SamL Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 We've finally found a bowler in Broad who can score runs but he doesn't take enough wickets Ashley Giles. Well played Broad, a good innings. It's a shame a few more couldn't play innings like it. Two matches to go, a win and a draw would be a good result I suppose.
purpleronnie Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 Bit of a weedy little bet no? I know, but I always worry about the weather when I bet on the cricket.
Ultra Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 I'm the first to admit I don't know much about cricket, but surely part of being a great test-match batsman is control and a sense of tactics as well as just being able to slog fours and sixes.KP strikes me as being someone who could be great - but has a hell of a lot of maturing to do. How many times has he got himself out fairly needlessly for England? Not as often as Michael "living on past glories" Vaughan. Now there's a player who's passed his sell-by date.
Sparky Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 My view is that the sooner we find a place for Simon Jones the better
Ultra Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 My view is that the sooner we find a place for Simon Jones the better Sicknote Simon probably needs a full season under his belt before being considered for a recall. It's a big step from lower-league cricket to Test matches.
Sparky Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 Sicknote Simon probably needs a full season under his belt before being considered for a recall.It's a big step from lower-league cricket to Test matches. In excellent form of late though although i suppose the problem is squeezing him back in , Would think Sidebottom straight back in to replace Pattinson , other than that cant see much change .
RowlattsFox Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 I can see us having a problem having Broad and Flintoff in the same side, there is usually only room for one all-rounder in a test side. Neither of them take enough wickets to be considered as bowlers only, but selectors and most fans will probably want both of them in the team. If Edgbasten doesn't look like it will spin then I would drop Monty and play with 4/5 seamers because Monty is ineffectual if the conditions don't suit him.
Milky Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 My view is that the sooner we find a place for Simon Jones the better agree
escape2victory Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 In excellent form of late though although i suppose the problem is squeezing him back in , Would think Sidebottom straight back in to replace Pattinson , other than that cant see much change . Maybe the order. Move Flintoff to 6 or even Broad to 6 ? Ambrose needs to be at 7 for me. Plus they need to find a way of taking 20 wickets. Is an attack of Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad too similar. Maybe we need a bit of Jones reverse swing and Harmison pace and bounce.
Flynny Posted 21 July 2008 Posted 21 July 2008 I can see us having a problem having Broad and Flintoff in the same side, there is usually only room for one all-rounder in a test side. Neither of them take enough wickets to be considered as bowlers only, but selectors and most fans will probably want both of them in the team. I don't agree. Flintoff is dangerous and much of his poor wickets/matches ratio is from the first half of his career where he took less. Broad is potentially a heavy wicket taker too, he's just had a bad game. Having both is something to savour, and with Flintoff now a bit erratic with the bat allows us the breathing space to drop a batsman for a 5-man attack. My England team at the minute would look something like: Strauss Cook Bell Pietersen Shah Prior Broad Flintoff Sidebottom Anderson Panesar With Jones as 12th man and Struass or Flintoff captaining.
SamL Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 I don't agree. Flintoff is dangerous and much of his poor wickets/matches ratio is from the first half of his career where he took less. Broad is potentially a heavy wicket taker too, he's just had a bad game. Having both is something to savour, and with Flintoff now a bit erratic with the bat allows us the breathing space to drop a batsman for a 5-man attack. My England team at the minute would look something like: Strauss Cook Bell Pietersen Shah Prior Broad Flintoff Sidebottom Anderson Panesar With Jones as 12th man and Struass or Flintoff captaining. I'd go with something like that as well. If we're going to play five batsman, we've got to have a wicket keeper who can score runs. The best option, at the moment, is Matt Prior.
The People's Hero Posted 22 July 2008 Author Posted 22 July 2008 I don't agree. Flintoff is dangerous and much of his poor wickets/matches ratio is from the first half of his career where he took less. Broad is potentially a heavy wicket taker too, he's just had a bad game. Having both is something to savour, and with Flintoff now a bit erratic with the bat allows us the breathing space to drop a batsman for a 5-man attack. My England team at the minute would look something like: Strauss Cook Bell Pietersen Shah Prior Broad Flintoff Sidebottom Anderson Panesar With Jones as 12th man and Struass or Flintoff captaining. Agree, but I'd pick Bopara in Shah's place. Personal preference.
