Mitch throws down the gauntlet to Bopara.

The war of words begins in earnest. The Aussies think that performing against the Windies is a world away from confronting the Aussies. Johnson is confident on the back of his form against SA, though he was probably aided by conditions in the first tests which were very bowler-friendly when we had the ball, especially at Durban on the second day with the tide and overcast conditions supposedly being a big factor regarding how the ball behaved. It will be interesting to see how MJ performs in the Old Dart.

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/story/405332.html

Do people think the English conditions will be favourable to his type of bowling presuming that we have a mix of pitches with some dry to assist the spinners and the odd one which might be greener and where the match will be played under cloudy skies?

Ravs the wrong type of bloke to try and get in the head of.

He may get blown away, we'll not know till it starts but he's an arrogant confident type rather unlike the meek Ian Bell.

I would have thought the Ozzies would be leaving Bopara , Shah and Panesar to Michael Clarke

JKLever wrote:Ravs the wrong type of bloke to try and get in the head of.

He may get blown away, we'll not know till it starts but he's an arrogant confident type rather unlike the meek Ian Bell.

Hayden was an arrogant confident type ...but was the perfect player to "get in the head of"

Red wrote:The war of words begins in earnest. The Aussies think that performing against the Windies is a world away from confronting the Aussies. Johnson is confident on the back of his form against SA, though he was probably aided by conditions in the first tests which were very bowler-friendly when we had the ball, especially at Durban on the second day with the tide and overcast conditions supposedly being a big factor regarding how the ball behaved. It will be interesting to see how MJ performs in the Old Dart.

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/story/405332.html

Do people think the English conditions will be favourable to his type of bowling presuming that we have a mix of pitches with some dry to assist the spinners and the odd one which might be greener and where the match will be played under cloudy skies?

Johnson's going to be athreat whatever the overhead and pitch conditions are. Pace, swing - you name it.

Anyway, why ask if this bloke or that bloke is going to be a threat? You're the number 1 team in the world. Surely all you have to do to win is turn up and perform?

Basil wrote:

Red wrote:The war of words begins in earnest. The Aussies think that performing against the Windies is a world away from confronting the Aussies. Johnson is confident on the back of his form against SA, though he was probably aided by conditions in the first tests which were very bowler-friendly when we had the ball, especially at Durban on the second day with the tide and overcast conditions supposedly being a big factor regarding how the ball behaved. It will be interesting to see how MJ performs in the Old Dart.

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/story/405332.html

Do people think the English conditions will be favourable to his type of bowling presuming that we have a mix of pitches with some dry to assist the spinners and the odd one which might be greener and where the match will be played under cloudy skies?

Johnson's going to be athreat whatever the overhead and pitch conditions are. Pace, swing - you name it.

I thought at times when the pitches were flatter against SA he wasn't necessarily a threat though. In the last test in SA he got taken to the cleaners a bit. In Perth in the fourth innings, Punter was disappointed how ineffective he was despite his first innings heroics. In Melbourne he couldn't prise out Duminy and the modestly talented Steyn.

Johnson is a streaky bowler. He'll pick up 4/10 one day and 0/80 the next.

embee wrote:

JKLever wrote:Ravs the wrong type of bloke to try and get in the head of.

He may get blown away, we'll not know till it starts but he's an arrogant confident type rather unlike the meek Ian Bell.

Hayden was an arrogant confident type ...but was the perfect player to "get in the head of"

Only 'coz he carried the child beating/molesting baggage around with him which made him feel guilty as hell.

Mitch trying to get into Bopara's head ...I mean, FFS ... who does the plonker think he is ... another Glenn McGrath ?
A quicker version of Siders (now an England fringe player) ... that's all he is.

Red wrote:In Melbourne he couldn't prise out Duminy and the modestly talented Steyn.

Still rankles hey Red?

Any second now you will be claiming a moral victory.

Ah, the Ashes. I love 'em.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:In Melbourne he couldn't prise out Duminy and the modestly talented Steyn.

Still rankles hey Red?

Any second now you will be claiming a moral victory.

We had our revenge in the republic.

I bet you're still nettled about that.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:In Melbourne he couldn't prise out Duminy and the modestly talented Steyn.

Still rankles hey Red?

Any second now you will be claiming a moral victory.

We had our revenge in the republic.

I bet you're still nettled about that.

No, I'm not. Would have settled for a series each before the summer. And I am on record with certain forummers of having said that.

JKLever wrote:Anyway, why ask if this bloke or that bloke is going to be a threat? You're the number 1 team in the world. Surely all you have to do to win is turn up and perform?

With one of the weakest Ashes squads (on paper) ever chosen.

What was the result the last time the squad was ranked in a similar manner?

skully wrote:What was the result the last time the squad was ranked in a similar manner?

It used to be that the English press would apply said sobriquet to every touring party. Some of the dark days of the mid 80s may well have been put in the same basket by Aussie scribes. I am fairly certain the 1972 squad also copped said label before the event.

skully wrote:What was the result the last time the squad was ranked in a similar manner?

England had murdered all before them in the previous 2 years and had a really settled team. Not quite the same this year is it? It's 1 v 5

Zat wrote:

JKLever wrote:Anyway, why ask if this bloke or that bloke is going to be a threat? You're the number 1 team in the world. Surely all you have to do to win is turn up and perform?

With one of the weakest Ashes squads (on paper) ever chosen.

The current Aus team is definitely better than the '81, '85 and '86/7 mobs... IMO roundabout on a par with the 1989 lot.

The 81 touring side was mucho-decent. Only really missing GSC. Wouldn't lump them in with the 85 & 86/7 scoundrels...

So how does England 09 compare to England 89 (pre-series)?

Got to be better IMO. No utter cock-gobbling selections. Ian Bell isn't in the side, you see.

skully wrote:So how does England 09 compare to England 89 (pre-series)?

Yup. Much better. 89 was a complacent (with no reason to be) accident waiting to happen given our home efforts 86-88 which was 0 tests won & 8 lost.

The Aussies starting the verbal battles like it's still 2001 and they're the undisputed best cricket team in the world suits England just fine imo, and puts extra pressure on an inexperienced Australian side.

But in 89 you had Broad, Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Botham, Robin Smith, Gus Fraser in their full pomp and such gems as Pringle, Defrietas, Jarvis and Foster.

skully wrote:But in 89 you had Broad, Gooch, Gower, Lamb, Botham, Robin Smith, Gus Fraser in their full pomp and such gems as Pringle, Defrietas, Jarvis and Foster.

and about 20 other crabs