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 22nd July 2013, 18:23   #1
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,227
Time for another Schofield Report

The last one was borne out of defeat and whilst we may be winning now, so were Australia in the 1990s and 2000s and look at them now.

It's time to see what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. There's room for improvement, not complacency.

And it's definitely time to address the issue of too many matches which was conveniently ignored from the original report.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 18:35   #2
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,012
Just ask aggers. He knows. For a start we must play five bowlers. Far better with five like the ozzies.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 19:13   #3
sharky
Posting God
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Team(s): Sussex, England
Posts: 10,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
The last one was borne out of defeat and whilst we may be winning now, so were Australia in the 1990s and 2000s and look at them now.

It's time to see what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. There's room for improvement, not complacency.

And it's definitely time to address the issue of too many matches which was conveniently ignored from the original report.
What we're doing right: playing well at home against teams that can't play a moving duke ball properly
What we're doing wrong: general play on slow pitches

Same as normal really. The Lions and Performance Programme is excellent though I worry about replacing KP and Swann. Assuming Root is Strauss's replacement, we still haven't replaced Collingwood since he retired, and he was pony for quite a while before he went. KP will provide an even bigger hole, which considering what's gone on added to he's 33 and injury prone, may come sooner rather than later.
__________________
She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable
sharky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 19:54   #4
P@ulos
International Cricketer
 
P@ulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wakefield
Team(s): Yorkshire & England
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
The last one was borne out of defeat and whilst we may be winning now, so were Australia in the 1990s and 2000s and look at them now.

It's time to see what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. There's room for improvement, not complacency.

And it's definitely time to address the issue of too many matches which was conveniently ignored from the original report.
I agree, it's definitely worth making sure we're still going in the direction. Which is making our first class structure the best it can be and making sure T20 doesn't get in the way. As well as things like the amount of seemingly unnecessary one days games England play. From top to bottom it could do with a half term report of sorts.

Obviously you can just magic up players like KP and Swann but at least make sure we create the right environment for potential England players to flourish.
P@ulos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 20:53   #5
martin201002
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hartlepool
Team(s): Notts Liverpoolfc england
Posts: 569
I reckon Kerrigan will be swann's replacement. Bound to be plenty of aggressive batsman about maybe someone like Ballance etc...
martin201002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 22:15   #6
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by P@ulos View Post
I agree, it's definitely worth making sure we're still going in the direction. Which is making our first class structure the best it can be and making sure T20 doesn't get in the way. As well as things like the amount of seemingly unnecessary one days games England play. From top to bottom it could do with a half term report of sorts.

Obviously you can just magic up players like KP and Swann but at least make sure we create the right environment for potential England players to flourish.
Swann hardly appeared out of nowhere; he had a long career of mediocrity and unfulfilled promise behind him.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 22:28   #7
happy
Club Cricketer
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 105
Picked for a tour at 21 then dumped, plucked from Northants 2ndXI by Notts then learned to bowl using all his skills and ability, then picked again by England, the rest is history, don't look at the obvious candidates.
happy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 23:01   #8
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
I think England should be playing two specialist spinners more often. It's been a weakness during recent winter tours that they've generally been unwilling to play an attack that suits the conditions until they're 1-0 down in the series; and this is partly because their default approach in home conditions is to pick at least three seamers regardless of whether there's any particular reason to anticipate seaming conditions. The question of Swann's replacement has been raised above, and it's a genuine issue because the way things are going at present, there won't be a vacancy until there's a crisis; there's no opportunity to bring someone on in the way that one would a third seamer or a number six batsman. In the old days it was taken as a given that two spinners would play at the Oval at the very least, but that seems to have gone by the wayside. This summer in particular it seems that England are playing bowling-by-numbers rather than responding to the hot and dry conditions. I think they are missing a trick -- not just because the Aussies are especially weak against spin, but because this issue has recurred several times since the Schofield Report and is likely to do so again before long.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2013, 23:25   #9
Marauding Bison
Administrator
 
