Unless England win the final test Hazlewood has nothing to do with the return of the Urn. At this current point of time a 1-1 draw retained the Ashes and that win was due to Bancroft, Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Head, Wade, Paine, Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle and Lyon. That was the team that "retained" the Ashes at this current point of time. Now if England win the final test then yes Hazlewood Starc and Harris Labuchagne may be included. But currently Hazlewood, Starc et al are just band wagon hoppers trying to get their names in lights.
 Your posts just get more astounding Mike. Do you really believe this twaddle you waste your time typing. Warner @9.8- Pattinson 5 @33 - Siddle 5 @36 -  Khawaja @20.-Bancroft @11. How did those five contribute to the retention of the Ashes? At the point of 1-1 Hazlewood had contributed 3 wickets at Lords..unlucky not to 5 in f/i.. 9 /115  at Leeds that with Labuchagne won us that game and the drawn series. In the game that the urn was retained Josh contributed 6/88 from 43 overs. In his three games he has 18@16 with the lowest s/r and betting the lowest economy of our attack and you say he has done nothing toward securing us the urn. You are off your rocker. Or just love shit stirring which I find boring.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27587682/how-peter-siddle-put-wobble-back-australia-attack

You mean this article? Yeah I had read that. I don't really think I am overlooking it, though. To me hitting top of off with accuracy at a premium of accuracy over pace forcing Starc out and not bowling long hops to be hit square, is a total and utter given. But this English batting line up is probably 7th best in the world. Its a rubbish batting line up. Ireland wrecked them for under a 100. 

As for dropping leading bowlers in the World Cup re Starc, I don't think that is really a stroke of master against the grain thinking at all. The second leading wicket taker, Ferguson, didn't make  his test squad at all.  Bangladesh's leading wicket taker Mustafizur missed his test team too. Starc is a phenomenal monster in limited overs cricket because of yorkers which wreck teams at the death stages, and cause chaos for tailenders at any time. His general inaccuracy has been observed for a number of years now with lowering wicket returns and his continued test selection after last summer at home in Australia has long been in jeopardy. Pattinson being fit, and Siddle's success in English county were a reasonable death knell for it. 

That all said, I think this current England line up would fall apart to long hops too right now.

This is ridiculous. And yet sadly, one would have to say he is actually England's second best batsman, and their best this series.

1 Burns 2 Denly 3 Root 4 Stokes 5 Buttler 6 Woakes 7 Bairstow 8 Curran 9 Archer 10 Broad 11 Anderson

I rates Woakes and Curran highly with the bat as allrounders, but that is still a ridiculously soft batting line up.

Some people do understand Baggers some of what I write is done tongue in cheek, and to get different points of view out there. If you want to read promotional BS regarding certain players with no supportive factual basis, read the articles in the media. I myself personally learnt long ago that the media have no obligation to factually support any claims but report to get discussions going regardless of the damage they ultimately do to society. But that is the beauty of Forums you do do get a variety of opinions from different walks of life and not necessarily even from the same country, makes you think. Some good points are made and I respect quality input even if it disagrees with my point of view.

The beauty of forums Mike is you use them to espouse so much crap, most are to stir your fellow posters. Enuff is enuff..I dont want to read another post. bagging a player because he wears a baggy blue cap. Your humor has run its course.

I think the key to Stoke's success is that he has played to get his in eye, start slow, and then once in, has really put the foot down. When Stokes bats time, he doesn't do well all that often (did in WI this year though). He puts away too many shots, he is still a limited batsman, and will get out. When Stokes is aggressive, he scores big. All his big scores are expansive, cavalier stroke making innings and always have been. Same in ODI cricket, he starts his innings slower than people think. He isn't like Bairstow, Roy and Buttler. But we all seem to remember his top gear for a reason.

Stokes is prepared to drive on the up. When he puts his foot down, he dominates the bowler into lost lengths. Suddenly they pull it back, and he cuts and pulls. Then they try to overcompensate, and its all over the place. By this time Stokes' is motoring. Its the same cat and mouse game that Ricky Ponting made so famous. And I am in no way saying Stokes shares his ability, just saying they employ a similar strategy. Stokes did in to NZ in 2015, did it in SA 16/17. What people did then to shut him down, was keep it full, and plug the field. 

Want proof of what Im saying?

Here is Lords -

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19430/statistics/1152847/england-vs-australia-2nd-test-icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021

Look at this wagon wheel, highest productive shot, cut shot, 58 runs scored wide when the Aus bowling plan was top of off stump?

