Who is for the chop?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by aussie

All i'm saying in that post is that Flintoff is very capable of batting @ 6, showing those who have repeatedly said during this series that he can't.

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.

No point in playing 5 bowlers, tbh.

[aussie]

When potentially all can be very good. Lets see what happens..

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by aussie

When potentially all can be very good. Lets see what happens..

As Goughy stated, you shouldn't have to use 5 front-line bowlers to win a Test.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by Craig

Well I suggest they invent the time machine, go back about 14 years ago and recruit Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock, and Jacques Kallis and invent some British passports for them as well.

They've got more chance of inventing the time machine than making a decent bowler out of Mahmood, thats for sure

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

They've got more chance of inventing the time machine than making a decent bowler out of Mahmood, thats for sure

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

They've got more chance of inventing the time machine than making a decent bowler out of Mahmood, thats for sure

That's gold!

[McKanga]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

......I don't see why a good bowler needs to contribute 20 runs per innings if he's a good enough bowler......

Because if the tail doesn't wag the team can only go so far. It was the most significant difference between England and Australia this Ashes series. BTW sorry about listing Read at #6 rather than #7

And Matteh it was Pannesar's batting I was knocking. I hope it improves.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by McKanga

Because if the tail doesn't wag the team can only go so far. It was the most significant difference between England and Australia this Ashes series. BTW sorry about listing Read at #6 rather than #7

you only bother about the tail wagging when you have to choose between 2 bowlers who are equal or nearly equal and one is a better batsman. When one is a much superior bowler(such as Giles v Panesar) its a no brainer about who should be picked. England's policy of continually picking players who are more bits and pieces rather than specialists has been getting them in trouble in both tests and ODIs. and thats why players like Rikki Clarke, Liam Plunkett and Ian Blackwell constantly grace the ODI side when there are better players around.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

As for the quicks, Plunkett must be worried that the selectors view him as even worse than what we've seen from Harmison, Anderson & Mahmood during this series. Obviously S. Jones comes straight back in if fit, and I'd like to see Broad playing ASAP, preferably in place of Harmison, who's still not doing nearly enough to justify the faith that's been placed in him.

Simon Jones should NOT come straight back in if fit. If he did, and im sure as long as Graveney is in charge that will happen assuming he plays a couple of FC games this summer, hes more likely than anyone to go all over the park. If we've learnt anything from this Ashes series, it is that we need to pick players who have been bowling well consistently in FC cricket first. Unless SJ runs through county sides in a handful of county games after playing no cricket in over a year, a scenario that is quite unlikely, id like to see him get a full season of county cricket and maybe only consider him for next winter. In the Ashes all of our bowlers bar Panesar and Mahmood had barely bowled in ages, where we erred was that we didnt pick a bowler who had a successful county season under his belt or someone who was in good form like Tremlett.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Can someone please do me the favour of educating my simple mind and explain how Mahmood has a lot of potential?

Mahmood has potential because he can swing the ball conventionally and get the ball to reverse as well as do it at good pace. The problem however is that his radar is all over the place. The problem with the England management is that they are constantly picking players based on potential rather than performance, and their definition of potential is so obviously flawed anyways. Sajid Mahmood needs to play county cricket until hes capable of bowling ball after ball on the spot and then if he can do that i am certain he'll make a pretty good test match vowler.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by aussie

One bad series doesn't make him a bad coach, he's made some stupid decisions in the ashes that he'll regret but i don't think its fair to blame him for us losing the Ashes.

Have you by any chance been following England's performances since the Ashes 2005 in both tests and ODIs?

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Goughy

We have a technical term, in cricketing circles, for a player that is erratic, expensive, struggles to bowl to a plan and struggles to take wickets. Its called a 'bad bowler'

Its interesting how this 'technical term' uses 3 words that mean the exact same thing.
Erratic=expensive=struggles to bowl to a plan. Yes we all know that Sajid Mahmood isnt very accurate, and yes we all know that hes a bad bowler at the moment, but that doesnt in anyway mean that he doesnt have potential.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Poker Boy

After this shambolic Ashes tour, changes are inevitable. So who should get the chop from the Ashes tour party? A few ideas:
1. Giles. A no-brainer surely. Thank you and goodbye Ashley.
2.G Jones: Batting confidence shot to pieces. Back to county cricket - forever?
3.Read: Can't cope under pressure. Back to county cricket - DEFINATELY FOREVER!
4.Plunkett: Why was he picked in the first place?
5.Joyce: The Theo Walcott of the Ashes? Why did Fletcher not give him a chance instead of Mahmood? Had he no faith in him?
6.Mahmood: If SJ and Tremlett get fit...
7.Anderson: ditto.
8.Fletcher as coach : He's done a great job, but he's past his sell-by date. Moody or Woolmer please.
9.Freddie as captain: Will we ever learn? Appoint Strauss with Bell vice-captain - groom him for long-term future.
I'd be interested to see what others think.

how about David Graveney and co? You seem confused about several selections in that side, yet to havent tried to look at the root of the problem.
At the end of the day for all Duncans faults, it was the selectors who made Freddie captain, it was the selectors who continue to persist with Fletcher as coach, it was the selectors who picked Plunkett and Jones in the side, and presumably it was the selectors and the rest of the England management that decided to let Troy Cooley go.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by aussie

Can't see how different they are. Both are tall, like to bowl back-of a lenght, both bowl full very sparingly, both rely on extra bounce. Only difference is that Mahmood has some ability to reverse swing it, Harmison can't.

They are very different really. Harmison's main weapon is his bounce and carry, while Mahmood's main weapon is his movement. Extremely different bowlers - the fact they are the same height and bowl at a same pace does not make them similar. As for Mahmood bowling full sparingly.. that's only because he has no accuracy as far as I'm concerned. He often seems to be focusing on a full length of attack and just gets it wrong.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Bob Bamber

Flintoff - Get the captaincy of him. Strauss needs it. Flintoff needs (PROPER) time to re-cooperate on his ankle. If that means missing half of the summer (again) then so be it. And he needs to take a break from ODI cricket. As much as it effects the side it doesn't help his Ankle.

Flintoff needs county cricket IMO. his batting was clearly suffering from barely havent batted in nearly a year. England dont need Flintoff ATM, fit or not fit he wouldnt be in my side for the summer. Why not try Owais Shah, Ed Joyce etc instead, and let Flintoff get some rest and county practice before he plays in the winter.