Composite XIs are normally selected at the conclusion of a series, but seeing as England have already claimed victory and are sat in the clubhouse with the proverbial celebratory pint, you can have this choice earlier than planned.
Feel free to disagree, and here goes…
1. Chris Rogers
Few cricketers get to leave the main stage while playing as well as they have done in a national team shirt.
By far the pick of the Australian batsmen, Rogers has played almost a lone hand in conditions that have spooked most of his colleagues. Not everybody gets the opportunities that their career probably deserves but Rogers has made the most of his belated chance. Australia really won’t know what they’ve got until he’s said his farewells.
2. Alastair Cook
This position was a toss up between the England captain and the cricketer who couldn’t be any more a polar opposite – David Warner.
Aside from Rogers, Warner has coped reasonably well with the conditions and should really have added a few more to his tally. However Cook, for all the flak he took after the 2013-14 battering and subsequent fallout, is now in as string a position as he’s ever been. His batting has promised more than has been delivered but winning has to count for something.
3. Steve Smith
The number three position has offered something of a mixed bag. An excellent double-century for Steve Smith at Lord’s and a pair of accomplished half-centuries for Ian Bell at Edgbaston, both in winning causes.
Aside from that, Gary Ballance struggled and once the pitches livened up, Smith’s hyperactive method got found out to some degree. Still, 200 is 200 and please don’t go down the flat pitch route as nobody in the opposition could take similar advantage.
4. Joe Root
If Rogers was a shoo-in for a spot then Joe Root even trumped that.
Two sublime centuries, both of which helped to shape the game in his side’s favour, and other useful runs to boot, the Yorkshireman is the real deal. Twice the player who was seen down under 18 months or so ago, Root is delivering and doing it in some style. And he’s going to replace Cook at some stage.
5. Ian Bell
On the Australian side of things, number five has been a poisoned chalice. Michael Clarke has not even been able to imitate a shadow of the once high-class batsman and Adam Voges has looked out of both time and place. For England, Root made a hundred in Cardiff and Jonny Bairstow should have done the same in Nottingham. But Root’s already included and his Yorkshire colleague doesn’t warrant a place so Bell it is.
6. Ben Stokes
The cricketer England have craved since Andrew Flintoff called it a day, Stokes should have his position for as long as he can stay fit. Good enough to bat in the top six, especially with Jos Buttler and Moeen Ali behind him, and a dangerous fourth seamer, he adds the necessary balance. Some good runs early in the series and I doubt he’s ever bowled better than in the second innings at Trent Bridge.
7. Jos Buttler
If there has been a disappointment from the England angle it has been the form of Jos Buttler. Not with the gloves as his wicketkeeping is definitely improving but at number seven. A dangerous counter-attacker, his defensive technique against good pace bowling was found wanting. But for all that, I’d still include him over Peter Nevill who could become a solid international cricketer.
8. Mitchell Starc
While it would‘ve been some going for Mitchell Johnson to repeat his heroics of the last Ashes series, much was expected of his left-arm partner and, to a degree, he delivered.
As a rule, the Australians didn’t bowl as poorly as the scoreline would suggest since it’s a damn sight harder to operate when your batsmen aren’t doing their jobs. Good pace, swing and a handy lower order batsman.
9. Stuart Broad
If he looked off the pace during the World Cup, Broad was consistently the best seamer in the series by a distance.
Even at Lord’s, where the English attack got little change from the surface, Broad at least looked like getting the odd wicket. And given the situation and opposition, he’ll never come close to bettering his stellar Trent Bridge performance.
10. Nathan Lyon
If you are picking a spinner from Nathan Lyon and Moeen then it isn’t really a contest. The latter had his moments in the first Test but when required to bowl a significant amount of overs at Lord’s he was picked of comfortably. That he wasn’t made to bowl a lot more was a big failing on the Australians’ part.
As for Lyon, he was steady as she goes as he always is and all talk of England getting after him came to nothing.
11. James Anderson
James Anderson, when presented with the conditions Edgbaston served up, comes second to nobody and what the opposition would’ve given to be able to include a seamer of his ability.
Good in Cardiff, he was innocuous at Lord’s but more than made up for that once Clarke had decided to bat in gilt-edged seam-bowling conditions in Birmingham. I bet he thought Christmas had arrived early.
ColinP
Guest
A graduate from the Ronan o Connell school of cricket...stats stats stats. Warne on commentary today said hazlewood has been consistently poor, and deserved to be dropped, and he's on your side. He hasn't bowled anywhere near as well as his numbers suggest, neither has starc, and Johnson has probably bowled better
Don Freo
Guest
I certainly share your assessment of Anderson's very soft bowling when things don't suit him, Baggy Green. Hazlewood has been inconsistent but more consistent than Anderson. Ali in instead of Lyon, Simoc? Really? Garry has been very good. Ali has been weak.
