I think they should have picked Cook and Broad.
I think they should have picked Cook and Broad.
Cook, yes, Broad no.
I am pinning my reputation (yeah I know thats not much), on the fact that Cook will be the 50 plus averaging England batsmen we've been looking for, since the sixties. He'll also have a top Ashes. So the man should be involved in all cricket for England IMO, particulary one form of the game that we're so pish at, and his two innings so far make him extremly unlucky to miss out.
Broads just not ready, a wait and see from me, I think.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
nah, cook's got too many weaknessess in his technique that will be exposed at the top level, he'll be a good test player maybe average 45 but i can't see him being a real top player.
Broads a wait and see
Originally Posted by superkingdave
Yeah, but hes young, I am figuring in a steep learning curve, I just think hes got an admirable attitude.
BTW, the name of the thread seems to have nowt to do with the question asked, and I'm not sure if I should vote in it?
England will be playing India at Jaipur......place has pretty short boundaries.
I wouldn't be tempted to play the greenhorn Broad on a wicket like that
Yeah, scores of 275 can be got at Jaipur - Broad might be too big a risk.
The following bowlers for me would be a certainty: Dalrymple, Harmison, Anderson. Obviously, add Flintoff to that list if he can bowl - I'd also pick Michael Yardy. If Flintoff cannot bowl, replace him with Jon Lewis, Mahmood is too much of a risk on a high-scoring ground.
"Bring me the toolshed, for I am hungry"
Wow, 4 specialist batsmen. 3 if you class Collingwood as a ODI allrounder.Originally Posted by Loots
IMO, Needs more firepower to score or chase big totals
That top 7 has played 348 games scored 10 hundreds and 56 fifties.
Based on this, one of the top 7 would score a ton once every 5 games and one of the players will score 50+ once a game.
Having (as a unit) 1 fifty per game and a ton every 5 games is not really a scary proposition for opponents.
Last edited by Goughy; 01-10-2006 at 03:13 PM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
As i mentioned in another thread:
With Trescothick out & Flintoff likely to play as a pure batsman intially from whats being said i think he should open the batting for sure.
Lewis/Joyce - this selection depends on on whether Flintoff bowls or not, if Freddie can bowl i would not play Lewis but would play Joyce in the top 4 behind Strauss/Freddie/Bell
I see your point, but Collingwood is certainly a bastsman who can bowl a bit rather than an all-rounder, and I drew that particularly up on the theory that Flintoff would not bowl in India, hence why both Dalrymple and Yardy are in the team. In my mind, that equals 5 players who are in the team for their batting, first and foremost. Also, Read is ahead of Geraint due to his current batting form, Dalrymple was a specialist batsman (I think) before he started bowling off-spin, and Yardy is another batsman who can bowl a bit. In my opinion, that side could bat and score quickly down to Anderson. And he and the other bowlers can nurdle quite well, I remember Anderson and A. N. Other whos name escapes me nearly getting to victory in an ODI against Pakistan last winter after the top order threw their wickets away.Originally Posted by Goughy
EDIT: It's worth noting though, not "score quickly" in the same way that Pakistan or India will score quickly thanks to players like Afridi, Razzaq and Dhoni slogging sixes to all parts of the ground. Those England players would be a good team at hitting gaps in the field, and running singles with the odd boundary, aiming to get to a run rate of about 5. Dalrymple, Bell and Collingwood will never be power hitters.
Last edited by Loots; 01-10-2006 at 07:02 PM.
Read, Dalrymple and Yardy have played over 400 List A games combined and have scored 4 hundreds and 28 fifties between them. Its a pretty poor record for 6, 7, 8.Originally Posted by Loots
No doubt the batting is long in your suggested team. However, it is very short on quality and match winners. 20s, 30, and 40s dont really win games.
I know that it's very short on match-winners - But from an outside viewpoint there seem to be very few of the big-hitters in the English game at the moment. Pietersen and Flintoff are the obvious exception, but after that the options are all untried and untested. Mal Loye? Hildreth? To put it simply, England's middle order is simply a nurdling one unless you relegate Pietersen and Flintoff down the order. In which case you have a top order without the kind of batsman you need to take advantage of the powerplays.
And we come back to why I semi-seriously suggest bringing the ageing 'clown' back. Ali Brown is possibly the most destructive opener in the history of OD cricket.Originally Posted by Loots
Yes, I always quite liked him. He'd be a better option at the top of the order than Joyce/Bell - And it would spare the risk of having Pietersen or Flintoff opening and getting out first ball.
Since when have the 6, 7, 8s been the ones that have to hit the tons?Originally Posted by Goughy
I'd suggest it's not that easy to score big when coming in so low down the order.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
I'd suggest they are expected to manage it (as a unit) more than once every 100 games.Originally Posted by marc71178
Its not about whether they score 100s in those positions (I would suggest 6 should score a number) but about whether they are capable.
The 50s are very important and they are also not that capable of contributiong heavily in that area either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)