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 5th December 2007, 14:26   #101
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by °Rey de España° View Post
KP will play
They were talking about how bad the injury was but he looked ok batting today so I guess that he will play. He is going to have to field in the next Test so they will have to hide him somewhere.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 17:39   #102
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Why on earth hasn't Tremlett been sent for?
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 17:51   #103
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
Why on earth hasn't Tremlett been sent for?
Why, they chose Broad over Tremlett.

5 fast bowlers in the squad, one injured leaves four and only two will probably be used in the next two Tests.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 18:12   #104
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion View Post
Why, they chose Broad over Tremlett.

5 fast bowlers in the squad, one injured leaves four and only two will probably be used in the next two Tests.
But when someone gets injured they usually send for another player so they still have cover. Harmison isn't 100% yet really, but whether that's anything to do with a physical condition I'm not sure. Given Anderson's form, Harmison a mystery and Hoggard injured, I think they need someone else as well as Broad in there. Personally I would have had Tremlett in the original squad anyway.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 18:27   #105
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
But when someone gets injured they usually send for another player so they still have cover. Harmison isn't 100% yet really, but whether that's anything to do with a physical condition I'm not sure. Given Anderson's form, Harmison a mystery and Hoggard injured, I think they need someone else as well as Broad in there. Personally I would have had Tremlett in the original squad anyway.
We took extra fast bowlers as Harmison was added in the end. Harmison is 100% fit but there is always the chance that he could break down in the middle of the game if he is picked. Maybe they should bowl him for 20 overs a day in the nets to prove he can last.

Maybe the plan was for Anderson to bowl wide at Sangakkara as Vaughan kept picking him to bowl when they could have used Bopara who was very economical. Anderson is quite capable of bowling tightly.

Last edited by 1000yardstare : 5th December 2007 at 19:42.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 18:46   #106
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion View Post
We took extra fast bowlers as Harmison was added in the end. Harmison is 100% fit but there is always the chance that he could break down in the middle of the game if he is picked. Maybe they should bowl him for 20 overs a day in the nets to prove he can last.

Maybe the plan was for Anderson to bowl wide at Sangakkara as Vaughan kept picking him to bowl when they could have used Bopara who was very economical. Anderson is quite capable to bowling tightly.
One or two commentators suggested that Anderson was trying different things to find the elusive reverse swing, rather than just plugging away and being patient. I agree, Vaughan could have turned more to Bopara and Collingwood, or even Bell, if he had lost faith in Anderson.

He would definitely have been dropped if Hoggard wasn't injured, and Broad would probably have been given his chance. Now I'm not so sure. It's also not clear whether England will play two spinners, leaving them with only two pace bowlers. Sidebottom was OK economy wise but he wasn't getting wickets either, with the exception of the dropped catch.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:22   #107
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,091
How many new caps will be handed out in the next test? One or Two?

I suspect just the one and it'll be the Swannster.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:32   #108
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
How many new caps will be handed out in the next test? One or Two?

I suspect just the one and it'll be the Swannster.
It will be very interesting to see if England go with two spinners next game. Mike Selvey thinks that without Flintoff it is very difficult to balance the side and hence thinks they might be inclined to go with 3 seamers again. I'm inclined to agree Monty didn't trouble the batsman so what makes us think that Swann will?
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:39   #109
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
It will be very interesting to see if England go with two spinners next game. Mike Selvey thinks that without Flintoff it is very difficult to balance the side and hence thinks they might be inclined to go with 3 seamers again. I'm inclined to agree Monty didn't trouble the batsman so what makes us think that Swann will?
Rubbish, Swann's solitary 5-fer against Glamorgan and average of 34 in Div 2 last season clearly indicates he will scythe through this paper-thin Sri Lankan line-up
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:40   #110
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
It will be very interesting to see if England go with two spinners next game. Mike Selvey thinks that without Flintoff it is very difficult to balance the side and hence thinks they might be inclined to go with 3 seamers again. I'm inclined to agree Monty didn't trouble the batsman so what makes us think that Swann will?
Different conditions, historically Colombo and Galle favour spin much more than Kandy. Though, to be honest, Monty didn't play all that well in this match, he did alright but was certainly bowling too fast.

The converse is also true, only one of the three seamers troubled the Sri Lankans throughout the match. Sibo and Anderson weren't too bad in the first innings though even then they weren't amongst the wickets.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:43   #111
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
I have a feeling that it will only be 2 spinners in Galle.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:45   #112
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
Different conditions, historically Colombo and Galle favour spin much more than Kandy. Though, to be honest, Monty didn't play all that well in this match, he did alright but was certainly bowling too fast.