Now to Leeds

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/19430/statistics/1152848/england-vs-australia-3rd-test-icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021

Now here those 6's off Lyon skew things to straight side, but again, 75 runs square. This time he favoured the pull shot. And we call remember him pulling the heck out of Hazelwood in one over alone.

You all remember how he started when he put his foot down? He drove the seamers on the up. Got them to pull their length back, and went to town pulling. Stokes will pull all day if he could. And if its too wide to pull, he will cut it. 

India, Pakistan and NZ (2018) gave Stokes nothing. They kept the cover fielders in. And never pulled back their lengths. Cos once he gets you to pull your length back, he starts pulling. Then the bowler is rattled, and the runs start flowing in. 

He is a mid 30's average batsman. He isn't Greg Chappel. But Stokes plays to his strengths. He has a good defence, and loves to score wide of the wicket. He will wide off and cover drive on the up to open that opportunity. That is a risky shot, I'd plug the field and tell the bowler to keep on that length and try to straighten it a bit more. Problem is, as soon a bowler gets creamed with a drive and they were aiming for length, instinctively they feel the need to pull back their length. Once that also then goes to a pull shot, the batsman is in top gear, and the bowler perplexed. That's when the wide balls start coming in, leg stump easy to glance to fine leg, and wide of  cut shot freebies start. 

Stokes doesn't play the cut shot like Ross Taylor from a 3rd stump offline. So if he is cutting. It's wide!

Mike even thought you've drawn on a lot of data to support the proposition that H is struggling, for most of 2018 that data may have supported your proposition he was going through a lean period in Tests.

However, in the last two tests in England, with the Dukes ball, H has excelled. He has bowled good line and length, moving the  new ball conventionally and reverse swung the old ball.  All at speeds of up to 145 kph.  

Geoff Boycott, waxed lyrical that H and Cummins are one of the  best attacks he has seen in any era. The bowling  in the last  two Tests  in England, from H, has impressed all stakeholders with a professional playing background.

Do think they all wrong and you are right?

H's figures confirm he has been a resounding success in the last two Tests.

Reckon too Starc's Test days are numbered.. down to about 1 now. If only we had another leftie.. that is not injury proned like Behrendorff. Starc's continued selection past 12 months is pretty much as he brings balance ad provide footmarks for Lyon. Until the last match he had lost his greatest weapon.. the in swinging yorker with the new cherry. He may be able to produce it in English conditions but will be able to on our decks? If unable to we can not continue to pick a bowler due to his propensity to only mop up a tail. He is basicly a passenger if that is the case.. and we dont want to be carrying those in our attack. 

H and Cummins are one of the  best attacks he has seen in any era.
Mike wont acknowledge that DC as they wear baggy blues. He will say tho that Johnson and McDermott  would have made one of the best attacks in any era.

I thought Starc was effective at  reduced pace, bowling a tighter line in the last Test, Baggers. The coaching staff made him work harder on his line before was considered for Test selection.

I don't have the knowledge to advocate who is our best attack ATM out of the four Aussie 145 kph bowlers.

Even though you correctly suggest it is Starc's job to dismiss top 6 batters, he was probably more  effective against the sometimes obstinate English tail than the  other pacemen.

Rod Marsh thought that Lillee's weakness was bowling against the tail, because he hadn't developed a good yorker.

No Baggers when Australia won the 4th test they Officially retained the Ashes. If England don't win the 5th test, History will show that Australia retained the Ashes after the 1st test because England were only capable of winning one test, the rest of the games played goes towards winning of the series. But if England do win the 5th test showing that they are capable of winning 2 tests, then yes you are right Hazlewood did partly contribute to Australia retaining the Ashes. Hazlewood didn't play the first test so your claims that Smith Cummins and Hazlewood are the ones responsible for the retention of the Ashes are incorrect, because if you incorporate Hazlewood  you have to incorporate Lyon, Warner, Head, Wade, Paine who all played in both tests, not one, but both and their contributions regardless of how minimal you see it are responsible for Australia retaining the Ashes. 