BurgyGreen
Guest
I'm a touch mystified by these responses. I stated the fairly reasonable opinion that Hazlewood has bowled better in this series. Then I was called insane. Then I backed up my opinion with a little statistical evidence, and some evidence that Anderson looked pretty awful at Lord's while Hazlewood picked up wickets, including a peach or two. Not sure what all the fuss here is about. I watched the games, and while Anderson has looked good in stretches, so has Hazlewood. Hazlewood has got results in every match, Anderson hasn't. You've got to balance how someone 'looks' against their results. Hazlewood has got consistent results while looking a little tired in the Third and Fourth Tests. Anderson has got intermittent results while looking good in some games and awful in others. As for "Hazlewood is a beginner at test level and nowhere near Andersons class" - Do you have to play a certain amount of Tests to be considered a good bowler? Is not the fact that he is playing Test cricket and succeeding enough to compare him against his peers? We're picking a team based on form in this current series, not the rest of their careers. Am I not allowed to pick someone who's played less than x number of Tests? "You need to watch cricket with your eyes Baggy Green (sic), not look at stats to decide" Well, actually I did both. Watched the games, read the stats. Considered them both and then decided that Hazlewood has been better. Simple.
Simoc
Guest
You need to watch cricket with your eyes Baggy Green, not look at stats to decide. Hazelwood is a beginner at test level and nowhere near Andersons class as a bowler at this stage. The selected side looks fair but probably Ali deserves to be in, even if its for Nathan Lyon. Starc has bowled heaps of rubbish and still got lots of wickets.
Jacob York
Roar Rookie
Hazledwood has bowled better then Starc or Johnson...
Andy
Guest
Bell 3, Root 4, Ali 5
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Yeah I think this composite XI shows how poor the batting has been from both teams this series - 4 members of the top 7 are averaging 32 or less Eng only have 2 batsmen for the series who have averaged more than 32 which highlights not just the heavy reliance on Root but even more pertinently how shocking Australia have batted to be 3-1 down.
English twizz
Guest
Put Ali in at five he bats at 3 in county champs then can have Lyons in team as well
peter chrisp
Guest
Being an Aussie and not proud @ the moment would you place Stuart Broad higher than 9, he's been outstanding.
Rob JM
Guest
Adam Lyth lost his nomination for the George Bailey Award after scoring a hundred in the NZ series though!
Tomas Kelly
Roar Rookie
Spot on Hutchoman, take out the top scores for all batsman bar Joe Root and the their performances are shocking. Bowlers totally dominant this series.. and not just with the ball!!
BurgyGreen
Guest
I agree with you that the analysis should go further than average, strike rate and economy rate, but I think that those numbers are enough to show pretty clearly that the belief that Hazlewood has been better is not "insane". I also mentioned that Anderson went missing at Lord's, unable to take even a single wicket. Hazlewood has been wayward at times but has at least picked up wickets in every innings.
Don Freo
Guest
Further complicated by the fact that Oz's best batsmen batted in the tail.
Rugby Realist
Guest
For mine you need to dissect the figures further than a straight comparison for a bowler (i havent) Anderson felt like he made more of an impact, and was more of a threat, but i dont know the stats. When did they get their wickets, was it versus the top order, or tailend, did they trouble Smith/Root, or take advantage of others. While all wickets are equal, some are more equal than others. It could go either way, but "in light of the facts" is simplistic, as is calling someone "insane"
Barryoh
Guest
I'm a fan of Mitchell Starc and the more he bowls at test level the better he'll get. He's still patently raw and inconsistent at test level. I think you're being generous Alec I would have put Finn in ahead of Starc. He bowled a couple of spells which swung the series in England's favour. Tend to agree with many here that Nevill might have shaded Butler, but not much in it. We really got belted when it came down to it, so 7-4 in a composite team is pretty generous for us I would have thought. I can't wait to see what the selectors do in Bangladesh.
BurgyGreen
Guest
Have a look at the figures. Hazlewood's average is slightly better with a substantially better strike rate. Economy rate slightly in Anderson' favour. Hazlewood dominated on the batting-friendly Lord's pitch, while Anderson barely turned up. I think it's tight but fair. You can make an argument for Anderson, but in light of the facts I think it's a bit much to call me insane.
Stucco
Guest
Hazlewood ahead of Anderson? You're insane.
spruce moose
Guest
That's a pretty accurate summation Rob. Perhaps deducting a point for each top order might really tighten it up. Adam Lyth will get an MBE for being a passenger.
Rob JM
Guest
Australia Top order 6/10 Middle order 0/10 Lower order 6/10 England Top order 4/10 Middle order 8/10 Lower order 7.5/10
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
The batting has been generally below par on both sides of the ledger in this series. Take out the Lord's test and the top scores of Rogers, Smith, Warner, Cook and Stokes all go out the window, along with their averages and totals. As much as it pains me, Root is the only batsman who has put any stamp on the series at all with Rogers probably next in line. Others, including some of those I've mentioned here, have made solid contributions, but none have dominated. From a batting perspective, the series has been decided on the basis of which middle order can cobble together more runs than the other. In the great scheme of it, the top order probably goes to Australia, the middle order to England with the bowlers split.