I feel that MacGill doesn't really need to play (unfortunate, he would stroll into almost any other test side). The big difference for the Aussies this year will be Hussey, who, apparently, can do no wrong, and Watson. Both put up very good performances in the DLF tourney in Malasiya. Moreover, they will be replacing guys who didn't have a great Ashes last time, Katich and Gillespie. But while Hussey probably more than makes up for Katich, Watson has bigger boots to fill.

Come the Ashes, England had better have a full strength team, 'cause the Aussies are going to throw everything at them, including the kitchen sink.

Five! Five! Five!

If England takes risks, they can bully Australia once more.

I'm going to suggest the unthinkable here - should MacGill be picked before Warne? Much better SR, greater wicket-per-match ratio, takes 5-wicket hauls more consistently, has a much better wrong'un and consistently outbowls Warne whenever they play together. And he isn't as expensive as Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar or even Matthew Hoggard.

Oh, and I'd take Martyn over Clarke every day.

The chances of Stuart bowling in the ashes will depend on the state of the pitches. if the pitches are hard and flat the selectors will turn to Watson because he is better suited to a quicker track but if the conditions are right MacGill may bowl. Australia do need another bowler but Clarke can bowl; also, what happened to Martyn?

I think Warne and MacGill should play in tandem in all the test matches, and if Watson fires then I'm pretty positive that they will play together. Most of the time that they have lined up with each other, MacGill has out shone Warne too, and with both players having an awesome record against England, they should be the key to Australia getting the Ashes back. Watson is starting to show some good form with both bat and ball and keeps improving, but lets not compare him to Flintoff just at the moment.

However, the first test line-up won't have MacGill, or Watson for that matter. Australia are going to make the silly mistake of playing four bowlers and Clarke at No 6. Clarke shouldn't be in the Test team for a few more seasons still. He only averages 40 at First Class level, whereas Watson averages 50. Clarke is a quality one day player, but thats because he comes in at the second half in the innings and can improvise and doesn't have to rely on technique as much to make a contribution. He is not a Test match No 4 yet, but give him time and he'll get there. And lets not forget Jaques, who averages mid 50s too, or even a guy like Cosgrove who is scoring a mountain of runs. But the selectors will turn back to the 'Golden Boy' and once again MacGill will play his one test for the Australian summer in Sydney. At least thats his home ground.

It amazes me how a bowler like Stuart Macgill can be on the fringes of any team (yes, even Australia). I suppose the mindset against playing two spinners developed due to the absence of a genuine allround option for Australia.

Watson seems promising, but his playing time in the Ashes will largely depend on rapid results from his selection. If he fails, Australia will probably revert to a specialist batsmen (Martyn?) and include either Stuart Clark or Mitchell Johnson as a replacement for MacGill.

All of this will of course depend on the progress that McGrath has made come November. If he is in good form and allied to a quick Lee and crafty Warne, then Australia will not be too worried.

England on the other hand seem to be preoccupied with protecting their tail and the resulting ambiguity is for all to see. Flintoff of course goes a long way towards solving this conundrum. If he is fully fit then England will have the luxury of choosing either a specialist bat or bowler depending on circumstances. Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Panesar will be the mainstays and I believe England will flirt with selecting either Collingwood (batsman) or Saj Mahmood (bowler). The line up should look like this:

1. Trescothick
2. Strauss
3. Cook
4. Bell
5. Pietersen
6. Flintoff
7. Read
8. Hoggard
9. Harmison
10. Panesar
11. Your choice of batsman or bowler

Considering Ducan Fletcher's concern about the lower order we might see collingwood in the playing eleven, coming in at no.6 and providing backup to the four main bowlers. Flintoff should bat earliest at no.7 as England must remember he is a bowling all rounder and thus must be utlized as such. Collingwood's inclusion would be the safe option and is a pertinent example of the problem England face. Are they more concerned about Australia's batting or bowling?

Now that question may be very, very hard to answer, unless you're prone to sweeping generalizations.

To generalise is to be an idiot - William Blake (I think)

I think England will be happy to see Michael Clarke in that line up rather than Damien Martyn who will want to prove that the Ashes 2005 was a minor blip. Clarke always gives the bowlers a chance - an in-form Martyn rarely does.

From memory, for the last couple of matches in the 2005 series Australia effectively operated with three bowlers, because Ponting was clearly very reluctant to bowl Shaun Tait. I can't say I blamed him, given that Tait was often going for six runs an over.

But I'm not sure Watson is the answer either. I reckon that the golden rule for any Test allrounder is that they should be able to keep their place in the side on the quality of either their batting or their bowling alone. Watson clearly doesn't meet that criteria. On the other hand, Flintoff is one of those once-in-a-generation players who has Test-quality bowling AND batting.

But why not play five bowlers (Stuart Clark instead of Watson) and bat Gilchrist at 6 and Warne at 7? I would argue that still gives Australia a top-7 batting lineup quite a bit stronger than England's - or any other team for that matter. And a very, very handy bowling lineup of Warne, Lee, McGrath, Clark and McGill.

Isn't there a case for Mitchell Johnson somewhere in that line up?

With McGrath and Warne on top form, Australia have been able to get away with four bowlers.

Warney will take wickets for fun but I cannot see Mcgrath taking many wickets or lasting the series. Without those two champions in tandem, a four-man attack will not be good enough to take 20 wickets.

I can see the sense in giving MacGill a chance because I don't think any of the Aussie quicks are ready for top-class Test cricket.

England will be very happy to see Watson in the playing 11. Watson is a good player but not the kind of player who will give England sleepless nights. I (as a England fan)would also be happy to see MacGill in the line-up. England handled Kaneria pretty well and Macgill at the best is as good as Kaneria.
The biggest challenge for England will be to see off McGrath's opening spell without losing a wicket. If they can do this, KP can then take on Warney and England Ashes (OK i am dreaming, but still possible isn't it?)

I'd say four bowlers, with Warne as the sole spinner except maybe in Sydney where it makes sense to bring MacGill in too. McGrath and Lee pick themselves if fit, and I'd suppose Stuart Clark is top of the running for the third seamer, although Johnson might get a look in at some stage.

Shane Watson, to me, isn't really a Test-class bowler and he really needs to improve his batting if he's going to hold down a regular place in the side. Otherwise, he's going to find it hard to escape the tag of a one-day specialist.

Yep - the biggest difference between the sides should be Hussey. If he was in the Ashes squad in England, I honestly think the result would have been different. Watson is still learning his trade, but is coming on leaps and bounds.

I agree with Tim's selection, though it's a close call for Clarke over Martyn. To combat all of this, without those four seamers England used to win back the Ashes, I'm inclined to think it may be out of reach for the current UK squad.

If I had to make a guess; rotating Mahmood, Lewis (or a fit Anderson) and Giles, depending on the pitch, may be a good plan. Shame Stuart Broad isn't a year more experienced, he's a great prospect.

It is true MacGill has had a tough time due to the thinking only one spinner should be used in most lineups. However that isn't the case in Sydney and possibly not at the MCG either.
Warne was always considered the better bowler because he is a smarter and more complete bowler. MacGill only has attack - and often goes at 4-5 runs per over even in tests. Warne has a great cricket mind as well as superb control and can just shut out an end and let the fast bowlers on the end reap the rewards. How many of McGrath's, Lee's or Dizzy's wickets actually belong to Warne? An aweful lot would be my guess.
My bet is on a MacGill-Warne combination in at least 2 tests these coming ashes - but no more then that.

How many wickets warne did get in last ashes? I don't think playing two leg spinners will bring australia more than 40 wickets in a series. It is proved that leg spin from both the ends makes warne a bit ineffective ( may be batsmen get used to the bowling).

As warne single handedly has been killing english batsmen over the years, I think Australia may look for an extra pacer may be Stuart Clark or Johnson to support the ageing Mcgrath.

I'd feel more comfortable with 4 bowlers and Collingwood at seven but I think the pragmatic approach is to try and get a series lead with five bowlers and then get Colly in to replace Mahmood in order to protect it. It worked last time!

Australia will never play McGill with Warne through a five test series...Watson may be targeted by England.

Warne vs Macgill - will not be a question for australia this season, but can they co-exist. Leg spinners from both sides provide a strong attacking option - DO any country have such an option? Certainly with their type of bowling they wont become predictable.
But will Australia be ready to take risks? Or they want to be in a safer net? England wont have the pressure that Australia will feel in their hometown (pressure for the first time in years!!!!!). What about Symonds? He can be as devastating as Gilchrist but needs to improve his test bowling skills. He can be an option if one or two batsmen fail.
England - need to stick with Panesar and Read. If batsmen fail, they can take Geraint Jones. England can land with one more bat - may be Robert key. You cannot just depend on a core of 5 to 6 batsmen the whole series. 5 tests - no batsman can last long for that period.
Well - this ashes too looks to be an intersting stuff.

The biggest lesson Australia took out of the 2005 Ashes was "horses for courses". They implemented that last Southern Hemisphere summer and this saw Bracken playing at Brisbane, MacGill playing at Adelaide and Sydney and Watson got a go in the spring like conditions of the SuperSeries.

For years Australia pointed the same four bowlers at every game and every condition. The theory was that enough of them would fire to an extent that Australia would win.

That was blown apart by Vaughan and Co in the last four tests of 2005. I have a feeling that Australia will use more players in this Ashes series than at any point since they started to boss the bi-annual meeting back in 1989.

Form and injury notwithstanding, the ever presents for Australia will be: Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Hussey, Gilchrist, Lee, Warne and (if fit) McGrarth.

The other three will chop and change with conditions.

The argument about 4 or 5 can be misleading. Australia lost because they only had 2 or 3 good bowlers in most games i.e. because of their weak links. The real solution is simply to replace those weak links with stronger ones. At the moment it looks like Johnson, Clarke or MacGill would make a stronger complement to Lee, Mcgrath and Warne than Kasper, Gillespie or Tait did. Playing two spinners in a four man attack would be a bit odd on some pitches but better than resorting to weaker bowlers or to using Watson and Simmo as third seamers when neither has a reasonable test record in either bowling or batting. England would rather Aus played a weak allrounder than a decent 6th batter. The question is do Aus have a decent 6th and even 5th batter to complement Ponting, Haydos, Langer and Hussey. Clarke and Marto might turn out to be weak links once again.

It was not the England batsman could bully Aussie bowlers and geton top of them.The injury that McGrath picked up for the second test in the 2005 Ashes was where the england team took off. Mcgraths absence was a huge psychological advantage and a great relief to England atleast after he reduced the England's toporder to 21/5.
Had McGrath played all tests the result would have been diferent.
bygones are bygones but now England should realise that the "Lease period" of the urn is running out with no chances of renewal.

I don't want to be a doom and gloom merchant but I think we will lose the Ashes this winter in Australia.

Reasons being:

1 No Michael Vaughan or Simon Jones
2 Kookaburra ball ( I'm told ) does not swing like the ball that is used in England.
3 Leading on from 2, Hoggard will be ineffective with the new ball
4 No surprise element with Flintoff. I don't think they realised just how fast and good he is with the ball.
5 Trescothick's mind in a fog
6 Giles' contribution with the bat at number 8. Will he play? How do you accommodate Panasaar?
7 Flintoff overload: bowler; batsman; captain; drinker; smoker and coming back from injury!

Give me time and I will probably think of more..I genuinely believe that Australia were taken by surprise by the English attack which was similar to the 'Windies' in the 80's. There was no respite for the batsman and Hayden, in particular, suffered the most. Harmison is an enigma! If he can bowl as well as he did on the first day at Lord's last summer, we stand a chance. He blows hot and cold! Grievious Bodily Harmison is rarely in the dock these days.

