Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6th June 2007, 17:08   #21
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
So would you advocate a four man or five man attack with two spinners?
That would depend on several conditions. How good would Rashid or any other bowler's batting be? How good would the keepers batting be? How good would the batters batting be? What the playing conditions are like. What the other bowlers are like. I like a four man attack because of the security it gives. However, I wouldn't like that at Headingly with just two spinners, unless the seamers were really good.

Basically it's too far ahead to say, but I guess the ultimate is to have Rashid as an all-rounder, or have Prior averaging 40.
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:08   #22
Bandit
Backyard Cricketer
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloucester
Team(s): England, Yorkshire, Man Utd
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Why not drop Panesar? Lets assume that Rashid turns out to be a better spinner than Panesar and the team 'model' we follow is to play only 1 spinner, do we drop Panesar? Well in my mind absolutely if Rashid is better. Would we drop Harmison if a tall, fast quick came along who was better? Yep we would. So I don't see Panesar as being any different in that respect.

I suppose the question is could we play 2 spinners and 2 quicks IF we had a 4 bowler attack? Well, if Rashid and Panesar were better than the quick bowling options we have at that time, it could well happen. I advocate picking your best bowlers and not having variation for the sake of it.
Can't disagree with that. Team selection just needs an open mind and no "favourites".
Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:10   #23
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Why not drop Panesar? Lets assume that Rashid turns out to be a better spinner than Panesar and the team 'model' we follow is to play only 1 spinner, do we drop Panesar? Well in my mind absolutely if Rashid is better. Would we drop Harmison if a tall, fast quick came along who was better? Yep we would. So I don't see Panesar as being any different in that respect.

I suppose the question is could we play 2 spinners and 2 quicks IF we had a 4 bowler attack? Well, if Rashid and Panesar were better than the quick bowling options we have at that time, it could well happen. I advocate picking your best bowlers and not having variation for the sake of it.
It's entirely dependent on the personnel available at the time, isn't it? If Flintoff is fit to bowl a bit, an attack of say Flintoff, Rashid, Broad / Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar would cover the bases rather well without causing undue worries about the batting (especially if Broad plays and develops). If Simon Jones recovers well and Flintoff doesn't, however, the side isn't going to balance nicely with 5 bowlers unless both Rashid and Broad, really come on with the bat. On that basis, Rashid could displace Panesar. To be honest, it's extremely difficult to predict the England attack in a couple of years and far from easy to predict even for the Sri Lanka tour.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:14   #24
Bandit
Backyard Cricketer
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloucester
Team(s): England, Yorkshire, Man Utd
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
It's entirely dependent on the personnel available at the time, isn't it? If Flintoff is fit to bowl a bit, an attack of say Flintoff, Rashid, Broad / Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar would cover the bases rather well without causing undue worries about the batting (especially if Broad plays and develops). If Simon Jones recovers well and Flintoff doesn't, however, the side isn't going to balance nicely with 5 bowlers unless both Rashid and Broad, really come on with the bat. On that basis, Rashid could displace Panesar. To be honest, it's extremely difficult to predict the England attack in a couple of years and far from easy to predict even for the Sri Lanka tour.
Yes, but if Flintoff got back to full fitness how about:

6 Prior / Flintoff
7Flintoff / Prior
8Rashid
9 A fast bowler
10 Panesar
11 Hoggard

?
Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:16   #25
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Yes, but if Flintoff got back to full fitness how about:

6 Prior / Flintoff
7Flintoff / Prior
8Rashid
9 A fast bowler
10 Panesar
11 Hoggard

?
Isn't that exactly what I was suggesting with the exception that I listed "Broad / Harmison" rather than "a fast bowler"? I do admit that "a fast bowler" might be a better bet, given that we still have Jones, Plunkett and sundry others to think of.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:16   #26
Lancastrian
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 135
Given that the Yorkshire Coach says he needs another two years County Cricket before being called up for England then there is a good chance that he and Flintoff will never appear in the same England team.
Lancastrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:17   #27
Bandit
Backyard Cricketer
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloucester
Team(s): England, Yorkshire, Man Utd
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoE View Post
That would depend on several conditions. How good would Rashid or any other bowler's batting be? How good would the keepers batting be? How good would the batters batting be? What the playing conditions are like. What the other bowlers are like. I like a four man attack because of the security it gives. However, I wouldn't like that at Headingly with just two spinners, unless the seamers were really good.

