Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
4 bowlers including Flintoff would mean you could drop Broad for someone who can bowl.
Oh wait...we don't have anyone. Never mind.
-
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*** West Indies in England
- Thread starter roseboy64
- Start date
Oh wait...we don't have anyone. Never mind.
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah if he were at 8 (or 7 with Flintoff at 8) he's still got whoever he comes in to partner, then Swann and Broad, not to mention Jimmy 'No Duck' Anderson who could have a realistic aim to be the best no.11 in the world, solid lower order.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Haha yeah, that was the thought process I went through.
The main gripe I've always had with this Flintoff-at-6 business is the way the rest of the team has always had to work around it even when it was completely unsuited. Giles having to play even when he was going to be useless on the pitch that was served up (and then later in front of Panesar when he was clearly the inferior bowler) and then Broad being picked ahead of Anderson recently are classic examples. Hell, even the fact that they've picked prank-keepers to bolster the batting at #7 can be traced back to Flintoff at 6 to an extent.
At the moment though the team is perfectly set up for Flintoff to play as one of five, on merit. The bowling attack is weak but a few of them can bat competently and they've got a batsman wearing the wicket keeping gloves. Dropping Prior or Broad just wouldn't really be justified at the moment so Flintoff should slot in at 7 (below Prior) with Broad, Swann, Anderson and AN Other to follow.
The Masterplan
U19 Debutant
Sidebottom usually always looks laboured when bowling, he's rarely 100%.
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
He's not playing for Notts either at the moment
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I'm getting more and more worried that Mahmood is going to be in the team.
Despite being dire in their last few Test series, England have still usually managed to look "okay" as a team on paper. A team with Shah at 3, Flintoff at 6, no wicket keeper and both Mahmood and Broad in the team as specialist bowlers would really do justice to how bad they've been lately though.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Hmm, is that really to be blamed on Flintoff or the desire to always have a spinner?
The Masterplan
U19 Debutant
1% of the cricketing public would disagree with you there. I myself am found in that 1%.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think both contributed. I'm sure they contemplated dropping Giles for a quick a few times and then thought "Well a fifth seamer isn't going to be that much use and we'll we weakening the batting by doing it"... which is all well and good, but they should have been contemplating was dropping Giles for a batsman and moving Flintoff down at 7. Moving Flintoff down to 7 is tantamount to treason though, or so it seems.
The Masterplan
U19 Debutant
5 seemers rarely works in my opinion, unless your the West Indies any you have Garner, Holding etc at your disposal.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Not sure I completely agree. For the bulk of the period where Flintoff & Giles were set fixtures together in the side, Flintoff was averaging 40 with the bat and so I don't think it would have weakened the batting, form-wise.
I doubt they would have considered playing five seamers at any point, though. Surely if you play five bowlers one of them is a spinner? Five seamers seems like overkill to me.
Let's not forget btw that we dropped Flintoff to 7 last summer, for his comeback Test. The mistake was that it was Ambrose who got stuck at 6, I'd say Fred is a better batsman than him. it just seemed a gesture rather than anything else.
shivfan
Banned
I hope England fans are not taking victory for granted again....
I hope Pascal plays against Essex. It will be good if he gets a warmup game or two.
shivfan
Banned
Even when the WI had Garner, Holding etc, they never played more than four seamers....
The English obsession with having five bowlers is something I've never quite understood.
The WIndies rarely used that experiment. I can only recall the 1985 tour of England, when WI used Harper as a fifth bowler throughout the tour. That experiment was soon abandoned, and Lloyd went back to his four-man attack....
The Masterplan
U19 Debutant
Just out of interest who is this Pascal guy, he's listed as right arm fast on the BBC website. Is he any good?I hope England fans are not taking victory for granted again....
I hope Pascal plays against Essex. It will be good if he gets a warmup game or two.
shivfan
Banned
I haven't seen him either, but I hear he's pretty quick....
I hope he gets a game against Essex. He currently plays for the Windwards, and did reasonably well, considering that the domestic competition is dominated by spinners.
shivfan
Banned
David Smith throws the toys out of the pram, and denies the WIndies permission to practise at Grace Road, because Dyson dared to criticise the first-day pitch....
BBC SPORT | Cricket | International Teams | West Indies | Windies caught up in pitch spat
Now, if Caribbean authorities had reacted the way Leics did every time an England player or official criticised a pitch in the Caribbean, England would be denied permission to practise on a regular basis!
That was a very childish reaction by Smith. They are ungracious hosts. I hope the Windies never go back to Leicester again. Good riddance!
BBC SPORT | Cricket | International Teams | West Indies | Windies caught up in pitch spat
Now, if Caribbean authorities had reacted the way Leics did every time an England player or official criticised a pitch in the Caribbean, England would be denied permission to practise on a regular basis!
That was a very childish reaction by Smith. They are ungracious hosts. I hope the Windies never go back to Leicester again. Good riddance!
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Due in no small part to the fact that five seamers is precious rarely tried.
It'd be far more accurate to say that four seamers and one spinner has failed countless many more times than five seamers has.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
It was 1984 TBH, but West Indies used to use five bowlers regularly before 1976 when the pace quartet idea was formed. Mostly, though, they did so at a time they had several all-rounders: Sobers, Holford, Boyce, Julien, etc.Even when the WI had Garner, Holding etc, they never played more than four seamers....
The English obsession with having five bowlers is something I've never quite understood.
The WIndies rarely used that experiment. I can only recall the 1985 tour of England, when WI used Harper as a fifth bowler throughout the tour. That experiment was soon abandoned, and Lloyd went back to his four-man attack....
Nonetheless, I've always maintained that unless you've got good all-rounders by at least two, five bowlers is completely unnecessary and almost always weakens your side. Overs have to be bowled regardless, and you're always going to give your best bowlers more overs, but runs can only be scored by those with the ability.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Bell should never, ever have been promoted to three, and it's now happened a belief-defying four times. It just seems people aren't happy with his ramming-home-the-advantage contributions at six and want to make or break him at three.
Sacrificing an advantage for the sake of dislike of a player (or, maybe in the case of the selectors, blind faith in his ability). So utterly stupid.