Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
Even on a spinning track against a team who made Paul Harris look world class?Surely we're not seriously thinking of playing Rashid in the first test? I would way rather Onions.
Even on a spinning track against a team who made Paul Harris look world class?Surely we're not seriously thinking of playing Rashid in the first test? I would way rather Onions.
Rashid is a far better option as a 5th bowler or 2nd spinner than Panesar.Surely we're not seriously thinking of playing Rashid in the first test? I would way rather Onions.
As for Panesar, I think they just want to look at him first-hand. That would be fair enough.
Sidebottom has taken 7 wickets @ 31 and let England down badly in his last test.Now Sidey looks back to full pace, I'd say Onions is 5th in line...
Fair comment, I can see both sides.Sidebottom has taken 7 wickets @ 31 and let England down badly in his last test.
Onions has 41 FC wickets @ 14
Madness to throw Sidebottom in IMO
I just think it's a bit too much. He's hardly done anything this year (6 wickets in 4 innings). Not that that's entirely his fault, England have been dragging him around and not playing him for the last six months. I would just much rather have Onions, as a bowler in form.Even on a spinning track against a team who made Paul Harris look world class?
I would count his batting. It's worthless having Broad and Swann there if the tail can't hold out for 5 minutes.I just think it's a bit too much. He's hardly done anything this year (6 wickets in 4 innings). Not that that's entirely his fault, England have been dragging him around and not playing him for the last six months. I would just much rather have Onions, as a bowler in form.
And I wouldn't count his batting for anything, either. We have Broad and Swann already, so the other bowlers should be picked on merit.
We're really going to pick our No.10 by considering his batting? I really hope not.I would count his batting. It's worthless having Broad and Swann there if the tail can't hold out for 5 minutes.
Our numbers 6 and 7 are a place too high each, so why shouldn't our no 10 be two places too low? Law of averages dictates one of them might get runs. Maybe.We're really going to pick our No.6 by considering his keeping? I really hope not.
Yeah, but playing someone at 10 for their batting is a mistake. One/two wickets and it's all over. Even if they're good, it's likely they would just end up 10*.Our numbers 6 and 7 are a place too high each, so why shouldn't our no 10 be two places too low? Law of averages dictates one of them might get runs. Maybe.
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Rashid
That's arguably the strongest 6-9 (in batting) we've put out for a long time. We don't need to be selecting our bowlers at 10 & 11 on their batting ability.Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
I could go on with how poor some of these selections are but Im just going to single out that giving Australia a first hand look at both Onions and Rashid, two of England's unknowns for the Ashes, before the first test is about as poor a move as I've seen in a very long time. Both would have been better served by bowling to county batsmen in the game against Warwickshire.England Test squad for pre-Ashes camp:
Andrew Strauss (captain, Middlesex)
James Anderson (Lancashire)
Ian Bell (Warwickshire)
Ravi Bopara (Essex)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Stuart Broad (Nottinghamshire)
Paul Collingwood (Durham)
Alastair Cook (Essex)
Andrew Flintoff (Lancashire)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Monty Panesar (Northamptonshire)
Kevin Pietersen (Hampshire)
Matt Prior (Sussex)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Ryan Sidebottom (Nottinghamshire)
Graeme Swann (Nottinghamshire)
England team v Warwickshire at Edgbaston (July 1-3):
Andrew Strauss (captain)
James Anderson
Stuart Broad
Ravi Bopara
Paul Collingwood
Alastair Cook
Andrew Flintoff
Monty Panesar
Kevin Pietersen
Matt Prior
Graeme Swann
England Lions v Australia at Worcester (July 1-4):
Ian Bell (captain, Warwickshire)
Tim Bresnan (Yorkshire)
Joe Denly (Kent)
Steven Davies (Worcestershire)
Steve Harmison (Durham)
Saj Mahmood (Lancashire)
Stephen Moore (Worcestershire)
Eoin Morgan (Middlesex)
Graham Onions (Durham)
Adil Rashid (Yorkshire)
Vikram Solanki (Worcestershire)
True - can't remember the last time we played a genuine batsman at number 6. Although I can remember when we played Ambrose at 6, despite doing my level best to forget.That's arguably the strongest 6-9 (in batting) we've put out for a long time. We don't need to be selecting our bowlers at 10 & 11 on their batting ability.
That is a very good summary of the way to look at it. Although what if you can't choose between Panesar and Rashid on bowling? Just saying...of course if they think 2 spinners are needed and they pick Rashid as the inform spinner (though its debatable how much more succesful than Monty he's been) then his batting is an added bonus.
Depends on the pitch IMO. If the pitch is going to be a slow turner, England would be better served with something like Anderson, Onions, Flintoff, Swann and Rashid.Surely we're not seriously thinking of playing Rashid in the first test? I would way rather Onions.
As for Panesar, I think they just want to look at him first-hand. That would be fair enough.
Bopara in the West Indies?True - can't remember the last time we played a genuine batsman at number 6.
Ah. Oh.Bopara in the West Indies?
No Broad?Depends on the pitch IMO. If the pitch is going to be a slow turner, England would be better served with something like Anderson, Onions, Flintoff, Swann and Rashid.
Yeah, if there's nothing to choose between the bowlers then go for the one who can bat (and field) - sorry Monty!That is a very good summary of the way to look at it. Although what if you can't choose between Panesar and Rashid on bowling? Just saying...
How on earth is batting someone with 15 FC centuries at number 7 too high? FFS, I can understand that hes hardly batted much over the last few years, and looked in poor form mostly when he has, but to suggest that hes not good enough to bat at 7 is ridiculous.Our numbers 6 and 7 are a place too high each, so why shouldn't our no 10 be two places too low? Law of averages dictates one of them might get runs. Maybe.
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Rashid
Onions is the man in form, and he has a much better FC and test record than Broad. If anyone should miss out for the extra spinner it should be Broad IMO, although I would still have him back for the 2nd test at Lords.No Broad?
Flintoff's batting relies almost entirely on having his eye in, otherwise he's just a lower order slogger (although a good one). And his eye couldn't be more out if it was at the top of a very large spiked pole in the Antarctic.How on earth is batting someone with 15 FC centuries at number 7 too high? FFS, I can understand that hes hardly batted much over the last few years, and looked in poor form mostly when he has, but to suggest that hes not good enough to bat at 7 is ridiculous.