If we are ever going to go with 2 spinners its now

Status
Not open for further replies.
dangermows

dangermows

Striker
reports suggest the pitch is going to be flatter than flat (2 games, 2 draws apparently).

you could argue the bowlers did well in the 1st test (and think they did) but id be going with monty instead of tremlett.

there were a boat load of lbw's in the 1st and monty general bowls at the stumps so should be in for a shout (especially if the pitch plays low).

saying that, its all irrelevant if the batsman fail to knock up a total of 300-350 :roll:
 


dangermows said:
reports suggest the pitch is going to be flatter than flat (2 games, 2 draws apparently).

you could argue the bowlers did well in the 1st test (and think they did) but id be going with monty instead of tremlett.

there were a boat load of lbw's in the 1st and monty general bowls at the stumps so should be in for a shout (especially if the pitch plays low).

saying that, its all irrelevant if the batsman fail to knock up a total of 300-350 :roll:
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Safc_Luke said:
Me too.

Top 5 + Prior should be able to get 400+ on a flat pitch.

Obviously, it depends how we play Ajmal.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how having had 7 batsman fail abysmaly and cost you a test match you then drop a batsman to have 6 and expect to score twice the amount of runs and some
 
essex boy said:
I fail to see how having had 7 batsman fail abysmaly and cost you a test match you then drop a batsman to have 6 and expect to score twice the amount of runs and some
Click to expand...

Because they are ALL good players and on a flat wicket should probably be getting 400 runs.

After all, they are 1st in the world.
 
Safc_Luke said:
Because they are ALL good players and on a flat wicket should probably be getting 400 runs.

After all, they are 1st in the world.
Click to expand...

It was flat last game so whats changed this game?

Two of the top 7 average in the 30s in old money, that doesnt fill my with confidence, neither does the fact our best player has had a hoodoo against spin for the last few years.

First in the world means nothing, its what a team does over a sustained period to remain at number one. India were ranked one not so long ago and look how poor they are
 
essex boy said:
It was flat last game so whats changed this game?

Two of the top 7 average in the 30s in old money, that doesnt fill my with confidence, neither does the fact our best player has had a hoodoo against spin for the last few years.

First in the world means nothing, its what a team does over a sustained period to remain at number one. India were ranked one not so long ago and look how poor they are
Click to expand...

Sometimes teams just dont' play well.

It happens.

400 on the board first innings tomorrow if we bat....
 
Safc_Luke said:
Sometimes teams just dont' play well.

It happens.

400 on the board first innings tomorrow if we bat....
Click to expand...

Can you illustrate an example of England bringing in a second spinner overseas who has come in and done better than the seamers or spinner alreayd in the side, especially as the likely replacment cant bat or field
 
essex boy said:
Can you illustrate an example of England bringing in a second spinner overseas who has come in and done better than the seamers or spinner alreayd in the side, especially as the likely replacment cant bat or field
Click to expand...

I'd have him in over Morgan - play 5 bowlers.

On a flat pitch that extra option can be useful.
 
essex boy said:
I fail to see how having had 7 batsman fail abysmaly and cost you a test match you then drop a batsman to have 6 and expect to score twice the amount of runs and some
Click to expand...

You make a good point, but you can just as easily turn it around to say that throughout 2011 we scored 400+ in at least one innings in every test we played, often on less batting friendly wickets, so now on a dead flat wicket we should be back to form and make a big total, whether with 6 or 7 batsmen.

If anything, a flat wicket is all the more reason to go with 5 bowlers, Jimmy, Broad, Finn, Swann and Monty provides some decent variety, and there's always Trott if we need a few dibbly dobblies.

It's a tough call really, but if we go with 3 quicks, whether as part of a 4 man or 5 man attack, we must go with Finn as the 3rd quick for his out and out pace.
 
Aleem Dar said:
Who is the 2nd number 11? And don't say Anderson...
Click to expand...