Marauding Bison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by happy View Post
Picked for a tour at 21 then dumped, plucked from Northants 2ndXI by Notts then learned to bowl using all his skills and ability, then picked again by England, the rest is history, don't look at the obvious candidates.
Also given Mushy as, in effect, a personal bowling coach at fantastic expense. Not that I am criticising that decision, you can't argue with the results.
__________________
Not having been born to Conservatism, it has never occurred to me to think of it as a form of original sin. I simply became convinced that the things that had drawn me into political activism the belief that every individual should be able to fulfil his potential, and that the liberation of the human spirit should be the primary aim of a free society were better served by the economic and political programme of what was called the Right. Janet Daley
Marauding Bison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 00:06   #10
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think England should be playing two specialist spinners more often. It's been a weakness during recent winter tours that they've generally been unwilling to play an attack that suits the conditions until they're 1-0 down in the series; and this is partly because their default approach in home conditions is to pick at least three seamers regardless of whether there's any particular reason to anticipate seaming conditions. The question of Swann's replacement has been raised above, and it's a genuine issue because the way things are going at present, there won't be a vacancy until there's a crisis; there's no opportunity to bring someone on in the way that one would a third seamer or a number six batsman. In the old days it was taken as a given that two spinners would play at the Oval at the very least, but that seems to have gone by the wayside. This summer in particular it seems that England are playing bowling-by-numbers rather than responding to the hot and dry conditions. I think they are missing a trick -- not just because the Aussies are especially weak against spin, but because this issue has recurred several times since the Schofield Report and is likely to do so again before long.
Yep, this series has definitely been a disaster so far picking just one spinner. If only we'd had a second spinner at Trent Bridge particularly, where Australia nearly won and spinners have a bad record, we would have had every chance of letting them get over the line.

The Aussies are weak against any good bowling. It might be sensible just to keep picking the bowlers we think are our best bowlers.

I do have some concerns about how we bring on alternative spinners but we have given other spinners games, they just haven't quite convinced, Monty's earlier career apart. Course, had Swann not arrived we might well still be playing him.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 01:22   #11
P@ulos
International Cricketer
 
P@ulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wakefield
Team(s): Yorkshire & England
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I think England should be playing two specialist spinners more often. It's been a weakness during recent winter tours that they've generally been unwilling to play an attack that suits the conditions until they're 1-0 down in the series; and this is partly because their default approach in home conditions is to pick at least three seamers regardless of whether there's any particular reason to anticipate seaming conditions. The question of Swann's replacement has been raised above, and it's a genuine issue because the way things are going at present, there won't be a vacancy until there's a crisis; there's no opportunity to bring someone on in the way that one would a third seamer or a number six batsman. In the old days it was taken as a given that two spinners would play at the Oval at the very least, but that seems to have gone by the wayside. This summer in particular it seems that England are playing bowling-by-numbers rather than responding to the hot and dry conditions. I think they are missing a trick -- not just because the Aussies are especially weak against spin, but because this issue has recurred several times since the Schofield Report and is likely to do so again before long.
Out of the 2 tests we've had so far and the 3 to come where would you have played 2 spinners and who would said spinner be? I maybe wrong but I think you said Kerrigan's name for the OT test earlier.

Me personally i don't think there's been anything like the need or the condition so far for 2 spinners, especially an out of form Monty or an untested spinner. Root's done a fine job when called upon to bowl and taken one or two key wickets. The ball has swung conventionally and reverse for the seamers so it's hardly like the conditions have been against them in any way. I don't think England are 'bowling-by-numbers', I think they're picking the 4 best bowlers to get the job done.
P@ulos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 05:15   #12
paulsre
World Class
 
paulsre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In a class 101 Met Cam time machine to the past
Team(s): Stockholm Taverners CC, County cricket, MCCU cricket, England, Scarborough CC, Swedish cricket
Posts: 6,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post

And it's definitely time to address the issue of too many matches which was conveniently ignored from the original report.
Conveniently ignored because more matches generally = money.

I would love an Ashes series that isn't so crammed it's over in an eyeblink - a proper tour with a decent rest period between each game. To do that would take from the beginning of July to the beginning of September - so really not so long.

There was talk some years ago that back-to-back Tests should "never" again be played, but this has been brushed aside.

Scrap - obviously - the five 1-dayers in September for starters.

The problem is though, that now these matches have been rolled out it's impossible to roll them back without causing uproar and loss of income (which now has been budgeted for). Tickets for many of the games that many of us would merrily dispose of sell like hot cakes - the two t20s v New Zealand at The Oval, which we've already forgotten if we even noticed them in the first place - were both near sell-outs.
paulsre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 11:07   #13
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
Just ask aggers. He knows. For a start we must play five bowlers. Far better with five like the ozzies.
Yes, but that's because the more bowlers the Aussies play, the more runs they have to defend...
__________________
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 11:44   #14
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Yep, this series has definitely been a disaster so far picking just one spinner. If only we'd had a second spinner at Trent Bridge particularly, where Australia nearly won and spinners have a bad record, we would have had every chance of letting them get over the line.
I don't think so. Finn was so bad towards the end of that game that pretty much any other bowler would have been better. Hard to judge the issue over the whole match, as there's no real way of telling what would have happened if someone else had played instead of Finn; but when one of your bowlers does badly enough to get dropped for the next match, it's pretty clear that the attack wasn't optimal. In any case, I don't think anyone was suggesting that picking only one spinner at Trent Bridge was a selectorial mistake.