The converse is also true, only one of the three seamers troubled the Sri Lankans throughout the match. Sibo and Anderson weren't too bad in the first innings though even then they weren't amongst the wickets.
When in recent times though has playing two spinners worked? We tried in Pakistan for the first two tests to play two spinners and then abandoned it in the 3rd test and played Plunkett.
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 19:51   #113
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,091
Giles was of the opinion that he and Batty were a success last time out, and the previous tour of SL before that Giles & Croft spun England to victory.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 21:48   #114
Rey
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Castleford
Team(s): Yorkshire
Posts: 14,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
Giles was of the opinion that he and Batty were a success last time out,
Well, I'll take the risk of incurring Kim's wrath in saying that's complete balls. How is an average of 66 by Batty in any way a success? If he helped tie one end down as Giles spun us to victory, maybe, but he didn't. Replace 'success' with 'failure' PLZ

a) Just because they've done it before, doesn't mean they have to do it this tour too. The trend's already been bucked, as on previous tours even Kandy was greeted with two spinners.

b) I can't see Swann being much of an improvement on the bowling returns of whoever he replaces, even Anderson. Would you like to know the last time he finished a county season with an average below 30? Or the last year he took more than one solitary five-fer? 2003, in both cases. Just because it's a spinning track doesn't mean we have to play a bad spinner.
__________________
"He has sat on the fence so long that the iron has entered his soul."
Rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 22:47   #115
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
It will be very interesting to see if England go with two spinners next game. Mike Selvey thinks that without Flintoff it is very difficult to balance the side and hence thinks they might be inclined to go with 3 seamers again. I'm inclined to agree Monty didn't trouble the batsman so what makes us think that Swann will?
I'm sick of hearing the phrase "balancing the side". The problems we have are not of balancing the side but finding quality players in their specialisms. Six batsmen, four bowlers and a wicket-keeper/batsmen should do the job. The problem is that the bowlers at our disposable are mainly crap or crocked, or are yet to play a test match. We don't want Flintoff in the side because he balances it, but because he is a very good, reliable bowler, and ideally he would play as one of four bowlers. His batting would be a bonus.

It is possible England will go with three seamers again because there's no point including an extra spinner just for the sake of it. And if we give Broad a go, it should be because he is the best bowling option.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 23:02   #116
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
I'm sick of hearing the phrase "balancing the side". The problems we have are not of balancing the side but finding quality players in their specialisms. Six batsmen, four bowlers and a wicket-keeper/batsmen should do the job. The problem is that the bowlers at our disposable are mainly crap or crocked, or are yet to play a test match. We don't want Flintoff in the side because he balances it, but because he is a very good, reliable bowler, and ideally he would play as one of four bowlers. His batting would be a bonus.
Hear hear. In fact it is only Flintoff's absence from the side which allows it to be "balanced". Whenever he was in, we had to play 5 bowlers because he was never properly fit, and so we were always a batsman short.

Selvey was a seamer. Nuff said. But well spotted: the phrase "balancing the side" is rarely used except to justify picking the wrong team.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2007, 13:37   #117
cabinboy
Posting God
 
cabinboy's Avatar
Do Gooder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by °Rey de España° View Post
Well, I'll take the risk of incurring Kim's wrath in saying that's complete balls. How is an average of 66 by Batty in any way a success? If he helped tie one end down as Giles spun us to victory, maybe, but he didn't. Replace 'success' with 'failure' PLZ

a) Just because they've done it before, doesn't mean they have to do it this tour too. The trend's already been bucked, as on previous tours even Kandy was greeted with two spinners.

b) I can't see Swann being much of an improvement on the bowling returns of whoever he replaces, even Anderson. Would you like to know the last time he finished a county season with an average below 30? Or the last year he took more than one solitary five-fer? 2003, in both cases. Just because it's a spinning track doesn't mean we have to play a bad spinner.

Personally, I though Batty's stats were shocking but far be it from me to question AG.

You can slate Swann and his county record as much as you like, but he's a better spinner than Batty ever was and he showed in the one day tour that he was up to the rigours of international cricket. And considering that three out of the four bowlers on display in Kandy veered between average at best to downright awful, you'll do well to argue a case for an unchanged line-up. Jeez, that was embarressing watching the county workhorses get slogged round the pitch like the journeymen they are.
cabinboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2007, 14:22   #118
1000yardstare
Posting Goddess
 
1000yardstare's Avatar
JA 793 Wagner 118 TCurran 7 SCurran 0 Cummins 101
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabinboy View Post
Personally, I though Batty's stats were shocking but far be it from me to question AG.

You can slate Swann and his county record as much as you like, but he's a better spinner than Batty ever was and he showed in the one day tour that he was up to the rigours of international cricket. And considering that three out of the four bowlers on display in Kandy veered between average at best to downright awful, you'll do well to argue a case for an unchanged line-up. Jeez, that was embarressing watching the county workhorses get slogged round the pitch like the journeymen they are.
considering Sangakkara is averaging 184.20 this year and Jayawardene 63.78 I think many bowlers would find it difficult.
1000yardstare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2007, 22:11   #119
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
I don't think there has ever been a player I have rooted for to make a test debut. Oh, maybe Gary Keedy at one time but it was rather half-hearted. I just don't know how the player will step up to international cricket. That's probably why I have never got behind campaigns for Bopara or Broad etc to play. Both these players have shown their worth in one-day cricket, and on the strength of the first test, I think Bopara will do very well. I just don't know about Broad but he deserves a chance if there is a place with Hoggard injured.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th December 2007, 22:15   #120
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
I don't think there has ever been a player I have rooted for to make a test debut. Oh, maybe Gary Keedy at one time but it was rather half-hearted. I just don't know how the player will step up to international cricket. That's probably why I have never got behind campaigns for Bopara or Broad etc to play. Both these players have shown their worth in one-day cricket, and on the strength of the first test, I think Bopara will do very well. I just don't know about Broad but he deserves a chance if there is a place with Hoggard injured.
You mean that in 2003 you weren't rooting for Anderson to make his test debut after those brilliant performances at the World Cup? I know I was!
Minor Maggie 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 06:51.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org