Basically it's too far ahead to say, but I guess the ultimate is to have Rashid as an all-rounder, or have Prior averaging 40.
Priors FC stats are good, it's not impossible
Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:18   #28
Bandit
Backyard Cricketer
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gloucester
Team(s): England, Yorkshire, Man Utd
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Isn't that exactly what I was suggesting with the exception that I listed "Broad / Harmison" rather than "a fast bowler"? I do admit that "a fast bowler" might be a better bet, given that we still have Jones, Plunkett and sundry others to think of.
No, you said "if Flintoff is fit to bowl a bit".
Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:23   #29
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoE View Post
His first class average is actually 26 rather than 16! Quite a difference! I think he has serious potential because he has already showed lots of ability. I'd give him a while yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if he came in before 2009 certainly. If Monty plays well it could be a while yet, but I think two spinners is a massive asset. I just hate it when we have to play spin at both ends, and if we could do that to other teams, that would be great.

Typo....opps
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:27   #30
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Australia played for quite a while with May, Warne, two fast bowlers and bits and pieces (not all rounders but Mark and Steve Waugh).

It worked for a while but proved problematical.
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 17:39   #31
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
Yeah I agree with that ea2009. You could only really go in with that line up in Sri Lanka to be honest. Although of course if the two seamers and two spinners were easily ahead of the pack playing 3 and 1 may not add any value, and going in with five batsmen could be risky.
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 18:13   #32
Rosbif
International Material
 
Rosbif's Avatar
I miss Duncan
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pomgolia
Posts: 1,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
Can't disagree with that. Team selection just needs an open mind and no "favourites".
Absolutely. Its nothing personal. Everyone loves Panesar but the team must come before everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
It's entirely dependent on the personnel available at the time, isn't it? If Flintoff is fit to bowl a bit, an attack of say Flintoff, Rashid, Broad / Harmison, Hoggard, Panesar would cover the bases rather well without causing undue worries about the batting (especially if Broad plays and develops). If Simon Jones recovers well and Flintoff doesn't, however, the side isn't going to balance nicely with 5 bowlers unless both Rashid and Broad, really come on with the bat. On that basis, Rashid could displace Panesar. To be honest, it's extremely difficult to predict the England attack in a couple of years and far from easy to predict even for the Sri Lanka tour.
Yep I agree. If you had a team of Rashid and Flintoff then between them they make up for the lack of a #6 and then add some more (probably, going by their stats)

I just hate the idea of lumping the responsibility of two players onto one person. This is what Andrew Flintoff has had to endure. In recent times he has been our leading wicket taker and also had to shoulder the burden of being a #6 batsman.

I actually think the idea of a 5 man bowling attack is a bit of myth and due to resources extremely impractical. The truth is bowlers of specialist quality who can bat are few and far between, let alone those who can bat to the quality of a specialist.

On reflection I don't actually consider the hayday era of the 2005 Ashes to have been a 5 man bowling attack. If Giles is considered a front line bowler then bob is my uncle. No seriously, if Giles is considered a front line bowler then so is Collingwood and someone like Bopara in my view.

The only practical way forward in my view is to have the #6 batsman be able to bowl a few overs.

If a situation arises where you have two all-rounders like Flintoff and Rashid then obviously you have exceptional and unusual circumstances so you can get away with having 5 genuine specialist bowlers without a reduction in runs. But I honestly cannot see how we can possibly maintain having 5 genuine specialist bowlers in the side unless at least 2 of them can bat to a high standard. High 20's average at the very minimum. The probabilities are against us at the end of the day. We can't even get Panesar, Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson into double figures. They're absolutely atrocious with the bat. Look at Lee and Warne, they are or were considered part of the Australian tail and they averaged in the high teens. This is just another barrier standing in our way of having a 5 man bowling attack.

I don't expect Rashid to go to Sri Lanka. Infact, I reckon if they go for another spinner then Dalrymple or Yardy (more likely Yardy I think (SUSSEX )) might get the nod. Yardy + Flintoff = acceptable batting firepower.
Rosbif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 18:55   #33
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Absolutely. Its nothing personal. Everyone loves Panesar but the team must come before everything.



Yep I agree. If you had a team of Rashid and Flintoff then between them they make up for the lack of a #6 and then add some more (probably, going by their stats)

I just hate the idea of lumping the responsibility of two players onto one person. This is what Andrew Flintoff has had to endure. In recent times he has been our leading wicket taker and also had to shoulder the burden of being a #6 batsman.

I actually think the idea of a 5 man bowling attack is a bit of myth and due to resources extremely impractical. The truth is bowlers of specialist quality who can bat are few and far between, let alone those who can bat to the quality of a specialist.

On reflection I don't actually consider the hayday era of the 2005 Ashes to have been a 5 man bowling attack. If Giles is considered a front line bowler then bob is my uncle. No seriously, if Giles is considered a front line bowler then so is Collingwood and someone like Bopara in my view.

The only practical way forward in my view is to have the #6 batsman be able to bowl a few overs.