Uncle Albert Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 Strauss Cook Pietersen Bell Collingwood Prior Flintoff Broad Sidebottom Anderson Panesar Play your best batsmen at three and thats where Pietersen should be batting.
Narborough Bod Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 StraussCook Pietersen Bell Collingwood Prior Flintoff Broad Sidebottom Anderson Panesar Play your best batsmen at three and thats where Pietersen should be batting. Jones for Anderson, Broad or Sidebottom Vaughan for Collingwood although either could be dropped for someone like Denly / Shah or even Key... Foster as keeper. Prior and Ambrose are ok but are just flat track bullies. Once it nips around a bit and they have to get their heads down they come unstuck. Foster has been doing brilliantly for Essex in the past 2 years and deserves another chance - could do the job for 10 years!!
David O'Leary Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 StraussCook Pietersen Bell Collingwood Prior Flintoff Broad Sidebottom Anderson Panesar Play your best batsmen at three and thats where Pietersen should be batting. What happens when one of the openers gets out early and Pietersen has to face the new swinging and seaming ball? He will give his wicket away countless times trying to drive an away swinging ball. I also heard an interesting idea of turning Collingwood into a keeper so making room for another player Without Collingwood as keeper: Cook Strauss Vaughan (Captaincy makes him almost an all-rounder) Pietersen Colllingwood Read Flintoff Broad/Jones (Can't decide between a longer tail or a better/more experienced bowler) Sidebottom Anderson Panesar With Collingwood as keeper: Cook Strauss Vaughan Pietersen Bell Collingwood Flintoff Broad/Jones Sidebottom Anderson Panesar
Uncle Albert Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 What happens when one of the openers gets out early and Pietersen has to face the new swinging and seaming ball? He will give his wicket away countless times trying to drive an away swinging ball. I would play:Cook Strauss Vaughan (Captaincy makes him almost an all-rounder) Pietersen Colllingwood Flintoff Read Broad Sidebottom Anderson Panesar Thats the whole point... Pietersen is are best batsmen so he should go in when the ball is swinging around. Then let the other batsmen go in when the new ball isnt new. Why play Vaughan above Pietersen when he isnt very good at playing the new ball?
escape2victory Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 Thats the whole point... Pietersen is are best batsmen so he should go in when the ball is swinging around. Then let the other batsmen go in when the new ball isnt new. Why play Vaughan above Pietersen when he isnt very good at playing the new ball? Well thats like saying whats the point of a night watchman, surely the better batsman would have more chance of keeping his wicket and rotating the strike. But test match cricket is about protecting your wicket. Anyway the role of a number 3 in test match cricket is someone who can bat out a whole innings and keep it together, something Vaughan should be able to do on paper but is failing miserably. But i agree that Pietersen should bat at 3 in the one day games, take advantage of the power plays etc but no 4 is fine for me in the test team.
David O'Leary Posted 22 July 2008 Posted 22 July 2008 Thats the whole point... Pietersen is are best batsmen so he should go in when the ball is swinging around. Then let the other batsmen go in when the new ball isnt new. Why play Vaughan above Pietersen when he isnt very good at playing the new ball? I agree he is our best batsman. But he isn't our best batsmen in that situation. On your point about Vaughan, he is going through a bad spell at the minute. Last year I saw Vaughan score a magical hundred against the swinging ball, with a decent swing bowler in RP Singh and an excellent one in Zaheer Khan and was unlucky to get out when the ball spun off the thigh pad and onto the stumps. In the same innings Pietersen misjudged an inswinger from RP Singh and was out for about 20.
Sods Posted 23 July 2008 Posted 23 July 2008 Does Collingwood Keep???? I think that would be the shitest idea ever, the one thing Collingwood is superb is his fielding.
David O'Leary Posted 23 July 2008 Posted 23 July 2008 Does Collingwood Keep???? No. But Peter Moores was a pretty good 'keeper in his playing days, so surely with Colly's already superb catching and a batting average well above what is required these days, we could turn him into a pretty good idea. By the way, making Collingwood a 'keeper wasn't my idea, I just thought it was a pretty good/sensible one.
Simi Posted 23 July 2008 Posted 23 July 2008 Collingwood as a keeper would be a bad idea. As Sods said, his fielding is first class. Taking him out of the field will cost us more than we gain.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.