Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
I think the point was that if your 5th bowler isnt good enough then whats the point in playing him?
|
| |
|
|
If we had the batting to get a big score then we'd probably be fine with 4 bowlers as they increased pressure on the Aussies batting line up would help........ no good us having the tail we have........
|
| |
|
|
If six batsmen don't deliver - seven won't!
|
| |
|
|
Tresco, Vaughan, Cook, Shah, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff
Slightly better than the current line up and I'd back them to score more any day of the week.
Our 5th bowler whoever it is is crap
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Richie NY:
Tresco, Vaughan, Cook, Shah, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff
Slightly better than the current line up and I'd back them to score more any day of the week.
Our 5th bowler whoever it is is crap
Tresco - if he's in then right frame of mind, absolutely. Vaughan - if fit and on form Six batsmen (including Flintoff), keeper at 7, plus four bowlers - that's the way to go. |
| |
|
|
But he don't have 4 out and out bowlers good enough (unless Jones is fit), so I don't see the point
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil:
There's been a lot of bllx spouted on here about where Flintoff should bat and who should keep wicket for England.
Those attached to the 4 man bowling attack theory conveniently forget that England have failed to bowl Australia out with a 5 man attack. For the life of me, I fail to see how that justifies a four man bowling line up. Clearly, I am missing something pretty bloody obvious.
As for the wicketkeeper, Chris Read is the best keeper - end of - no discussion allowed. Luke Sutton? (in whose dreams)
We have six batsmen - they have to do the job they are paid to do - not rely on the tail to dig them out of a hole.
Come on then!
The bloody obvious is that: a) you must have 5 bowlers of the right standard. b) if your 6 batsmen are failing then it doesn't help to say "they should do their job" instead of making changes. Anyway, its rather academic now. I think a team based on the current line up will perform well against WIndies and India in England next summer. Especially if Vaughan and Simon Jones are available. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ten years after: quote: Originally posted by B@sil:
There's been a lot of bllx spouted on here about where Flintoff should bat and who should keep wicket for England.
Those attached to the 4 man bowling attack theory conveniently forget that England have failed to bowl Australia out with a 5 man attack. For the life of me, I fail to see how that justifies a four man bowling line up. Clearly, I am missing something pretty bloody obvious.
As for the wicketkeeper, Chris Read is the best keeper - end of - no discussion allowed. Luke Sutton? (in whose dreams)
We have six batsmen - they have to do the job they are paid to do - not rely on the tail to dig them out of a hole.
Come on then!
The bloody obvious is that: a) you must have 5 bowlers of the right standard. b) if your 6 batsmen are failing then it doesn't help to say "they should do their job" instead of making changes. Anyway, its rather academic now. I think a team based on the current line up will perform well against WIndies and India in England next summer. Especially if Vaughan and Simon Jones are available.
So, 5 batsmen + plus Flintoff + keeper + 4 bowlers will suffice then? |
| |
|
|
Depends who the 4 bowlers are.......and if any of them can bat a bit
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by ten years after:
Anyway, its rather academic now. I think a team based on the current line up will perform well against WIndies and India in England next summer. Especially if Vaughan and Simon Jones are available.
So, 5 batsmen + plus Flintoff + keeper + 4 bowlers will suffice then?
Against anyone apart from Australia this is a viable option, especially in England and if Jones is available. It still has to be adjusted for circumstances though. If the top 5 batsmen are not doing the job then, given his form in this series, Flintoff is a luxury at 6. If there is no fifth bowler good enough it is not appropriate to play one regardless. There comes a point when 'sticking to a plan' becomes 'blindly obstinate'. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Richie NY:
Depends who the 4 bowlers are.......and if any of them can bat a bit
I hear a lot about bowlers who can bat - funny thing is, I don't hear much about picking batsmen who can turn their arm over. Batsmen are allowed to specialise, but bowlers must be multi-faceted. Funny that. |
| |
|
|
Prior or Davies are 'keepers who could also be good enough to bat at 6. That would mean Fred could bat at his ideal number 7 spot, and England could still play 5 bowlers.
