Australia in England 2012 June 24, 2012

Cook to have early look at Australia

53

Australia's first chance to measure their progress against England since the last Ashes series will have a pointed prelude in Essex, with Alastair Cook intending to play for his county in Tuesday's 50-over match at Chelmsford. England's ODI captain, Cook was not a part of the Twenty20 side who faced the West Indies on Sunday and so will get a sighter of the Australian bowlers, who have changed their approach markedly since he ran up 766 runs against them in five Tests in Australia.

Following the rain-ruined ODI against Ireland in Belfast, the tourists returned early to London for an additional training session at Lord's. Their coach Mickey Arthur said the squad was now eager to face England, a team whose methods and successes were a major influence on the direction Australia have taken since the release of the Argus review a little less than a year ago.

"I think England over the last 12 months have been very proficient, particularly in their own conditions," Arthur said. "They've won six ODI series in a row in their own conditions, which makes them formidable opponents out here. We're very excited though to come and play. We feel like we've got our one day side going in the right direction, we feel there's definite role clarity, guys know where they stand and they're ready to take the baton on."

Having rotated their bowlers through the first two matches of the tour, the Australians will now seek to settle into close to their best side at Chelmsford. A six-strong pace bowling battery must be pared down to three, Brett Lee to be supported by two of James Pattinson, Pat Cummins, Mitchell Johnson, Clint McKay and Ben Hilfenhaus. The batsmen, meanwhile, have only had one chance to get to the middle so far, leaving Arthur keen to get a full match in against Essex.

"We'll have some serious consideration around trying to put out the team against Essex that we think might play in the first ODI because we need to get some preparation into them now, particularly our batters," he said. "Our bowlers have had a good hit-out, and you can always manufacture it for bowlers through your training. but batters a re a little different, batters need time in the middle. So we'll look to probably playing the outfit that's going to play the first ODI against Essex, or very close to it."

Arthur and the captain Michael Clarke are intent on balancing their batting resources carefully. George Bailey's absence from the Ireland match with a minor groin strain prompted a shuffle in the order, as Peter Forrest was slated to come in at No. 3, Shane Watson promoted to open with David Warner and the wicketkeeper Matthew Wade dropped down to bat at Nos. 6 or 7. Arthur said he needed his batsmen to be flexible, knowing their roles could change depending on who was around them.

"I think if you get too structured you're putting all your cards on deck," he said. "Yes we'd like some consistency for our batters so they know where they're going to bat, but the batters know from my conversations with them that they know what's expected, they know what roles they're going to play. And we're just lucky that we've got Wadey who can go from opening to finishing with minimal fuss. He's proficient at both."

A part of the selection panel that chose Australia's slimmed-down list of 17 contracted players, Arthur said the choice of only six batsmen reflected a lack of certainty over the nation's batting stocks, and would help to make other players a little hungrier to perform over the next 12 months.

"That sends a real message out to batters that we're looking for batters to really stand up and grasp for their opportunities, in all forms," he said. "It probably looks like that we're a little more certain on our bowling stocks than we are on our batting stocks and if that's a message then I think it's the correct message.

"We just tried to be as consistent as we could to forward think a little bit and see who the batters are who we're going to use. It would look silly if the contracts came out and then we picked guys that weren't anywhere near the contract list.

"We had to try to be as consistent as we could, as certain as we could with certain players and individuals, and the message then is clear that there are batting positions available. If a guy can string three Tests together or six ODIs, they will get the contract, but we're looking for batsmen to put their hand sup and say this is where they want to be."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • zenboomerang on June 27, 2012, 7:24 GMT

    @hyclass... Agree on Forrest, he should have just been kept for the Aust A team... Many of us commented over last summer on his average/sr in OD'ers & his low standing... Last season among those that played at least half the OD cup matches, Tom Cooper ave@73 sr@88 or Klinger ave@55 sr@81 (both on Aust A tour) would have been better choices... Forrest has been selected for his future Test potential which goes against all logical thinking - even Ed Cowan ave@49 sr@82 stats are much better than Forrests ave@29 sr@67... Funny how the Argus report called on "performance based" selections for all formats - hmmm... Someone seems to have put the report in the bottom draw again...

