posted Dec 14, 2008

"Why did England bat so slowly? 3 runs per over, when in a dominating position, is hopeless. Pietersen and Flintoff could have scored faster but they did not last."

I think you'll find you've answered your own question!!

Batting at 4 or more and over, in the THIRD innings, is only possible if;

1) A big partnership is developing

or

2) The conditons are condusive to it, i.e. batting freindly pitch and poor bowling


or

3) The game needs it in order to put yourself in a winning position as to not do so puts you in a definite losing won, i.e. the GAMBLE is actually worth it

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

Strauss is elevating his Cricket, sounds like two consecutive good knocks.

Why was Flinty in a hurry to go back to the dressing room? Was his cell phone ringing?

Flint should have stayed and flayed the Indian bowling to get the total tally up to 450. Straus and Colly had already set up the Indian bowling.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

If we dropped the people who have a bad patch we would noy have a team. Surely one can see people like Strauss and Colly are determined PROFESSIONAL cricketers and should be the basis of the team. They got us out of the mire but on their departure Flintof and Swann should have upped the tempo like Prior did, if they had scored 30 runs each quickly we would have made the 400 target with more time to bowl at the Indians. Bell unfortunately has never quite made it and Owai Shah should be given a prolonged try out. Is the pressure of captain getting to Petersen ( has never had enough experience at the job to be thrown straight into the fire). Flintoff is , and I think never will be, mature enough to hold the elevated position the media have made for him. Front line bowler yes, batsman no. If he hit a big score at no.7 rejoice but don't rely on him. Harmison is not the bowler of yester year and needs to put in some match winning performances to retain his place.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

Strauss may be the difference between 2 teams which we would know in another day.
Getting 100s in both innings is great effort for any team in any condition. But when the wicket is misbehaving, getting 2 tons in each innings is something special against quality spin attack. The only surprise is why Strauss was not inducted in ODI? If he is in Indian team he is assured of 10 guaranteed selections in all form of game.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

I am happy for Colly because hes a top player. When he first came into the Test squad he was the player who kept the innings all together. He normally came in after a mini collapse & got us back on track but he has had a tough time but looks like he has knuckled down & is starting to played to his strengthens again.

Strauss has the talent but he also lost his way the past few month. If he stays in his "bubble" he will be one of the first names on the squad list.

Now they need to apply some pressure & complete a deserved victory.

Come on England!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

Brilliant Strauss - that's what I can say - Andy is a Test player and he has done it for years for England - you don't get 14 hundreds for nothing - my profuse praise for Strauss

But don't blame KP for his SA origin etc and question his loyalty - KP likes playing shots and he doe snot play the gritty type innings - he is more the flair player - it clicks often in ODIs and in Mohali KP will do well, where the bounce is decent

Englnad has a good team - Flintoff and Swann being the best bowlers who looked like taking wickets anytime - Panesar and Harmison and Anderson looked a few nothces below

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

saintbatty1. Aren't you people fickle? Colly is OK now. But he was considered by everyone as ready for the drop. Now it is Bell's turn. This isn't selection. It is a hanging jury. I thought form was supposed to be temporary and class permanent?
What we are seeing is a herd mentality in action. Switching first one way then another. Shah was given another Test but failed. Bell is a seasoned campaigner with 43 Tests under his belt. This Shah thing is following the same mindset that suggested Ramprakash or Key a place instead of Bell/Colly/Strauss (you name it, it's been suggested).
One of the problems is that a lot of people on this forum don't support England. So they are prepared to have a go because they don't care about the consequences. Perhaps posters should declare their allegiances? Would I suggest who Australia, India, Pakistan, should drop? Or comment endlessly on their team composition?
Unfortunately a lot of the England fans who used to write on this forum have left, unsurprisingly.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

One thing England batsmen seem to have a nack of doing is putting in a good innings as soon as there are questions over their place in the side, Collingwood has continued this trend today. The selectors need to be more ruthless and look at long term form more than last innings. This has showed with Ian Bell in the past too.

Test line up should be
1) Strauss
2) Cook
3) Shah
4) Pietersen
5) Bopara
6) Flintoff
7) Swann
8) Prior
9) Broad
10) Harmison
11) Panesar

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

Collingwood has scored 2 hundreds and a half-century in his last 3 test matches. Granted he did have a poor run of form before he scored the century against SA in the summer but some of the posts on here (and in the press) suggest that he is in the middle of a disastrous and lengthy run of poor form.
There are far too many knee-jerk reactions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 14, 2008

Thumbs up Andrew Strauss - a proper test match opener. We could not compete in the ODIs because we did not have reliable openers. What a difference it makes.

add comment | complain about this comment