posted Apr 2, 2008

I feel you are harsh on Bell.

Wellington apart he was as good as any England Batsman.

Here is my alternative points:

Cook - A couple of good innings but to often played poorly when set. Some great catching though - 6

Vaughan - Inconsistent with bat. To often gets in and then finds ways to throw it away. Captained well but can let situations drift - 6

Strauss - Again inconsistent. His 40 ood in the 2nd Test and 170 Odd in 3rd test were gritty but still lacks fluidity of before. His presence in the slips is reassuring. A decent return - 7

Pietersen - Looked jaded and uninterested at times. His batting lacks a bit of bite and when tied down he has now answers. His hundred however was true class - 6.5

Bell - Frustratingly inconsistent but he still averaged 50 for the 3 tests. His Century was the best of the series and he is a fine fielder. Worryingly there is talk of him being replaced for Flintoff - 7

Collingwood - Has many detractors but his record says it all. In this series he was a genuine all rounder and at times produced a good/took innings/wickets/catches when England were struggling. His place looks solid - 7

Ambrose - Good batting one 50 and a 100. Also excellent behind the stumps. Looks to have that position sewn up for some time. Agree with previous comment about playing outside his off-stump to much. - 7.5

Broad - Find of the series. Looks to have grabbed the 8/9 position. Bowls with pace and energy. Always wants the ball. A really great prospect. - 8

Sidebottom - True class. Sticks to basics and is always a threat. Bowled superbly despite some indifferent batting from NZ. In fact he has been England most consistent player since his recall -9

Anderson - Don't want to be to harsh but is to inconsistent at Test Level. If it swings he is unplayable if it does not swing he usually gets smacked about. He needs to play more consistent cricket and develop a line and length approach to fulfil his undoubted potential. Excellent in the field though. 6

Panesar - Again the jury is out. A good spell of bowling to win the 3rd Test match but not much before. I have little confidence in him when going is tight. Fielding is poor. He is our best spinner at moment but needs to be found a spot in the field where he will excel - 6

Hoggard - Harshly dropped as he was under prepared but saying that he did bowl rubbish in the First Test - 4

Harmison - As a lover of Harmison I am dismayed by his attitude and preparation. His bowling lacks penetration and in the 1st test he clearly was not interested - 2

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 2, 2008

Max of 30 overs a session, what’s wrong with this bowling plan. Vaughan to bowl spin if needed ??

1) Sidey
2) Flintoff
3) Sidey
4) Flintoff
5) Sidey
6) Flintoff
7) Sidey
8) Flintoff
9) Sidey
10) Broad
11) Sidey
12) Broad
13) Sidey
14) Broad
15) Colly
16) Broad
17) Colly
18) Broad
19) Colly
20) Broad
21) Colly
22) Broad
23) Flintoff
24) Monty
25) Flintoff
26) Monty
27) Flintoff (Sidey)
28) Monty
29) Flintoff (Sidey)
30) Monty

It's possible to play these 5 bowlers EVERY session and protect Flintoff too!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 2, 2008

I'm bemused by anyone rating Vaughan 6/10, if he wasn't captain and averaged 20 then most would be giving him 2, 3 or maybe generous 4s. His best effort of 63 was one he should have gone on from, as it was we lost that Test and that was half his series runs. So are people purely giving him marks based on his captaincy which is more often than not simply taking credit for what match winners do? How exactly did Vaughan make Strauss score 173? And if he is so ble eding clever as to make him score 173 then how come he doesn't do it more often? Or perhaps he deserves credit for Sidebottom, a bowler not even picked before last summer.

Nah, I take it back, Vaughan is a clever captain. He deliberately got out early to get better batsmen in early so they could win the match. And he used Anderson for as many overs as he did to make the kiwis complacent, it didn't quite work in the 1st Test with Hoggy and Harmlessone.

If Vaughan does something clever it might buy a few wickets a SERIES, even if he and not the bowler took five wickets that wouldn't compensate the lack of runs. A captain should not benefit more than a couple of points for their captaincy and equally not suffer more than two points off for bad captaincy.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 2, 2008

sixes and sevens?, what series were you watching?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 2, 2008

In that case, theres no point having Flintoff in the team. People need to stop fantasising over him returning and galvanising England into world beaters. It won't happen!

We can't afford to carry any bowler, they need to be able to bowl a full allocation of overs- else we weaken the bowling without getting extra batting strength. Flintoff isn't good enough as a batsman alone, so if he can't bowl fully, he shouldn't be in. Period.

The Darkness- thats exactly what I think, regarding Vaughan. Glad to see others agree!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 3, 2008

People are rejoicing over a series win against a below par New Zealand team, but what will happen when your sixes and sevens come up against the titans of cricket? England play South Africa in the summer and Australia in the Ashes. Time for reality check

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 3, 2008

Problem is people give their best X! with only 2 or 3 changes in personnel... we all agree on our best 7 players but can't agree on their positions!

Vaughan should be number 3 and occasionally bowl in tandam with Monty or he should step aside and let Colly be Captain!

Flintoff will be good enough for the next series but will probably have to retire through injury AFTER the next ashes... but who else could make a bigger difference? I'm assuming the rest has done him good and not being rushed back this time will help!

Sidebottom, Broad and Monty are certainties in the bowling department!

KP, Bell and Colly are certainties for batters!

Ambrose seems set after his magnificent debut series, so that's 7/11

Give me 4 more names including 2 openers (Cook and Strauss), I bowler (Flintoff) and another?

Listening to your views on Vaughan, the big question is do we drop him, appoint Colly as Captain and reshuffle the pack... they have experience and talent... Colly has everything else?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 3, 2008

I'm not convinced Broad is a certainty, but he may be after the next series if he gets a chance and takes it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 3, 2008

Arnie, Broad must be given a chance, he replaces Harmison perfectly both in height and batting ability. REF Ambrose (WI) for height as a bowler and as a much better bat!

The selectors would be mad to drop him so I guess you are right

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 8, 2008

it was a harsh that hoggard got droped however broad did really well to replace him
unless anderson bowls well at the start of the county season he will not start against the kiews in may

They should also NOT drop strauss for freddie. He should only replace collingward or whoever plays out of hoggard/anderson

best of luck to the england team agianst new zealand against the kiews

add comment | complain about this comment