Wade scored a century in the first test doesn't that contribute to the win? Peter Siddle's partnership with Smith contributed to the first test win. Travis Head scored 85 runs in the first test, that helped too. Lyon took 9 wickets in the first test but you have belittled his performance as well it was better than Hazlewood's 6/ in the 4th test. I'll go as far in saying that Lyon in the 2 tests we won took 11 wickets in total, that's a lot better contribution than Hazlewood.  Labuchagne and Paine all contributed runs in the 4th test. On this site for the last couple of months you have suggested that Starc takes tail enders and doesn't really contribute to Australia's success, but if I was to reverse that and say of the 6 wickets Hazlewood took in the 4th test 3 were tail enders in batting such as Overton 2 times and Butler does that mean that Hazlewood's performance isn't really as good as what you make it out to be as if it weren't for the tail he took 3 wickets. Just pointing out how you truly promote Hazlewood to the extent you disregard the performances of others that genuinely do contribute to Australia's wins. Australia do win without Hazlewood very easily as they did against Sri Lanka and the first test against England, he's just not that important to Australia's success.

DC, I'm not baiting you, but be fair, Mike clearly he has a different opinion to Boycott on Hazelwood, and Mike is certainly entitled to it. If we get to the point where all opinions have to be from a professional playing background, or not ever challenge their collective popular opnion,  we may as well just read their opinions, and not have our own let alone share them. Heck, at that point we don't even need to watch the game or follow the numbers, just read theirs as gospel.

The data men are coming into the game in a big way now. Coaches and selectors are sitting there with their spreadsheets. If Mike is prepared to argue against the "authoritative" opinion with statistical support, he isn't just throwing out quips for the sake of it. And as good as Haze was preceding the Stokes masterclass, he was pretty crap I thought when he got brought back on, and served up some crap that Stokes feasted on. That 4 (short), 6 (full toss), 6 rocked Australia. And set England up.

Pattinson had bowled a (114) maiden, then a (116) wicket maiden of Broad, then (118) 4, (120) then 1 (where he 4 balls at Leach), 

Over 122 - 4 (short), 6 (full toss), 6, 2 (through point) 1 (way too full and wide) - now less than 2 to win needed. Haze was not asked to bowl again by Paine. 

So Mike may not want to jump on the Hazelwood band wagon just yet. I don't have strong thoughts on Haze, couple of years ago I thought he was great. Then he went to crap. I have no thoughts on his future career. I still think Archer however is going to be a superstar.

No Mike, you're trying to have cake and eat it too. The historical answer is the same as the official answer, no matters what happens this test. 

He still went for @31 per wicket and strike rate was 57 with economy rate hovering around 4.5.. So I'd say by those figures he was largely ineffective other than the one spell where he rediscovered his lethal inswinging yorker.

as good as Haze was preceding the Stokes masterclass, he was pretty crap I thought when he got brought back on, and served up some crap that Stokes feasted on. That 4 (short), 6 (full toss), 6 rocked Australia. And set England up.

Not only Hazlewood.. Cummins went for a bit of stick too. These two had been bowling an impeccable 7ms before Stokes decided to step aside and clobber good balls to all parts. I have always maintained Haze is not suited to death bowling in short format cricket as he lacks the change ups needed to curb fast scoring. Stokes was definitely in death overs mode at that stage.

With you DC.. Mike's logic is baffling in the extreme.

Its actually Paddles this time. I know what he's trying to argue, but it doesn't hold in logic. 

Seems a bit hard on Head to be dropped. Runs in the first test, helped save the second test with the rain. 

Poor 3 and 4 tests, but still seems harsh. 

It is harsh when you see a bloke with @10 Warner and one with @11 Harris retained and one with @27 dumped.  CA logic I cant work it out. Their biggest error was picking two Ashes debutant openers and one with a poor England record this series when there is a Qlander at home.. a r/h opener too.. coming off a big ton in his last test. Joe may not have done any better than this dross but he shudda been given the chance to try.

I share that Mike  is entitled to his opinion.

In another sport I am a professionally qualified coach and love data that objectively analyses performances. However, data needs to be used in context, with a high level of training and knowledge  to become relevant.

Mike has a different opinion on H, which he is entitled to, but no eminent stakeholder  in cricket agrees with him.

I also believe in heterogeneity of thought. In that other sport, posters get irate with me for using objective data performance criteria  and stats  in that particular sport, to refute  popular opinions that appear as axiomatic.

I saying  that , I don't differ much to the opinions held by top level professional coaches in that sport. In cricket, Mike contravenes axioms amongst  those who are omniscient in this sphere.  

Hazlewood and starc looked pretty burnt out a year ago. The rotation has kept them fresh

I think the rotation has kept them fresh, Grazor. 

Boycott, the wife beater and openly knighthood seeker eminent? You sure that's the right word to use? Most people like listening to him just to hear him moan and insult people! He's an entertainer! Even as a player he was barely respected by his own team mates, Botham had to run him out deliberately once! Boycott still complains about it.

