Australia's Ashes 2013 numbers

Batting

Michael Clarke: 381 @ 47.62

A poor series by his own and the expected lofty standards. Only one real innings of note, and it almost lead to a win. To be fair, the English bowlers did save up some absolute peaches for the Aus skipper, with him being knocked over at least 3 times with the classic angled in, pitched off, darted away to clip the top of off delivery. Captaincy - mixed. 5

Shane Watson: 418 @ 41.80

As soft as a very soft soft thing. Got plenty of starts but only went on once (the rest of the time he was a walking lbw wicket), in the final Test when the Ashes were wrapped up in a box and tied with a pretty pink bow, addressed to Chef. A massive source of anger and frustration for the Aus supporters. 5

Chris Rogers: 367 @ 40.77

One bright light amongst a pack of blown bulbs. Performed with heart, technique and grit. Only for a couple of brain fades, probably should've topped 400 runs for the series. Hope for the future, except he's 35. 8

Steve Smith: 345 @ 38.33

Sigh - what to say about the Mascot. A roller coaster series, with promise shown but rarely delivered. Threw away a maiden hundred with a nervy hoik in T3, before finishing the job with a decent unbeaten ton at the Oval. Not really Aus's answer at no. 6 (not that there's much available), unless he can become a decent 2nd team spinner. 5

James Pattinson: 72 @ 36.00

He's a bowler. 7

Ashton Agar: 130 @32.50

Apparently* Bernie thought he was our answer to Elmer's lack of penetration. An unlikely 98 on debut at no. 11 almost helped to set up an unlikely victory in T1, but that wasn't his job. 7

Phil Hughes: 83 @ 27.66

Technical rubbish. Typical of him, made 3 tiny scores but will pat himself on the back for making 81* in one knock. Should have file marked NTPFAA. 2

Mitchell Starc: 104 @ 26.00

He's a bowler. 7

David Warner: 138 @ 23.00

The useless bullyboy of the Aus top 7. Technically deficient, doesn't watch the ball, but still feels that he belongs in the Aus Test side (possibly for his fielding). 99% of Aus supporters disagree. 2

Brad Haddin: 206 @ 22.88

Not the figures of a no. 7. Almost got us home in T1, so gets some points for that, but overall not enough application. 4

James Faulkner: 45 @ 22.50

A couple of swishy 20s when quick runs were needed on debut. 4

Rhino Harris: 97 @ 19.80

A bowler. 6

Usman Khawaja: 114 @ 19.00

Against the quicks, looked solid as a rock. Against Swann, had absolutely no clue. A propensity to miss straight balls. 2

The rest:

Ed Cowan, not a Test player. Some bowlers not worth discussion.

As bad as they are (and Sir Belf aside) Australia's numbers compare favourably to England's.

Clarke 6 at least, despite some early dismissals. Was always the king and queen of the batting (the one to capture, in other words (chess metaphor) - was unlucky to walk into some specifically targeted pearlers).

Faulkner 5 - did a fair bit of what was asked. Wasn't given a chance to build much of an innings, so unfair to mark him down for not half-tonning it.

Warner 3. Had two innings that threatened to take it away from England.

I note that you give the bowlers consistently better batting scores than your bats, Skulls!

Bowling

James Faulkner: 6 @ 16.33

Got some cheap wickets as England went the belated bash in I1 of T5. Will probably happily tell his grandkids how he averaged 16.33 with the ball in Test cricket. 6

Ryan Harris: 24 @ 19.58

Aus's stand out bowler. May have topped 30 wickets for the series if he played in T1. Hit the pitch hard, and seamed the ball to nag away at the English batsmen all series. 8

Steve Smith: 4 @ 26.50

So much potential, so little delivery. Jagged some cheap wickets when Clarke turned to him in desperation. 6

Peter Siddle: 17 @ 31.58

Started the series very well with 8 wickets in T1 but faded badly to add only another 9 in the remaining 4 Tests. 5

Mitchell Starc: 11 @ 32.45

Disappointing with the 1st new ball, but invariably came back to grab one or two with the old ball or 2nd new ball. 5

Nathan Lyon: 9 @ 33.66

Suffered from a lack of confidence from management. Took 7 wickets in one game to show he can make a dent, but nothing in the other 2. 5

James Pattinson: 7 @ 43.85

Showed glimpses of what might be in T1 with some fiery spells, but was bowled into the ground in T2 and broke down. 5

Jackson Bird: 2 @ 62.50

Nervy Ashes debut, and didn't show what he's capable of. Another crock. 4

Shane Watson: 2 @ 89.50

Useful spell here and there before inevitably limping off with a heart-muscle strain. 2

Ashton Agar: 2 @ 124.00

Sorry Orry, you need to get more than 3 rpm on the ball to take wickets in Test Cricket. 1

PeterCS wrote:I note that you give the bowlers consistently better batting scores than your bats, Skulls!

