BBC Blog Network

User Profile

LittleCriggers

Listed below are comments made by LittleCriggers between Tuesday, 15th July 2008 and Monday, 1st December 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Mumbai horror shocks England fans 11:56am on 01 Dec 2008 MrModha, your points are in some ways valid, but there is one crucial difference. The 7/7 attacks were not being touted as a "systematic attack" on Southern-hemisphere people. If Australians were specifically being targeted then I have absolutely no doubt that they would have chosen to leave the country, and furthermore would have been right to do so.

Mr Long correctly points out some of the other 'incidents' which have occured on trips to India, and at those points the tour has continued without a moment's thought. The difference between then and now is the idea that Westerners are being specifically targeted for the attacks. This means that the English players and fans would be obvious and high-profile targets, and with their general locations being obvious for five-day pockets at a time. It would be impossible to guarantee safety; it is always extremely difficult to do so at any rate.

Whilst I think nearly everyone would love to see the tour continue, both for the short-term enjoyment and long-term safeguarding of the game of cricket across the globe... if there is any grain of truth to the idea that Westerners are being specifically chosen as targets, then this has to be factored in to the considerations. Avoidance of any further casualties is the primary consideration here.
Alec Stewart's England ratings 2:25pm on 15 Jul 2008 I'm not going to get into the nonsense over Alec's perceived bias, I'll leave this for other people to debate. A few observations, however:

Broad took two wickets whilst going for quick runs, relatively speaking. Anderson and Sidebottom both took three wickets, the former causing problems time and again and the latter despite being clearly hampered by injury. This point seems to be glossed over by most, but #96 seasgaich, hit the nail right on the head. We keep on hearing about Stuart Broad's "potential" and "character" and "batting ability". We regularly fail to hear about his average of over 45 with the ball in test cricket, including against what was really not a world-class batting line-up with NZ. He is not in the side to score lower-order 50s; he's in the side to bowl teams out. He has yet to manage to take four wickets in an innings.

If we have a four-man bowling attack which is to inlcude an all-rounder, it's basically Broad vs Flintoff and, I'm afraid, the big Lancastrian wins that battle hands down at the moment. Anderson and Sidebottom are doing the business taking wickets, Broad isn't. No four-man bowling attack can afford to carry a passenger whilst waiting for his "potential" to convert itself to an end product. If we are to have a five-man bowling attack, then the balance of including the all-rounder makes more sense to me; but Simon Jones really has to be in line for a recall, and Tremlett is a tall young bowler in the same mould as Broad, and Tremlett looks more penetrative to me. Broad has done admirably in the one-dayers against the NZ team, but he's not ready as a test match bowler. Never has been, really. If he wants to be an all-rounder, his batting average needs to be higher than his bowling average - i.e. he'd need to be the second best batsman in the team with his current bowling stats. Time to send him back to county cricket to learn his trade like Sidebottom did. (Also, Hoggard seems to have disappeared off the radar completely, despite being our best bowler for years, despite only having one bad test, and despite bowling well in county cricket before being injured - can someone explain why?)

Second point - 3.5 isn't too harsh for Ambrose. He batted woefully on a batsman's paradise and then dropped some (albeit difficult) chances. If 5-6 is a par score, then under what criteria can 3.5 be too harsh? Personally I've said for years Foster deserves a chance, but I would have no issue with playing Read or Prior ahead of Ambrose - England need to decide whether they want a top keeper who will average 20-30 (Read and, to a lesser extent, Foster), or a 40+ batsman who can keep wicket relatively tidily but will make the odd mistake (GoJo or Prior). Seems like they're betwixt and between at the moment, and have a guy who is neither good enough with the bat or gloves - and whose confidence is clearly shattered.

Finally, Collingwood adds a lot to the team in terms of his fielding, leadership skills and some tidy occassional bowling. But his primary job is a batsman, and the chap looks dreadfully out of form. Give him a break, send him back to county cricket to get some runs. I don't see a conflict with the one-day captain not getting in the test squad, just as realistically our test captain wouldn't get in the one-day squad. (Whether the test captain should be in the test squad is a fairly debatable point, but I do back Vaughan to come good.) Collingwood out, Shah or Flintoff in. Bopara was hopelessly exposed at times by an ordinary NZ bowling attack in the one-dayers - he's not a test-match cricketer. Shah, if given a fair chance, could be.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

LittleCriggers