I disagree with your first statement here too, and I'm not sure who you think you're agreeing with. We're 2-0 up. It should be obvious that we could hardly have done better in terms of basic results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
The Aussies are weak against any good bowling. It might be sensible just to keep picking the bowlers we think are our best bowlers.
It's hard to judge that in the abstract, though. It's partly dependent on the pitches. And there's no ready method of comparing particular seamers with particular spinners on their own merits. What happens instead, it seems, is that the selectors look at the pitch, play the minimum number of spinners they think they can possibly get away with, and then fill the other bowling slots with seamers in descending order of excellence. Usually, though, even that gets pretty murky when it comes to the third seamer spot. Like many others, you yourself were convinced, at the start of the Lord's test, that Bresnan was a bad pick in terms of bowling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I do have some concerns about how we bring on alternative spinners ...
Me too. I had hoped to begin a sensible discussion of the matter. Maybe you could sometimes think about missing out some of the jeering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by P@ulos View Post
Out of the 2 tests we've had so far and the 3 to come where would you have played 2 spinners and who would said spinner be? I maybe wrong but I think you said Kerrigan's name for the OT test earlier.

Me personally i don't think there's been anything like the need or the condition so far for 2 spinners, especially an out of form Monty or an untested spinner. Root's done a fine job when called upon to bowl and taken one or two key wickets. The ball has swung conventionally and reverse for the seamers so it's hardly like the conditions have been against them in any way. I don't think England are 'bowling-by-numbers', I think they're picking the 4 best bowlers to get the job done.
I don't. The signs from Trent Bridge were that Lord's would turn significantly more than it does most years. With non-stop hot weather in between, I'd've wanted two specialist spinners there. And as it turned out, Swann took a five-for in the first innings, more of the Australian wickets fell to spin than to seam, and the spinners (including Root for now) had a significantly better strike rate than the seamers -- even though our main spinner was off the field injured for a decent stretch of the final innings. None of this was really surprising given the conditions. I'm certainly not saying the seamers did badly; but we're not playing on green-tops.

I'd be looking to pick 2 spinners now at Old Trafford and the Oval. I did mention Kerrigan, because he's doing so very well this year (44 championship wickets), and OT is his home ground, and at that point it seemed that Monty was a bit down in the dumps. But Monty took a 1st innings five-for last week, so perhaps he is back on song (albeit most of the wickets were tail-end ones). I haven't watched either of them bowl recently, so I can't really judge between them. They both bowl SLA, so either of them would complement Swann well.

More generally, though, the reason I put that post on this thread was because the issue is not just the selection of the best four bowlers for any particular match; it's a question of aesthetics and long-term planning as well. Geoffrey Boycott said the other day that a team with only one spinner is like a chess army that has only one bishop (or something). And although there's certainly something sentimental and subjective about that, there are more objective points in their favour. This summer has been very hot so far, and this may become more common in years to come. On the whole, spinners last longer than seamers, break down less often, bowl more overs per hour, and bowl longer spells; if other things were equal, they would be preferable to seamers.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 14:46   #15
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I don't think so. Finn was so bad towards the end of that game that pretty much any other bowler would have been better. Hard to judge the issue over the whole match, as there's no real way of telling what would have happened if someone else had played instead of Finn; but when one of your bowlers does badly enough to get dropped for the next match, it's pretty clear that the attack wasn't optimal. In any case, I don't think anyone was suggesting that picking only one spinner at Trent Bridge was a selectorial mistake.
Finn had a bad test but he did tear open the Aussie first innings when it looked a risk that they might get rather near our score with few wickets down. It's a somewhat academic question but of course our attack could have been a lot worse with someone else in instead of him. Apart from anything else, the balance of the side would have been horrid with two spinners and only two quicks but then you've rowed back a bit from the implication (which I accept you may not have meant) that we should have had a second spinner there so fair enough.

Quote:
I disagree with your first statement here too, and I'm not sure who you think you're agreeing with. We're 2-0 up. It should be obvious that we could hardly have done better in terms of basic results.
Ah, the age old pretending to take sarcasm seriously tactic. I'm not usually one for saying that things turned out okay therefore everything we did to get there must have been optimal but I do think the excellent performance of the attack at Lord's reflects well not just on the individual bowlers but also the selectors, albeit that any pick is a gamble to one extent or another.

