Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 In relation to the Gamesmanship Ponting would of done the exact same thing............it's not against the rules and it's for the umpires and match refree to police it.....well played England i say. And he did the same thing in the third test of the last ashes series over here. It's a bit rich coming from him! I'm glad Ponting is still there as he makes it easy to dislike the Aussies, I find Hughes, Clarke, Hauritz, Johnson and Hilfenhaus all quite likeable and the sort of cricketers I like, so i'm glad siddle and ponting are there to redress the balance. It's not like the old days with Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Hayden all of whom I hated!
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 And he did the same thing in the third test of the last ashes series over here. It's a bit rich coming from him!I'm glad Ponting is still there as he makes it easy to dislike the Aussies, I find Hughes, Clarke, Hauritz, Johnson and Hilfenhaus all quite likeable and the sort of cricketers I like, so i'm glad siddle and ponting are there to redress the balance. It's not like the old days with Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Hayden all of whom I hated! Hate them all but Siddle
Uncle Albert Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Loved it yesterday when Jimmy and Monty saved the draw! Just meant we got a free Sambuca in some English bar in Zante.
Fox You Forest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Flintoff having a scan today. Harmison and Onions will surely both play if he's out.
surrifox Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Flintoff having a scan today. Harmison and Onions will surely both play if he's out. Amongst Strauss' many undistinguished captaincy episodes throughout the 5 days the over-bowling of Flintoff was undoubtedly the worst and potentially most damaging to England's immediate prospects. You can argue that he had no choice as the rest of the attack failed to fire but it was clear on Friday that whilst freddie was putting in a huge effort it was costing him physically
Fox You Forest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Apart from maybe his first five overs of the match I thought he was just as dire as the rest bowling wise, he looked half decent whilst he was batting for a change it's usually the other way round
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Haddin, Hughes, Kattich and Hussey were at Adidas on Bond st today, in the window modelling the new Aussie shirt.
Joe. Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Amongst Strauss' many undistinguished captaincy episodes throughout the 5 days the over-bowling of Flintoff was undoubtedly the worst and potentially most damaging to England's immediate prospects. You can argue that he had no choice as the rest of the attack failed to fire but it was clear on Friday that whilst freddie was putting in a huge effort it was costing him physically And you've got to have Flintoff firing on full, otherwise it's just not worth it. He's either got to be 100%, or not in the side at all for me.
C-man Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I have a feeling Broad might just be lucky that Flintoff is a doubt...
davieG Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 From Sky England have added Steve Harmison to their squad for the second Test against Australia at Lord's as cover for Andrew Flintoff. Flintoff twisted his right knee during the drawn series opener in Cardiff and will undergo a scan later on Monday to assess the extent of the problem. With doubts over the Lancashire all-rounder's fitness, Harmison is named in a 14-man party for the Lord's Test, which starts on Thursday. The 13 players in the first-Test squad are all retained. Harmison was dropped after the third Test of England's tour of West Indies in February but has since produced some strong displays in county cricket for Durham. The 30-year-old also impressed for the England Lions in their tour match against Australia at the start of July, claiming six wickets in the match including Phil Hughes in each innings. Escape The hosts escaped from Cardiff with a draw after batting out the final day. Last-wicket pair James Anderson and Monty Panesar survived the final 69 deliveries to secure the stalemate. National selector Geoff Miller, however, admitted England need to improve at Lord's. "It required a tremendous effort to save the first npower Test match and no praise can be high enough for the fighting qualities shown by Paul Collingwood together with our lower order batsmen," said Miller. "Their application at the crease and determination to get the job done was first-rate "We are well aware, however, that we did not perform well in Cardiff over the five days and will need to improve in all areas of our game if we are to overcome what is a strong Australian side. "We have added Stephen Harmison to our squad for the next Test match as Andrew Flintoff injured his right knee at Cardiff and will undergo a precautionary scan later today. "Andrew is experiencing soreness and swelling in the knee which he twisted while in the field and he will be reassessed by the medical staff over the next forty eight hours leading up to the Test Match on Thursday. Similar "In the event of Andrew being unfit, we see Stephen as a like for like replacement in terms of the type of bowler he is and his ability to unsettle the opposition batsmen with pace and bounce. "But we will need to consider all our options carefully when we come to determine the make-up of our bowling attack at Lord's and the final decision will depend on our assessment of the pitch and the likely overhead conditions." Flintoff, 31, underwent surgery on his right knee in April to repair damaged cartilage. He suffered the injury while playing for the Chennai Super Kings in the Indian Premier League but had worked his way back to fitness for the start of the Ashes. England squad: A Strauss (capt), J Anderson, I Bell, R Bopara, S Broad, P Collingwood, A Cook, A Flintoff, S Harmison, G Onions, M Panesar, K Pietersen, M Prior (wkt), G Swann
Guest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Seeing the Aussies crying over a bit of gamesmanship just makes the draw even sweeter. Carry on Ponting. All that is missing is the Sid James laugh.
Corky Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I have a feeling Broad might just be lucky that Flintoff is a doubt... Agreed. His batting does give him an advantage over Onions and Harmison, but I think Harmison would be more effective than Broad.
