SOCCERROO FOX Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I would swap bopara and collingwood. Monty for Onions
Fox You Forest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I'd go Harmison for Swann and Bopara at five Collingwood at four and KP at three.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I'd go Harmison for Swann and Bopara at five Collingwood at four and KP at three. Collingwood i think is a better fit for a number 3 batsman. I doubt wether Harmison is mentally capable of bowling well against the Aussies.
Fox You Forest Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Collingwood i think is a better fit for a number 3 batsman. I doubt wether Harmison is mentally capable of bowling well against the Aussies. His first ball wouldn't be as bad as last time though surely.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 His first ball wouldn't be as bad as last time though surely. I Wouldn't be so sure
surrifox Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 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. current statistics say otherwise- Swann has more test match wickets in 2009 than any other bowler from any country -spin or seamer . Monty has not bowled well for a couple of years and the less charitable might point to the fact that he has only had one outstanding performance (backed up by 6 or 7 lbw decisions) in his career. Stick with Swann until Rashid is ready, Monty's bowling is not good enough to justify selection when his batting and fielding are so poor
Narborough Bod Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I'd be disgusted if Harmison got picked ahead of Onions. Aside from an excellent time around 2004, Harmison has been extremely average/poor. Somebody posted a nice little summary on a different forum i read. it pretty much sums it up perfectly:Goes back to Durham. Starts ok in the County Championship. England win Test Series vs West Indies unconvincingly. At least one member of the Sky commentary team in the 2nd Test will bemoan the lack of Harmison. Starts finding his rhythm bowling for Durham. England lose 1st Ashes Test, with Harmison simultaneously taking near career best figures. Harmison bowls consistently at 90+mph in a televised County 1 dayer. His actual bowling performance will be irrelevant. The phrase "Harmison needs to be bowling plenty of overs to find his rhythm" will be heard, probably from Nasser Hussain. England lose 2nd Ashes Test, with one member of the pace attack bowling at c. 80mph, taking match figures of 1-150. Harmison is recalled for the 3rd Test. Bowls an excellent first spell, taking 2 key wickets. Rest of his match performance is average. Proclamations of Harmison being "back to his best." Does little with the ball in the remaining 2 Tests, save for 2 glorious fast yorkers. Bowls suprisingly well in the ODI series, largely because the Aussies are knackered from their international schedule, and still drunk from the post Ashes victory party. Sky commentary team remind us that this is why Harmison is so vital to the team. Starts well, and fades in the Champions Trophy. Has dreadful start in first tour game in South Africa. Goes wicketless, leaks runs at 3-4 an over. Continues dreadful form into first 2 Tests. Harmison's place in England squad is again questioned. Dropped for final test, amid rumours of the selectors losing patience. 7.22 on Sunday evening, yes it was Hussain. PS In the last match were Harmison and Onions both played for Durham, Harmy took a five fer and then got 2 in the 2nd. Onions got 2 in the first, and then 7 in the 2nd.
Edmund Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I personally would have Sidebottom over the others mentioned. Just my two pence.
Ultra 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. Yeah, that's why they've just lost to Bangladesh (albeit with a C team...) We had the side to beat them as easily on their turf as we did on the previous tour there in 04. Unfortunately the team had a collective spasm while batting in the 1st Test and got bowled out for 51. Every pitch from then on was flat and slow, and the bowlers didn't even have the cutting edge to bowl out rabbits like Fidel Edwards. I said during the Twenty20 Cup that Broad would be a liability for us in the Ashes, and so it has proved. Also your bowling attack is far weaker than in 05. A team with Lee, McGrath and Warne in it would have bowled us out on Sunday for less than 200.
Flynny Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 Yeah, that's why they've just lost to Bangladesh (albeit with a C team...)We had the side to beat them as easily on their turf as we did on the previous tour there in 04. Unfortunately the team had a collective spasm while batting in the 1st Test and got bowled out for 51. Every pitch from then on was flat and slow, and the bowlers didn't even have the cutting edge to bowl out rabbits like Fidel Edwards. I said during the Twenty20 Cup that Broad would be a liability for us in the Ashes, and so it has proved. Also your bowling attack is far weaker than in 05. A team with Lee, McGrath and Warne in it would have bowled us out on Sunday for less than 200. You've made about 6 contradictory points here. I'm flabbergasted.
Flynny Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 I personally would have Sidebottom over the others mentioned. Just my two pence. If Sidebottom's in the team we have two bowlers with no teeth if the ball isn't swinging, as it wasn't for massive periods in the test just past. I'd be tempted to lose Panesar and Broad/Flintoff (if injured) and bring both Onions and Harmy in. Onions shouldn't be expensive even if he's not taking wickets, and Harmison brings something different entirely (and I don't mean a poor temperament). Harmison is frustrating as fuck but when he's in form he's lethal. We should take advantage.
