• 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.

***Official*** India in England

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Looking a pretty stupid decision to 'rest' or whatever it was, meaning Dravid isn't in the Twenty20 World Championships.
 

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
Not sure what your saying here, that in a run chase it wouldn't make a difference if Lewis was there or Flintoff? I beg to differ, Lewis being a direct replacment for Flintoff is certainly not going to help England's chances, regardless of Flintoff's current dire form. And I agree Bopara is a much greater loss in the batting dept. and I never said otherwise.
Sorry for being misleading. I'm talking about Flintoff in general, not in respect to who replaces him.

I think selectors, coaches, (most) fan and other stakeholders would be kidding themsleves thinking that Flintoff would be an asset in a big run chase.

Re-reading your post, I think it has come a time where Lewis is as good as Flintoff in a run chase (this maybe a hyperbole, but Flintoff's form is terrible).
 

pasag

RTDAS
Sorry for being misleading. I'm talking about Flintoff in general, not in respect to who replaces him.

I think selectors, coaches, (most) fan and other stakeholders would be kidding themsleves thinking that Flintoff would be an asset in a big run chase.

Re-reading your post, I think it has come a time where Lewis is as good as Flintoff in a run chase (this maybe a hyperbole, but Flintoff's form is terrible).
So what, bat him at 9/10 in your opinion?
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Given how ordinary Lewis has been with the ball & that Mascarenhas was in our original squad it seems a bizarre decision to play the curly-haired, large-nosed, slow-medium pie distributor.
Not a fan, I take it?

It meant the Anderson/Broad opening combo was broken too, which had been working pretty well thus far.
Yeah, that was the real crime, as some of us said at the time. It also meant that Broad had a very different role in this game, and we've just seen how good an idea that was.

Easy to be wise after the event, but it should've been a no-brainer anyway.
I can see why he was picked, actually. If they had gone for Mascarenhas, we were down to two bowlers who you'd expect to be taking wickets in this form of the game, and one of those (Broad) is very inexperienced. The problem was how they allocated their overs, imo.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Lot more needed from India from here to win series. Not easy though! But for me, Its impossible
For India to win the series? Not at all, imo, if England are now without Bopara's batting & Flintoff's bowling. Your main four batters are all in good touch, and England haven't shown any inclination to score quickly against your two spinners.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Not a fan, I take it?
Whatever gave it away? :p

No, not overly. He lacks pace & variation (although he has deployed an off-cutter a coupla times here, cunningly bowled as a rank long-hop too), playing him means he has to open with the new ball or he's a waste of a spot in the team & if the ball doesn't swing first up he's just a waste anyway.

I can see why he was picked, actually. If they had gone for Mascarenhas, we were down to two bowlers who you'd expect to be taking wickets in this form of the game, and one of those (Broad) is very inexperienced. The problem was how they allocated their overs, imo.
Yeah, I can see the thinking that went on with Lewis's selection, even if it was just based on the old Headingley=swing idea, but as I said he has to open & that's disrupted a bowling plan that had been working half-decently (certainly by our low standards, anyway) & has also weakened the batting line-up. Didn't think Dimi had done too badly in the middle overs either, but I would agree he's not a genuine wicket-taking option at this level.

I think it shows that Moores is possibly more adaptable in his thinking than Big Dunc was (we also saw it with Tremlett being promoted from outside of the original squad to starting XI at Broad's expense in the tests), but whether that's a strength or a weakness is still a debateable point IMHO.
 

Top