  • zenboomerang on June 27, 2012, 6:34 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding... You didn't answer my question - "Aren't WI's & SA important to you as opposition?"... Funny how many are bagging the Oz ODI tour & praising the Saffa tour... Also your "ECB and CA wanted to move the Ashes so that it fell outside of the cycle of the World Cup" - sorry you are wrong - 2015 we play an Ashes series while in 2019 the WC is in the middle of the Ashes tour... Re: Olympics? May be the largest but you should know that the soccer WC is the most popular... As I said - no interest... Over 300 events - 90%+ of the sports are rarely if ever mentioned in the media & most people would be pushed to name more than a few high profile athletes... Try naming your womens water polo or synchronized swimming team members - how about archery or small bore rifle or pistol?...

  • dariuscorny on June 26, 2012, 16:37 GMT

    @5wombats oh really!thats what you should do which seems more appropriate than bashing others.....

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2012, 15:07 GMT

    @zenboomerang, I did answer though I dont think you were able to comprehend. You have heard of the Olympics and realise that its the largest single sporting event in the world? And That it would detract from the Ashes this year, thus reducing gates, audiances etc. As for playing in 2014/5, both the ECB and CA wanted to move the Ashes so that it fell outside of the cycle of the World Cup.

  • hyclass on June 26, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    I think you've hit the nail on the head @Winsome.While this side may win matches,I disagree with Arthur that anyone knows what their roles are.I have little regard for Arthur's acumen & see his real skill as PR.He carried on publicly pushing Marsh into the side when all the evidence suggested it was an error,as it subsequently proved to be.I see absolutely no structure to his methodology.I'm also convinced that Forrest has no business being in the ODI squad.There was some suggestion that his recent numbers in 1st class cricket were superior to his career record.That may be true but he has only joined the ODI side recently.Regardless of the runs he scores,his S/R is appalling.A ODI average of 32 and a S/R of 68 loses games,not wins them.His List A S/R is 63 implying that improvent is improbable.Most batsmen have a natural S/R above which their average falls away.Forrest is a naturally slow scorer.Why include him in a format so foreign to his own game?Practices remain as obtuse as ever.

  • 5wombats on June 26, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    @dariuscorny - Tuesday is the day when the rubbish bins are collected in my street. Your comment arrived just in time.

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2012, 9:13 GMT

    @RandyOZ, I think you'll find you've had more starting with Charles Bannerman( born Kent, england), Bransby Cooper (born Dacca India), John Hodges (born London england), Tom Horan (Born Ireland), Tom Kendall (Born Bedford England), Billy Midwinter (Born Gloucester, england), Thomas Kelly (Born Ireland), George Alexander (Born Oxfordshire, England), Thomas Groube (born New Zealand), and thats 9 from from just the first 20 cricketers to play test cricket for Australia. In fact 21 non-Australian born players have represented Australia since 1877 in test cricket.

  • zenboomerang on June 26, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding... Your reply doesn't answer why WI's & SA can play 6 Tests + ODI + T20 series in Eng yet a 5 Test Ashes series will not... Aren't they important to you as opposition?... Nor does it answer why Eng cannot tour to Oz in 2014 with the last Test being played early January, with enough time for a ODI series before the WC... As I said "old boys school" from ECB & CA stuffing up those that support them... Nothing personal to anyone else but I would much more likely go to a Test match than an Olympic event - the Olympics are crammed into a 2 week slot while an Ashes Test tour takes months - be lucky to see any more than an hour or two of the Olympics... No interest - sorry :(

  • AKS286 on June 26, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    Oz will win beacause except cook & bell no other batsmen is able to score runs its look like T20 & finisher team. dernbach is a very expensive bowler, anderson swing will not work in odi. Oz bowling looks attacking as well as disciplined. Oz will not giving too many runs, but eng finisher can make them expensive in the last 10 overs. for 40 overs eng can't do anything.

  • dariuscorny on June 26, 2012, 6:47 GMT

    @5wombats your comments dont suggest Eng are half decent side in odis.the fact is they are a very ordinary side.they are even more thinner than India when they travel out of Eng.cricket history is filled with Eng's mediocrty when it comes to play cricket be it tests or onedayers.off late they started playing good cricket specially at their den.sooner not later Eng will once again become an ordinary side which they used to be 1-2 yrs back....atleast Aussies have something(achievements)to say

  • zenboomerang on June 27, 2012, 7:24 GMT

    @hyclass... Agree on Forrest, he should have just been kept for the Aust A team... Many of us commented over last summer on his average/sr in OD'ers & his low standing... Last season among those that played at least half the OD cup matches, Tom Cooper ave@73 sr@88 or Klinger ave@55 sr@81 (both on Aust A tour) would have been better choices... Forrest has been selected for his future Test potential which goes against all logical thinking - even Ed Cowan ave@49 sr@82 stats are much better than Forrests ave@29 sr@67... Funny how the Argus report called on "performance based" selections for all formats - hmmm... Someone seems to have put the report in the bottom draw again...

