Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
Even on a spinning track against a team who made Paul Harris look world class?
-
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.
England 17-man squad
- Thread starter four_or_six
- Start date
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Rashid is a far better option as a 5th bowler or 2nd spinner than Panesar.
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
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
Fair comment, I can see both sides.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I would count his batting. It's worthless having Broad and Swann there if the tail can't hold out for 5 minutes.
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
We're really going to pick our No.10 by considering his batting? I really hope not.
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
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
four_or_six
Cricketer Of The Year
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*.
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.
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.
tooextracool
International Coach
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.
Well another England selection ****-up, what a surprise this.
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
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 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...
tooextracool
International Coach
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.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Bopara in the West Indies?
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
Ah.
Oh.But one of the other "batsmen" was Bell, who doesn't count. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
No Broad?
Yeah, if there's nothing to choose between the bowlers then go for the one who can bat (and field) - sorry Monty!
Worryingly, Aggers seems to think the side picked to play Warwickshire will be the side. Which means that Monty gets picked despite picking up his last 20 test wickets at an average of 44 and having picked up 6 first class wickets at 86 ALL season!
tooextracool
International Coach
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.
tooextracool
International Coach
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.
Penguinissimo
U19 12th Man
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.
I think it's reasonably ridiculous to be assessing a player based on what he used to be able to do. At the moment, we have no evidence whatsoever that Flintoff is a top 7 batsman. He is a bowler who can bat occasionally to me.