Is Freddie the right man for the job?

[sqwerty]

...captaincy that is.

I know I'm not quite in the same league as the man but in my experience as a bowler/captain the last thing I feel like doing during the middle of a long spell on a 40deg day is stand in the infield, setting fields and geeing up the side.

I'll take fine leg anyday with a drink bottle and a rest between overs.

Add to that his batting responsibilities and the fact that he's playing on flat Aussie wickets where his side is going to be chasing leather all summer and I can't help but think that the burden is too much, no matter how inspirational he is.

Looking at him in the field during this test I got the impression he was doing it tough but who know's what's going through his head.

He's also, in my opinion, not a test standard number 6 so there's another burden to throw in.

Just my 2 bobs worth.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, he is. He did well with what he had IMO. I don't see any reason to sack him. I thought he managed the bowlers pretty well. He allowed Harmy several chances, which you have to do, considering the role you had him pegged to play in the series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No. His captaincy wasn't absolutely woeful or anything, but it's just too much for such an important guy in the team who doesn't seem a natural tactician to have to lead a struggling side on a tough tour. Give it to Strauss, or Vaughan if he plays.

 

[pasag]

No, he may become one with time but what's the point? It will impede on his batting and bowling, his friendships stand in the way with making hard decisions and he may bowl himself to injury. Strauss should be made captain till Vaughan comes back.

 

[silentstriker]

Eh, I don't think he really over bowled himself this test. He bowled what he needed to. I think those issues are overblown a little bit. I Don't think its 'too much' for him or anything.

 

[silentstriker]

In the first innings, the fast bowlers had: 31, 30, 29, 30 overs each. Thats very balanced (he had 30). In the second innings, they had 11, 9, 5, 12 and he had the 5.

So he had the least overs bowled out of all the pace bowlers. He's been handling himself all right IMO.

 

[Dasa]

Strauss looked a better captain when he had the job than Flintoff does now. It seems to me like the sensible decision would've been to let Strauss keep the captaincy, but for whatever reason Flintoff's been given the job.

 

[shortpitched713]

Maybe. I don't think you can write him off after one Test. He wasn't really bad in the field, and his bowling has definitely not been affected by his captaincy. His side just got outclassed by a superior aussie team, and I don't think any captain, even Vaughan could have prevented this.

 

[Matteh]

His bowling didn't suffer, but his batting was distinctly poor. First innings you can probably say he was unlucky in that it was a good ball. Second innings, when you know that you're looking to bat out the day to get remotely near a chance at a draw, he chose to play such a daft shot.

 

[pasag]

Eh, I don't think he really over bowled himself this test. He bowled what he needed to. I think those issues are overblown a little bit. I Don't think its 'too much' for him or anything.

Yeah he was alright this test, perhaps becuase it was already a lost cause he didn't go too far, but the thing that worries me, particularly because he's one of my favorite players, is that if it's really close or other bowlers aren't performing again, he will go too far and hurt himself again and be out for a long time.

 

[greg]

Yeah he was alright this test, perhaps becuase it was already a lost cause he didn't go too far, but the thing that worries me, particularly because he's one of my favorite players, is that if it's really close or other bowlers aren't performing again, he will go too far and hurt himself again and be out for a long time.

Some speculation as well that Strauss is still smarting over having the captaincy taken away from him to the extent that it is affecting his form. Things can't be improved by the fact that such spurious arguments were advanced for Flintoff's candidacy - chief among them being "getting the best out of Harmison" ho ho.

To those Australians, and there are many, suggesting that all we English are doing is whingeing when we should be giving the Aussies more credit - well they should realise that we predicted the disaster that this tour would be if we continued down the route that we followed months ago. We could see how seriously the Australians were taking this tour, and couldn't believe that England's only plan seemed to be to try and repeat what happened in 2005 with inferior players against a stronger opposition in unfavourable conditions.

The shunning of Monty (the only thing that was giving us hope among the obvious evidence of ill-thought out and disastrous planning and selection (the squad was a joke)) has just been the icing on the cake (hmm not sure about that metaphor - never mind!)

 

[steds]

I don't think either him or Strauss are particularly good captains.

 

[steds]

(the squad was a joke)

So, who do we have at our disposal who are better than those out there?

 

[BingLeeElectric]

So, who do we have at our disposal who are better than those out there?

Tremlett, Broad, Panesar > Mahmood, Plunkett, Giles.

 

[steds]

Tremlett, Broad, Panesar > Mahmood, Plunkett, Giles.

Panesar is in the squad.

I agree with Broad. Tremlett's a crock.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Can't see any possible way in which Plunkett is a better bowler than Tremlett, personally. Tremlett is a pretty good bowler I think, and would be reasonably well suited to Australian conditions, given that he's pretty accurate and can exploit bounce. I doubt he would have gone as badly as Harmison or Anderson did in the Brisbane test.

As it is, England have no options with their seamer selections because Mahmood looks absolutely woeful and Plunkett is just poor. With Tremlett in the squad it would at least be an option to bring him in.

 

[Matteh]

Send Plunkett home for this drink driving and bring him in.

 

[Slow Love™]

In terms of Flintoff and the captaincy, maybe not - I tend to think that bowlers as captains are just subject to too much overthink, through no fault of their own. It's obviously not going to bring him completely undone like Botham, but I do think it's too much pressure on a mercurial player like Freddy.

Strauss didn't do his leadership aspirations any favors through his stupid batting, however.

 

[greg]

So, who do we have at our disposal who are better than those out there?

It wasn't so much the players per se, as the way it was balanced. It just wasn't a proper squad with, due to the number of players picked with injuries, far too many pace bowlers. The selectors basically seem to have picked a squad for "plan A" - six batsmen (inc. Flintoff), 3 pace bowlers and a spinner. Considering Fletcher was always going to be extremely unlikely to pick Panesar with that implied tail (I strongly suspect against the wishes of the other two selectors who must be tearing their hair out), the squad gave England no options.

There should have been an extra batsman in the squad to cover the possibility of England wanting to switch to a "seven batsmen" strategy (my choice would have been Butcher - who would fit the bill of want you want from a reserve batsman in an Ashes series perfectly), and far more thought should have been given to the no8 position. (which incidentally should have been filled by the keeper - if they had recognised that everything would have looked very different, and we wouldn't have had any of these stupid "Giles vs Monty" debates - nobody would have been arguing for Giles to bat at no7!)

To allow Panesar to play there should probably have been more thought to choosing a medium pacer who can bat (someone like Glen Chapple) - note complaints that "he isn't test class" don't make any sense because exactly the same argument can be made against Giles.

I would have also had Dalrymple ahead of Giles - if you are going to pick a 5th bowler for his batting, you might as well have someone who has serious potential to score 50s rather than 20s. He would have also made more sense to playing two "spinners" offering a nice foil to Monty (remember how some people were arguing that Giles and Panesar "could" play together because they were two left armers offering something different - Giles over the wicket, Monty round the wicket? Well that's looking a bit silly now Giles is trying to turn himself into a round-the-wicket "attacking" spinner!)

Basically i suspect that the selectors came to absolutely no decisions about the likely make up of their first team - Graveney and Miller could easily have shaped the squad to give a team that they wanted, instead with their stupid squad, devoid of genuine options, they've left us up s**t creek. I suspect that the selection procedure on tour itself could well be overhauled after this series.

 

[Craig]

Jon Lewis good enough?