dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Well, Giles has never impressed me that much apart from that one ball to Damien Martyn.
-
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.
Its 2007 and it the start of the ashes in Australia, what would be your best xi
- Thread starter chris.hinton
- Start date
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
For me unless Punklett plays i can't see Monty playing infront of Giles. I can't see them play this lower order:
Hoggard
Jones
Harmison
Monty
Hoggard
Jones
Harmison
Monty
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Batsman should be there to bat and bowlers should be there to bowl.
They've already got the best all-rounder in the world why do they need more?
They've already got the best all-rounder in the world why do they need more?
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Something to do with balance, why else would Watson and Symonds be playing for Australia. It is not as if they are in the top six batsmen around Australia.dontcloseyoureyes said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
From 6/300, the alternatives...dontcloseyoureyes said:
- 10/340
- 10/420
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
So they should play [in my opinion] lesser bowlers [especially Plunkett] so they can bat to #10.
Sorry but it doesn't work for New Zealand.
Sorry but it doesn't work for New Zealand.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I don't think NZ is a good example, there bowler can't bat, can't bowl either, there is a difference. Plunkett nothing special, but his ok. You can afford to have one bowler in your side that is there for his extra batting as well.dontcloseyoureyes said:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
And that man is Andrew Flintoff.chaminda_00 said:
Look, if you've got 4 test class bowlers and a spinner [whoever it may be - not Blackwell]. especially of the class of the England pace attack, you shouldn't be worrying about having bowlers that can bat [and lets face it, Plunkett isn't going to score that many runs] You SHOULD be bowling sides out for less than 340, and even if they don't, they've got a good enough batting lineup to back that up.
So Ashley Giles and and Liam Plunkett will add 80 runs each time they bat? Give me a break.vic_orthodox said:
There's no need to not play your best bowlers because they can't contribute a large share with the bat. They're there to bowl. And they do it well.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
'You all' was two posters (both Aussie, but this time they might well be rightchaminda_00 said:
)The rest of the thread is from 2003.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Name the last successful side with a horrendous tail.
I'm talking about four guys who can't hold a bat. Like the English side would be with Hoggard at 8.
I'm talking about four guys who can't hold a bat. Like the English side would be with Hoggard at 8.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Windies 1970s to mid 1990svic_orthdox said:
, but the game has changed a lot since then...
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
M Marshall?chaminda_00 said:Windies 1970s to mid 1990s
Last edited:
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
Did he play for 20 years, for most of the time they played four bowlers that weren't great with the bat. Effectively the type of tail England would have if they played Hoggard, Jones, Harmison and Monty.vic_orthdox said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Marshall - 10 career 50's.
M Holding - 6 career 50's.
Ambrose, Garner, Roberts were all reasonably handy as well. All, at worst, an equivalent to Hoggard.
M Holding - 6 career 50's.
Ambrose, Garner, Roberts were all reasonably handy as well. All, at worst, an equivalent to Hoggard.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
So let me get this straight.
What you're saying is that for England to defend the Ashes they need to not play their 4 best bowlers?
Spoken like a true Aussie.
What you're saying is that for England to defend the Ashes they need to not play their 4 best bowlers?
Spoken like a true Aussie.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
My main point is that I think having a tail that can contribute runs consistently is massively underrated. The psychological effects of digging yourself out of trouble, or of rubbing the opposition's face in it when you've already got runs, is massive - as is the follow on effect of being rolled quickly once you get to 6 down. Momentum leading into the next innings is so often important, and I think that batting ability definently does - and should - come into selection for bowlers.
The controversy over Panesar being told a while back to work on his batting is similar to how many Australian spinners are treated. They are told that if you can't bat, your going to struggle to get games in FC cricket, let alone for your country, because there are a lot of times when you're not going to be doing much bowling - so you've got to be able to contribute something to the side, and not just be carried through the game.
The controversy over Panesar being told a while back to work on his batting is similar to how many Australian spinners are treated. They are told that if you can't bat, your going to struggle to get games in FC cricket, let alone for your country, because there are a lot of times when you're not going to be doing much bowling - so you've got to be able to contribute something to the side, and not just be carried through the game.