Television commentators were speculating during the final Test in Hobart about what a combined Ashes series ‘best of’ team might look like. I thought I would have a go as well.
Here’s my combined XI.
1. David Warner (vc)
2. Zak Crawley
3. Marnus Labuschagne
4. Joe Root
5. Travis Head
6. Usman Khawaja
7. Alex Carey
8. Mitchell Starc
9. Pat Cummins (c)
10. Scott Boland
11. Nathan Lyon
12th man: Mark Wood.
For openers, I have opted for David Warner and, perhaps surprisingly, Zak Crawley. Despite Warner’s pair in Hobart, the couple of 90s in the early part of the series set the tone for the series.
The selection of Crawley may be odd but he does have a presence at the crease, made a number of starts and his 77 in Sydney was high quality. He edges out Marcus Harris. It is instructive that the opening slots are the hardest to fill, given that both sides suffered from lack of consistent opening stands.
At No.3 is Marnus Labuschagne with a fine hundred (despite receiving a number of chances) in Adelaide and other good scores. Rated the No.1 batsman in the world, Labuschange provides top order solidity and ability to wear down the new ball attack.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Despite not achieving the coveted three figures on Australian soil, Joe Root batted reasonably well mostly batting in crisis situations. How he would love to bat with more runs on the board. Of concern was his tendency to get out in the same manner, flirting outside off stump. He edges out Steve Smith who did not have a great series by his stellar benchmarks.
Number 5 is clearly Travis Head with his twin centuries, other useful scores and match of the series status. His batting has improved markedly and his aggression in this spot provided the impetus when the team innings needed it.
At No.6 is Usman Khawaja even though he did not bat in that position during the series. Twin centuries in Sydney seals his spot.
It was difficult to leave Cameron Green out. His bowling was penetrating and incisive, but batting remains a work in progress despite some promising signs.
The keeping position goes to Alex Carey who generally kept well but as the series progressed did find the going a bit tougher. Perhaps not having the slip fielders spaced widely enough contributed to this. Carey did not quite get going with bat but his knock in Hobart was useful, in resuscitating a wobbly innings.
In the pace department, and indeed the whole bowling unit, Australian bowlers dominate. Mitchell Starc had a fine series, was hostile and swung the ball, although tailing off towards the end.
Pat Cummins was an inspiration, with his relentless line, ability to move the ball and taking the crucial wickets at watershed moments. Cummins also proved to a fine leader and obtains the captaincy clearly while I have opted for David Warner as vice-captain.
Joe Root’s captaincy has come under fire consistently and as such I left him out of the leadership.
Scott Boland was an absolute revelation in his debut series with his impeccable line and length and just enough movement to cause mayhem. His devastating display in Melbourne was a series highlight and mesmerising.
Scott Boland claims the inaugural Johnny Mullagh Medal. (Photo by Darrian Traynor – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Nathan Lyon bowled well for the most part, getting good grip, drift and bounce and was head and shoulders the best spinner among the teams. He made important breakthroughs including in Brisbane to remove the lengthy and threatening partnership between Root and Dawid Malan, although it should be noted that not for the first time was he unable to decisively bowl a team out on the final day, as we saw in Sydney.
Mark Wood was impressive and England’s best bowler over the course of the series, the highlight being the six-wicket haul in Hobart. He was energetic, hostile and fully committed to the cause right to the end. However, it is hard to put him in the team ahead of the Australian quicks and as such he gets the 12th man spot.
Ollie Robinson would also be in the conversation for the 12th man spot.
Interestingly, this series can be seen as the one for the lesser lights. The dominance of the usual suspects in Ben Stokes and Steve Smith was absent while the rise of the likes of Scott Boland and Travis Head was notable.
The fact that only two England players find themselves in this combined line-up speaks volumes for the way the series panned out.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I think you need to man up and make a choice between Head and Khawaja at 5. Green was the best 6 and had a significant impact on the whole series.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Thanks (for respecting my wishes not to converse with you), I appreciate it.
Mike
Guest
I was actually supporting your initial point and just mentioned Botham to show that (statistically at least, which many go a lot by) Green's not far from the money. I wasn't implying that Botham was in any way not a great player. I saw all his career and was following cricket for a good ten years prior to him. Very happy to not or ever again have a conversation with you. You seem to get very easily annoyed. Perhaps look at that.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
If you want to have a conversation with me, don’t quote raw undissected averages. They mean nothing and it is way past the point of annoying. Botham was an outstanding bowler from 1978-81 and an outstanding batsman until 1983. His only outstanding success thereafter was on the 1986-87 tour out here. The West Indies always had his measure, especially with the bat in his hand.
