*Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval

[marc71178]

Only from one journalist.

Fact remains that he's not even in the squad, so won't be making an appearance tonight.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.

Haha, was clearly never going to happen.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.

Finn's done nothing that merits him being replaced though.

[pup11]

Johnson's axing is a much welcome change, its something that should have been done long ago so that he could have gone back to the drawing board to work on his shortcomings. In the end the selectors probably have done him more harm than any good by treating him like a protected specie, hope he takes this in a positive way and comes back a better bowler.
Also reading reports that they are gonna be dropping Hilfenhaus for Harris which is quite ridiculous, I don't have any problems with Rhyno getting picked but it shouldn't be at Hilfy's expense. We should just drop Doherty to accommodate Harris in the XI.
Personally I rate Doherty pretty highly as a one day bowler but test cricket is just not his thing and they are just wasting a slot by having him in the test side, might take a 5-for now since I have said this but still it doesn't change the fact that his bowling isn't cut out for red ball cricket.
So my XI for the test would be :
Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Hilditch's boyfriend
Haddin
Harris
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by sledger

Haha, was clearly never going to happen.

Yeah probably not, and I'm grateful for that.

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Finn's done nothing that merits him being replaced though.

Would indeed be harsh to drop someone after a 6-for, but doesn't change my opinion of who I think looks more dangerous out of Finn, Shahzad and Tremlett. Finn was alright, but the scorecard flatters him imo. Was very impressed with both of the others in the Aus A game.

Anyway, adios muchachos...

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Miles wide of the mark.

Runs are important whoever scores them, and runs from numbers 7-11 can frequently have an enormous impact on the course of a match.

If you have a crap tail (if you're talking about England in the 90s, think Caddick, Malcolm, Tufnell, Mullally) then when you lose your 6th wicket you're basically sunk. That becomes a big point of weakness for your team.

Still have to choose your best bowlers though. A fine example of this is Ashley Giles over Monty. Bowlers are there to bowl, of course it's nice if they can bat and benefit the team. If they're not bowling well however, then the batsmen aren't going to step in and do their bit with the ball (for the most part). You'd hope both would do their job and the others won't have to try to make up for it.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Finn's position is really all I was talking about. I think Tremlett and Shahzad look better, and there were rumours at one stage of the latter making an appearance instead of Finn.

Finn and Siddle's 6-fers at the Gabba are gonna ensure that they play through atleast till the 4th test regardless of how badly they perform from now onwards, and guess that's something that's likely to hurt both teams during the course of this series.
Btw... read somewhere that the curator at the Adeliade oval has changed, so can we now expect a slightly more sporting pitch there!?

[social]

Backing North to score plenty in this test

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Still have to choose your best bowlers though. A fine example of this is Ashley Giles over Monty. Bowlers are there to bowl, of course it's nice if they can bat and benefit the team. If they're not bowling well however, then the batsmen aren't going to step in and do their bit with the ball (for the most part). You'd hope both would do their job and the others won't have to try to make up for it.

True... couldn't agree more with this, when as a team you are struggling to take 20 wkts then all you should be doing is picking bowlers who can together form a decent enough bowling attack to take those required wickets, their batting credentials should hardly be a concern.
Also its not as if Johnson's batting efforts in recent times were any better than a tailender's.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by social

Backing North to score plenty in this test

Yeah... he's due for a 100, isn't he..!?

[social]

Originally Posted by pup11

Yeah... he's due for a 100, isn't he..!?

Been "due" forever but I feel all the stars are aligned - last chance saloon, good deck, uninspiring oppo attack etc

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Still have to choose your best bowlers though. A fine example of this is Ashley Giles over Monty. Bowlers are there to bowl, of course it's nice if they can bat and benefit the team. If they're not bowling well however, then the batsmen aren't going to step in and do their bit with the ball (for the most part). You'd hope both would do their job and the others won't have to try to make up for it.

I understand what you're saying, but I fully understood the decision to pick Giles over Monty, given the fact that whoever played was only going to play a supporting role with the ball at the Gabba; and a 6-11 of Flintoff, Read (as many wanted), Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson and Monty would have been incredibly vulnerable.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Warne held his own at eight, but he wasn't "excellent" there. Much better #8s around in world cricket at the moment. England have one such player batting nine.,,

You might agrue that their have been better batsmen than Warne who have batted at #8, but Warne's effectiveness and approach to batting at that position was top notch and something that all tailenders should look to emulate.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I understand what you're saying, but I fully understood the decision to pick Giles over Monty, given the fact that whoever played was only going to play a supporting role with the ball at the Gabba; and a 6-11 of Flintoff, Read (as many wanted), Hoggard, Harmison, Anderson and Monty would have been incredibly vulnerable.

If England were so concerned about their lower order batting then they should have just a played an extra batsman who could have bowled a bit of spin (like Blackwell), but with the kind of form Panesar was in at that time it made no sense in picking Giles ahead of him.

[pasag]

Final words before the Test - I don't have a good feeling about the batting and think we could see a pretty bad collapse that sees us going 0-1 to Perth. Hope I'm wrong.