Gough for the sack

[luckyeddie]

Where does this 'under-performance of Collingwood' thing come in?

Six overs, 2-22 is one hell of an under-performance for a Marmite bowler - the fact that his final over (when he was brought back for a single over) went for 10 didn't change the fact that, as an occasional bowler, he did blooming well.

 

[Steulen]

I think the final highlighted that England are one good bowler short. Vaughan went in for the kill with Harmison and Flintoff, didn't get it, and found himself looking around for end-of-innings bowlers. Collingwood getting carted for 10 runs at the death is par for the course, I'd say.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think the final highlighted that England are one good bowler short. Vaughan went in for the kill with Harmison and Flintoff, didn't get it, and found himself looking around for end-of-innings bowlers. Collingwood getting carted for 10 runs at the death is par for the course, I'd say.

Of course, one mainline bowler wasn't used - Ashley Giles.

 

[wpdavid]

Of course, one mainline bowler wasn't used - Ashley Giles.

Absolutely. I think the balance of the side is the best it's been for years, even if some of the individuals are questionable.

 

[Arjun]

Where does this 'under-performance of Collingwood' thing come in?

Six overs, 2-22 is one hell of an under-performance for a Marmite bowler - the fact that his final over (when he was brought back for a single over) went for 10 didn't change the fact that, as an occasional bowler, he did blooming well.

His six overs, 2 for 22, didn't matter much, since the total was a little too meagre. When you're defending a total of 217, you cannot afford to give away 9 runs in an over when the opposition have a chance of winning the match. Come to think of it, his performances as a bowler were quite awful when the team bowled first (Chester-le-Street, v/s India, 2004) as well as when defending large totals (two matches in the Natwest series, 2004). He's only good for a few overs, and the longer he bowls, the worse it gets.

 

[luckyeddie]

His six overs, 2 for 22, didn't matter much, since the total was a little too meagre. When you're defending a total of 217, you cannot afford to give away 9 runs in an over when the opposition have a chance of winning the match. Come to think of it, his performances as a bowler were quite awful when the team bowled first (Chester-le-Street, v/s India, 2004) as well as when defending large totals (two matches in the Natwest series, 2004). He's only good for a few overs, and the longer he bowls, the worse it gets.

I guess you just don't get it, do you?

Before his final over, he had conceded 13 and in the process, picked up the key wickets of Chanderpaul and Powell.

After 4 overs, he had 2 for 10 - was that the time to take him out of the attack? His fifth only went for a couple and a leg bye. Vaughan thought so - but then, when we got into the final 10 overs, it became patently obvious that England had some difficult choices to make.

10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 5 + 3 = 48, so another two overs had to be found from somewhere. Was Giles an option at that stage? Remember that from 140-odd for 8, Vaughan had pressed the 'kill' button, bringing back Gough and Harmison to try to blow the tail away. Then Flintoff. Then he turned back to Collingwood again who had broken the key partnerships before.

The phrase 'Come to think of it' is hindsight, and just for the sake of argument, allowing you the privilege of that magical 20:20 vision, what would YOU have done under the circumstances, Einstein?

 

[Arjun]

Vaughan could have even brought himself into the attack, or even Giles, just for variety in the attack. In fact, Giles could have been brought on a lot earlier. Of course, defending a total of 217 is not that easy, given a bowling atack that is just 3 strong, and very average fielding support.

 

[luckyeddie]

Vaughan could have even brought himself into the attack, or even Giles, just for variety in the attack. In fact, Giles could have been brought on a lot earlier. Of course, defending a total of 217 is not that easy, given a bowling atack that is just 3 strong, and very average fielding support.

The point is, at what stage?

Now obviously you are going to say 'after over 33' or something like that, which frankly is not a bad idea - but one you wouldn't have thought of at the time.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Re: Collingwood. Unlike Gough he's not in the side to bowl, he's there because he's arguably the World's best fielder and because he's a good solid intelligent (well usually) batsman. Gough is purely there as a bowler because his fielding is awful and costs 5-10 runs a game and his batting is pathetic considering the talent he had 10 years ago. It's obvious his bowling has gone downhill, he just does not get the wickets any more and as I've said before his death bowling is nothing special - He conceded 19 in 2 overs against Australia getting 2 freebie wickets in the process, Flintoff conceded 17 in 2 overs with 1 freebie wicket and 2 of the runs were byes.

 

[luckyeddie]

Vaughan could have even brought himself into the attack, or even Giles, just for variety in the attack. In fact, Giles could have been brought on a lot earlier. Of course, defending a total of 217 is not that easy, given a bowling atack that is just 3 strong, and very average fielding support.

