Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."
thats alot to give the chop, agree with some but not others
Not sure that the Strauss-Cook partnership has been successful enough to call settled or anything close to it. I wouldn't mind seeing Cook at 3 again. But I also wouldn't want Trescothick in the team again until he scores big in County cricket.Trescothick - Cook and Strauss don't need disrupting at the top. It would be a bad move if he comes back.
Vaughan is such a good captain that I'd keep him as long as he's guiding England well. I'm not sold on Strauss as captain, and as far as I'm concerned, you don't make someone captain by default. A captain shouldn't be there simply because "he's in the team anyway."Vaughan - As much as he offers as captain. I believe that Strauss would be a better option. Vaughany just doesn't offer enough with the bat.
Solid wicketkeeping and a high20s average would be enough to get him through the World Cup IMO.Nixon - He'll get 2 ODI series. Unless he hits about 7-8 hundreds then I doubt he'll be considered again .
Panesar at 8? Extremely scary. Especially with an untried wicketkeeper-batsman at number 6. Hoggard > Harmison and Panesar. Tremlett is definitely the best batsman of the 5 listed there and Jones actually has some good potential.So the team for me next year -
1) Strauss (Captain)
7) Flintoff (Or extra batsman if he isn't fit).
8) Panesar (He will be a number 8 in the future , why not now)
10) Jones / Tremlett ( If Jones isn't fit move Tremlett to 8)
*Strauss - does well on occasion
Cook - grit
Bell - has the technique, made some tough runs this tour
Joyce - hugely talented, has done nothing wrong so far
KP - only batsman in England who can end with a 50+ average
Collingwood - sticks in, does a job (mind, so does Key...)
+Davies - Plunkett, Cook and Mahmood have been picked on showing less (though I suppose it's +Nixon for the moment...)
Flintoff - can bat with more freedom at eight, needs to be relieved of responsibility
Tremlett - bowls quick, with bounce
Hoggard - only bowler to emerge with credit from the Ashes
Panesar - removes the need for the fifth bowler, since he's capable of bowling long spells
Not much genuine bowling threat, admittedly, but neither is an attack of Fred/Jimmy/Peaceo/Monty/Saj at present.
A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS
Originally Posted by Bertolt Brecht
Yeah I think Tremlett would be a much better option than Mahmood, and from what I've seen of him he seems much more accurate. Quite limited exposure to him though, so I might have just seen some good spells.
The reason people think Mahmood has potential is because he's fairly quick and moves the ball quite a lot through the air, and both ways, both conventional and reverse. As soon as people see a bowler with good pace who swings it, the automatic assumption is that he could be very good. Obviously Mahmood isn't very good, as you can see from his record, so he's given the "potential" label. People from outside of Australia might not have seen this, but Mahmood was talked up hugely here as a major threat for the Ashes, before the series began. In the Champions Trophy he took a couple of wickets against us, including bowling Gilchrist through the gate, and was thereafter talked up by Australian pundits and former players in the papers and on shows like Inside Cricket and so on. Obviously Harmison and Flintoff got attention too, but Panesar and Mahmood were considered England's big trump cards and surprise matchwinners right up until the PM's XI game.
I do think that Mahmood could be a good bowler if he managed to be consistent. He's certainly capable of bowling wicket taking deliveries, and that's part of the package, but I don't think it's likely that he'll ever be accurate enough, and he's never going to be anything special the way he is bowling at the moment. England would be better off picking someone different for now.
It's too bad as well, I really like watching him bowl.
Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 03-01-2007 at 10:49 PM.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
When I first saw Saj Mahmood, I thought this guy looks like cannon fodder, he hasn't done much to prove it. Haven't seen a great deal of Liam Plunkett to comment a great deal.
Listening to Ian Chappell and reckons James Anderson has the talent to be a very good bowler, and he needs to do just that, just bowl, bowl, bowl, and bowl in matches (not the nets) and he can improve a lot and increase his confidence. He also questioned whether or not England really need Steve Harmison in the team, and if he isn't going to take the new ball, what does he offer to the team?
Geriant Jones and Chris Read are the two English wicket keepers I have seen play in the last few years (aside from James Foster and when Marcus Trescothick had a spell as a 'keeper in ODIs), and Read looks a superior gloveman but he and Jones look pretty equal with the bat.
My 4 most doubtful after Ist innings in Sydney:
* Pannesar is a good bowler but a very cheap batsman. He is a deserved cult figure but must be good for 20+ runs an innings (persist)
* Anderson fielded particularly well (persist)
* Read is laughably #6 batsman but keeps well. When better players are available to England should bat #8 (persist)
* Mahmood has some sort of attitude problem (drop)
I suppose the only good thing about this series is that it's totally exploded a few myths, and, if English cricket can actually face up to reality then we might go forward.
1. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch batters.
Actually we're spoilt for choice with batters who can do respectably against moderate attacks on easy wickets. Only KP has consistently shown the stomach for this particular battle. Cook will probably improve, but only if he's prepared to learn from his mistakes out here, and not assume everything's OK when he fills his boots against easier attacks. Strauss has been feeble, even allowing for the spate of duff decisions, and you have to wonder if he's mentally tough enough. Bell has improved and will probably continue to do so, but he's still underachieved given the number of starts that he's made. Collingwood's managed to reach 30 twice in 9 completed innings: nuff said.
2. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch bowlers
We heard so much of this after 2005, when the reality was that Fred & Jones were world class, with the other only making occasional contributions. Even now, too many people seem to be in denial about what's happened over the last 6 weeks (or the last 2 years if we're talking about one particular waste of space). Actually, we have a worthy trier in Hoggard who will occasionally pick up more than a couple of wickets in an innings, and a genuine threat in Flintoff, although it's hard to see him lasting much longer. Harmison's continued to do what he's done since Dec 2004 and I genuinely have no idea why otherwise sensible contributors to CW still include him in their side. Mahmood is patently not ready. The jury's out on Anderson until he gets a decent run in the side. And we're all guessing about Tremlett, Pluknett, Broad et al.
3. The myth that Flintoff is a test number 6.
Not against anyone good, he isn't. Not consistently, anyway. Give the man a break, please.
There's more, but I'm supposed to be teaching in a minute ......
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)