If a situation arises where you have two all-rounders like Flintoff and Rashid then obviously you have exceptional and unusual circumstances so you can get away with having 5 genuine specialist bowlers without a reduction in runs. But I honestly cannot see how we can possibly maintain having 5 genuine specialist bowlers in the side unless at least 2 of them can bat to a high standard. High 20's average at the very minimum. The probabilities are against us at the end of the day. We can't even get Panesar, Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson into double figures. They're absolutely atrocious with the bat. Look at Lee and Warne, they are or were considered part of the Australian tail and they averaged in the high teens. This is just another barrier standing in our way of having a 5 man bowling attack.

I don't expect Rashid to go to Sri Lanka. Infact, I reckon if they go for another spinner then Dalrymple or Yardy (more likely Yardy I think (SUSSEX )) might get the nod. Yardy + Flintoff = acceptable batting firepower.

So Monty, Dally/Yardy and who?
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:00   #34
Rosbif
International Material
 
Rosbif's Avatar
I miss Duncan
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pomgolia
Posts: 1,488
Whatever the usual bowling line up is. So lets assume the usual line up we have now, Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and then Yardy or Dalrymple as the extra spin option..
Rosbif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:01   #35
CoE
County Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
Team(s): England!
Posts: 696
I'd agree that five specialist bowlers is impossible without a couple who can average close to 30, or one that can average near 40. I would agree to some extent that the Ashes line up wasn't 5 man, but Giles did put in a good number of overs. The advantages of a five man line up are not as clear as the advantages of the extra batsmen. To decide whether to go four or five you need to look at a few things, the two most important would be the batting ability of the bowlers and also what the fifth bowler brings to the table. A fifth bowler who doesn't bat and doesn't take wickets is very detrimental to the team effort.
CoE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:05   #36
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Whatever the usual bowling line up is. So lets assume the usual line up we have now, Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and then Yardy or Dalrymple as the extra spin option..
I meant who else will go on tour
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:07   #37
Vaughansashes2009
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leicester
Team(s): Leicestershire, England
Age: 42
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Absolutely. Its nothing personal. Everyone loves Panesar but the team must come before everything.



Yep I agree. If you had a team of Rashid and Flintoff then between them they make up for the lack of a #6 and then add some more (probably, going by their stats)

I just hate the idea of lumping the responsibility of two players onto one person. This is what Andrew Flintoff has had to endure. In recent times he has been our leading wicket taker and also had to shoulder the burden of being a #6 batsman.

I actually think the idea of a 5 man bowling attack is a bit of myth and due to resources extremely impractical. The truth is bowlers of specialist quality who can bat are few and far between, let alone those who can bat to the quality of a specialist.

On reflection I don't actually consider the hayday era of the 2005 Ashes to have been a 5 man bowling attack. If Giles is considered a front line bowler then bob is my uncle. No seriously, if Giles is considered a front line bowler then so is Collingwood and someone like Bopara in my view.

The only practical way forward in my view is to have the #6 batsman be able to bowl a few overs.

If a situation arises where you have two all-rounders like Flintoff and Rashid then obviously you have exceptional and unusual circumstances so you can get away with having 5 genuine specialist bowlers without a reduction in runs. But I honestly cannot see how we can possibly maintain having 5 genuine specialist bowlers in the side unless at least 2 of them can bat to a high standard. High 20's average at the very minimum. The probabilities are against us at the end of the day. We can't even get Panesar, Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson into double figures. They're absolutely atrocious with the bat. Look at Lee and Warne, they are or were considered part of the Australian tail and they averaged in the high teens. This is just another barrier standing in our way of having a 5 man bowling attack.

I don't expect Rashid to go to Sri Lanka. Infact, I reckon if they go for another spinner then Dalrymple or Yardy (more likely Yardy I think (SUSSEX )) might get the nod. Yardy + Flintoff = acceptable batting firepower.
GBH and Anderson are both in double figures
Vaughansashes2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:10   #38
Kim
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosbif View Post
Whatever the usual bowling line up is. So lets assume the usual line up we have now, Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and then Yardy or Dalrymple as the extra spin option..

Dalyrymple or Yardy???? Blimey.
Kim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 19:25   #39
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,312
In first class cricket, their bowling is little better than KP's. In fact, KP's average is about 20 runs less than Yardy's. Might as well not bother
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 20:45   #40
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
No, you said "if Flintoff is fit to bowl a bit".
So you helpfully listed almost exactly the same side with a slightly differently emphasis on the degree to which Flintoff recovers? It's not exactly that different, is it?

Seriously, the 5 bowler side is actually slightly more sensible if Flintoff is not at full tilt with the ball but can bowl a few penetrative overs and concentrate a bit more on his batting.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:15.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org