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."
With Vaughan - I don't feel he's offered enough with the bat recently. People seem to harp on about his 3 150's but that was four years ago , and for me he hasn't done alot since (granted his 150 at Old Trafford). With the captaincy , they selected Flintoff off 3 good matches in India , and three pretty poor ones against Sri Lanka. I think Strauss captained well and his batting improved while he was captain. I disagree about your selection of a captain. A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.
Nixon - When I said 2 ODI series I meant the Commenwealth Bank Series and the world cup.
I think we should put him there. He's looked decent with the bat and he can stick around when needed (the 60 he put on with Collingwood in India). I don't see any other choice. I definatly agree with Tremlett , but if Jones isn't fit , which I hope he is , then Tremlett would fit well at number 8.
I believe Vaughan is one of the best captains in the world, if not the best. And given the likes of Pietersen, Cook, Strauss and Bell aroud him (and Collingwood, I suppose), England would benefit more from a very good captain who contributes 35 or so runs per innings than a mediocre captain who contributes 40+.
order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.
He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.
Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.
Last edited by Matt79; 04-01-2007 at 04:31 PM.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
Overall your point is valid here, but the thing is that i've been saying is that i really can't see England breaking up the 5-man attack once all of Harmo/Oggie/Jones/Monty + Freddie are fit. So in that case Flintoff should stick @ 6.
Flintoff @ 7 does look good no doubt, but as i told you in the other thread, the keeper problem & # 8 dilemma comes up again. You are advocating Read but he's got to make runs regardless if his keep is good. The days of picking a keeper based on on glovework & disregarding his efforts with the willow are LONGGGGGGGG gone yo.
The idea of Freddie batting @ 7 depends on the fitness of Jones & the quality of the keeper.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)