Mike
Guest
Root makes the team as a result of needing to shoehorn a couple of Poms in there. He averaged 32.4 to Green's 32.5...er...Green's 13 wickets at 15.7 (mostly top order) should make the difference. It's a no-brainer. Incidentally, Green's series stats (32.5 and 15.7) are probably better than Botham's career stats (33.5 and 28.4). Just saying!
jameswm
Roar Guru
With his wing span, he covers a lot of real estate. One obvious drop, but otherwise caught and stopped pretty much everything. He could end up one serious freak if: (1) his body holds together and he can bowl most of the time and (2) he gets the hang of test match batting - which he is on track to do. A fair bit to learn still, and learn to bat on the subcontinent. He seems to be learning at a good rate too.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No idea how Root makes this team. He only made 62 and 50 in his team’s three first innings of the three tests in which the Ashes and series result was decided, and they were nowhere near enough for the team cause, conceding a 237 run deficit batting second, and being bowled out for 185 batting first. His 89 in his team’s second innings in the first test was meaningless as it was made in a completely lost cause situation with defeat already well and truly a foregone conclusion. He had needed to make 89 in England’s first innings. Australia had his measure all series, as they had his entire previous two series out here. In 15 test matches here he has not played one single solitary match defining innings. In fact, in 30 Ashes tests both home and away, he has played only one solitary match defining innings and that was in Cardiff, first test of 2015 series.
Son of Coco
Guest
He is unreal at gully for someone of his size, isn't he?
Son of Coco
Guest
Let's not bash Khawaja in Hobart. Warner was far worse and dropped one of the sitters of the series.
Son of Coco
Guest
Agree strongly on Uzzie in for Smith/Root. We need to be honest about Smith: he did not have a good series and is not in good form (but he's not in bad form either). His 67 in Sydney was the only truly good innings, and even then he came in on a decent enough start. His 93 came off the back off a huge platform laid by Labu and Warner + a dreadfully low English first innings. Tbh, anything less than 93 would have been a poor return under the circumstances. When runs and his talent were needed most, he was strangely absent this series.
jameswm
Roar Guru
And his fielding was noticeably excellent
Paul
Roar Guru
"If England had bowled at their best with their best bowlers in the best conditions, Australia would have struggled too." You didn't mention the 20 plus catches England put down or the 10 or more missed run outs and missed stumpings. England's bowlers also beat the bat way more than our bowlers did, so our batting was barely better than theirs if they'd have simply taken their chances or had a little more luck go their way.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Green for Root. Green averaged 32 (the same as Root) & took 13 wickets at 15.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Starc and Cummins in Adelaide were unplayable. Boland and Green in Hobart were brilliant. Broad, Anderson and Wood all had great sessions. A fourth good bowler would have helped the cause. Not good enough for long enough, fitness,selection,decisions about batting all played their part. If England had bowled at their best with their best bowlers in the best conditions, Australia would have struggled too. However,our worst batters were nearly as good as their best. That is the story
Graeme
Roar Rookie
I see and respect your point Chip. I believe his batting improved dramatically late in the series. Once he got some time in the middle he looked comfortable as number 6. I think he would get a gig for any test team in the world right now.
Chip
Roar Guru
Hi Graeme. Thanks. Selecting the team was harder than I thought it would be especially the opening slots. Green was great in many ways- I just feel at number 6 more reliability is needed with the bat.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
It was very interesting how their bowlers beat the bat so often, and some of their bats, esp Root, didnt seem to get beaten as often as some like Marnus, Harris and Warner in Brisbane. Yet I didnt think our guys showed better technique. Eg Marnus was pushing out at a lot of the balls he got beaten on rather than keeping bat behind pad. And England didnt seem to play a lot more bad shots than our guys, and both teams got out to a lot of leg cutters that were hard to play. So did our bowlers just bowl more of those leg cutters on just the right line and length to get the edge? Or were catches a big part of the difference? Probably both. And Lyon a big difference in the first couple of matches.
Paul
Roar Guru
My first reaction to your comment was, "yeah, that's right", but really I wonder if that was the case? The Aussie attack was certainly better but not sure by how much. Bear in mind the batsmen we had to bowl at apart from Root. If someone had said to Root & Silverwood before the series started, "what type of pitches would you like in Australia", I'd have thought they'd have gone for the pitches they got. Their bowlers simply bowled poorly for the most part but still beat the bat over a hundred times, aided by some deadset baffling selections, lots of dropped catches, etc.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Good call, although in mitigation for Root, he was facing decidedly more difficult bowlers to handle than Green.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Good solution, maybe Usman at 3 given Joe doesn’t like batting there.