• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Fourth Test at Headingley

Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GeraintIsMyHero said:
Clearly he should have played if he felt the same as he did in the previous matches though.
Click to expand...
"He told them that he was fit enough to get through, that he felt no different to how he felt at Edgbaston."

Took 30-2-93-0 at Edgbaston, so maybe that had something to do with it.

Anyway, I reckon that however you look at it, leaving Fred out was the right call. The guy limped through his last match and delivered a sub-standard nets session the day before the game started. And if he'd played there, there's no way he'd make the Oval anyway.

Playing Harmison in his place was the big mistake.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I think social's point was a key one though, does anyone really think he felt much different at Edgbaston compared to Lord's? He didn't take any wickets but it's not like he bowled pies at Edgbaston, particularly in the first innings where it was just a case of Anderson and Onions bowling better. Would he have bowled worse than the other bowlers at Headingley?
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
GeraintIsMyHero said:
I think social's point was a key one though, does anyone really think he felt much different at Edgbaston compared to Lord's? He didn't take any wickets but it's not like he bowled pies at Edgbaston, particularly in the first innings where it was just a case of Anderson and Onions bowling better. Would he have bowled worse than the other bowlers at Headingley?
Click to expand...
Certainly would not have bowled worse. The real question is whether he would have "inspired"/helped the other bowlers to bowl better, because the Flintoff that we saw at Edgbaston could be weathered and fended. The one bowling at Lords could not.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, tbh I keep changing my mind on this issue, I guess you could say I am playing devil's advocate. On day one at Edgbaston I expressed concerns that if Flintoff didn't bowl well, the rest seemed less motivated, then on day two I said I was glad that they seemed to be showing me I was wrong. But without him there at all at Headingley they did seem to be lacking a lot. I think a lot of the poor bowling can be put down to the poor batting, which itself puts massive question marks over the temperament of our bowlers. And even with that considered, we had Oz something like 150-4 at one point, and as far as I was concerned it was still game on there, and they really failed to take the chance. If we could have bowled Australia out for 250 or so, the game would probably still be going on now. I am rambling, I'll stop, Alt + S, thanks
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
zaremba said:
International football is a deeply weird world in which performance is almost exclusively measured by a team's results in a couple of 4-yearly knockout cup competitions in which being knocked out in the QF is regarded as abject failure and getting knocked out in the SF or Final is regarded as some kind of success.

In England's case they've often been lucky to progress to the QF and yet unlucky to get knocked out on (usually) penalties.

So much depends on luck - whether a bootstud connects with a ball (Gazza's miss v Germany 1996); which goalie guesses right in the penalty shoot-out; whether a key player is injured; which team happens to hit good or bad form at the time of the tournament in question; etc etc etc. And ergo, Greece 2002.
Click to expand...
I take your point onboard about penalties having an element of luck about them, but if they were just a lottery I'd expect our record to be better than 1/6. They are a skill that can be honed and, as events since 1990 onwards have shown, a pretty bloody crucial one.

When the workmanlike Germans beat Argentina on pens in 2006 Jens Lehmann said the coaching staff had a dossier of over 2,000 penalties taken by players who were in the world cup, noting if a certain player favoured a certain side, etc. The fact that we didn't is pretty damning.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
BoyBrumby said:
I take your point onboard about penalties having an element of luck about them, but if they were just a lottery I'd expect our record to be better than 1/6. They are a skill that can be honed and, as events since 1990 onwards have shown, a pretty bloody crucial one.

When the workmanlike Germans beat Argentina on pens in 2006 Jens Lehmann said the coaching staff had a dossier of over 2,000 penalties taken by players who were in the world cup, noting if a certain player favoured a certain side, etc. The fact that we didn't is pretty damning.
Click to expand...
Yeah actually you're right, the penalties issue does undermine my point.

My basic point is that knockout tournaments are determined by a whole heap of luck, but people mistake progress through them for being a reliable and comprehensive measure of ability and performance.

Penalty shoot-outs, by contrast, are wrongly thought to be all about luck. In fact they're determined by (1) one side convincing itself that you can't practise taking penalties and (2) (as you've pointed out - I was unaware of this) systematic research. Don't get me started on point (1) - suffice it to say that if you're looking for evidence that those who run English football are half-wits, this is it.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
What a performance by Australia!!! Thought Mitch would be fired up and he was... North seems to be a great addition to their batting. Great work from them!!! England's middle order is worse than the Indian tail, btw.... :p Need to sort out their 3,4 and 5 real soon...
 
Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Pretty fuming after his comments. Hey, Hilditch - THE ONLY TEST WE HAVE WON IS THE ONE WHERE CLARK PLAYED.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
A bit disappointed to learn that Hilfenhaus is the future of our pace attack as well TBH. Can't see him doing much away from England.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nnanden said:
Pretty fuming after his comments. Hey, Hilditch - THE ONLY TEST WE HAVE WON IS THE ONE WHERE CLARK PLAYED.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ridiculous comments from Hilditch I thought. Clark came in and played a big part. Wouldn't have him sitting at 4th behind the others myself. I'd have him as a settling influence rotating the others around him.

And if Hilditch is delighted with the selections in The Ashes then we need some serious intervention in the coming series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top