If this winter's Ashes are as good as last summer, then it will be wonderful. I fear it will be one-sided with England losing out yet again..Why is it that everyone wants to beat England? Are we hated that much around the globe?

Regards

In agreement with Mustafa about the selectorial conundrum: the principal factor has to be the form of the batters going in to the Gabba Test. In most recent overseas series England's top 6 have been undercooked. If that's the case this winter, and they select 5 bowlers with Ready at 7 in the list, then they will find themselves in the familiar position of leaving Brisbane having taken a bruising.

Personally, I would plump for Collingwood over Mahmood/Anderson for the first Test (assuming Flintoff is fit) so as to try and get a foothold in the series. Why? Well, Panesar is far less likely to be hit out of the attack than was/is Gile-o, so can be expected to contribute 25 overs a day. That leaves 55-60 to be shared between Harmy, Hoggster and Fred, plus 5-10 from Colly, Bell and even KP (if Warnie's batting he'd be worth a punt to pick up an "ego-war" scalp).

I know people will be saying that this approach is too defensive, too conservative - I'm not saying it should be the XI for the whole series - and that we won the Ashes last time by being bold (although events in the 45 minutes before the Edgbaston game were CRUCIAL to the outcome, it has to be said), but you have to develop a strategy from the personnel at hand. There's no Jones (Simon) this time and Read is too high at 7. We were bold at times last summer, particularly with our batting, but also thoughtfully defensive at times (sweepers from ball 1 for instance). "We must attck" is a gross simplification; if we play 6 batters plus Fred at the Gabba and still lose, then the scope is there for a rethink.

All will no doubt be revealed...

Some of the most logical thoughts about team selection by Tim de Lisle I have read in a long, long time, thank you. Thoughts have been my view for all of MacGill's career.

I was so annoyed during the Ashes that the Aussies didn't play MacGill. When you have bolwers struggling with injury and poor form you select the best bowlers available regardless of what the regular make-up of the team "should" be. To win a test, more than likely, you need to take 20 wickets. So to leave the wicket taking MacGill out and persist with the likes of Kasper, Dizzy and Tait, to ensure you have 3 the "desirebale" three seamers was mind numbingly stupid. The Aussies didn't deserve to win because the selectors couldn't get out of their own way.

The XI you listed is perfect, argue over Martyn v Clarke all you like, the fact is it won't matter either way beacuse with the bowling line up that team has the extra runs people think swapping Martyn for Clarke will create won't matter.

Not sure Watson is yet up to it at Test level. His previous performances haven't suggested much and although he is on the rise in the ODI arena, I still think he is at least season away from becoming a regular in our test side.

Personally, I think four bowlers are enough when two of them are world class match winners. Let's not forget that the two tests Australia lost in the Ashes last year were the two that McGrath didn't play.

First Test line up for mine.... Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey, Clarke, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Clark, McGrath.

MacGill will more than likely play in Sydney, but given that it's the 5th test I expect that seclection to be largely irrelevant as Australia will have wrapped it up by then. He is a chance for Adelaide (2nd test) and will certainly be in the 13, but we will have to see what happens.

England are taking too many injured bowlers for mine, although this time at least they have adequate back up that will be in Australia playing grade cricket (a smart move). If the English bowlers can exert their authority over the Aussie batsmen like 2005, then I expect it to be another tight series. However, I'm not sure the conditions and fitness of key men (ie. Flintoff / no S.Jones) will see that happen.

I'm not certain I'm convinced by Tim's argument of what went wrong for Australia during the last Ashes series. If Katich wasn't scoring runs the obvious solution would seem to have been replacing him with an in-form batsman, not a bowler. Given that Australia has enjoyed great success over an extended period using the 7-4 balance I don't expect the selectors to be in too great a hurry to change it.

In the event the selectors opted for neither a new bowler nor a new batsmen so we'll never know for certain either way.