A batting average of 12 in this era of quite appalling bowling attacks with a highest test score of 34 is a number 11

Steve Harmison had a highest score of 49* and a test average of 11.79, and he faced far better bowling attacks than Jimmy does now

Are you saying Harmison wasnt a number 11 (because thats where he has batted most of his career)

Perhaps I am missing something here
 
essex boy said:
A batting average of 12 in this era of quite appalling bowling attacks with a highest test score of 34 is a number 11

Steve Harmison had a highest score of 49* and a test average of 11.79, and he faced far better bowling attacks than Jimmy does now

Are you saying Harmison wasnt a number 11 (because thats where he has batted most of his career)

Perhaps I am missing something here
Click to expand...

He's a bowler, not a batsman. And he's improved markedly over the years. Gone are the day where he just tried to defend. He can now play some shots, and does so well. An average of 12, for a bowler isn't bad. Regardless of 'woeful attacks'. And I would argue that Harmisons average was only so high because he was a bit of a slogger and would attack the bowlers. Probably why the vast majority of Harmisons 743 Test runs came in the form of boundaries (97 4s and 10 6s).

Anderson is a number 11 because we have enough players of capable of holding the bat. If Finn, Anderson and Panesar were in the same team, then Anderson would bat 9 or 10. Probably 9.
 
Aleem Dar said:
He's a bowler, not a batsman. And he's improved markedly over the years. Gone are the day where he just tried to defend. He can now play some shots, and does so well. An average of 12, for a bowler isn't bad. Regardless of 'woeful attacks'. And I would argue that Harmisons average was only so high because he was a bit of a slogger and would attack the bowlers. Probably why the vast majority of Harmisons 743 Test runs came in the form of boundaries (97 4s and 10 6s).

Anderson is a number 11 because we have enough players of capable of holding the bat. If Finn, Anderson and Panesar were in the same team, then Anderson would bat 9 or 10. Probably 9.
Click to expand...

But the bottom line is he is still a number 11. He is adept at keeping the ball out and now has one or two shots but nothing more. A top score of 34 would throw credence to this.

The idea of batting is to score runs and Harmison over time became a decent batsman as he made use of his huge stride and played to his strengths (hoiking it over cow corner).

In addition to central contracts, Duncan Fletcher was the driver of getting the english lower order a 'batting buddy' to improve their techniques and contribute.

I often feel the ground work Fletcher did with England in pushing some of these things through is often over looked
 
essex boy said:
But the bottom line is he is still a number 11. He is adept at keeping the ball out and now has one or two shots but nothing more. A top score of 34 would throw credence to this.

The idea of batting is to score runs and Harmison over time became a decent batsman as he made use of his huge stride and played to his strengths (hoiking it over cow corner).

In addition to central contracts, Duncan Fletcher was the driver of getting the english lower order a 'batting buddy' to improve their techniques and contribute.

I often feel the ground work Fletcher did with England in pushing some of these things through is often over looked
Click to expand...

No-one have ever over-looked the work Fletcher/Nasser/Vaughan have done for England.

And given Harmison only had one shot - the hoik to cow corner - and Anderson has a couple more, it could be argued that Anderson is the better batsman. ;)
 
Aleem Dar said:
No-one have ever over-looked the work Fletcher/Nasser/Vaughan have done for England.

And given Harmison only had one shot - the hoik to cow corner - and Anderson has a couple more, it could be argued that Anderson is the better batsman. ;)
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, most notably by Rentaghost and TBM, but I am pretty sure it was Fletcher who was constantly haggling with the ECB for this and that to improve the fortunes of the side in the long run to which we are now reaping the benefit.
 
essex boy said:
I stand corrected, most notably by Rentaghost and TBM, but I am pretty sure it was Fletcher who was constantly haggling with the ECB for this and that to improve the fortunes of the side in the long run to which we are now reaping the benefit.
Click to expand...

I didn't deny it. We all know that Fletcher - as coach - and Nasser/Vaughan - as captains - helped transform England.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top