Page 99 of 109 FirstFirst ... 4989979899100101 ... LastLast
Results 1,471 to 1,485 of 1624

Thread: ***Official*** 1st Test at The Gabba

  1. #1471
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    and the "overworking flintoff" argument doesn't mean as much if he's batting seven rather than six. On the face of it you need him as a bowler a lot more than you do as a batsman, so maybe better to let him concentrate on that more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  2. #1472
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    I still think the (non)decision to not ask for a tour game against Queensland at 'Gabba was stupid. Honestly the first Test is there and thought you would gain something in having a chance to get used to conditions there. They are completely different from Adelaide, Sydney and Canberra.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  3. #1473
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    But as stated before, the answer to your problems isn't an extra mediocre bowler in the team. It's not like Harmison, Anderson and Giles' performance suffered because they were overbowled, they were just average.
    I agree they weren't too flash, but playing an extra batter is an inherently conservative move. I could equally argue that as Strauss wasn't dismissed by a decent ball & just played rash shots we should play another bowler & have (say) Saj & Gilo pick up his batting slack (all 23 runs of it).

    By all means change personnel, but I don't think changing the make up of the team (particular when our 7 & 8 have been brought back precisely because of their batting) is the way to go.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
    - Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change

  4. #1474
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    But wouldn't haven't Flintoff at 7 allow you to play the best spinner and the best wicketkeeper in the country without worrying about your tail so much?


  5. #1475
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,083
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    I agree they weren't too flash, but playing an extra batter is an inherently conservative move. .
    Why? Ive never understood that mentality. Its about picking the strongest 11 and trying to win games.

    Batting depth is the must important aspect of any team. Also runs on the board allows you to be more aggressive with the bowling and the fielding positions.

    There is potentially an infinate number of runs to score but only 10 wickets to take and only 90 overs in a day that can be bowled.

    Balance, depth and being a cohesive unit are the important things.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  6. #1476
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    I can see the arguments on both sides, really. Flintoff at 6 is a real problem, but if you drop Anderson (for instance) it limits your options with regard to picking two spinners, adds to the workload of the seamers and removes the ability to hide ineffective bowlers. A five man attack, when possible, is a great strength because of the versatility it offers and the fact that it doesn't require four consistent, strong performances. Aside from Flintoff, none of the English seamers are players I think can be relied on in all conditions, and it really does look far less potent when you consider the likelyhood of Harmison having a bad day and Hoggard being unthreatening in some conditions.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  7. #1477
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy
    Why? Ive never understood that mentality. Its about picking the strongest 11 and trying to win games.

    Batting depth is the must important aspect of any team. Also runs on the board allows you to be more aggressive with the bowling and the fielding positions.

    There is potentially an infinate number of runs to score but only 10 wickets to take and only 90 overs in a day that can be bowled.

    Balance, depth and being a cohesive unit are the important things.
    For precisely the reason you allude to. In any given cricket match the captain never knows how many runs he will need before play begins, he does know that (aside from overly generous declarations) he will need to take 20 wickets to win a test. Sacrificing one fifth of a front line bowling attack in the search for elusive (and arguably illusory) runs can only ever be a defensive move.

  8. #1478
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,083
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    For precisely the reason you allude to. In any given cricket match the captain never knows how many runs he will need before play begins, he does know that (aside from overly generous declarations) he will need to take 20 wickets to win a test. Sacrificing one fifth of a front line bowling attack in the search for elusive (and arguably illusory) runs can only ever be a defensive move.
    I obviously disagree, especially when one of the bowlers ie Giles averages only 2.7 wickets per Test in games England have won.

    It could be argued they are already playing only 4 bowlers.

    4 bowlers is plenty to pick up 20 wickets to win. To win your bowlers must bowl well. A fifer etc must happen. One guy must do damage and as a group. You cant just pick lots of bowlers and hope they have a good day. You must select the best and go with it and trust them to do the job.
    Last edited by Goughy; 26-11-2006 at 04:54 AM.

  9. #1479
    You'll Never Walk Alone Nate's Avatar
    Bowling tgfg Champion! Carmageddon Champion! Rainman Champion! DTunnel Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New South Wales
    Posts
    26,933
    Pietersen gunned it, Clark unlucky. Hopefully we can make some early in-roads tomorrow morning.
    Jesus saves

    proudly supporting Liverpool FC

  10. #1480
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy
    I obviously disagree, especially when one of the bowlers ie Giles averages only 2.7 wickets per Test in games England have won.