Quote:
It's hard to judge that in the abstract, though. It's partly dependent on the pitches. And there's no ready method of comparing particular seamers with particular spinners on their own merits. What happens instead, it seems, is that the selectors look at the pitch, play the minimum number of spinners they think they can possibly get away with, and then fill the other bowling slots with seamers in descending order of excellence. Usually, though, even that gets pretty murky when it comes to the third seamer spot. Like many others, you yourself were convinced, at the start of the Lord's test, that Bresnan was a bad pick in terms of bowling.
That seems an odd interpretation of selectorial decision making but of course, it's possible that's their approach, although not much more likely than that they ask the goblins (was it goblins?). Thing is, if you're going to post this kind of thing, can you really expect a reasoned debate without jeering, even though you are just being whimsical?

My suspicion is that the selectors look at providing a balanced attack for the conditions in question but recognise firstly that it's unusual for English conditions to suit spin bowling much more than pace; secondly that it's very helpful to have a third seamer at first change if the new ball is doing anything, which it mostly does; thirdly that we have pretty good pace bowling stocks so are likely to find a useful third quick; fourthly that any second spinner picked would be quite a gamble and might end up being a liability and fifthly that even if the wicket ends up turning square, we will be highly likely to win against Australia because Swann will do enough on his own set against the Aussie spinner being far inferior so it's quite sensible to insure against pace being more useful, plus the fact that if it is dusty, our quicks are good at reverse swinging it anyway. Having Root as a part time spinner as a spare is also quite useful.

I wasn't convinced Bresnan was a bad pick (see above) but I was certainly concerned, yes. I still wouldn't have entertained an untried spinner ahead of him.

Quote:
Me too. I had hoped to begin a sensible discussion of the matter. Maybe you could sometimes think about missing out some of the jeering?
I suppose I could, in theory. I largely have here. You do provoke some of it, you know?

Quote:
I don't. The signs from Trent Bridge were that Lord's would turn significantly more than it does most years. With non-stop hot weather in between, I'd've wanted two specialist spinners there. And as it turned out, Swann took a five-for in the first innings, more of the Australian wickets fell to spin than to seam, and the spinners (including Root for now) had a significantly better strike rate than the seamers -- even though our main spinner was off the field injured for a decent stretch of the final innings. None of this was really surprising given the conditions. I'm certainly not saying the seamers did badly; but we're not playing on green-tops.
See above though: we picked what you regarded as a sub optimal attack configuration and yet still had all our bowlers do very well and the group function together brilliantly, winning the test by a mile despite our first innings batting being merely adequate. There are lots of reasons why we should still expect the three seamers, one spinner attack to work even on turning tracks and some real concern that either an out of sorts (or even in sorts) Panesar or an alternative new spinner, presumably Kerrigan, would be less useful than a third seamer, especially first innings in a test match, and particularly if we field first. My view would be that it's generally, at least in England, better to have seamer and spinner on with an old ball when you might want two spinners rather than seamer and spinner on when you want two seamers with a new ball.

Quote:
I'd be looking to pick 2 spinners now at Old Trafford and the Oval. I did mention Kerrigan, because he's doing so very well this year (44 championship wickets), and OT is his home ground, and at that point it seemed that Monty was a bit down in the dumps. But Monty took a 1st innings five-for last week, so perhaps he is back on song (albeit most of the wickets were tail-end ones). I haven't watched either of them bowl recently, so I can't really judge between them. They both bowl SLA, so either of them would complement Swann well.
I can see why this would be in your thoughts but our performance at Lord's really ought to give you pause. Dropping any of our pacers looks a weird thing to do with how they all bowled. I'm assuming you wouldn't consider touching Anderson so Broad or Bresnan? Even leaving aside weakening the batting (and both have been more than useful so far), I wouldn't want to be without either with the ball now.

As one of the main reasons I see to pick a spinner would be development, I'd go for Kerrigan, if you insisted I had to pick a second spinner but you would have to insist (or knobble lots of pace bowlers).

Quote:
More generally, though, the reason I put that post on this thread was because the issue is not just the selection of the best four bowlers for any particular match; it's a question of aesthetics and long-term planning as well. Geoffrey Boycott said the other day that a team with only one spinner is like a chess army that has only one bishop (or something). And although there's certainly something sentimental and subjective about that, there are more objective points in their favour. This summer has been very hot so far, and this may become more common in years to come. On the whole, spinners last longer than seamers, break down less often, bowl more overs per hour, and bowl longer spells; if other things were equal, they would be preferable to seamers.
Phrased like this, of course I see your point. In fact, it's a bit odd that we argue about it so much because I love watching spin bowling. It would be great to develop a second spinner as understudy to Swann and as a potential foil to him on the right surfaces (on tour). I wouldn't be risking taking foot off Aussie throat by picking Kerrigan at this stage though, unless perhaps the Old Trafford surface looks like the very very burniest of Bunsen's and then, as I say, I think we can still afford the third seamer just in case we've read it wrongly because we'd beat them on that surface anyway.

I think lions games and tours will be the way we bring on spinners for the next little while.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 23rd July 2013 at 14:57.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 15:08   #16
oldandfat
County Pro
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 823
Realistically the only way you fit a 2nd spinner into the attack at home is to develop a batting allrounder who is capable of being a genuine 3rd seamer (Stokes or even Clarke, not Wright he is not bowling much) or a 2nd spinner (Patel not quite good enough? Rashid, Borthwick has made a good job of batting at 3 for Durham although bowling has not really developed)
oldandfat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 15:30   #17
slowest_bowler
Established International
 
slowest_bowler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Notts, England
Posts: 3,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
This summer has been very hot so far, and this may become more common in years to come.
It may. It may not. Do we have any real evidence for either?
slowest_bowler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 15:38   #18
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 8,962
It's only really been hot during the past three weeks. Before then, it was a mixture of cool and warmish. What is has been, though, is far drier than normal.
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 15:42   #19
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldandfat View Post
Realistically the only way you fit a 2nd spinner into the attack at home is to develop a batting allrounder who is capable of being a genuine 3rd seamer (Stokes or even Clarke, not Wright he is not bowling much) or a 2nd spinner (Patel not quite good enough? Rashid, Borthwick has made a good job of batting at 3 for Durham although bowling has not really developed)
It's a possibility but just don't see any plausible options. The guys you list mainly don't really get in as batsmen, nor offer much extra utility as bowlers. Rashid and Woakes are the only possibilities I see in county cricket at the moment as genuine bowling options who bat really well but neither of them has a stronger suit that would threaten the test side right now and I don't see either being picked as a gamble. It's easier to gamble on a bowling all rounder than a batting one too, in a way but you certainly wouldn't pick Rashid as a bowler at the moment and Woakes couldn't displace any of the current attack.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2013, 15:46   #20
sanskritsimon
Posting God
 
sanskritsimon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... I do think the excellent performance of the attack at Lord's reflects well not just on the individual bowlers but also the selectors, albeit that any pick is a gamble to one extent or another.
What the selectors did worked very well at Lord's, we can't knock them for that. Some may have picked a different side, but we can't tell how that might have worked out in contrast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... if you're going to post this kind of thing, can you really expect a reasoned debate without jeering ...?
What kind of thing do you mean exactly? And even if you were to want to be guided by my expectations, how would you know what they were?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... Having Root as a part time spinner as a spare is also quite useful. ...
Not as useful as a decent leggie or left-armer would be. I take the point about the third seamer when the ball is doing plenty still after 15--20 overs. Overall it's a question of how frequent or crucial the times are when the particular type of gap in the bowling attack would prove costly. It's also evident how much difference the bowling options already available in the top six might make to which bowlers are picked at 8--11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... You do provoke some of it, you know? ...
I don't know that. Is this a way of saying you can't help yourself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... My view would be that it's generally, at least in England, better to have seamer and spinner on with an old ball when you might want two spinners rather than seamer and spinner on when you want two seamers with a new ball.
Or new-ish at least. Fair enough -- even though you might be pleasantly surprised by what your spinner could do with a new-ish ball. But it's a damned shame for it to come down to deciding the matter before start of play, especially as one might hope not to decide it selectorially at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... Broad or Bresnan? ...
Broad's far better, in my view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
I wouldn't be risking taking foot off Aussie throat by picking Kerrigan at this stage though, unless perhaps the Old Trafford surface looks like the very very burniest of Bunsen's and then, as I say, I think we can still afford the third seamer just in case we've read it wrongly because we'd beat them on that surface anyway.
I'm sure we will be able to afford the third seamer in that sense, given that we're much better than Australia overall either way. But then I wonder how much of a risk it would be to play Kerrigan. I think we could probably afford that too.

OK for now. Sorry to everyone else. We now return to the matter of the thread ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
... Phrased like this, of course I see your point. In fact, it's a bit odd that we argue about it so much because I love watching spin bowling. It would be great to develop a second spinner as understudy to Swann and as a potential foil to him on the right surfaces ...

I think lions games and tours will be the way we bring on spinners for the next little while.
Good luck to them with that. I move that it should remain a priority.
sanskritsimon 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 12:56.



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