There is an argument that the 7-4 balance relies too heavily on everyone contributing with the ball, if not with wickets, at least by sustaining pressure. The 6-5 lineup allows the bowlers longer rests and provides more latitude to compensate for variations in form, fitness and match conditions. Perhaps Australia has depended too heavily on the talents of McGrath and Warne to compensate, then again MacGill, Clark, Bracken and Johnson seem like fairly formidable lineup in their own right.

All-rounders are always an attractive option but I agree that they should be world class in at least one of their skills before they are relied upon too heavily. I'm not sure that Watson or Symonds are currently at the level of a Botham, Kallis or Flintoff (let alone Sobers).

I would expect Warne and MacGill to play together at the SCG, perhaps Brisbane (Warne tends to do quite well there, I'd like to see MacGill get a chance to exploit the same conditions), and Adelaide (if memory serves, Adelaide pitches tend to support spin). Warne offers more control and can close up an end while MacGill leaks more runs but tends to pick up a lot of wickets (as do a lot of people when Warne is at the other end).

I expect the selectors to be doing a LOT of thinking and looking for much greater solidity in the batting lineup. On past performances that means Martyn should get the nod over Clarke but as has already been mentioned there is a lot of batting talent waiting in the wings.

On a lighter note, if Gillespie does not make the cut will he be the first ever player whose last test innings was a double century?

England should not play five bowlers!

You only have to look at how many times the English batting has collapsed over the past year when Flintoff plays at six.

Flintoff is a wonderful player but not a good enough batsman to hold down a number six spot - at least, not without a very strong seven and eight, which England don't have.

Four bowlers should be enough to dismiss an attack. Australia did not lose the Ashes because they had four bowlers, it was because two of those bowlers lost form.

If England play Flintoff at six they will lose the Ashes.

I haven't been a big fan of Watson, I've always thought he was lacking in both skills and temperament.

However, watching some footage of the recent DLF Cup.... I was impressed by his bowling. He may not be bowling much faster, but he's got more "quickness" if that makes sense... Much zippier, and more threatening. His batting has definitely improved in technique as well.

He's still yet to prove his worth as a Test player though.

I like Symonds, but he just hasn't shown that he's anything more than a handy one-day bowler. I can't see him applying any pressure in a Test, and someone like Clarke can be nearly as useful as a part-time bowler.

I'd love to see MacGill play more. He's one of my favourite cricketers, and he's a reasonably handy tail-end improviser.

This may sound like heresy for an Australian... but I wish McGrath would just retire. It would open up an awful lot of space in the lineup, and he may have been typically miserly in the DLF, but he certainly didn't look to threaten anyone at all.

I kind of feel the same way about Martyn. Sure, he's got some of the most beautiful strokes in the game, but I'm not convinced about him at the moment.

Where is Damien Martyn? He has been terrific at number 4 unlike who hasn't got any runs recently in Tests. On pitches like the ones at the Gabba and Perth Mitchell Johnson should come into the side for MacGill and maybe another batsman for Watson, preferablu Clarke.

England team- Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Read
Hoggard
Mahmood
Harmison
Panesar

I am a strong believer that if Australia had have played both MacGill and Warne in the 05 Ashes it would probably ended up in the Aussies keeping the ashes. The majority of the England batsmen really don't seem to be able to play any descent spinner well. It seems to me that the English are guilty of trying to read the ball of the pitch rather then out of the bowlers hand. On a day 4 wicket against big turners of the ball like both of them are you simply can't afford to do that. It's obvious Australia will go with both of them for Sydney but there should be a case for playing them at Adelaide and possibly Brisbane.

As for the allrounder debate Australia are at the crossroads on who to go with Symonds or Watson? ... Watson or Symonds? In any case Australia need to pick one and keep faith in them even if they fail to begin with, choping and changing isn't going to help any one. My bet is with Watson if he remains injury free I think he played only one test last summer and hasn't had much of a chance to show us what he can do in Tests. He is only 25 is willing to learn and has got potential in spades.

