posted Jul 29, 2008

It would have been crazy to play Harmy on a wicket with no bounce...But Giles who has played a 1000 matches at Edgbaston and knows all the groundstaff would have known this days ago...I fear for poor freddie flintoff he will be vastly over-bowled again..lets pray he gets some wickets so that he doesn't have to bowl himself towards another injury.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

If it is not a turner......................

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Oh, now I get it...of course we used whats known as the "double bluff" make SA think they are going to have an easy early thrash at Harmy....but just at the last minute we unleash our secret weapon...Collingwood..and then just to frighten them even more we will drop Broad who has smacked their bowlers all over the place... that will show them we mean business...I think I'll go and have a lie down somewhere.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Why do they keep sticking by Colly! He's awful.

He can't do anything with the ball, and even Ravi Bopara's parttime bowling would have been better.

With just three frontline seamers, England are going to struggle, because Panesar hasn't been doing the business lately.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

And thus, surely, marks the end of Hoggard's England career ... more's the pity.

If the selectors are going to ignore him (in favour of an unknown with 11 first class games behind him) for a Test match on his home ground, and then ignore him again (in favour of a bowler with extra pace who thrives on pounding it into the ground short) for a test match on a wicket that suits swing rather than pace, then clearly he is never going to see an England squad again.

I would have had Hoggard over Harmison every time for this test, based on what we knew about the pitch.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Fair point. And you can see the ongoing internal selection mess; the selectors choose a guy unsuited to the pitch and who Vaughan then excludes from the 11 on this basis. But what happens if Sidey finds the bed too soft and wakes up stiff? The logic dictates that when you have a squad of 13 you the 12th and 13th players should be well suited subs! I still think the choice of Colly over Broad is mad

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

A much more sensible selection this time round. Having sidey back balances our attack with a left arm seamer and Colly gives us much more strength in depth in the batting line-up, provided he brings his best form back with him....

Dropping Broad is a bit of a tough one for him, but its hard to have him and fred in a four-man attack as wickets are a premium. I can see Broad replacing Anderson in the future and then our batting and bowling will be very strong.

Let's just hope the boys dont let us down tomorrow or heads will have to roll.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Missingoffstump, treat yourself to a darkened room. Broad smacked their bowlers all over the place?? Must have missed it...played some cracking shots but it was hardly Bothamesque. Just a shame they were 'insignificant' runs in the end....also a shame he didn't take 6 or 7 wickets, now that may have been significant.

Taking nothing away from the guy, he has talent and I'm sure will improve further but scoring runs at 8 is a bit different from getting them up the order. Tired bowlers, old ball, less pressure etc.

If Broad is purely being selected for his batting prowess, which must be the case as his bowling stats are indeed those of a part time bowler, then what sort of message is this sending out to the likes of Collingwood, Shah, Bopara, Key and just about any other batsman with international aspirations. Just accept he's on a good trot at the moment and probably scoring above his ability but the bubble is likely to burst some time soon.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 29, 2008

Let's remind ourselves that, for all his terrible keeping, Prior was dropped because of his batting. After that great ton vs. the Windies (Ian Bell style that is, i.e. pressure off, tired bowlers), he was essentially found out and the extra pressure he put on himself through his attitude didn't help. Maybe he's worth a recall, but it can't be assumed he can bat as a no. 6.

Having got that off my chest, I think this team is the right one for now. It's not our best 11, but to get that, they'd have to drop too many players at once. With Fred batting as he is, we have to go with only three seamers as there is no one who can do what he did as an allrounder. However, if you're picking three seamers, then he must be in, being probably one of the world's best. Alongside him I'd have Sidey and drop Anderson for Jones. Although Jimmy's come back and done pretty well, he's still too inconsistent and doesn't have the threatening pace that Jones has.

Behind these three seamers in the que we have pretty good replacements in the Hog (for Sidey), Anderson (for Jones) and Broad (for Flintoff, assuming that he can get back amongst the wickets for Notts). We should take a look at SA and the seamless way that Nel will fit in tomorrow, and contrast that with the selection of Pattinson last week. Hoggard's not playing at Headingley was appalling.

Should Flintoff regain his batting standards, then Harmison or Anderson would make pretty good 'impact' fourth seamers. In that respect, I'm not sure what Tremlett could bring to the table.

As I said in an earlier post, since Ambrose will bat at 8 at Edgbaston, then Read should be in. Read is a better batter than Giles, who did a perfectly good job at 8. Those important catches and stumpings that win tests can not be forsaken for a possible extra 10 runs an innings. Whilst we're going for only four bowlers, then Read deserves a proper chance. You never know, perhaps he'll prove everyone wrong and do what he does in county matches: score runs.

When it comes to batting, it's a shame that Shah isn't in rather than Collingwood. I think come next year, he will be, but the selectors want to maintain a bit of continuity. Shah is a perfect number 6 - can score rapidly and circumspectly according to the situation. Perhaps Bopara can offer a better all round package (ala Colly), but Shah's been hanging around for so long he deserves a go, and is a better, more mature batsman. Finally, I think Rob Key should be kept a close eye on. Unlike Bell, who is the presumptive future no. 3, Key has more steel and a lot more sense. Should Vaughan have to go, he'd be a better replacement at the top of the order, plus would make a good candidate for captain.

So my side, and batting order would be:

Cook (Key)
Vaughan (Key)
Strauss (Key)
Bell (Bopara/Collingwood)
Pieterson (Bopara/Collingwood)
Shah (Bopara/Collingwood)
Flintoff (Broad/Harmison/Tremlett on form)
Read (Prior)
Jones (Anderson)
Sidebottom (Hoggard/Anderson)
Panesar (Swann, for want of a better option)

(with replacements in brackets)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 30, 2008

This is in reply to "banbrotam"
Yes I can explain why the selectors are so incompetent. It's quite easy really, they pick someone called Pattison who nobody has ever heard of and who has only played a few first class games and doesn't even want to play for England, and drop the likes of Hoggard because he had one poor match. (And only has nearly 250 test wickets).
Obviously Pattison must be a better choice than Hoggard!
Is that a good enough explanation?

add comment | complain about this comment