Cook
Vaughan(c)
Bell
Pietersen
Strauss(Could become the next Thorpe)
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad/Tremlett/Mahmood/Plunkett/Harmison/Rashid
Panesar
Hoggard
Anderson
|
| |
|
|
Got to be 6 batsman, Fred, W/K and 3 bowlers for me.
Unless Fred,Hoggy,Harmy,SiJo,Panesar are all available & firing i wouldn't even contemplate it.
Take this match for example we could be 70 ahead of Australia at say 160-5 - if we have our current tail it would be game over. If we had a batsman we may just set a target last dig.
I don't buy into this the batsman should make the runs and bowlers take the wickets. We simply don't have good enough players for that approach - our success post 2003 has come from a team being more than the sum of its parts.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Watermelon:
Prior or Davies are 'keepers who could also be good enough to bat at 6. That would mean Fred could bat at his ideal number 7 spot, and England could still play 5 bowlers.
Cook
Vaughan(c)
Bell
Pietersen
Strauss(Could become the next Thorpe)
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad/Tremlett/Mahmood/Plunkett/Harmison/Rashid
Panesar
Hoggard
Anderson
Not so sure about Prior, but Foster might be worth a shout. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mr Watermelon:
Prior or Davies are 'keepers who could also be good enough to bat at 6. That would mean Fred could bat at his ideal number 7 spot, and England could still play 5 bowlers.
Cook
Vaughan(c)
Bell
Pietersen
Strauss(Could become the next Thorpe)
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad/Tremlett/Mahmood/Plunkett/Harmison/Rashid
Panesar
Hoggard
Anderson
Is Prior a better bat than Flintoff though? Also, Another thread suggests that he is no better than Jones as keeper (living in Aus, i have not seen him so can't give my own opinion). Its a bit frustrating as Flintoff only needs to raise his game a notch to be good enough at number 6. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JKLever:
our success post 2003 has come from a team being more than the sum of its parts.
With Fred at six, etc etc |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil: quote: Originally posted by JKLever:
our success post 2003 has come from a team being more than the sum of its parts.
With Fred at six, etc etc
and a better functioning bowling attack allowing 5 bowlers. We'll have to disagree on this one B@s!  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JKLever: We'll have to disagree on this one B@s!
Yep!  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JKLever:
Got to be 6 batsman, Fred, W/K and 3 bowlers for me.
Unless Fred,Hoggy,Harmy,SiJo,Panesar are all available & firing i wouldn't even contemplate it.
Take this match for example we could be 70 ahead of Australia at say 160-5 - if we have our current tail it would be game over. If we had a batsman we may just set a target last dig.
I don't buy into this the batsman should make the runs and bowlers take the wickets. We simply don't have good enough players for that approach - our success post 2003 has come from a team being more than the sum of its parts.
Do yourself a favour JK and take a real look at England 's performances since winning the Ashes in 2005. Lost in Pakistan and scrambled to a desperate draw against India in the sub continent. England embarrassed themselves when they failed to beat Sri Lanka at home in England. England have only won 1 Test series since 2005 and you wouldn't say it was against a full strength Pakistan team. The current flogging in the Ashes!!!!!!!!! It's about time Poms stopped deluding themselves about what worked 2 years ago and observed what isn't working in 2007. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JKLever:
I don't buy into this the batsman should make the runs and bowlers take the wickets.
But you have to admit it beats the hell out of relying on the batsmen to take wickets and the bowlers to score the runs. |
| |
|
|
Roy all i hear from your mouth is blah blah blah. I can't be bothered reading your sheet, better ways to waste my time. Night  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Supreme Emperor of Planet Zog: quote: Originally posted by JKLever:
I don't buy into this the batsman should make the runs and bowlers take the wickets.
But you have to admit it beats the hell out of relying on the batsmen to take wickets and the bowlers to score the runs.
Aye |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by B@sil:
If six batsmen don't deliver - seven won't!
Unless he gets a century. |
| |
|
|