Warne and MacGill together would be a match-winning combination (as it has been many times in the past, regardless of who gets the wickets). However I can't see it happening this time around, just as it didn't happen last year in England. But I hope the selectors pick Watson. Australia needs five bowlers, and Watson is improving rapidly now that he has discovered how to swing the ball. He also bowls at 140km/h so calling him a "medium pacer" is a bit harsh.

If they don't go with MacGill then they need another attacking bowler. Mitchell Johnson would be a good choice, or even Nathan Bracken - both are left-armers, and both can swing the ball away from the left-handers which will be very handy against England's all-leftie top 3 of Trescothick, Strauss and Cook.

I still feel that at Brisbane, Clark or Johnson might be a better option than MacGill though I am a great fan of his loop. England will find that it will not be all that easy to knock over Gilchrist at least in Australia and I am not sure that Clark has done enough to consistently or permanently replace Martyn. Martyn should play at least for the first two tests.If Australia catch better than they did last time, they should win.

Interesting comments on the Australian team. I thought the selectors in 2005 - while showing loyalty to some senior players - were hugely mistaken in their insistence on sticking with Katich, Gillespie, Kasper and Martyn.

And if Hayden fails in the first two tests he must go - he was woeful against the quality bowling of Freddie, Jones and Harmison in 2005.

I think the Australia team should be:

1. JL
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke (or Jacques if he fails)
6. Gilly
7. Watson
8. Warne
9. Lee
10. Johnson (MacGill in Sydney and Adelaide)
11. McGrath

I think the Poms should go for:

1. Tresco
2. Strauss
3. Cook
4. Pietersen
5. Bell
6. Fred
7. Read
8. Hoggard
9. Mahmood
10. Monty
11. Harmison

well,i feel australia will field both its leg spinners at the gabba.watson,i believe will make his ashes debut.even if gabba would not provide that much assistance to spinners like the adelaide oval or the scg,but leg spinners bowling in tandem could prove disastrous for england.the waca does not posses the same pace and bounce it had,even there australia would go with both spinners.

here's my aussie line up-langer,hayden,ponting,clarke,hussey,watson,gilchrist,warne,lee,mcgill,mcgrath.

I sincerely feel Test matches are won by bowlers, so in my opinion I would like to see both MacGill and Warne along with Watson in the squad thus making a 5 bowler option. Watson may still play a batsman's role if required!

MacGill is one of those players whose worth to a side increases exponentially when they're not playing.

Can there still be a debate over who is better; Warne or McGill? Surely not!

Let's be honest, Warne has given the Australian selectors enough excuses to drop him over the years, and they never have. The reason? He is one of the all-time cricketing greats. Stuart MacGill isn't.

A couple of quick points; England struggle against Shane Warne. So do most other teams. He's took more wickets than anyone else in the history of Test cricket. Regarding leg spin generally, I'm not sure that the "England can't play leg spin" theory holds much water anymore. Ask Danish Kaneria. England struggle against Murali as well; that doesn't mean they can't play ALL off-spin.

And MacGill; his overall record against England is good. However, it's mainly based on 4 Tests in 1998, against a very different vintage England side. On his last two outings (on England's last visit), he picked up wickets, but at a heavy cost of 40.

It has been interesting to read everyone's views on who should be in the two line-ups. MacGill is a great domestic spinner but he is no Shane Warne and is 35 as well. I believe the Australian selectors should opt for youth from now on. Playing younger players with the legends that are already there will benefit the team tremendously in the long run. Clarke, Watson, Tait and White should all be mentioned when Australian teams are picked in the future because all are at least six years younger than any other Australian player.

The strategy of playing 5 bowlers was arguably what won us the Ashes. We had variety, always a fresh bowler raring to go and never took the pressure off. A feature of the 2005 Ashes was that one bowler would always step up to the plate if any of the others were off colour and all contributed at various points when conditions permitted.

Ok, we may be prone to collapse and have a long tail, but we are better batting wise this time (if Read is too high at 7 then so was Jones last time), with KP, Cook and Bell all making giant strides.

