Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

So normally this ends up being a bit of a mix of the teams, and if you've only got 3 of your XI in the series XI it generally means you've taken a hammering. However, I think this looks even worse than that for Eng with Stokes the only player that I think makes it, and Broad v Siddle is the only other slot that you could make a case for any of the Eng team.

Rogers
Warner
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Stokes
Haddin
MJ
Harris
Siddle / Broad
Lyon

Can't see anyone disagreeing with this!

I think Siddle deserves a spot. Just Stokes at six for me.

Rogers
Warner
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Bailey
Haddin
Johnson
Harris
Siddle
Lyon

Bailey's just starting to come good and Stokes' bowling isn't all that.

It feels wrong to leave any Aussies out. Only Stokes is in with a shout, all the other spots are no contests for me.

D/L wrote:Rogers
Warner
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Bailey
Haddin
Johnson
Harris
Siddle
Lyon

Bailey's just starting to come good and Stokes' bowling isn't all that.

Broad looked better than Siddle only cus of the respective performances of their teammates. Not saying he didn't bowl well but Siddle was better and more consistent. Didn't get the same rewards cus of the brilliance of Harris and Mitch.

Only Stokes for Bailey IMO.

Stokes for Bailey, and Broad for Siddle. Broad was a lone ranger, whilst Siddle was helped by having Johnson soften up our batsmen. Siddle did bowl well though.

Dr Robert wrote:Stokes for Bailey, and Broad for Siddle. Broad was a lone ranger, whilst Siddle was helped by having Johnson soften up our batsmen. Siddle did bowl well though.

Siddle was deprived of wicket taking chances due to all the Aussie bowlers contributing and him being the third seamer. Kept it tight as well.

Would have the Aussie bowling line up, and for me only Stokes in the team. Not that many of the Aus bats stood out, just more the fact how ordinary the English batters were.

Australian teams have spoken of their "fast bowling cartel" in the past, but I cannot recall a time when the success of the seamers was so interdependent. Johnson's, and even Harris', success owes a lot to the great support bowling from the snarling vegan. For that, I would pick Siddle over Broad.

Similarly though, if Anderson (say) had bowled better and more consisitently, Broad would probably been more successful.

Siddle consistently hit the correct line and length, which Broad failed to do. While England's bowlers didn't crash and burn like the batters did, this essential difference between the attacks, essentially one of discipline, decided the series. Stokes easily deserves to get in ahead of Bailey though. However well GB fielded.

It was George's saving grace, true. However, Stokes for Bailey is something that all seem to agree on.

I'd have Siddle ahead of Broad. Siddle kept up the accuracy that allowed his colleagues to bag wickets with him at the other end, whereas Broad, for all his efforts (and he was England's best) just wasn't as accurate.

Stokes for Bailey. Bailey was actually pretty poor. No-one noticed, as he was in a winning side (just as no-one noticed that Michael Clarke's contributions with the bat stopped after the first innings in Adelaide), but 150 runs with one fifty is a terrible return against a bowling attack as poor and demoralised as England were fielding most of the time. England's best edges out Australia's worst.

my team of the series, i don't know if it's the same as anyone else's lol

1.Chris Rogers
2.David Warner
3.Shane Watson
4.Micahel Clarke (c)
5.Steve Smith
6.Ben Stokes
7.Brad Haddin (wk)
8.Mitchell Johnson
9.Stuart Broad
10.Peter Siddle
11.Nathan Lyon

cricketfan90 wrote:my team of the series, i don't know if it's the same as anyone else's lol

1.Chris Rogers
2.David Warner
3.Shane Watson
4.Micahel Clarke (c)
5.Steve Smith
6.Ben Stokes
7.Brad Haddin (wk)
8.Mitchell Johnson
9.Stuart Broad
10.Peter Siddle
11.Nathan Lyon