  • zenboomerang on June 27, 2012, 6:34 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding... You didn't answer my question - "Aren't WI's & SA important to you as opposition?"... Funny how many are bagging the Oz ODI tour & praising the Saffa tour... Also your "ECB and CA wanted to move the Ashes so that it fell outside of the cycle of the World Cup" - sorry you are wrong - 2015 we play an Ashes series while in 2019 the WC is in the middle of the Ashes tour... Re: Olympics? May be the largest but you should know that the soccer WC is the most popular... As I said - no interest... Over 300 events - 90%+ of the sports are rarely if ever mentioned in the media & most people would be pushed to name more than a few high profile athletes... Try naming your womens water polo or synchronized swimming team members - how about archery or small bore rifle or pistol?...

  • dariuscorny on June 26, 2012, 16:37 GMT

    @5wombats oh really!thats what you should do which seems more appropriate than bashing others.....

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2012, 15:07 GMT

    @zenboomerang, I did answer though I dont think you were able to comprehend. You have heard of the Olympics and realise that its the largest single sporting event in the world? And That it would detract from the Ashes this year, thus reducing gates, audiances etc. As for playing in 2014/5, both the ECB and CA wanted to move the Ashes so that it fell outside of the cycle of the World Cup.

  • hyclass on June 26, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    I think you've hit the nail on the head @Winsome.While this side may win matches,I disagree with Arthur that anyone knows what their roles are.I have little regard for Arthur's acumen & see his real skill as PR.He carried on publicly pushing Marsh into the side when all the evidence suggested it was an error,as it subsequently proved to be.I see absolutely no structure to his methodology.I'm also convinced that Forrest has no business being in the ODI squad.There was some suggestion that his recent numbers in 1st class cricket were superior to his career record.That may be true but he has only joined the ODI side recently.Regardless of the runs he scores,his S/R is appalling.A ODI average of 32 and a S/R of 68 loses games,not wins them.His List A S/R is 63 implying that improvent is improbable.Most batsmen have a natural S/R above which their average falls away.Forrest is a naturally slow scorer.Why include him in a format so foreign to his own game?Practices remain as obtuse as ever.

  • 5wombats on June 26, 2012, 10:29 GMT

    @dariuscorny - Tuesday is the day when the rubbish bins are collected in my street. Your comment arrived just in time.

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2012, 9:13 GMT

    @RandyOZ, I think you'll find you've had more starting with Charles Bannerman( born Kent, england), Bransby Cooper (born Dacca India), John Hodges (born London england), Tom Horan (Born Ireland), Tom Kendall (Born Bedford England), Billy Midwinter (Born Gloucester, england), Thomas Kelly (Born Ireland), George Alexander (Born Oxfordshire, England), Thomas Groube (born New Zealand), and thats 9 from from just the first 20 cricketers to play test cricket for Australia. In fact 21 non-Australian born players have represented Australia since 1877 in test cricket.

  • zenboomerang on June 26, 2012, 9:12 GMT

    @YorkshirePudding... Your reply doesn't answer why WI's & SA can play 6 Tests + ODI + T20 series in Eng yet a 5 Test Ashes series will not... Aren't they important to you as opposition?... Nor does it answer why Eng cannot tour to Oz in 2014 with the last Test being played early January, with enough time for a ODI series before the WC... As I said "old boys school" from ECB & CA stuffing up those that support them... Nothing personal to anyone else but I would much more likely go to a Test match than an Olympic event - the Olympics are crammed into a 2 week slot while an Ashes Test tour takes months - be lucky to see any more than an hour or two of the Olympics... No interest - sorry :(

  • AKS286 on June 26, 2012, 7:21 GMT

    Oz will win beacause except cook & bell no other batsmen is able to score runs its look like T20 & finisher team. dernbach is a very expensive bowler, anderson swing will not work in odi. Oz bowling looks attacking as well as disciplined. Oz will not giving too many runs, but eng finisher can make them expensive in the last 10 overs. for 40 overs eng can't do anything.