The bottom line will be taking 20 wickets a game, I can't see 4 bowlers, plus part timers doing this enough.

Symonds anyone? He is a hard hitting batsman like Watson (supposedly) is, a genuinely consistent seamer, and a handy tie-down-an-end spinner as well. Not to mention one of the world's best fielders. I think that the team should be:

1. Langer
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Hussey
6. Gilchrist
7. Symonds
8. Warne
9. Lee
10. Gillespie
11. Mcgrath

-Four genuine bowlers and an all rounder
- A front line spinner and a part timer
- Seven world class batsmen all with the ability to turn games off their own bats

Why not?

It seems as if Jason Gillespie has been competely overlooked. To my mind he should be given a chance at Adelaide at least.

If an allrounder is a must, I propose James Hopes' selection. He would certainly have the benefit of surprise and tho he is not polished or tried, neither is Watson.
In terms of Martyn V Clarke, I believe that Cosgrove, Jacques, Haddin....and Boonie ;) could also be considered.

If we played Haddin as wickie and Gilchrist simply as a batsman we would still have a better wicketkeeper than England (whoever they play).

I Know its not completely bowler related but can any Aussies out there tell me why Brad Hodge was dropped? He has a very similar record in first class cricket to Michael Hussey, as well as having a double hundred to his name in test cricket. It seemed a very harsh call at time bringing back an out of form Damien Martyn (another player i have much admiration for).

And in answer to your question, lets see how much of a green tinge the deck at the gabba has come nov. 23, then decide on 4/5 bowlers.

cheers, luke

"If we played Haddin as wickie and Gilchrist simply as a batsman we would still have a better wicketkeeper than England (whoever they play)".

Surely not... Read as a batsman is certainly open to debate, but as a keeper?? he is at least as accomplished as Australia's two options.

The-aussies-need-2-play-5-bowlers
they-shouldn't-play-martyn
the-aussies-should-line-up-like-this

1.JL
2.Hayden
3.Punter
4.Clarke
5.Hussey
6."Flapper"-Gilchrist
7.Watson
8.Warne
9.Lee
10.??c-below
11.Mcgrath

the-last-place-will-go-2-macgill-in-sydney-and-
Adelaide-and-Mitchell-Johnson-for-the-other-tests
Johnson-bowled-brilliantly-in-the-dlf-cup-which
is-y-he-gets-the-nod

England-should-look-like-this

#1-Tresco
#2-Strauss
#3-Cook
#4-Pietersen
#5-Bell
#6-Fred
#7-Jones
#8-Hoggard
#9-Mahmood
#10-Harmy
#11-Panesar

England cannot-play-Giles!
he-will-not-win-us-the-ashes

i personally believe Giles shouldnt even be in the squad. he hasnt played any cricket lately. well to be honest... Giles at his best wudnt make much of a difference either. since english selectors are so worried about their number 8 position id say dalrymple wuda been a far better option who can bowl a bit (hes as good as giles). if mcgrath is fit aussies can just go with 4 bowlers. otherwise 5 bowlers depending on pitch... either mcgill or 2 medium fast bolwers and one of them wud be clarke. and watson or johnson the other. may be even symonds ( even tho hes shown nothing in test cricket so far)

I would like to bring up the comment which Peter made about Michael Clarke where he said this "Clarke shouldn't be in the Test team for a few more seasons still. He only averages 40 at First Class level, whereas Watson averages 50. Clarke is a quality one day player, but thats because he comes in at the second half in the innings and can improvise and doesn't have to rely on technique as much to make a contribution."

Its disappointing that his wrong because Clarke averages better opening as his average is 63.14 opening and he averages better batting at 4 as his average is then 44.66, this proves that clarke can combat the new ball and he is capable of having a technique against the new ball

1. Langer
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Gilchrist
7. Watson
8. Warne
9. Lee
10. Clark
11. McGrath

The aussies should play both Watson and Macgill, Watson has shown a lot of promise with both bat and ball and macgill is a certainty both all but the perth test where Stuart Clark or Johnson should be his replacement. And if Watson plays he should bat at 6 and gilly at 7 because whenever gilly bats at 6 in tests he doesnt seem to have as much impact as he normally would batting at 7.

