Cricinfo Readers' Ashes XI

[squiz]

Cricinfo Readers' Ashes XI

It reflects, perhaps, the closeness of the 2005 Ashes that the Ashes XI that Cricinfo's readers have picked contains six Englishmen and five Australians. The difference comes bang in the middle of the side, perhaps, where Andrew Flintoff bats at No. 6. Of the 4590 readers who voted to pick the Cricinfo Readers Ashes XI, 4524 voted for Flintoff. And yet, he wasn't the most popular choice. Fittingly, Shane Warne, one of the greatest players of any era, walked away with 4526 votes.

Ten of the 11 players in the side faced no competition. The only contest was for the last bowling place, for which Steve Harmison, with 2710 votes, beat Brett Lee, with 2509. Andrew Strauss, with his century at the Oval, made a late surge, but his 2043 votes weren't enough to keep out Marcus Trescothick (3826) or Justin Langer (2885). Ricky Ponting, with 3809 votes, got the most votes among the other batsmen, but was barely in the running for the captaincy: Michael Vaughan got 2705 votes to Ponting's 937, with Shane Warne gathering 540.

Cricinfo's staffers carried out a similar internal poll among themselves, and came up with exactly the same team. Our readers, it would seem, get the writers they deserve. Vaughan was our captain as well, and, interestingly, more of us voted for Warne as captain than for Ponting. But in the imaginary match in which our notional Ashes XI will play, both men will have to listen to Vaughan.

1 Justin Langer
2 Marcus Trescothick
3 Ricky Ponting
4 Michael Vaughan (c)
5 Kevin Pietersen
6 Andrew Flintoff
7 Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8 Shane Warne
9 Simon Jones
10 Steve Harmison
11 Glenn McGrath

 

[Reider84]

I think overall I would agree with that 11. I think perhaps Michael Clarke and Andrew Strauss may have deserved a place but its difficult to choose who to drop, perhaps Langer and Ponting?

Overall though I don't think there can be many complaints.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I would put Lee in there, definately.

 

[Will p]

Before i post this, let me say one thing I do know Gilchrist is a better keeper batsman than Jones!!

But in the test matches Jones scored 229 runs compared with Gilchrists 181 at an average of 25.4 compared with Gilchrists 22.6, ok so Jones dropped more catches and missed more chances, but Gilchrist didnt take them all! Don't roast me for saying Jones is a better keeper/batsmen, what do you think, did Jones deserve a look in (could be kent and England bias coming in here) But it's just an idea!!

 

[Sureshot]

Strauss scored 2 100s in the series which is more than any other batsmen iirc. Strauss did well.

 

[Andrew G]

Before i post this, let me say one thing I do know Gilchrist is a better keeper batsman than Jones!!

But in the test matches Jones scored 229 runs compared with Gilchrists 181 at an average of 25.4 compared with Gilchrists 22.6, ok so Jones dropped more catches and missed more chances, but Gilchrist didnt take them all! Don't roast me for saying Jones is a better keeper/batsmen, what do you think, did Jones deserve a look in (could be kent and England bias coming in here) But it's just an idea!!

Interesting, but here's my theory...
(And, no I'm not going rip your theory apart aggressively, just logically)

Gilchrist had a bad series, G.Jones had a top one, so you really have
to way them up by how they would perform on a good series,
it's the only way to get a good prediction of who would truely perform.

The Wicket Keeping side of it...
G.Jones hasn't had a long career, where as Gilchrist has and bad days
are rare for him, where as they are some-what common with G.Jones.
As seen in the Ashes, when G.Jones has a bad day Wicket Keeping,
it's shocking - I'd think you'd agree, where as with Gilchrist bad days
aren't any where near as bad, so you would have to trust him far more.

The Batting side of it...
Sure G.Jones played well with the bat, he was on home ground during
the Ashes, so one would expect that to happen, experience is everything.
With Gilchrist, we know he had a bad series, but he's a proven batsmen
that also knows the game better than G.Jones, even as a Captain he's
proven material. If the team was in some trouble in the top order,
I'd still trust Gilly more than G.Jones to help get the team out of a situation,
reason being, one bad series doesn't make one of the best batsmen in the
world suddenly worse than G.Jones, neither does age.

Sure I agree, G.Jones is worth a look at, but basing his performance
just on the Ashes isn't logical. Head-to-head, Gilchrist is better in
both Batting and Wicket Keeping.


I've said what I think, what's your thoughts on my theory, Will P. ?

 

[barmyarmy]

Gilchrist had a bad series, G.Jones had a top one

I'd say Jones had a poor series and Gilchrist had a worse one.

 

[squiz]

Yeah if this was a top series for Jones, then I'd hate to see what a bad series for him would be

 

[Andrew G]

True, it was bad, but it was pretty good with the bat
being his not a WicketKeeper-batsmen.

And yeah, Gilly's was an absolute shocker,
I've never seen him have that bad of a series before.

 

[Sureshot]

The bowlers got him worked out, and a bit of help from Strauss' wonder catch.

 

[squiz]

The bowlers (ie. Freddie)

 

[Sureshot]

4 dismissals for Freddie.

Hoggard got him twice, Giles twice i think.

 

[Eddie]

To be honest, he never lasted long enough for anyone else to have a chance to get him out.

 

[m_vaughan]

Thats the perfect XI. But the series wasnt as close as Mr.Squiz reckons it to be, was it?

 

[squiz]

Thats the perfect XI. But the series wasnt as close as Mr.Squiz reckons it to be, was it?

The CricInfo editors wrote the article mate