  • dariuscorny on June 26, 2012, 6:47 GMT

    @5wombats your comments dont suggest Eng are half decent side in odis.the fact is they are a very ordinary side.they are even more thinner than India when they travel out of Eng.cricket history is filled with Eng's mediocrty when it comes to play cricket be it tests or onedayers.off late they started playing good cricket specially at their den.sooner not later Eng will once again become an ordinary side which they used to be 1-2 yrs back....atleast Aussies have something(achievements)to say

  • CricketingStargazer on June 26, 2012, 5:40 GMT

    Yes, including the last case of a player to play Tests for two different teams!

  • YorkshirePudding on June 26, 2012, 4:49 GMT

    @zenboomerang, a little context about the back to back ashes, the original plan was to host the Ashes this year(2012), but with the olympics in the UK this year it was thought that the Ashes would be overshadowed, so the only thing to do was to either delay the Ashes to 2014 and then 2016/7 in aus or hold the Ashes in both countries next year, I think you will also find that CA wanted to move the Ashes from 2015 so that it could have a clear run in to the WC.

  • RandyOZ on June 25, 2012, 23:14 GMT

    @CricketingStargazer - we've had 8 non-Australian born batsmen in history, so I doubt that. You have that many imports in your current squad!

  • CricketingStargazer on June 25, 2012, 18:08 GMT

    RandyOz, I suspect that Steven will make a few comments about early Australian sides if you ask that.

  • Winsome on June 25, 2012, 16:52 GMT

    I agree wtih Marcio. The Aussie team for all it's no 1 status seems like a team in search of an identity or at least anything resembling a settled team. Players appear for one series then disappear for another. I know they have had a lot of injuries - the all-rounders in particular can't stay on their feet, but it's impossible to predict how this lot will fare.

  • yorkshirematt on June 25, 2012, 14:52 GMT

    @jonesy2 Oz are definitely not like the spanish football team and NZ rugby team. i.e. completely dominant over the rest of the world (anyway the spanish are past their best and the germans will dominate for the next few years)

  • 5wombats on June 25, 2012, 13:27 GMT

    @RandyOZ on (June 24 2012, 23:55 PM GMT) "shocked by the improvement". What improvement? Aus went out of the World Cup at the same stage as England last year. Aus failed to put away a quite weak (with respect) West Indies ODI side. Meanwhile England have beaten Pakistan ODI 4-0 and 2-1 in T20 in UAE and india in india in T20. England also beat SL, ind and WI in ODI in England. Ok - so Aus beat india all ends up in the ODIs in Aus - but then everyone beats india when india are playing away. @RandyOZ - there has been an "improvement" - but not by the team you think. @jonesey2 "woeful west indies team". A bit disrespectful that comment don't you think, about a side Aus failed to beat?

  • wibblewibble on June 25, 2012, 13:26 GMT

    If England do well enough in this ODI series, and they will be #1 ranked team in Test, ODI and T20. I think 5-0 or 4-1 would give us top of the pile.

  • zenboomerang on June 25, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    @landl47... I'm glad that we agree that the ECB created this meaningless series (as they did the crazy back to back Test series, of late)... Seems the old boy school lives proudly in Eng & Oz to the detriment of the fans...

  • rahulcricket007 on June 25, 2012, 11:59 GMT

    THOUGH I DON'T LIKE BOTH TEAMS BUT I THINK AUSSIES WILL WIN IT . 4-1 TO AUS .

  • dariuscorny on June 25, 2012, 10:55 GMT

    the English overhype there side just as Aussies do with Cummins and Pattinson.any ways, i feel Aussies wil win this odi series comprehensively as they have far more superior oneday side

  • RandyOZ on June 25, 2012, 10:46 GMT

    It will be interesting to see what team the United XI field. I hope Ask Steven is at the ready because this could be the first time in history a national team is fielded with less than a handful of actual players from that country.

  • whatawicket on June 25, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    this team cannot claim to be # 1 team. over1/2 this aussie squad were in that odi team.

  • jmcilhinney on June 25, 2012, 9:57 GMT

    For those who aren't aware, ECB agreed to this series when requested by CA in response to ECB requesting an ODI series in Australia prior to the 2015 WC. That should be a good indication of how seriously England are now taking ODI cricket. Not that long ago they were pretty poor at Test cricket. They decided they wanted to be #1 in the Test rankings and here we are. They are now turning their attention seriously to ODIs. People like to make big claims but there's no specific reason to believe that they won't make it to top of the tree there too. England have to take this series seriously if they want Australia to do the same in 2015, so expect them to play to win. That said, in the context of England's summer, with full tours by WI and SA, with the showdown for the #1 Test ranking less than a month away, this series has little meaning. I'm not convinced it has as much value for Australia as has been implied. ODIs a year out will have minimal impact on the Ashes series.

  • jmcilhinney on June 25, 2012, 9:48 GMT

    @jonesy2 on (June 25 2012, 05:27 AM GMT), it seems odd that you'd bring up WI given that England just had two resounding wins against a stronger WI side than held Australia to a drawn series immediately beforehand. Many people were talking about the progress WI had made when they managed some good results against Australia and then they came to England and we all realised that they really hadn't come that far. Noone should get lulled into a false sense of security by achieving good results against this Australia side, as we've been told regularly by all and sundry regarding the last Ashes. I just wonder whether anyone else will accept that England have achieved anything if and when they win the next Ashes, because noone seems too impressed with the last time, which is odd considering that it was an away series with three innings victories. It must be a poor team indeed for that sort of margin not to be considered an achievement.

  • allblue on June 25, 2012, 9:45 GMT

    @landl47 Although money is never far from their thoughts, this series is part of the longer term planning for both countries. For the Aussies it gives their young bowlers a first taste of English conditions ahead of next year's Ashes, and for England we get a reciprocal five match series against Australia in Australia just ahead of the 2015 World Cup. So although it appears to have no context I can see the rationale of both boards taking the longer view into account. Like all real cricket fans, I am hugely disappointed that the SA series is only to be three Tests, I don't know why we didn't split the summer 2/4 rather than having an unnecessary third Test against WI, but that is a separate issue. Giving ourselves the best chance of winning the next WC is a sound policy decision in my view.

  • AKS286 on June 25, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    watson, warner, birt, clarke, voges, wade, d,hussey, johnson, mckay, george/copeland, beer

  • Hammond on June 25, 2012, 9:01 GMT

    @Marcio- meaningless in that it is only ODI cricket, the soon to be extinct form of limited overs cricket. Plenty of meaning in the England v Australia contest (as an Aussie growing up they were the only games that really mattered) but wrong format to have any real context. We sure won't be talking about this series 5 years from now, let alone 20 years.

  • waheed1233 on June 25, 2012, 8:56 GMT

    The way people are saying that the series is meaninglss series, from that perspective every series is meaningless. The fact that Cook wants to have an early look at the Aussies itself shows how concerned the english side is about facing the mighty Aussies and what meaning this series has for the english side. It does not really matter what you or I think about the "assumed meaning" of the series, what metters is how both the sides take it and from the article, it is clear that the english side is highly concerned about the series.

  • zenboomerang on June 25, 2012, 8:44 GMT

    @Marcio... Agree... It seems that CA doesn't take the one day formats seriously - Forrest is the perfect example... Many better credentialed OD batters in Oz with better all round abilities - batting, fielding, bowling... Forrest wouldn't make my current Oz ODI B team...

  • PrasPunter on June 25, 2012, 8:34 GMT

    @Front-foot-Lunge, 4 WC victories across geographies, time-zones and playing conditions, 16 test-wins in a row on 2 occasions and test and ODI series victories at home and abroad including india ( where a team got thrashed 0-5 in a recent ODI series ) - this is the sort of record that would make jealousy flying at one's face, not the sort of things that you have mentioned.

  • Marcio on June 25, 2012, 8:23 GMT

    Let's hope the English are at least competitive this time round. They managed just 2 wins from 9 short format games on the last Australian tour - one of those a one wicket win on the last ball of a T20 - which was rather sad indeed. And why all these comments that these games are "meaningless"? How are they any more meaningless than any other international games? Maybe the poms are a bit worried about what's in store. I suspect that if the poms manage to pull themselves up and win a few matches this time the games there will be plenty of 'meaning' made from them.

  • Front-Foot_lunge on June 25, 2012, 8:17 GMT

    Having a early look is hardly an advantage. It will just mean Cook starts spreading the fear through the English team earlier. Without the 'south African' to bolster the backbone of the english members of the squad, it could easily become septic.

    That said, Australia play a long range game and the results of this ODI are pretty meaningless to them, its all about performance. They're coming off a long lay-off, just like last time they were here and we *just* won that one.

    If they feel the group is going in the right direction, then they worn care about the win/loss ratio. They'll just look at their world cup trophy cabinet and buy some more brasso.

    Team England, and their fans should learn this fact, its might feel great beating the windies or having Bell hit a 'classy knock' against a pop-gun attack, but in tourneys that matter, we've done nothing. I'm sure uneducated fans may crow at a series win against Aus here, but thats just showing up how little they know about the game

  • Snick_To_Backward_Point on June 25, 2012, 8:10 GMT

    BSimon you're wrong - this series is meaningless to England. All it serves is to risk our superior players before the main event - the saffers. That's what we're looking forward to this summer - not some work in progress side struggling to find 6 players who can hold the bat the right way up.

  • on June 25, 2012, 7:48 GMT

    I disagree with those who claim this'll be a meaningless series. On the contrary, it'll give England the opportunity to face some high-quality bowling, pre-South Africa, after feasting on cheap runs off an ill-disciplined rabble masquerading as the West Indies pace attack. It'll also allow Mickey Arthur the opportunity to evaluate, ahead of next year's Ashes, which of his brittle & injury-prone seamers are able to last more than a few consecutive days against a top-notch batting unit in demanding English conditions. Just as importantly, it'll go a long way towards establishing whether or not the new Cook/Bell axis at the top of the English order is a long-term proposition rather than just a flash in the pan, while it'll also be interesting to see whether Andy Flower's strategy of fielding five front-line bowlers at the expense of exposing Kieswetter at No. 6 finally comes a cropper.

  • Behind_the_bowlers_arm on June 25, 2012, 7:41 GMT

    The series is immaterial and is useful only for Australia to give English conditions experience to some players who have none. This is true of the bowlers but more so of the batsmen where so many places are up for grabs in the Test team. Its a massive opportunity across these and the Aust A games against the Lions for players to jump the queue. Starc is playing for Yorkshire which is just as good for his development so leaving him there is fine. Ditto for P Hughes and Khawaja with their county spells.

  • RyanHarrisGreatCricketer on June 25, 2012, 6:33 GMT

    In the long run this series counts for nothing, but i hope in the significant matches, aus play dis team:

    Watson, Wade, Clarke, Shaun Marsh, Bailey, David Hussey, Steve Smith, Johnson, Harris, Cummins and Lyon.

    Pattinson and Doherty are the most overrated bowlers in oz.

  • AKS286 on June 25, 2012, 5:55 GMT

    I read one of the column that "WARNER will switch hit to swann" for this switch hit warner has to be in pitch for 15 overs or bats in middle order.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on June 25, 2012, 5:54 GMT

    When you're world number 1 in tests, and world number 1 in one days in all but name, the jealousy will be flying at you. So reads another day at the top of the cricketing tree for England judging by some comments on here. 766 runs, 3 innings victories. Not even the most deluded fans would claim that one-day victory in this series would mean Australia have "avenged" England, but it's all some have got to cling on desperately to. COOK..the name that brings nightmares to any Aussie fan or player. ENGLAND...the name that stirs up such envy.

  • jonesy2 on June 25, 2012, 5:31 GMT

    i cant see this serie being a contest. the strength and depth of the aussie team is something simply not seen in international cricket. it is very similar to the allblacks or a spanish soccer team. one the other hand none of englands players would make a ryobi cup side in australia. that seems to point to one result only. im just excited to see pat cummins bowling 95 miles an hour at englands batsmen and mitch johnson running through them like a hot indian curry after warner has belted them into submission

  • jonesy2 on June 25, 2012, 5:27 GMT

    as england are one of the worst ODI teams in the world with no star power at all i fancy this series to be an embarrassing one for them. last time they played a series it was 6-1 australia, 5-0 this time then i guess. looking at how england played against a woeful west indies team they had better hope they have a lot more against the might of australia or they will require therapy like flintoff and trescothick.

  • jonesy2 on June 25, 2012, 5:23 GMT

    so cook is going to be the first to have nightmares about white balls coming at him at 150 clicks is he? poor bloke

  • Insult_2_Injury on June 25, 2012, 4:21 GMT

    You're wrong, Landl47, There's plenty to be gained by Australia playing this filler for the ECB. It isn't meaningless that a new look Aussie squad with many on the periphery of Test selection would be sent out to test the waters before next years Tests. There's plenty of time ( as well as another contract review) before the Ashes next year. There's nothing to say the current contracted players will line up next year, but in Australia when they rebuild, they make positions a competition to ensure players earn a spot, not just try a different player every other test. That's obvious by the hugely smaller number of players who've worn the baggy green than the 3 lions. It's funny to hear comments about Australias' cupboard being bare and the coachs' justifications, when there are only 3 batsmen in England, surrounded by imports from SA, Ireland and anywhere else england can 'justify' having a passable link to.