Edmund Posted 14 July 2009 Posted 14 July 2009 If Sidebottom's in the team we have two bowlers with no teeth if the ball isn't swinging, as it wasn't for massive periods in the test just past. I'd be tempted to lose Panesar and Broad/Flintoff (if injured) and bring both Onions and Harmy in. Onions shouldn't be expensive even if he's not taking wickets, and Harmison brings something different entirely (and I don't mean a poor temperament). Harmison is frustrating as fuck but when he's in form he's lethal. We should take advantage. Yeah I can't disagree with any of that. Would definitely like to see Onions given a chance in this test and over Harmison as his inconsistency means you don't know if hes going to turn up with his A game. With Sidebottom he can be expensive but I will have him over Broad anyday. On his day he is a beast and ive always rated him. Plus those glamourous locks of hair make a grown man quiver.
Fox You Forest Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Yeah I can't disagree with any of that. Would definitely like to see Onions given a chance in this test and over Harmison as his inconsistency means you don't know if hes going to turn up with his A game.With Sidebottom he can be expensive but I will have him over Broad anyday. On his day he is a beast and ive always rated him. Plus those glamourous locks of hair make a grown man quiver. I'd have Sidebottom in every game if it was guaranteed there would be swing about but you just never know, No swing means he offer absolutely nothing, No great pace, no bounce and no bonus runs with the bat all of which Broad offers. Onions or Harmison over Broad maybe, Sidebottom not a chance. I can't argue about his hair though.
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 As i mentioned before Sidebottom as a leftie which gives him that variety. As our left handed bats struggle against Left Arms even with little to no swing. Our Left handed bats have always struggled against left handed bowlers for the last decaded or two.........i think it was Allan Mulhally bowled well against us before he got figured out.
Fox You Forest Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 There is a more pressing question than team selection.... Will Shane Warne turn up this time?? Or will he be playing cards again?
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 There is a more pressing question than team selection....Will Shane Warne turn up this time?? Or will he be playing cards again? Apparently he goes all right at Poker and was going all right in the tourny he was playing in Vegas. Hopefully he makes it add a bit of knowledge and excitment to the commentary *waits to get slated*
Fox You Forest Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Apparently he goes all right at Poker and was going all right in the tourny he was playing in Vegas. Hopefully he makes it add a bit of knowledge and excitment to the commentary *waits to get slated* Him and Bumble on commentary at the same time will be brilliant.
Edmund Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 I can't argue about his hair though. @ Socceroo is Lee still injured for second test and has Ponting announced his squad yet cause I can't see anything on the net? Im guessing you will be unchanged
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Warne probably wont go to the Ashes.....more intrested in how well the Mighty saints are going. What a footy player he was
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 @ Socceroo is Lee still injured for second test and has Ponting announced his squad yet cause I can't see anything on the net? Im guessing you will be unchanged Lee will be out for this test aswell i assume. Also can't see the team changing as Hauritz and Hilfen (aka the house) wore our number 3 and 4 bowlers and were our best bowlers. Can only see injury or an absolute seamers pitch changing things.
Milky Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Flintoff retires from test cricket after the ashes. A shame, but he's probably missed more tests than he's played over the years.
Fox You Forest Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 It's a shame for him and the team, not a massive surprise though.
TrickyTrev Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Batting has fook all to do with it when picking bowlers to take 20 wickets a match, it's just a bonus If we play 4 bowlers then we can take this approach. If we have 5 pure bowlers then our tail would be too long.
WardyisPukka Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 Had a feeling it was coming , as he said in the interview 2 rehabs in 4 years is too much for him and his sanity , never forget that over in 2005 , fantastic player maybe not a legend as unfortunately his injuries curtailed his career
TrickyTrev Posted 15 July 2009 Posted 15 July 2009 current statistics say otherwise- Swann has more test match wickets in 2009 than any other bowler from any country -spin or seamer .Monty has not bowled well for a couple of years and the less charitable might point to the fact that he has only had one outstanding performance (backed up by 6 or 7 lbw decisions) in his career. Stick with Swann until Rashid is ready, Monty's bowling is not good enough to justify selection when his batting and fielding are so poor Monty has 8 5wi in 38 Test Matches, I hardly think you can say he has only played well once. He also has more 5wi in first class cricket than Swann despite having played 80 less matches. Not that I think Monty should play, he is badly out of form. Swann has played 5 test matches against the West Indies and has done well, but lets not pretend he is a great bowler. He is fairly innacurate, does not spin it much and doesn't have a ball that goes the other way. There is a reason he has a run of the mill record in first class cricket.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.