littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm sure Australia will be quaking at the idea that England are going to target one of their tailenders.
The Ashes 2009
- Thread starter Santino
- Start date
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Wasn't the team announced this morning btw? Anyone got any news on that?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
2 pm today.
Expect England to keep faith with the heroes who just managed to avoid an innings defeat.
Expect England to keep faith with the heroes who just managed to avoid an innings defeat.
Australia won't care, but Siddle might find it more than a little uncomfortable personally, especially if Harmison plays.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Ah ok.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
Was just gonna say...might have flintoff/harmison bowling from each end, trying to get them like they did swann.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He might. Or he might hook a couple for six.
I'm assuming hes a better player of the short stuff than Swann. I bet Swann's in the nets right now in fact, working on that. He was clueless against it. Lee should be back too. He's gonna get fully worked over at Lords.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Also, Lord's is not Perth. Banging it in half-way down is not the best way to dismiss tailenders on a sluggish pitch that has an awkward ridge in it. Pitch it up and if they miss you hit.
With a grand total of two sixes in First Class Cricket, I wouldn't hold my breath too much if I were you.
I gather it's quite bouncy atm though, hence all the talk of Harmison.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
England need to get down to him first anyway.
Sorry, but talk of giving a tailender what for for exposing one of England's batsmen's weaknesses is laughable.
They found out that Swann is poor against the short ball, so Siddle's job as a fast bowler was to bowl short. He was just doing his job.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That would be good, but I've heard it said about Lord's before but it's turned out slow and low.
Dirty Martini
gets what he cant want
Nowt wrong with what Siddle did to Swann. Testing him with the short stuff, there's a always a chance he'll hit the batsman. We'd have all given a little cheer if it was England peppering the Aussies like that, wouldn't we?
Glaring and mouthing off to the batsman can get wearing though. And funny when Mitchell Johnson tries to eyeball. Has no one told him he looks just a wee bit like 80s Radio 1 div "Ooh Gary Davies"?
Glaring and mouthing off to the batsman can get wearing though. And funny when Mitchell Johnson tries to eyeball. Has no one told him he looks just a wee bit like 80s Radio 1 div "Ooh Gary Davies"?
Sooner or later they'll get down to him, and tbh, I can't really see England producing such a flat bowling performance again in the next test. Anyway, I never said Siddle shouldn't have bowled bouncers, just that the tradition is that anyone who bounces players gets bounced in return.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Stupid tradition best ignored. Bowl what will get him out. How he bowled earlier is utterly irrelevant. If England are thinking as badly as this they are truly fucked.
And if they bowl bouncers at him, he might fence one to slip or gully (which is presumably what the Aussies were hoping Swann would do).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Exactly. Assess the situation and bowl accordingly. He might have spent the entire match bowling like Waqar Younis, spearing in yorkers or he might have bowled like Colin Croft trying to get his grandmother out on a bouncy track. Either way, it is utterly irrelevant to how you should bowl at him.
Only time that kind of 'revenge' bowling is justified imo is when it's one fast bowler against another - if he'd been trying to knock Jimmy A's block off, you could use that as motivation to get Jimmy going. Otherwise it is terrible thinking. Just shows you've been rattled.
Swann isn't as bad at the short stuff as he looked, he was simply always waiting for the pitched-up ball LBW so was looking to get forward, consequently he got caught with the short stuff, but took his medicine.
Very good knock IMO.
No problem at all with Siddle either btw, great battle it was, it's The Ashes not tiddleywinks.
Very good knock IMO.
No problem at all with Siddle either btw, great battle it was, it's The Ashes not tiddleywinks.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Interesting. I didn't see it. If that's true, then well done him.
Yeah he was playing the situation, if Siddle bowls short to him at Lord's under less pressure he'll be taking Siddle on.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Predictions for the squad today?
I predict Harmison in, Panesar out and no other changes. There should be, but there won't.
I predict Harmison in, Panesar out and no other changes. There should be, but there won't.
I'd have done the same thing - Hauritz
Not that I'm in favour of any team pissing about like that particularly but fair play to Nath.
Not that I'm in favour of any team pissing about like that particularly but fair play to Nath.
fen_boy
Exits gracefully.
I predict Onions in Panesar out. I don't think there should be any other changes for Lord's.
Onions and Harmison drafted into the squad, Monty out.
They'll have a look at the wicket before going with either or.
Broad might be injured also.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
fen_boy
Exits gracefully.
Oh right didn't realise that. Yes, I'd have said that.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So how badly do England have to play before you make changes?
There are a couple of problems here: 1.) wholesale changes don't do the team much good (see the 1990s), 2.) there has to be someone to bring in whom you think would do better. This was one test match; given that England didn't lose, let's see how the players with question marks over them play in the second.