    It could be argued they are already playing only 4 bowlers.

    4 bowlers is plenty to pick up 20 wickets to win. To win your bowlers must bowl well. A fifer etc must happen. One guy must do damage and as a group. You cant just pick lots of bowlers and hope they have a good day. You must select the best and go with it and trust them to do the job.
    You're using a specific example to counter a general point. As I said before, by all means change the personnel, but I personally prefer five bowlers as five are more likely to take 20 wickets than four in the same way as 7 batsmen are likely to score a higher total than six are.

  11. #1481
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,083
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
    You're using a specific example to counter a general point. As I said before, by all means change the personnel, but I personally prefer five bowlers as five are more likely to take 20 wickets than four in the same way as 7 batsmen are likely to score a higher total than six are.
    I would point out that the chances of any team having 5 quality bowlers is slim. Therefore anytime you bowl your 5th bowler you are taking overs away from your better bowlers and reducing the chance of taking 20 wickets. All batsmen must bat so there is no real comparison.

    Also if you win tests you generally have to role teams over. If you do that there are certainly not enough overs to justify 5 bowlers.

    5 bowlers are only useful to avoid fatigue in high scoring draws and when the opposition are battering you. In either case a fill in bowler could do the job and you would still need the extra batsman to counter the opponents big totals.

  12. #1482
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy
    I would point out that the chances of any team having 5 quality bowlers is slim. Therefore anytime you bowl your 5th bowler you are taking overs away from your better bowlers and reducing the chance of taking 20 wickets. All batsmen must bat so there is no real comparison.

    Also if you win tests you generally have to role teams over. If you do that there are certainly not enough overs to justify 5 bowlers.

    5 bowlers are only useful to avoid fatigue in high scoring draws and when the opposition are battering you. In either case a fill in bowler could do the job and you would still need the extra batsman to counter the opponents big totals.
    Well clearly if things are going well 4 bowlers are fine & dandy; personally I'd seriously question the wisdom of any coach who only planned for the one eventuality. I would suggest that the ideal 11 has enough flexibility to cope with more than the one eventuality. Today, for example, I bet Australia would've liked another serious bowling option. McGrath was clearly not operating at full tilt due to his heel, which I'm sure was the reason he bowled only 12 of 80 overs sent down. Watson would've given them that. In all probability they'll get away with it because they have one SK Warne to wheel away at the other end. I wouldn't trust Giles or even Panesar to be able to do the same job.

  13. #1483
    International Coach Barney Rubble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    All over the shop
    Posts
    10,190
    Three words, ladies and gents....


    Not. Over. Yet.



  14. #1484
    You'll Never Walk Alone Nate's Avatar
    Bowling tgfg Champion! Carmageddon Champion! Rainman Champion! DTunnel Champion!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New South Wales
    Posts
    26,933
    I have been saying a bit that the first few days don`t give an accurate representation of how the Ashes will go, I was very surprised at the people saying England are going to lose. They`ve shown they can apply themselves batting, though I do expect them to be out before lunch tomorrow tbh.

  15. #1485
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,083
    Maybe the key to this discussion, that we can both agree on, is that the debate for either choice becomes less relevant if the keeper can bat.

    If England had a Gilchrist or such then that would provide the batting depth to make 5 bowlers more palatable (sp?) to me.

    Personally Id still want 4 bowlers and a specialist batsman that could bowl (eg Jayasuria, Gayle, Waugh, Astle, Cronje etc) but it would be less of a sticking point than if the keeper could not bat.

    For this team it comes down to the fact that Flintoff at 6 and Jones at 7 with Giles as the 5th bowler doesnt look like the best team to me on paper.

Page 99 of 109 FirstFirst ... 4989979899100101 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. CW XI Test History
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Statistics and Records
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 29-11-2007, 05:34 AM
  2. Which Country Will Be The Next Test Nation?
    By albo97056 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 31-07-2007, 11:36 PM
  3. Mahmood and Panesar power England to series glory
    By symonds_94 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 10:11 AM
  4. England considering diplomatic snub!
    By Choora in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-12-2005, 09:18 PM
  5. Go for 50 Tendulkar
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 16-12-2004, 09:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •