Who is for the chop?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

Um isn't that an ECB thing?

[Prince EWS]

As for Flintoff at 6... even ignoring this series, his record doesn't aim up to it. When he is in top form, he is capable of being passable there. But really, averaging in the 30-33 range is not quite good enough for that position. You have to average mid 30s at worst IMO, and even that would only work if you had a very reliable top order at another batsman of similar quality at 7.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I didn't hear of this myth. As far as I know, people always realized that there wasn't much outside of England's Ashes 2005 attack. That's why Collingwood came in for Simon Jones in the 5th Test, because England were better served playing an extra batsman, given the lack of quality choices to replace Jones in the bowling attack.

Also we only needed to draw the game, so bringing in a batter who'd been around the squad for ages made more sense than bringing in a bowler from nowhere, especially as Tremlett was injured too.

As for the myth about our fast bowling resources, I did read it occasionally on CW, but please don't ask me to find the thread. I think it was around May when people were saying that beyond the four who played in the ashes, we had Plunkett, Mahmood, Tremlett & Anderson coming through and we were seeing some sort of golden age. IIRC Richard was disagreeing with the idea, and he wasn't a bad judge. tbf I've also read elsewhere, although you probably don't frequent those particular groups.
My biggest gripe is that even the 2005 four weren't all they were being cracked up to be, in that there was too much reliance on Fred & Jones. What we've seen from Harmison this winter has been a continuation of the trend over the last 2 years, and really shouldn't shock anyone who's actually followed the side. Hoggard, with all due respect to a guy I admire enormously, is not the sort of world class opener that you'd want in a side that aspires to be number 1 or 2 in the world.

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by aussie

This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the 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.

If you look closely, there were only a couple of series when he batted convincingly at number 6 against decent opposition. In the WI, his decent average owed everything to a lucky 100 on the Antiguan road when he was dropped several times, after spending the previous 3 tests holing out to Sarwan & other part-timers. At home to NZ & WI he did well enough, but those were not great attacks by any stretch of the imagination. In SA, he was awful with the bat: yes he bowled brilliantly, but that's a separate issue. At home to Aus and in India he looked the part. In between, he was poor in Pakistan. And of course he's largely been at sea in Aus, although I agree that he was always likely to fail given his lack of FC cricket this year. But we knew that before a ball was bowled, and the management should have done the sensible thing. That isn't hindsight - lots of us were saying it before the series.

I do think what we're looking at is a better than average number 7 rather than a genuine number 6. If we had a keeper and another bowler who could be relied on to make runs at 7 & 8 it wouldn't be such a problem. But we haven't, and we won't win a lot with a tail starting at number 6.

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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.

To be fair, he's the poor mans Devon Malcolm

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Um isn't that an ECB thing?

Well there needs to be a reconsideration of the entire management, right from the very top. At the end of the day you cant just say that the players have screwed this series up, its been coming for a while because England have tried to stick with the same sort of plan that they've had for the last 3-4 years.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

To be fair, he's the poor mans Devon Malcolm

Well from what i remember of Devon Malcolm, i dont remember him bowling outswingers or reverse swingers in international cricket.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Erratic=expensive=struggles to bowl to a plan.

No they dont, all different. They can be related and often go together but are far from being the same thing

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

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

Probably not, but i'm sure if most captains in the world can have five quality bowling options at his disposal he would take it.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

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

I ain't must dawg..

[howardj]

I think people are reading far too much into the 5-0 scoreline. The gap between Australian cricket and English cricket is certainly not that great. In professional sport, if your confidence is down (England's was shot after the result in Adelaide) then a good team will take advantage over the remainder of the Series (as Australia would have done if Edgbaston had have fallen their way in 2005). And, as your confidence continues to errode over a long five Test series, the bigger the gap will get (in that particular series).

[vic_orthdox]

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

Hmmm, from what I've seen, Mahmood will never get that much bounce. Same sort of thing as Lee.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Hmmm, from what I've seen, Mahmood will never get that much bounce. Same sort of thing as Lee.

I know there's more to it than that, but Mahmood must be two or three inches taller than Lee tho. Has to help.