• 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*** English Domestic Season 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
I damn well hope not, Prior was left-out because his wicketkeeping wasn't good enough and precisely zero has changed.

If Ambrose has a poor series against SA - far from OOTQ, I might add - I seriously hope James Foster is the next in line.

If, of course, they don't decide Steven Davies is ready by then. And pending his current season, I'm beginning to think the time would nearly be ripe myself.
Yup to Foster. tbh I haven't followed Davies' score closely enough to comment.
But when you wouldn't feel safe playing your best two bowlers as part of a 4-man attack, a keeper who can bat in the top 6 becomes an attractive proposition. Unless Fred scores a few more runs and he bats at 6 again, I suppose. Wouldn't want to see that myself, though.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Your best bowlers (or any others) are no use if your 'keeper can't keep.

A wicketkeeper who can keep to the requistite standards is the most important thing, and to lose sight of that in an attempt to "balance" the team because Flintoff's batting isn't good enough would be catastrophic.

I'm totally confident, in any case, that Ambrose and Davies are both capable of being top-six batsmen. Probably more so than Prior.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Your best bowlers (or any others) are no use if your 'keeper can't keep.

A wicketkeeper who can keep to the requistite standards is the most important thing, and to lose sight of that in an attempt to "balance" the team because Flintoff's batting isn't good enough would be catastrophic.

I'm totally confident, in any case, that Ambrose and Davies are both capable of being top-six batsmen. Probably more so than Prior.
Having Ambrose/Davies at 6 leads makes the batting order incredibly weak, if you were the opposition you'd be delighted to see Tim Ambrose coming in at 4 wickets down, it's not an option for me, especialy with the amount of specialist batsmen we have waiting in the wings.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I guess I have a higher opinion of the batting skills of Ambrose and Davies than you do then TBH. I've always thought both could definately play, something I've never really thought about Prior.

BTW, something else I should add - it's utterly ridiculous that in this day-and-age the Varsity Match is still a First-Class game. 8-)
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I guess I have a higher opinion of the batting skills of Ambrose and Davies than you do then TBH. I've always thought both could definately play, something I've never really thought about Prior.

BTW, something else I should add - it's utterly ridiculous that in this day-and-age the Varsity Match is still a First-Class game. 8-)
Meh, why not, it's a very historical fixture and it's not doing much damage by being so.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Means you get players playing First-Class cricket who have no right to do so on merit, nor come close to having merit right to do so.

At least with the likes of Gareth Andrew and Chris Wright, who obviously have no right to be playing First-Class cricket on merit either, you know that some idiot simply thought they were better than they are.
 

brockley

International Captain
US aussies have produced another aussie player for england cricket,now darren pattinson named in their 30 man squad for the icc knockout squad.
Wonder when england will return the favour to us one day 8-) .
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
Am I the only that thinks the amount of drawn matches makes the championship a bit, well, crap?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't mind a drawn match where a full game is played-out.

But I think it'd be foolish to suggest that the amount of overs lost in the Championship isn't unacceptably high.

Another good thing about reducing the number of games in a Championship season and getting rid of the Pro40 would be that you could have plenty of reserve to make-up lost play. This'd require a tiny tweak in one-day cricket, and a playing-condition change in First-Class. But it'd be more than worth it IMO.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Means you get players playing First-Class cricket who have no right to do so on merit, nor come close to having merit right to do so.

At least with the likes of Gareth Andrew and Chris Wright, who obviously have no right to be playing First-Class cricket on merit either, you know that some idiot simply thought they were better than they are.


As open365 says, what harm does it do? People get very precious about first-class (and ODI) status and records in general, when there's really no need. If the Bermuda v Canada match starting tomorrow can have first-class status (something I don't mind at all) then surely a match that's been going for more than 170 years can as well. Not that many years ago, it was also afforded to teams like Combined Services and Free Foresters, as well as games between universities and MCC (which no longer have it).

As always, I'm aware of the age gap here; the older you get the more you come to appreciate tradition, perhaps when some of you are a little older you'll do likewise.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
I don't mind a drawn match where a full game is played-out.

But I think it'd be foolish to suggest that the amount of overs lost in the Championship isn't unacceptably high.

Another good thing about reducing the number of games in a Championship season and getting rid of the Pro40 would be that you could have plenty of reserve to make-up lost play. This'd require a tiny tweak in one-day cricket, and a playing-condition change in First-Class. But it'd be more than worth it IMO.
What are your thoughts on full 5-day cricket?

Obviously unfeasible under the current schedule, but if time could be made, I think it would improve standards and the competetiveness of the league.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Ambrose at 6 would be a huge leap of faith, even though he could hardly score less runs than Collingwood has lately. I think someone who matters will fancy Prior in that position before too long, and we'll all hold our breath whenever one of the other sides' batsmen nicks one.