Fox You Forest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I can't remember any instances in the last few years where the selectors have dropped a player for having one bad test they seem to love sticking with them and giving them a chance to improve, I'm not sure they'll suddenly start dropping players now after one bad game, So I think his place was safe anyway. Bresnan being the most recent example, Nine runs and no wickets in his first test and still played in the next one. Whether that's the right approach or not is another matter however. Judging by davieG's post the only change will/would have been Onions for Monty, The fact Harmison has been called up as a replacement says Broad would have kept his place. Again whether that's right or not. Broad could be useful with the slope but equally so will Hilfenhaus. * I use Monty's name loosely, I live in hope he'll get the nod over Swann.
Fosse Boy Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 Agreed. His batting does give him an advantage over Onions and Harmison, but I think Harmison would be more effective than Broad. We place far too much emphasis over whether our bowlers can bat in my opinion. We shouldn't be relying on the tail to get runs, their primary job is to bowl sides out. Sure it's nice if they can hold a bat properly (Broad's obviously got an advantage over most of his rivals in that respect as he was an opening batsman pretty much the whole way through his time in the Leicestershire youth setup), but I'd prefer someone who's a complete dunce with the bat but who will skittle sides out to someone who plays a few nice shots downt the order but then gets hit all over the park when you stick a ball in his hand. Besides, Harmison's no mug with the bat when he knuckles down and thinks about his shot selection, that 49 he made at The Oval a couple of years back proved that. If he concentrates and puts his mind to it he could prove an annoyance when the Aussies are trying to knock over the last couple of wickets cheaply.
Corky Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 We place far too much emphasis over whether our bowlers can bat in my opinion. We shouldn't be relying on the tail to get runs, their primary job is to bowl sides out. Sure it's nice if they can hold a bat properly (Broad's obviously got an advantage over most of his rivals in that respect as he was an opening batsman pretty much the whole way through his time in the Leicestershire youth setup), but I'd prefer someone who's a complete dunce with the bat but who will skittle sides out to someone who plays a few nice shots downt the order but then gets hit all over the park when you stick a ball in his hand.Besides, Harmison's no mug with the bat when he knuckles down and thinks about his shot selection, that 49 he made at The Oval a couple of years back proved that. If he concentrates and puts his mind to it he could prove an annoyance when the Aussies are trying to knock over the last couple of wickets cheaply. That's a fair point, and I want Harmison in for Broad, but the selectors do take the standard of batting into account and that's why I believe Broad has the edge. Harmison's bowled well at the Aussies in the Lions match, so he should be in for me.
TrickyTrev Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 I can't remember any instances in the last few years where the selectors have dropped a player for having one bad test they seem to love sticking with them and giving them a chance to improve, I'm not sure they'll suddenly start dropping players now after one bad game, So I think his place was safe anyway. Bresnan being the most recent example, Nine runs and no wickets in his first test and still played in the next one. Whether that's the right approach or not is another matter however. Judging by davieG's post the only change will/would have been Onions for Monty, The fact Harmison has been called up as a replacement says Broad would have kept his place. Again whether that's right or not. Broad could be useful with the slope but equally so will Hilfenhaus. * I use Monty's name loosely, I live in hope he'll get the nod over Swann. Monty is a much better bowler than Swann but he is badly out of form. It seems we are back to the bad old days of picking a token spinner because that is what a cricket team looks like.
Fox You Forest Posted 13 July 2009 Posted 13 July 2009 That's a fair point, and I want Harmison in for Broad, but the selectors do take the standard of batting into account and that's why I believe Broad has the edge.Harmison's bowled well at the Aussies in the Lions match, so he should be in for me. I want him in too but not at the expense of Broad, Whichever spinner is dropped that's how I'd fit him in, Leaving Onions out who isn't any better than Broad.
Ultra Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I want him in too but not at the expense of Broad, Whichever spinner is dropped that's how I'd fit him in, Leaving Onions out who isn't any better than Broad. Except Onions takes Test wickets (especially at Lord's) and Broad doesn't.
Fox You Forest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Except Onions takes Test wickets (especially at Lord's) and Broad doesn't. He's played one or two tests against the Windies.
Brainy Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Yeah and they were "only" the West Indies, as im sure Ultra would have pointed out elsewhere.
Ultra Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 The same Windies that beat us in the Caribbean, when Broad was playing and Onions wasn't.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 No offence Ultra but you change you mind more than you change your underwear......aswell as making statements like "I knew the aussies would struggle to get us out". Not haveing a crack but get an opinion and stick to it. Everyone knows the Windies are a much better team at home.
Fox You Forest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 No offence Ultra but you change you mind more than you change your underwear......aswell as making statements like "I knew the aussies would struggle to get us out". Not haveing a crack but get an opinion and stick to it. Everyone knows the Windies are a much better team at home. He knows damn well the pitches in that series were as flat as flat can be. When discussing Monty vs Swann he bought up the batting argument but I'm sure that's not an issue now when it comes to Onion vs Broad.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Batting has fook all to do with it when picking bowlers to take 20 wickets a match, it's just a bonus
Fox You Forest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Batting has fook all to do with it when picking bowlers to take 20 wickets a match, it's just a bonus I agree, seems the selectors have other ideas though. Balance, Balance, Balance blah blah blah.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.