• 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.

Swalec Stadium

Does the Swalec Stadium deserve Test status?


  • Total voters
    20

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
It'd be going hugely against the grain, because since covered wickets England has been traditionally a seam-haven rather than a spin-haven.
We have one late blooming County cricketer, a compulsive appealing PR creation and an unproven batsman.

Hardly Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Prasanna.

Im not sure England have strong spin bowling stocks, its just that Aus are at a modern low in the department without their 2 leg spinners.
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
Can't help but feel you are a little over optimistic Rivera.

Series is about damage limitation in my opinions, though the longer we can keep competing the closer it might get. A drawn first test would be a great result for England, weather might help.
I'm always over-optimistic when it comes to England. Lol

Australia haven't been that impressive, while their batting line-up is excellent (it's annoying how as soon as a couple of people retire, their replacements are ready to go straight away!), I feel if Siddle doesn't get it right, there'll only be Mitchell Johnson.

And while I think he is the best bowler in the world atm, if Siddle isn't there and Clark repeats his recent poor display of bowling, it'll be a 1-man attack.

I don't think Lee has still got it personally. I know he was injured but he is in his 30's and Logan is waiting.


Australia won't cry and threaten to go home however:-O
Of course not, but Aussies are good with their mind games & Langer has probably batted against both Swann and Panesar. If he thought neither were a danger (even on a turning wicket) I'm sure he would've said "playing 2 spinners is the way to go for England" knowing far well the Aussie batting could null the spin attack.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Of course not, but Aussies are good with their mind games & Langer has probably batted against both Swann and Panesar. If he thought neither were a danger (even on a turning wicket) I'm sure he would've said "playing 2 spinners is the way to go for England" knowing far well the Aussie batting could null the spin attack.
It's not like the England selectors are going to change their minds over what Langer says. He also said Flintoff is one of the best bowlers he's ever faced, does that mean he's trying to get England to play him cos he's ****?
 

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
It's not like the England selectors are going to change their minds over what Langer says. He also said Flintoff is one of the best bowlers he's ever faced, does that mean he's trying to get England to play him cos he's ****?
No, but in 2005 our selectors weren't so suggestable as they are now and it's no secret that Flintoof on form is 1 of the most dangerous strike bowlers around.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
We have one late blooming County cricketer, a compulsive appealing PR creation and an unproven batsman.

Hardly Bedi, Chandrasekhar and Prasanna.

Im not sure England have strong spin bowling stocks, its just that Aus are at a modern low in the department without their 2 leg spinners.
England certainly don't have strong spin-bowling stocks but when your only seamer of any note whatsoever who can stay fit for 5 minutes is James Anderson you know your seam stocks are pretty low. The only point I was making was that England's spin is stronger than seam currently, not that spin is in outstanding health.

Whatever MSP's figures the last 3 seasons he clearly retains the ability to knock-over quality batting on a turning pitch. Swann clearly has this ability too. Thus, I'd be more confident with those two on a turner than with Anderson, Broad, Onions and co (especially up against Clark, Johnson, Siddle et al) on a seamer.
 

pasag

RTDAS
It's no surprise though. Been happening for a good few years now. Though I don't agree that Lord's is "one of the most disgraceful pitches in the world" - as I've said, it's been flatter than would be ideal, but most of the Tests there would still have had results if lost play could be made-up. It's produced more flatties than would be ideal in recent years, but so have plenty of other grounds and because circumstances haven't conspired to produce a heap of draws at said grounds, they haven't got the criticism Lord's has.

Anyway, apart from two personal hobbyhorses (MSP and Cardiff getting an Ashes Test over the Riverside) this thread clearly has no aim given its starter.
Only a few days later you had this - Cricinfo - Group B: Middlesex v Somerset at Lord's, May 17, 2009

That was described as a belter (positive connotations), yet Cariff was the disgrace. Go figure.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
England certainly don't have strong spin-bowling stocks but when your only seamer of any note whatsoever who can stay fit for 5 minutes is James Anderson you know your seam stocks are pretty low. The only point I was making was that England's spin is stronger than seam currently, not that spin is in outstanding health.

Whatever MSP's figures the last 3 seasons he clearly retains the ability to knock-over quality batting on a turning pitch. Swann clearly has this ability too. Thus, I'd be more confident with those two on a turner than with Anderson, Broad, Onions and co (especially up against Clark, Johnson, Siddle et al) on a seamer.
Hi, Stuart Broad
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Only a few days later you had this - Cricinfo - Group B: Middlesex v Somerset at Lord's, May 17, 2009

That was described as a belter (positive connotations), yet Cariff was the disgrace. Go figure.
Yeah, the whole positive language for dead pitches thing really grinds my gears. Don't mind flat ones for LO games though, it's when you have one side battling the pitch instead of two teams battling each other that the match goes to ****. Is damaging the longer format more than anything else IMO.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Can't help but feel you are a little over optimistic Rivera.