Totally take your point about Fred & Jones as part of a four-man attack. It would be less problematical if we got more out of our batsmen-who-can-bowl.
Well I mean, Id rather have Ambrose or whoever at 6 if it means that Fred and Jones will be part of the same attack. It does make the middle order slightly weak, but Flintoff at 7 and Broad at 8 would at least make the lower order somewhat competent.
Personally, unless we had another all rounder, I cannot see how having more batsmen who could bowl would make much of a difference. Collingwood is about as good of a bit part medium pacer as you are likely to get. I wish Vaughan would actually consider bowling a bit more because on the rare occasion, he has actually looked somewhat of a competent test match spin bowler. However, at the end of the day, you need 4 full time regular bowlers to take 20 wickets, and no just because Steve Waugh did it once or twice in the 90s doesn't mean it was anything other than stupid to go in with less. With Flintoff and Jones both injury prone and Panesar not good enough to be relied upon to bowl long spells when the conditions aren't in his favor (much in the same vein as Giles for he is troubled by batsmen that try to dominate him) it could leave England with a seriously disastrous situation if one or both of Jones and Flintoff breakdown.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Ambrose at 6 would be a total disaster, he's clearly not a good enough player to bat higher than 7 in tests.
No he is not. But there needs to be a compromise here. Personally, the number of runs that Bell/Collingwood would score at 6 over Tim Ambrose is probably far less beneficial to the side than the merits of having Jones and Flintoff in the same side.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
No he is not. But there needs to be a compromise here. Personally, the number of runs that Bell/Collingwood would score at 6 over Tim Ambrose is probably far less beneficial to the side than the merits of having Jones and Flintoff in the same side.
Yeh looking at the overall balance of the side I see your point,

Really, it's just swapping fred + keeper around(when fred used to bat 6 anyway), so it's not as far fetched as I thought it was.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Well I mean, Id rather have Ambrose or whoever at 6 if it means that Fred and Jones will be part of the same attack. It does make the middle order slightly weak, but Flintoff at 7 and Broad at 8 would at least make the lower order somewhat competent.
Personally, unless we had another all rounder, I cannot see how having more batsmen who could bowl would make much of a difference. Collingwood is about as good of a bit part medium pacer as you are likely to get. I wish Vaughan would actually consider bowling a bit more because on the rare occasion, he has actually looked somewhat of a competent test match spin bowler. However, at the end of the day, you need 4 full time regular bowlers to take 20 wickets, and no just because Steve Waugh did it once or twice in the 90s doesn't mean it was anything other than stupid to go in with less. With Flintoff and Jones both injury prone and Panesar not good enough to be relied upon to bowl long spells when the conditions aren't in his favor (much in the same vein as Giles for he is troubled by batsmen that try to dominate him) it could leave England with a seriously disastrous situation if one or both of Jones and Flintoff breakdown.

Although your reasons for not being overly confident of picking Flintoff & Jones in a 4-man bowling attack is fair given their injury record. But if we are going to now pick them & yet have to unbalance the side with the thought at the back of our minds that they could break down any minute in a test match, well then why consider them at all regardless of their ability?

But given that ENG cannot forget such players, it is pretty much up to the physio/doctors etc to give the selectors the green light that these two slatwarts can last 5 days, since as i said it makes no sense picking them if they have the bodies of 70 year olds.

Once their fitness is claried then the best ENG XI for me would be:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Jones
Sidebottom/Hoggard
Panesar

Obviously some players have question marks over them or competition:

Strauss - needs to overcome to SA so as to convince all he is back.

Cook - although of late looks at bit sluggish & tentative at the crease would be backing him to come good, has the natural ability to do it IMHO

Bell - needs to take it to the next level pretty soon.

Ambrose - potentially has Prior (if his glovework improves) & Foster breathing down his neck if he lapses.

Sidebottom/Hoggard - well you would agree Hoggard hasn't really lost anything just was dropped foolishly in NZ (Anderson saving the selectors blushes with a good performance) & can't be recalled unless one of Broad/Anderson fails. So given that Freddie & Jones once fit are our two most reliable bowlers in most conditions we would only have room for one swing bowler so depending on who shows the best form will decide which of Sidebottom/Hoggard plays.
 

stumpski

International Captain
Really looking forward to Durham - Kent, but Colville has annoyed me already. Three times he's said that Collingwood 'insisted on playing' today. It's six days to the Test, ffs, and Andrew Strauss has just started a three-day game against South Africa.

Durham won toss and put Kent in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top