The bowlers did their jobs admirably with the bat. Such a shame the batsmen didn't do the same.

6 for Siddle and Lyon.

Sid was your outstanding bowler for much of three Tests.

Lyon can't be blamed for not being trusted by the selectors.

PeterCS wrote:Lyon can't be blamed for not being trusted by the selectors.

Well, I wasn't "blaming" him, merely suggesting that to be overlooked as Aus's no. 1 spinner in T1 wouldn't have done his confidence or nerves once thrown the ball any good.

skully wrote:

Mitchell Starc: 11 @ 32.45

Disappointing with the 1st new ball, but invariably came back to grab one or two with the old ball or 2nd new ball. 5

Must be a Mitchell thing, but Starc became increasingly bowl to the left, bowl to the right-y as the series wore on. Worrying signs. FWIW, I rate him and think he's going to be a quality cricketer.

Nathan Lyon: 9 @ 33.66

Suffered from a lack of confidence from management. Took 7 wickets in one game to show he can make a dent, but nothing in the other 2. 5

He was robbed to only end up with 9 wickets. England were mostly clueless against him. If Australia show some faith in Lyon, he can be "the one" they've been looking for since Warne, in the long term. He's obviously not anywhere near that standard, but he's not far off Swann. And that'll do for most.

I remain mystified as to how Ashton Agar got not only one but two games ahead of him.

@ Skulls

Maybe not. But I thought he bowled all the more usefully, considering.

Like, I'm not giving him 8, but he is the spinner to stick with for now, I think. Except times when the track demands four quicks, possibly. Even then, better to have a decent spinner on board, in 96% of cases. Not any spinner, but a decent one. Who can get some joy out of little in the conditions, as Lyon did.

I think Elmer suffered from new man Boof trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat with Agar.

Lyon was oubowled by Agar in the warm up games and was getting tonked

Agar did get another wicket* and the tactics that Clarke tried to use with Agar in the second test (outside leg line) were awful and Agar couldnt bowl it anyway

Hopefully Agar continues improving and doesnt turn into a Dan Cullen

SGWT.

Sorry for being on topic and correct

I should have added a "B" for biased in there, but that goes with the territory of being a poor persecuted SGWT.

skully wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Lyon can't be blamed for not being trusted by the selectors.

Well, I wasn't "blaming" him, merely suggesting that to be overlooked as Aus's no. 1 spinner in T1 wouldn't have done his confidence or nerves once thrown the ball any good.

For whatever reason, Lyon always seems to bowl better in the first innings than the second. I think it's a pressure thing- In the second innings he's EXPECTED to perform.

Could be right, Trev. Maybe he tries to hard when the expectations are high.

He could also do with some more variety in his kit bag. Although he does seem to be giving it a bigger rip these days. He wasn't quite getting into the 2,400 rpms that Chinn was occasionally managing, but he was regularly around 2,200.

It looks like he's made a slight adjustment to his action. Seems to be using more shoulder and energy through the crease now.

He needs to hit that wash cloth over after over, like Chinn does. His pitch map is still too scattered to allow natural variation to have its effect (two balls hitting the same spot but doing different things).

skully wrote:I should have added a "B" for biased in there, but that goes with the territory of being a poor persecuted SGWT.

yes trev

embee wrote:Sorry for being on topic and correct

I suspect the on topic part was the problem.

embee wrote:

skully wrote:I should have added a "B" for biased in there, but that goes with the territory of being a poor persecuted SGWT.

yes trev

Yes Dan.

Dan shits on trev

I win

embee wrote:Dan shits on trev

I win

Yep, was a bit of a strange retort.

Harris was awesome in this series. The Aussies should be wrapping him in cotton wool until November.

embee wrote:Lyon was oubowled by Agar in the warm up games and was getting tonked

Agar did get another wicket* and the tactics that Clarke tried to use with Agar in the second test (outside leg line) were awful and Agar couldnt bowl it anyway

Hopefully Agar continues improving and doesnt turn into a Dan Cullen

spot on....Agar bowled well in T1 and was average in T2 with the skip not helping him, Has real promise as a bowler....the more experienced Elmer was disappointing