But the appeal to authority  argument is pretty weak in my view.  What are their expert qualifications? Having had hand eye coordination? Strong enough to hurl a ball faster than someone else? It comes down to how much weight you give it. I don't give cricket commentators and former intl players that much weight at all. In fact I am quite fed up with their utter nonsense and pandering to BCCl and Big 3 drivel. I am sure I have watched and followed more cricket games, and followed more players, than most of them I hear talking cos they seem to have no idea about half the players or games that have taken part even recently outside the same series/tournament. Most of these commentators barely know how to work the stats, that stats men give them to them and they love when it supports their view, then they use them, but if they come to a contrary conclusion they then often sneer at them - which ignores the data men (who never played or coached professionally) are being hired by more and more teams and their conclusions having more and more effect.

I much prefer the analysts and writers who never played who do it for the love, free from politics of keeper the readers happy, or the players happy, or their previous team mates happy for further interviews and what not.  Andrew Fernando is a brilliant writer, albeit admittedly freelance, he never played or coached professionally, he would the closest I have to thinking a cricket expert is eminent in my view.  Of course, the best selector/coach NZ ever has never played the game professionally, so perhaps I am biased, watching the experts criticize his decisions that I agreed with, and ended up being accurate. 

Sorry DC, I disagree for cricket. Those that have long given themselves to following cricket, are just as likely to give a quality opinion as much  as a commentator. People can defend their views as not outrageously stupid with "well Border thinks the same thing". But we're as cricket fans more than free to REASONABLY  disagree with commentators. And one thing you will learn in time if you join further and larger cricket forums, the dillatante fan's ideas get plagarized by them. Both during live commentary, and their published articles. The fan all far too often draws novel and surprising but conclusions before they do. And some of the fan's ideas that are rubbished by the then experts, then turn out to be more than accurate. People should have been playing ODI cricket the way England is now 40 years ago, they didn't cos the "eminent" experts kept saying  it wouldn't work. LOL! Teams are learning to play the numbers now. The eminent experts will catch in time, just like they have all THROUGH USA sports. Where so many of the eminent experts, are not former pro players. Some didn't even play. Cos they're experts in so many sports!

I highly recommend you watch the film - Moneyball. Highly highly recommend. The eminent Shane Warne loathes John Buchannon, calls him an idiot, Michael Clarke reckons his dog could have coached that team, yet John Buchanon had the most successful cricket team in the world ever at his charge, and introduced Money Ball stats to guide selection and play style. Coincidence? Shane Warne's advice when Australia was losing was simply "play better" and pick a few random Victorians. Yet you say, some data analyst told Australia this tour they had on prior trips been bowling too many short and wide balls, and to drop pace for accuracy. Now who's opinion is the stronger? Now I can even tell you why they had been bowling too wide and short in earlier tours bar 2005. His name is Mitch Johnson! 2005 was Lee and Tait with Gillespie just so out of form. I certainly don't need an eminent person to tell me MJ bowled short wide rubbish in England for several tours, and I am amazed that "top of off stump" was considered some coaching plan. Its just how one should bowl on greenish wickets, always. And on most pitches globally, unless there is an effective bounce attack in play due to the pitch. Even on Dustbowls, a seamer should look for top of off. Abbas and Asif don't have anything else going for them, yet they're scary in the deserts.

Don't really care for the Shane Warne "you didn't play over 30 test cricket games to qualify for an opinion" argument. Neither did non test players like Buchanon. let alone non FC players like Hesson. Let alone this whole generation of analysts.

Long live the cricket dilettante! 

I have just seen the news, why is Mitch Marsh in the squad? There is literally no reason for it, he isn't even the best all rounder we have in the shield...

Langer loves him. Ashes retained. Pressure over. Give Mitch yet another chance to shine...

Because the oval is usually pretty flat so they want a fourth quick.

Can someone please explain to me why Warner keeps getting chances when others don’t?

A longer history of greater success. Warner is not mentally strong, but he has hand eye to a hit ball. I bet he breaks NZC hearts this summer.

Ah, the good ol’ temporary form slump, as they say. I hope you are right. I have a front row seat booked for the day-night test in Perth.

Mate, I’ve always thought you were  a quality poster. 

But in all seriousness when you kick the guts out of Hazlewood, you must be smoking banana bender whoopee weed! 

The bloke has been a star of the Ashes retention. 

Give it a rest, son. 

Comes off a good tour game.. batted plenty of runs on a tricky deck and swung the Dukes.