  • on June 25, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    Agree with the comments here. Though the new Aussie 6-prong battery - I feel like I'm watching the movie "Battleship" - will be fun to watch in English condtions, this IS a meaningless series. It is not being played for any significant reason or long-running trophy, and feels like it's just there to fill in time before the arrival of SAf. Will indeed be interesing to see if Eng go all out and risk potential injuries to their players before that tour, which in my mind should be the highlight of this year's cricketing calandar, and surely worth 100 times more than a piddly one-day victory against a lack-lustre Australia.

  • Something_Witty on June 25, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    Hammond seems to think Dan Brettig is a South African coach now. *chortles* On a serious note, I really am looking forward to this series. Hope to see some good quality cricket from both sides. England have come a long way since they were thrashed 6-1 after the Ashes, so I expect an evenly contested series. Hoping for and expecting an Aus victory. Come on boys!

  • RogerCasement on June 25, 2012, 4:01 GMT

    Hammond - this was edited. What he actually said was "a team whose methods and successes were a major influence on the direction Australia have taken since the release of the Argus review a little less than a year ago.... and who were before them influenced by the methods and successes of the Australian Ashes team as described in Hugh Morris's England Report in 2007."

  • jmcilhinney on June 25, 2012, 3:52 GMT

    @RandyOZ on (June 24 2012, 23:55 PM GMT), first of all, there's a HUGE difference between getting the odd ball down at 150 and averaging 150. Noone in the Australian bowling lineup is averaging 150. You recently made wild claims about Aussie bowlers regularly hitting 160. Was that while playing unicorn polo, because it must have been in fantasy land. As for being shocked, I just don't see it. They've seen plenty of Brett Lee before and noone seems especially troubled by Pattinson in ODIs so I guess you're pinning all your hopes on an 18 year old who's been out injured for months. I think the battery might be out of power.

  • Hammond on June 25, 2012, 2:39 GMT

    "a team whose methods and successes were a major influence on the direction Australia have taken since the release of the Argus review a little less than a year ago."- wow finally some respect given to England who are clearly the superior side. Shame it had to come from a South African coach.

  • landl47 on June 25, 2012, 1:04 GMT

    Whoever wins or loses, this is a meaningless series put on for one reason- to make money. I fancy England to win on balance, because the England batsmen are in pretty good form whereas the Aussies haven't played any meaningful cricket for a couple of months and that affects the batsmen most. However, England will also be looking forward to the SA series (which DOES mean something) so they may not take this bun-fight too seriously. It will be interesting to see Cummins and Pattinson, if they can stay fit, but otherwise this series isn't going to tell us anything. Love Mickey Arthur's justification of the lack of contracts for batsmen; come on, Mickey, just admit the truth, Australia hasn't got any quality batsmen in the system. The 2 Husseys and Ponting (combined age 109) make up 50% of your batting contracts? The cupboard is as empty as a hermit's address book, as Blackadder would say.

  • Marcio on June 25, 2012, 0:35 GMT

    Yes, there are so many changes in the ODI and T20 squads its hard to know what's going on??? In T20 in particular, the team from one series to the next, or even one game to the next is often vastly different. The admin seem to use the T20 games to experiment or to blood youngsters in the international arena - but then also give old boys like Brad Hogg a run for a couple of games (then ditch him despite sound performances!). And why isn't Mitchel Starc in the ODI squad? He's a much better ODI bowler than Pattinson, who is far too predictable (although conditions will suit him in Eng). I suppose they want to give him experince in England before the Ashes. If so, it's using ODIs as an experiment - yet again.

  • RandyOZ on June 24, 2012, 23:55 GMT

    Cook will be shocked by the improvement. He is a good young batsmen but they are going to need a few more South Africans to handle the Aussie pace battery. 3 players averaging 150 clicks. Watch out United XI.

