowlers need to expect that england are not going to roll over with bat and ball. We will still lose this series and the next but they will learn and be in a good position to win the ashes back. The Arthur/Clarke input has inhibited development. They need to stop this rubbish about line in the sand and attitude as a screen against bloodyminded strategy and favouritism and get the best men for the job on the park.

Again, not the most compelling stats, 15 county games in 4 years? Maybe we should judge him on his apalling test record over the same period. I have no problem with people selecting Hughes, but lets refer to the facts, not to his very high public opinion of himself. He continually says how he has improved, yet even with a dream run from selectors, he obviously hasn't. He needs to spend more time in the nets and less time talking to the press.

And just as a comparison Ed Cowan's apparently fine county form in England reported by the media has him averaging after four matches and 8 innings for Nottinghamshire this year at 35.4 and an overall county average from two stints in county cricket at 32.8....sound familiar. Interestingly this year young Burns has been playing county cricket and after five games is averaging 42.33. Rogers who only averaged 40.2 last year in county cricket, has exploded off the blocks during his games this year in county cricket and is averaging for the year 61.33. Interesting that Cowan loving media isnt reporting Rogers performances. He should be in the test team with that form.

Khawaja was a little less successful in his two stints at Derbyshire in 2012. He played 11 games for them scoring in a total of 20 innings 734 runs including two centuries and a high score of 135. His average was 41. I erred with Hughes in one area. he played 28 innings but two were not out scores and Khawaja was similarly not out twice. I should point out also that it seems harder to score in country matches than shield matches. Whether its the grounds or something else, generally teams dont score big innings there.