Series is about damage limitation in my opinions, though the longer we can keep competing the closer it might get. A drawn first test would be a great result for England, weather might help.
I was starting to think he wrote for the English tabloids. The should be getting excited about now as England are running through the mighty West Indies.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hi, Stuart Broad
Broad's got to do a bit more than look useful and produce not-all-that much on some flatties and produce semi-decently in some of the most seam-friendly conditions you could wish for against some utterly shambolic batting before I'll consider him of any note TBH.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Only a few days later you had this - Cricinfo - Group B: Middlesex v Somerset at Lord's, May 17, 2009

That was described as a belter (positive connotations), yet Cariff was the disgrace. Go figure.
You don't need to tell me how stupid it is for non-bowler-of-any-type-friendly to be considered "good" and bowler-(be-it-spin-or-seam)-friendly to be considered "good" - I've always believed this myself. I much prefer moderately bowler-friendly (only like to see extremely bowler-friendly on a relatively small minority of occasions) to flat-as-pancake.

I'm simply pointing-out that Lord's has taken some everso slightly unfair stick in recent times.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Suppose it depends what you class as 'of note' - but 12 wickets @ 30, econ 2.8 on the flattest pitches of all-time (yeah, yeah, hyperbole ftw) is worth taking note of even if you think his work in the series just gone isn't. as I've said, I agree that he still has a lot to prove but find it unfair to basically assume he is of no worth to our seam attack
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If Broad bowls as he has the last 4-5 months I don't see him being remotely successful against good-quality batsmen even on relatively well-grassed decks. He's still not doing enough and is bowling far too much harmless short stuff.

I think if anyone is relying on him as a key part of their seam attack they're in trouble.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Suppose it depends what you class as 'of note' - but 12 wickets @ 30, econ 2.8 on the flattest pitches of all-time (yeah, yeah, hyperbole ftw) is worth taking note of even if you think his work in the series just gone isn't. as I've said, I agree that he still has a lot to prove but find it unfair to basically assume he is of no worth to our seam attack
Yeah, totally agreed.

I don't think anyone's seriously claiming Broad has suddenly transmogrified into Curtly McGrath, but he was our best seamer in the West Indies, so he's of no worth we might as well not bother with bowlers at all.

Personally I was impressed with the way he dismissed the two class batsmen in the Windies line-up in the 1st innings at Durham with his variations too; he got Shiv with the off-cutter & Sarwan with a short-pitched delivery after thoroughly roughing up a man who'd made 100. Yes, he was bowling to Strauss's plan, but the execution was his own.

He is a work in progress but equally he is progressing and brings more to the table as a cricketer than any of the other back of a length bowlers we've played in the last 2-3 years (Harmison, Tremlett or Saj).
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm always over-optimistic when it comes to England. Lol

Australia haven't been that impressive, while their batting line-up is excellent (it's annoying how as soon as a couple of people retire, their replacements are ready to go straight away!), I feel if Siddle doesn't get it right, there'll only be Mitchell Johnson.

And while I think he is the best bowler in the world atm, if Siddle isn't there and Clark repeats his recent poor display of bowling, it'll be a 1-man attack.

I don't think Lee has still got it personally. I know he was injured but he is in his 30's and Logan is waiting.




Of course not, but Aussies are good with their mind games & Langer has probably batted against both Swann and Panesar. If he thought neither were a danger (even on a turning wicket) I'm sure he would've said "playing 2 spinners is the way to go for England" knowing far well the Aussie batting could null the spin attack.
Short memory imho.

2.5 months ago they beat SA in SA, with a largely untried attack. Siddle will do well there, as will Clark (assuming fitness of both is ok). I'd pick both those fellas ahead of Lee and Hilfenhaus. If North plays at 6, that gives you 3 quicks, and 1 spinner (adding North and Hauritz together). If Watson plays at 6, it gives you 3.5 quicks (given his injury worries) and 0.5 spinners.
 
Last edited:

rivera213

U19 Vice-Captain
You mean his inability to run through one of the best batting units ever assembled in Test cricket on some rank flat decks?

Hardly poor for my money.
Siddle outbowled him with some straight, fast-medium deliveries ffs.


Short memory imho.

2.5 months ago they beat SA in SA, with a largely untried attack. Siddle will do well there, as will Clark (assuming fitness of both is ok). I'd pick both those fellas ahead of Lee and Hilfenhaus. If North plays at 6, that gives you 3 quicks, and 1 spinner (adding North and Hauritz together). If Watson plays at 6, it gives you 3.5 quicks (given his injury worries) and 0.5 spinners.
That series was also the worst I've seen South Africa play for a while. It wasn't the Australia of old, going to a foreign country and tearing teams apart. When people get out to Hauritz's bowling, you know there's something wrong.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That series was also the worst I've seen South Africa play for a while. It wasn't the Australia of old, going to a foreign country and tearing teams apart. When people get out to Hauritz's bowling, you know there's something wrong.
Doesn't sound to me like you saw anything. Hauritz didn't even play a match :laugh:
 

Smith

Banned
Doesn't sound to me like you saw anything. Hauritz didn't even play a match :laugh:
Hauritz gaffe aside, I agree with Riviera in general. The SA batting attack is hardly the best in the world. Even in Australia, they won because their lower order shored them up in hopeless situations. The difference between SA in Aus and Aus in SA was that Steyn was off key, and Duminy did not click as SA wanted him to.

I would rate the batting lineups in test cricket in the following order:

1. India
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Sri Lanka
5. England
6. New Zealand
7. Pakistan
8. West Indies.
 

Top