Well you can't pick bowlers for batting.

We may end up with macgill tait and clark at some point next year, thats 3 number 11's but if they are the bowlers we need at the time so be it.

Warne's batting for example was just a happy bonus(take not duncan) he would have played even if he couldn't bat at all.

Flintoff does not score runs consistently enough to be a number six batsmen, therefore if he isn't fit enough to bowl as part of a 4 man attack then he shouldn't be in the side.

Charles- when you are missing your two most experienced batters- every run counts. You need to make yourself tough to beat and make the opposition sweat for every wicket, rather than meekly surrendering the last 5 wickets.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Charles- when you are missing your two most experienced batters- every run counts. You need to make yourself tough to beat and make the opposition sweat for every wicket, rather than meekly surrendering the last 5 wickets.

Rob you become tough to beat not by having a tail that can chip in with 20 runs here or there. If the batters fail, then why should the bowlers be able to do any better.

The point is you become tough to beat by having your best bowlers on the park making it tough for the opposition to score runs.

Winning and losing Test matches is all about the side that takes 20 wickets.

Not true Charles- look at the SA team- they have always put an emphasis on being able to bat down the order, as have the Aussies where the likes of Warne and Lee can throw the bat effectively. Sure your attack has to be effective, no argument there, but having a no 10 at 7 is just making the oppositions job easy for them.

Has the world gone mad?
Gilo was slagged off for averaging 40 with the ball and yet the subject of this thread also averages around 40 with the ball in this series?
Why the difference????

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Not true Charles- look at the SA team- they have always put an emphasis on being able to bat down the order, as have the Aussies where the likes of Warne and Lee can throw the bat effectively. Sure your attack has to be effective, no argument there, but having a no 10 at 7 is just making the oppositions job easy for them.

SA again are lucky. Boucher is a good 7, Pollock and extremely good 8, and Boje as well (their best spinner was a good batter), however those guys all got in on merit for their primary functions, i.e they were the best they could muster.

As for making it easy for them. Having a bloke batting at 8 who doesn't really cause any problems when he bowls because he'll get an extra 10 runs makes it just as easy for the opposition. Whereas having a bloke at 8, that may only get 5 runs, but is going to cause the opposition batters problems is much better IMO.

You pick your best side at their primary function, which is where England have become unstuck in this series.

South Africa don't pick the likes of pollock because they can bat it's just good luck.

The only time batting comes into things is when two equal bowlers are both going for one spot then you pick the best bat.

I agreed with jklever pre series that if england need more batting you play 3 quicks and monty and drop flintoff to 7.

Don't start saying flintoff will be over bowled either as england's 5th bowler has mostly sat around while flintoff bowls himself and his mates into the ground anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Smith:
Has the world gone mad?
Gilo was slagged off for averaging 40 with the ball and yet the subject of this thread also averages around 40 with the ball in this series?
Why the difference????

Because the subject of this thread could've taken 14-15 instead of the 10 he has were it for better or braver umpiring. That would've left him with a deserved average of 25-27. Giles was lucky to take a single wicket - let alone his 3 wickets at 87...

you just need one word - future

one of them has it, the other doesnt

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Smith:
Has the world gone mad?
Gilo was slagged off for averaging 40 with the ball and yet the subject of this thread also averages around 40 with the ball in this series?
Why the difference????

Gilo averages 40 with the ball through his career from memory.

Monty averages 40 with the ball in this series, with 4 times the number of wickets

As TO says, one has a future the other was a good stop gap, but should never have got close to the side.

SA have since readmission always batted lowdown- even Donald could hang around quite effectively. The likes of Boje, McMillan and Symcox were effective scrappers who dug them out of holes.

Wholly different approach to picking Saj at 8. Hes barely a 9 at county level.

Rob, they have been very lucky that their bowlers can/have been able to bat.

but by picking a worse bowler because he can bat a bit better is NOT the way forward, even if you do have 4 number 11's

The worrying underlying factor this series is Feltch's phobia about 'contributions from the tail' - and that alone detracted from the common sense attitude of selecting your team on individual merits - NOT on whether they could contribute a meagre 10 or 15 runs each.

It failed at Brisbane - undaunted, he tried a repeat at Adelaide.... where yet again it failed.

Panesar turns up at Perth and collects 8 wickets in the match!
Did anyone give a toss on how much he scored off his bat? NO
This isn't hindsight trading - it's a bloody fact.
Batsmen post a score.
Bowlers attempt to bag the opposition before they reach that score.
It's fundementally simple - and our farting around with 4 quicks and one SLA has been nothing short of a farsical joke this series.

case in point.

boje retires and the new young spinner for them is meant to be ordinary with the bat.

if your tail can bat thats just good luck not good planning.

quote:

Originally posted by holcs:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Not true Charles- look at the SA team- they have always put an emphasis on being able to bat down the order, as have the Aussies where the likes of Warne and Lee can throw the bat effectively. Sure your attack has to be effective, no argument there, but having a no 10 at 7 is just making the oppositions job easy for them.

SA again are lucky. Boucher is a good 7, Pollock and extremely good 8, and Boje as well (their best spinner was a good batter), however those guys all got in on merit for their primary functions, i.e they were the best they could muster.

As for making it easy for them. Having a bloke batting at 8 who doesn't really cause any problems when he bowls because he'll get an extra 10 runs makes it just as easy for the opposition. Whereas having a bloke at 8, that may only get 5 runs, but is going to cause the opposition batters problems is much better IMO.

You pick your best side at their primary function, which is where England have become unstuck in this series.

Actually Englands tail haven't been making runs or taking a great deal of wickets when they bowl.

quote:

Originally posted by Rowman:

quote:

Originally posted by holcs:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob:
Not true Charles- look at the SA team- they have always put an emphasis on being able to bat down the order, as have the Aussies where the likes of Warne and Lee can throw the bat effectively. Sure your attack has to be effective, no argument there, but having a no 10 at 7 is just making the oppositions job easy for them.

SA again are lucky. Boucher is a good 7, Pollock and extremely good 8, and Boje as well (their best spinner was a good batter), however those guys all got in on merit for their primary functions, i.e they were the best they could muster.

As for making it easy for them. Having a bloke batting at 8 who doesn't really cause any problems when he bowls because he'll get an extra 10 runs makes it just as easy for the opposition. Whereas having a bloke at 8, that may only get 5 runs, but is going to cause the opposition batters problems is much better IMO.

You pick your best side at their primary function, which is where England have become unstuck in this series.

Actually Englands tail haven't been making runs or taking a great deal of wickets when they bowl.

Now sh1t the bed really?????

He's a brainiac, brainiac on the forum

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Smith:
Has the world gone mad?
Gilo was slagged off for averaging 40 with the ball and yet the subject of this thread also averages around 40 with the ball in this series?
Why the difference????

Two different criteria. Monty could have pressured Aus from the 1st Test onwards...where as when he actually came in to the side, the pressure was off Aus to win the Ashes. Because it was almost there.

Were England so wrong to pick GoJO though? He has shown that he can score runs in his career, albeit not in recent times, whereas Read has always been gash, one streaky 50 against a Shoaib and Asif-less Pakistan apart.

Lags ....
You almost made sense in that post!

quote:

Originally posted by RedDuster:
Lags ....
You almost made sense in that post!

I am still learning.

Who knows? Brissy and Ade could have gone either way with our Mudhusuden.

quote:

Originally posted by Honiyan:
Who knows? Brissy and Ade could have gone either way with our Mudhusuden.

I am convinced of that ... but sadly, we will never know.
I just hope neither GoJo and Piles return to the side again this coming season.
Then it really would be criminal.