Also Mark Cosgrove should be the aussies number 4 instead of Martyn or Clarke, Martyn is past his best and Clarkey is a great one day batsmen but he hasnt got his act together in tests yet, if the selectors dont play Cosgrove they should also think about Phil Jacques or Haddin but play gilly as keeper because he is more used to keeping to Warney and co compared to Haddin.

#1.Langer
#2.Hayden
#3.Ponting
#4.Hussey
#5.Clarke
#6.Jaques (or Watson... but preferably Jaques)
#7.Gilchrist
#8.Lee
#9.Warne
#10.Johnson
#11.McGrath

All that needs to be said....I'm a big fan of Jaques, Clarke and Watson.If we are looking towards the future we should play 2 of the 3 at the least.

Gillespie should play in the Ashes - England will think that he is the weak link, and go after him in Brisbane, and be shown up very quickly. Clark, as yet, has not shown anything in tests in conditions that weren't helpful. Johnson is the same, and is still to raw and inconsistent for test cricket

I think the aussies line up for the ashes should depend upon the form of the players and also the pitches and ground conditions they play in. The team should be flexible enough.

1. JUSTIN LANGER
2. MATTHEW HAYDEN
3. RICKY PONTING
4. DAMIEN MARTYN
5. MICHAEL HUSSEY
6. SHANE WATSON/MICHAEL CLARKE
7. ADAM GILCHRIST
8. SHANE WARNE
9. BRETT LEE
10.STUART CLARK/STUART MCGILL(depends upon the pitch and conditions)
11.GLENN MCGRATH

BEST OF LUCK AUSTRALIA!!!!!

It's truly painful to see wonderful cricketers like Jaques, Hodge, and MacGill sitting on the sidelines when during the early-mid 80s we had to play some fairly ordinary cricketers. But that's why we're blogging away here isn't it?

Macgill has always been out at the expense of stupid selection. The selectors were squarely guilty of picking a raw quick (Shaun Tait) over a masterful Test proven spinner like MacGill - look at his test average! Given the conditions in England and the wickets Warne was taking in the last Ashes it will surely go down in history as one of the worst selections ever. Plus MacGill really deserves the chance to take 200 Test wickets. That puts him up there with Thommo and Merv - and now Lee.

Anyway this season: Give Watson a go! He averages 50 at 1st class level and is in form. 50! I'll say it again 50! Sure he's young, but he has a Jaques/Hodge average AND he can bowl - 10 times better than Symonds as well. He also has technique against the new ball. OK he's not a strike bowler, but I'd be more comfortable flipping the ball to him than say Tait last season - and he's likely to pick up a wicket or two along the way. Give him a go before his fragile (if buff) bod gives up the ghost again.

well critics of both clark(e)s were silenced werent they...stellar performances by both of them...symonds was back in and back to unimpressive test batting...now dat marto is gone (sad really-i loved him) n dat watson n hodges r injured...gives voges a go...if u really want dat allrounder give him a shot...we got the series now so might as well see what we can get out of all these reitrements...speaking of which...warney n pigeon...great careers...dont bother will macgill he will get his chance as soon as warne retires...nothing else to comment on i guess...lee has been average but not too bad...hopefully he can go back to demolishing bastmen like a year ago...ummm...clark has been great...warney brilliant...hussey n michael clarke definitaly worth their salt and a half...pontings a machine...hussey a freak...clarke has matured...the rest of our batsmen (the oldies- langer hayden n gilly) have displayed at least one decent innings each- gilly's hundred!!!-omg!!)...n yer our sides been great...ohh and one last thing...symonds...his batting has been pretty bad still...bowling nothing flash...id put him in for his fielding before those two...hes been great on the field...unfortunately thats about all...and so it is for me too...catcha laters...bye