posted Mar 17, 2008

Harmison should have been sent home, not just dropped.

What was controversial? Are we that desperate?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 17, 2008

All right fine Harmy should go home but Owais shah is rubbish!!! Him and Bopara are just to young cricketers trying to find there place in the world but certainly do NOT deserve to play for Engand...thats an honour
Hoggy should be in the squad but his time may well be coming to an end as well. nevertheless he has been a loyal servant of English cricket.
Strauss has the poential but I think needs more time for Middlesex and panesar...well...hes the best English spin bowler but hes not great...is he?
My team would be:
Cook
Vaughn
Bell
KP
Colly
Flintoff (Swann if not fit)
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Hoggard
Anderson

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 17, 2008

wonderfabregas 15

If the ball didn't swing your pace attack would be very innefective as you have chose 3 bowlers who majorly rely on swing conditions.

I think your batters look like a pretty good choice; probaly the ones I would have chose. But what has Bell done to justify a move to no.4 in the order? I think our best batsmen, KP, should keep his position has his inability to bat with the tail was shown in the Ashes '07 when he was moved up.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 17, 2008

Wemick - The suggestion that Swann could bat at 6 is laughable.

Indeed, the suggestion that Swann would be a more effective spin bowler in Tests than Shah is open to debate.

Why do you think Shah is rubbish?

Why, for that matter, do you think he's young?

Do you know anything about him?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 17, 2008

I like the look of Broad, I certainly wouldnt drop him, the man has a big future with the team, I would have him in as a permenant replacement for Harmy. The Hoggard/Anderson debate Iam not so set for, I do not believe that Hoggy is as out of it as being dropped suggests, and I also have yet to see if Andersons new found form will not disappear given his previous inconsistency. I'm happy to see them play the same team for the next test though.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 18, 2008

According to the byc podcast rodney frontbottom would be a nicky watson handfull in new zealand.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 18, 2008

"fully justified their slightly controversial inclusion in place of Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison."

There must be a strange new meaning for the word 'slightly' of which I was previously unaware.

To be fair, Harmison's dropping is controversial only in so far as no one but the selectors knows why it didn't happen at least 18 months earlier.

Hoggard's dropping is a different kettle of fish.

Before the 2nd test started I said on another thread that the nightmare scenario would be Anderson taking a few wickets in helpful conditions and thus making it impossible for the selectors to bring Hoggard back.

This has now come to pass.

Even in this test Anderson's runs conceeded per over was high - he went for 3.7 compared to the rest of the england bowlers at 3.0.

If you think that isn't all that significant, consider that if the rest of England's attack had been as expensive as Anderson the Black Caps would have garnered another 117 runs, which would have put the result right in the balance. In those circumstances who can say how the last half-dozen overs would have worked-out?

Because he took a fivefer in the first innings Anderson has been largely immune from criticism.

Unfortunately Broad is the bowler most in danger - having put in a solid but not headline-grabbing performance. Bringing Hoggard back at Broad's expense would be a bad move, leaving the attack with insufficient variety. It is a trap I fear the selector's may fall into.

Advance information is that the 3rd test venue will be much less helpful to the bowlers. I doubt that Anderson has Hoggard's ability - exemplified at Adelaide - to produce a good performance when the odds aren't in his favour. It would be great to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 18, 2008

"If you think that isn't all that significant, consider that if the rest of England's attack had been as expensive as Anderson the Black Caps would have garnered another 117 runs"

Since Anderson took his wickets at less than 20, if the rest of England's attack had been as dangerous as Anderson, England would have won by a lot more.

Anderson's economy is immaterial IF he can keep taking wickets.

If he fails to perform on a flat deck at Hamilton, England have problems.

It's up to Anderson to prove that he's improved and can bowl well in conditions that don't suit him.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 18, 2008

I agree with you Silk, Anderson must now take his chance and show his ability. He must take responsibility and be the spearhead of this attack for many a year to come.
The next test in Napier, will be a real chance to see how far he has come, on a 'flat pitch'.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 24, 2008

He was class? How about 170 Not out, batting for a day and a half?
I was worrying about to be honest, but hes answered his critics. Thankfully

add comment | complain about this comment