Yet the same team had blown Australia away just a few days before. Were they a 3-strong attack or an average fielding side then?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Vaughan could have even brought himself into the attack, or even Giles, just for variety in the attack. In fact, Giles could have been brought on a lot earlier. Of course, defending a total of 217 is not that easy, given a bowling atack that is just 3 strong, and very average fielding support.

"very average fielding support" - That's up there with cobblers certain thread-hogs spout.

 

[tooextracool]

Gough probably does have *something* to offer, but that something is much less than it was and it seems to be decreasing with every passing series. I'd rather see a line drawn on a terrific career now than send him to SA so that Smith, Gibbs & co can make him look stupid.

hey smith and co are there to make harmison look stupid!!

 

[tooextracool]

Yet the same team had blown Australia away just a few days before. Were they a 3-strong attack or an average fielding side then?

a side that benefitted from the conditions maybe......

 

[luckyeddie]

a side that benefitted from the conditions maybe......

And what conditions exactly would those have been?

 

[tooextracool]

And what conditions exactly would those have been?

the spin friendly conditions that australia were stupid enough to not play a spinner on and not bowl clarke on,and instead bowl brett lee for no apparent reason on......
every one of the big games were won by the team batting 2nd(bar one game against a SL side that really are useless on any wicket that offers any amount of lateral movement)....is that coincidence then?

 

[luckyeddie]

the spin friendly conditions that australia were stupid enough to not play a spinner on and not bowl clarke on,and instead bowl brett lee for no apparent reason on......
every one of the big games were won by the team batting 2nd(bar one game against a SL side that really are useless on any wicket that offers any amount of lateral movement)....is that coincidence then?

So it wasn't a side that benefited from the CHANGING conditions, more accurately England's selection was more suited to the wicket - and that, of course, had no bearing whatsoever on the side winning the toss choosing to bat first or second.

TEC, you lose.

 

[tooextracool]

So it wasn't a side that benefited from the CHANGING conditions, more accurately England's selection was more suited to the wicket - and that, of course, had no bearing whatsoever on the side winning the toss choosing to bat first or second.

TEC, you lose.

no i dont because i clearly stated that the reason why they won was because the side benefitted from the conditions....which they did, had they played on any other pitch other than a spinner friendly one it would have been a totally different game all together. after all given the conditions in the previous games(and the games after that for that matter), who would have expected a slow wicket like that?

 

[pskov]

no i dont because i clearly stated that the reason why they won was because the side benefitted from the conditions....which they did, had they played on any other pitch other than a spinner friendly one it would have been a totally different game all together. after all given the conditions in the previous games(and the games after that for that matter), who would have expected a slow wicket like that?

So... Engand won because Vaughan out-captained Ponting, correct? After all, he selected a specialist spinner and Ponting didn't.

 

[luckyeddie]

no i dont because i clearly stated that the reason why they won was because the side benefitted from the conditions....which they did, had they played on any other pitch other than a spinner friendly one it would have been a totally different game all together. after all given the conditions in the previous games(and the games after that for that matter), who would have expected a slow wicket like that?

You know very well that's not what the implication was - stop making even more of an ass of yourself just because you are trying to have the last word.

Australia played and used two twirlies - not very good ones, sure, but two they did (both worse than Giles, both arguably better than Vaughan) - and even with the benefit of seeing the success England had with taking the pace off the ball, they only used them for 12 out of the possible 20 overs.

 

[tooextracool]

You know very well that's not what the implication was - stop making even more of an ass of yourself just because you are trying to have the last word.

i know precisely what the implication was, obviously i would because i said it. and what i mean in the first part of my statement was that australia would have done a whole lot better had they picked a spinner of even ian harvey who is a far better bowler than what brett lee is ATM.
and the 2nd statement states that the team that batted 2nd did have a distinct advantage, as they have had in every game in this world cup. all the pitches in the tournament got better as the day wore on, does it not seem even the slightest bit strange to you that a team that has been nearly invincible of late managed to get absolutely hammered by an english side that isnt even all that great? an english side over the last few months has been worse than the WI(no disrespect to the WI)?

Australia played and used two twirlies - not very good ones, sure, but two they did (both worse than Giles, both arguably better than Vaughan) - and even with the benefit of seeing the success England had with taking the pace off the ball, they only used them for 12 out of the possible 20 overs.

no because the pitch obviously got better for batting, and as much as you rate symonds and lehmann they are both rubbish.