posted Jul 14, 2009

Sad that injury does not seem to leave Andrew Flintoff. Could otherwise have been the best all-rounder of present times. In form would have been England's only truly world-class bowler and a very decent bat.

Equally sad that England fans go from such low to high. While the Cardiff test was on, they were mostly telling of England's doom. Now they all seem to have a solution as far as team composition is concerned.

Why not accept that the Aussies are the best team in the world and the selected England players tried the best they could, or were allowed to by Australia.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

The Ashes is highest level of cricket between England, who have earned their 'best in the world' reputation from winning the Ashes 2005 and australia who are also a decent outfit.i don't believe its direspectful to the lesser teams to talk of it so highly and gives them something to aim for

----------------------------------

2005 seems to be a past the fans are falling back on. Perhaps due to not much achievement in the intervening years.

Australia is not just a decent team but still the best in the world, at least according to official test rankings.

Which lesser teams? South Africa? Sri Lanka? Pakistan? India? New Zealand? All highly competitive teams.

What something is it that they should aim for? The Ashes? It is a two member only club of England and Australia!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

I think people dont really mind who gets selected, the problem is we dont appear to have any sort of reasonable selection policy

If you look over the last decade we've never selected batsman or bowlers who were in form, we always selected them afterwards, look at bell when he was selected in 2004 , he scored 4 or 5 centurys in a row early on in the summer and then got picked months later, same with collingwood in 2005 before the edgaston test, he scored hundred after hundred and had to wait till the 5th test to get his place and hit 20 odd runs. If someone was injured now we wouldnt be selecting people on whose in the best form in county cricket, they would be selected on past form and i think thats the main problem with the selection policy.

The other problem is we need to pick our best 4 seam bowlers and "DEAL WITH IT" we cant have a situation where harmison will play just because flintoff is injured, either hes good enough to play or hes not, same with broad and the others

As for hoggard im not definatly saying he should play in the ashes, but i dont think hes even being considered which is wrong

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

Why Monty out but Swann in? What did Swann achieve in Cardiff? If players are to be dropped based on the performance of one test, them none of the Cardiff team will last six month - there are tests in which Pirtersen too has failed completely. Is this the solution? Why not let them gain experience for a better future even though there will be pains on the way.

In a different vein, I feel Rashid's leg spin will have a better chance against this Aussie lineup. He is also perhaps at least as good a bat at Prior. Worth thinking about since a real wicketkeeper could come into the team.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

"Why Monty out but Swann in?"

Who's wearing their dunce cap this evening?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

splendidsparrow (U8536572)
posted 27 Minutes Ago

"Why Monty out but Swann in?"

Who's wearing their dunce cap this evening?

--------------------------

If that is what you think then I am glad I am wearing the 'dunce cap'. Rather this than the cap you are wearing.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

Panesar has been mediocre for the second half of his test career to date - look at the stats. Given this he is not a better bowler than Swann who can also bat of course. As for Rashid I think it won't be long before he gets promoted above Panesar and as a result gets some tests in the subcontinent. Of course he would lengthen the order but he is currently about a test no.8 not a 6 like Prior (though I sympathise with the concerns about Prior's keeping).

The key thing for this test at Lords is to rest Flintoff's injured knee so he has some hope of being available for the rest of the series. Then the 4 seamers will pick themselves.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

goforjugular, what you say has merit. Yes, Paneswar has not lived up to his early promise. However,

a) Paneswar not being a better bowler than Swann does not make Swann a good bowler.

b) Swann's batting ability is at risk of shortly becoming a myth.

c) Giles may not have been great or good but he certainly was effective and played his part well. Neither Swann nor Paneswar do so.

d) All other test teams are choosing wicketkeepers that can genuinely keep - lucky for them that the same gents can also bat.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 14, 2009

Panesar - the spinner who cannot spin
Pryor - the keeper who cannot keep
Strauss - the captain who cannot captain
KP - the critical batsman who fails at critical moments
Flintoff - the sparkplug who usually has to be pulled
Cook - the opener who can't make 40
Broad - the bowler who can only bat
Bopara - the top order batsman with middle order skills
Collingwood - the gritty, dependable all-rounder that everyone wants to chop

Go figure

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 15, 2009

ye KP fails at critical moments, 2005 ashes--158? 90-3 in the first test and took us to a relatively decent score. 158 in australia

add comment | complain about this comment