  • DaTBird187 on June 24, 2012, 23:08 GMT

    I'd say the experiments will go on as long as there are meaningless 1 Day Internationals. A settled side would not be that important until 18 months or so out from the World Cup.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 24, 2012, 17:53 GMT

    It's about time Australia string together some sort of team that they're likely to go with in upcoming series. At the moment they have a lot of 'potentially class individuals' with little/no sense of unity/team spirit, and this is an important factor to consider. How long are these little experiments going to go on for?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on June 24, 2012, 17:53 GMT

    It's about time Australia string together some sort of team that they're likely to go with in upcoming series. At the moment they have a lot of 'potentially class individuals' with little/no sense of unity/team spirit, and this is an important factor to consider. How long are these little experiments going to go on for?

  • DaTBird187 on June 24, 2012, 23:08 GMT

    I'd say the experiments will go on as long as there are meaningless 1 Day Internationals. A settled side would not be that important until 18 months or so out from the World Cup.

  • RandyOZ on June 24, 2012, 23:55 GMT

    Cook will be shocked by the improvement. He is a good young batsmen but they are going to need a few more South Africans to handle the Aussie pace battery. 3 players averaging 150 clicks. Watch out United XI.

  • Marcio on June 25, 2012, 0:35 GMT

    Yes, there are so many changes in the ODI and T20 squads its hard to know what's going on??? In T20 in particular, the team from one series to the next, or even one game to the next is often vastly different. The admin seem to use the T20 games to experiment or to blood youngsters in the international arena - but then also give old boys like Brad Hogg a run for a couple of games (then ditch him despite sound performances!). And why isn't Mitchel Starc in the ODI squad? He's a much better ODI bowler than Pattinson, who is far too predictable (although conditions will suit him in Eng). I suppose they want to give him experince in England before the Ashes. If so, it's using ODIs as an experiment - yet again.

  • landl47 on June 25, 2012, 1:04 GMT

    Whoever wins or loses, this is a meaningless series put on for one reason- to make money. I fancy England to win on balance, because the England batsmen are in pretty good form whereas the Aussies haven't played any meaningful cricket for a couple of months and that affects the batsmen most. However, England will also be looking forward to the SA series (which DOES mean something) so they may not take this bun-fight too seriously. It will be interesting to see Cummins and Pattinson, if they can stay fit, but otherwise this series isn't going to tell us anything. Love Mickey Arthur's justification of the lack of contracts for batsmen; come on, Mickey, just admit the truth, Australia hasn't got any quality batsmen in the system. The 2 Husseys and Ponting (combined age 109) make up 50% of your batting contracts? The cupboard is as empty as a hermit's address book, as Blackadder would say.

  • Hammond on June 25, 2012, 2:39 GMT

    "a team whose methods and successes were a major influence on the direction Australia have taken since the release of the Argus review a little less than a year ago."- wow finally some respect given to England who are clearly the superior side. Shame it had to come from a South African coach.

  • jmcilhinney on June 25, 2012, 3:52 GMT

    @RandyOZ on (June 24 2012, 23:55 PM GMT), first of all, there's a HUGE difference between getting the odd ball down at 150 and averaging 150. Noone in the Australian bowling lineup is averaging 150. You recently made wild claims about Aussie bowlers regularly hitting 160. Was that while playing unicorn polo, because it must have been in fantasy land. As for being shocked, I just don't see it. They've seen plenty of Brett Lee before and noone seems especially troubled by Pattinson in ODIs so I guess you're pinning all your hopes on an 18 year old who's been out injured for months. I think the battery might be out of power.

  • RogerCasement on June 25, 2012, 4:01 GMT

    Hammond - this was edited. What he actually said was "a team whose methods and successes were a major influence on the direction Australia have taken since the release of the Argus review a little less than a year ago.... and who were before them influenced by the methods and successes of the Australian Ashes team as described in Hugh Morris's England Report in 2007."

  • Something_Witty on June 25, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    Hammond seems to think Dan Brettig is a South African coach now. *chortles* On a serious note, I really am looking forward to this series. Hope to see some good quality cricket from both sides. England have come a long way since they were thrashed 6-1 after the Ashes, so I expect an evenly contested series. Hoping for and expecting an Aus victory. Come on boys!

  • on June 25, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    Agree with the comments here. Though the new Aussie 6-prong battery - I feel like I'm watching the movie "Battleship" - will be fun to watch in English condtions, this IS a meaningless series. It is not being played for any significant reason or long-running trophy, and feels like it's just there to fill in time before the arrival of SAf. Will indeed be interesing to see if Eng go all out and risk potential injuries to their players before that tour, which in my mind should be the highlight of this year's cricketing calandar, and surely worth 100 times more than a piddly one-day victory against a lack-lustre Australia.