***Official England in India***

[Prince EWS]

Thought he was being rested?

And thought "quite damn right he should be too" when I read it.

Yeah, it wouldn't shock me at all if he asked for a rest after being named. Probably best for all concerned to release a statement saying he has a minor injury though - saves the controversy.

 

[Richard]

Haha, yeah, I seem to recall petitions against the Australian rotation policy and nonsense like that. All very well for those who've never played cricket, have no idea how much effort it takes, and whose only interests are their own short-term ones for seeing such-and-such player.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, yeah, I seem to recall petitions against the Australian rotation policy and nonsense like that. All very well for those who've never played cricket, have no idea how much effort it takes, and whose only interests are their own short-term ones for seeing such-and-such player.

The Australian rotation policy at one time took it a step further though - players who neither needed nor wanted a rest were stood down just to give others players a go, which IMO cheapened the entire thing. The schedule is so packed these days that players resting from ODIs is a necessary evil but it becomes a different matter when players are genuinely rotated rather than rested to prevent burnout, injury etc.

 

[Richard]

As I recall, the strategy behind the old Australian resting in home tri-series cricket was to rest someone before they became desperately in need of it rather than as it happened.

To avoid overwork rather than allow recovery from it.

 

[Prince EWS]

As I recall, the strategy behind the old Australian resting in home tri-series cricket was to rest someone before they became desperately in need of it rather than as it happened.

Yes that was the official line but I think it was a little more sinister than that.

 

[Uppercut]

Yes that was the official line but I think it was a little more sinister than that.

They're only ODIs, therefore it was the right decision.

 

[Richard]

Yes that was the official line but I think it was a little more sinister than that.

Sinister eh? ITSTL choice of words.

 

[andruid]

I hereby predict that because England will struggle to get 20 wivkets aon a regular basis whilst their batting will show itself to be more flexible than the Aussies that the test series when it does eventuallyoccur will be a dull 0-0 draw.

 

[Speersy]

I hereby predict that because England will struggle to get 20 wivkets aon a regular basis whilst their batting will show itself to be more flexible than the Aussies that the test series when it does eventuallyoccur will be a dull 0-0 draw.

thats laughable, seriously

 

[silentstriker]

I think the English bowling will be better in India. I don't think any bowler will be quite as ineffective as, for example, Lee was.

Their batting should be decent, same as Australia.

 

[GIMH]

A reasonable opinion as long as you consider the Mail, Express, News of the World, Star, Sun and Sport as comics rather than newspapers. TBH, i read no paper, just find the independent considerably less offensively stupid than most others.

Yeah, not a tabloid reader but let's say I don't agree with the views generally expressed in the "Independent"

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, not a tabloid reader but let's say I don't agree with the views generally expressed in the "Independent"

I often don't either, but they're well enough put across that i don't find them offensive. And they certainly give space to more opinions than one, which isn't true of many others. The Times is still Murdochian, and the Telegraph isn't the most riveting read. The only other paper i'd look at is the Guardian.

 

[GIMH]

Any of the four you mentioned have good sports sections, which is the most important thing really. After that the next thing I read for is the politics, so I usually like what I get in The Times.

 

[andruid]

thats laughable, seriously

I'm tellin' ya

 

[Uppercut]

Any of the four you mentioned have good sports sections, which is the most important thing really. After that the next thing I read for is the politics, so I usually like what I get in The Times.

For football, there's no paper that comes close in any department to Football365. Cricket tends to get very little coverage in any paper i've picked up, and rugby union writers have an unnerving tendency to not have the slightest idea what they're talking about. The internet is the place to find good sports coverage.


Tbh, the sport section i enjoyed most was the saturday edition of the Mirror from a while back. It's been going downhill for far too long now though.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, I always found the cricket pages in the Sunday Times an excellent read

 

[Richard]

I think the English bowling will be better in India. I don't think any bowler will be quite as ineffective as, for example, Lee was.

If India bat similarly (admittedly unlikely as at least 1 player will be different) and the pitches are similar, I can't see Harmison not being every bit as ineffective if not more. I don't have massive hopes for Anderson or Sidebottom either TBH.

Flintoff, though, clearly has skills none of the Aussie bowlers do and I'd be disappointed if he doesn't outbowl the lot of them. And Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma to boot too. Likewise, should the Indians treat MSP the same as they did Krejza (admittedly his bowling invites that sort of treatment) he'll almost certainly pick-up a stack if there's anything in the pitches.

Their batting should be decent, same as Australia.

I doubt it. Hayden, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Haddin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Strauss, Cook, Shah, Pietersen, Bell, Collingwood, Ambrose\Prior. Though I'm certainly not devoid of hope for any of the aforementioned and if India's bowling isn't as good as it was against Australia (perfectly possible) I'd hope they might be able to cash-in.

 

[GIMH]

You don't think Flintoff will bat in the top 7 Rich?

 

[Richard]

I hereby predict that because England will struggle to get 20 wivkets aon a regular basis whilst their batting will show itself to be more flexible than the Aussies that the test series when it does eventuallyoccur will be a dull 0-0 draw.

I'd be very disappointed if we get two drawn Tests. I hope there'll be enough in the two pitches to make this very difficult.

Think it says a fair bit about CW, BTW, that despite the fact we've 7 ODIs coming-up almost all discussion centres on the 2 Tests further down the line.

 

[Richard]

You don't think Flintoff will bat in the top 7 Rich?

Probably, I just find it such an absurd suggestion that I don't think about it.

Seriously, now you mention it I imagine it'll be Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Ambrose\Prior, 4 bowlers. Not what I'd do, but I reckon that's by far the likeliest scenario.