littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. Replace a bowling all-rounder with a batsman? Play for a draw and you normally end up losing.
The Ashes 2009
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
Broad is the most pointless player ever. In the last test, when they were DESPERATE for wickets on the last day and had totally exhausted their bowling options, they STILL didn't give the ball to Broad, throwing it to Bopara instead. WHAT IS THE POINT IN HIM BEING THERE? Srs. If you aren't going to always be happy to give a bowler the chance to bowl, don't have him in the fecking team.
The difference is that Trescothick was also capable of scoring ugly runs when needed, which is a vital skill. I don't think Bell can do this.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
At least now they can pretend he's there primarily for his batting.
Someone said it earlier in the thread – he's the new Chris Lewis.
Trouble is that the way it stands now, batting at 7 is Broad. IMO, that's a place too high for him.
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Mitchell "help yourself to runs lads" Johnson on now 
mattie
missing in inaction
Mitchell "help yourself to runs lads" Johnson on now
I have an uneasy feeling about this....
Exactly. Soft as shite.Oh ffs
England's bowling seems wafer thin right now, but in this test I'd probably have gone with:
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Collingwood
Trott
Prior
Swann
Anderson
Onions
Sidebottom
Harmison
I know feck-all about the up and coming players in county cricket though. And I'm worried that my line-up is too lightweight in batting.
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Collingwood
Trott
Prior
Swann
Anderson
Onions
Sidebottom
Harmison
I know feck-all about the up and coming players in county cricket though. And I'm worried that my line-up is too lightweight in batting.
It's a big problem really; England don't have the batting to support a five-man attack but don't have the bowling for a four-man attack.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That tail is scary. Four number 11s!
Edit:
Also, if you're going to play Trott, you shove him in at three. Picking three openers isn't actually a bad plan.
Edit:
Also, if you're going to play Trott, you shove him in at three. Picking three openers isn't actually a bad plan.
Could be worse - could be Panesar in for Swann.
Sorry, that's what I meant to do. I just remembered him after already writing the other four and forgot to reorder the list.
Personally, I'd always play three openers. It's all too common to lose an early wicket and you need the stability in the team to cope with this.
That's the point of a specialist No.3 thought isn't it? Someone who can come in after 1 ball if needed and hold an end up, or come in after lunch or tea and get the score moving. Of course if you don't have a decent No. 3 then another opener is the best alternative.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Gotta respect the captaincy/coaching set up for that really then.
Surely if he fails in the second innings he's finished. Lotta pressure.
The last sentence is the key. We don't have a decent no. 3. In fact, very few teams have. They are worth their weight in Pontings.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The no.3 is either simply a star – Ponting, Lara – or often a converted opener – Vaughan for instance. There is an argument for saying that your very best player should come in at three.
TBH, I think Rahul Dravid is the ideal no.3. I have never seen Dravid get out to a loose shot.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Dravids one of my favourite players to watch, such a great talent.
He certainly should be. Although tbh, it's partly the team's fault for putting him at 3 in the first place.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Really wish vaughan didn't retire, could've been ideal for this test.
That's exactly what I said before a single ball had been bowled. It's the toughest position in the team and you don't hand it to a rookie that has barely been blooded. Even I know that and I'm bloody clueless.
With KP out of the side it's probably Strauss. With a shout to Colly for his grit and mental toughness. Neither of those should be at 3 though.
Exactly -- neither of them fit at no. 3. And I don't think that Pieterson does either, because he is too flaky to fulfil the role that a no. 3 sometimes needs to do of just carrying an innings.
I'm genuinely baffled.
