*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Richard]

I refuse to believe that there's any form of bright side whatsoever about Ian Bell.

Bell's far better than Broad though TBH, for all his failures Bell has scored centuries in 3 consecutive Tests, and made the best part of a 200; Broad has never come close to the bowling equivalent of that.

 

[Pizzorno]

Bell's far better than Broad though TBH, for all his failures Bell has scored centuries in 3 consecutive Tests, and made the best part of a 200; Broad has never come close to the bowling equivalent of that.

Broad has bowled a couple of centuries to be fair.

 

[Richard]

Yes you're right that the abandonment should not officially count as an appearance. However, to disregard his two other performances because he was not first choice is both lame and incorrect to do so, it doesn't matter how he was selected, he was picked to play for England and should be judged on his performances there, you cannot simply write them off!

I wasn't disregarding or writing them off - he in fact performed well in them, so in constructing a positive case for him that'd make no sense.

However, the point I was making was irrelevant to how Shah has performed. The point is about how much selectorial faith he has enjoyed - or rather, hasn't. Bell has played 50-odd Tests as a first-choice; Shah has played 3. Given that Shah has performed no worse than Bell in domestic cricket, this is hardly fair.

 

[Woodster]

I wasn't disregarding or writing them off - he in fact performed well in them, so in constructing a positive case for him that'd make no sense.

However, the point I was making was irrelevant to how Shah has performed. The point is about how much selectorial faith he has enjoyed - or rather, hasn't. Bell has played 50-odd Tests as a first-choice; Shah has played 3. Given that Shah has performed no worse than Bell in domestic cricket, this is hardly fair.

Yes fair enough mate, was just confused with the 'three Test' line thought I had missed one of your theories. You're right in that he performed well, certainly in one of the four innings, his 88 in Mumbai. His debut home Test against WI at Lords was a bit of a write off though. However, we digress from the original point, my fault for leading us that way.

 

[JBH001]

Do believe that Broad needs to start justifying himself a bit more with the bat. Has flattered to deceive thus far.

 

[Uppercut]

Indeed, and that's exactly why Australia need to stop giving him the new ball starting next game if he plays. Sets the tone for the rest of the innings as well if one team is able to get off to a flyer.

The problem with giving Siddle the new ball is that he can't attack the stumps. They'd just end up defending at Sid's end with the new ball, then Johnson would come on after ten overs anyway, only with a ball that's a little older. Bit of an awkward one for Ponting.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Disagree that Siddle can't attack the stumps. Very good at thumping the ball in stump to stump, done it regularly for Victoria and on slower wickets. More that Ponting rathers having 6-3 or 7-2 fields for his first change bowlers, especially after a good start.

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree that Siddle can't attack the stumps. Very good at thumping the ball in stump to stump, done it regularly for Victoria and on slower wickets. More that Ponting rathers having 6-3 or 7-2 fields for his first change bowlers, especially after a good start.

I mean against the two left-handers. The vast, vast majority of balls will be missing the stumps. Or pitching a mile outside leg. And he generally moves it away from the lefties too. Hey, it could work. Cricket's not as logical as us armchair analysts on here like to let on. It's just not ideal.

 

[zaremba]

Distinctly average really....
Included season stats of those others who have been mentioned in this thread.

Joyce - 445 runs @ 37.08 with a HS of 100 (1 ton and 2 50s)
Trott - 671 runs @ 95.85 with a HS of 166 (3 tons and 1 50)
Bell - 647 runs @ 71.88 with a HS of 172 (2 tons and 4 50s)
Hildreth - 728 runs @ 60.66 with a HS of 303* (2 tons and 3 50s)

Shah - 345 runs @ 57.50 with a HS of 159 (1 ton and 2 50s)
Key - 499 runs @ 62.37 with a HS of 270* (2 tons and 0 50s)
Ramprakash - 721 runs @ 72.10 with a HS of 138 (3 tons and 2 50s)

Yes but another factor is Joyce's one day form which has been excellent - he's averaging 64.6 with 3 centuries and has played some outstanding match winning innings.

I'm not one of those who believe that you can be in good form in OD cricket and out of form in other forms of the game.

 

[zaremba]

Part of me would quite like to see Ramps selected, for the simple reason that it would reflect an acknolwedgment on the part of the selectors that the Ashes is not the time to be building for the future, it's the time to pick your best players.

It won't happen, of course, and even if it did the pressure (magnified by the inevitable media pant-wetting spree) would be pretty intense on a man who's not necessarily reacted all that well to it in the past.

Having said that, good record v Australia, and this Aussie attack wouldn't be out of place in CC Div 2 where he's evidently been gorging himself again this season.

 

[zaremba]

Edgbaston pitch "like jelly"

Another reason why Chubb Key will be extra keen to be selected

 

[Son Of Coco]

Broad has bowled a couple of centuries to be fair.

 

[Uppercut]

Edgbaston pitch "like jelly"

Another reason why Chubb Key will be extra keen to be selected

Do you think there's a danger of England retreating into their shell and playing too defensively for the rest of the series having gone 1-0 up?

 

[Pup Clarke]

and this Aussie attack wouldn't be out of place in CC Div 2

Haha come off it!

 

[four_or_six]

Edgbaston pitch "like jelly"

Another reason why Chubb Key will be extra keen to be selected

Lol, well this worked 4 years ago in getting Ponting to bowl first but I'm not sure he's going to repeat his error.

 

[jondavluc]

Having said that, good record v Australia, and this Aussie attack wouldn't be out of place in CC Div 2 where he's evidently been gorging himself again this season.

Ummmmm Ok ........Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Uppercut]

Zaremba learning the value of a "POST IN JEST" disclaimer.

 

[Richard]

The problem with giving Siddle the new ball is that he can't attack the stumps. They'd just end up defending at Sid's end with the new ball, then Johnson would come on after ten overs anyway, only with a ball that's a little older. Bit of an awkward one for Ponting.

Even though Siddle isn't an ideal new-ball bowler (where Hilfenhaus certainly is), if the attack is going to remain composed of the four it has been in the first two Tests - and there's a perfectly fair case for it doing so - then it simply has to be a new-ball pairing of Hilfenhaus and Siddle. Johnson has wasted the new-ball so badly that there's no way they can risk that happening again.

 

[zaremba]

Zaremba learning the value of a "POST IN JEST" disclaimer.

I did mean to add one. But then I forgot. Mind you I'd bet on most CC Div 2 attacks managing to dismiss Monty Panesar if given 13 overs to do so. So perhaps the Aussie attack would be out of place there after all.

 

[Richard]

I'm not one of those who believe that you can be in good form in OD cricket and out of form in other forms of the game.

I'd ask Nick Knight about his 2002 season then TBH. It may not be very common, but it can certainly happen.

Either way, Joyce is clearly not out-of-nick in either format this summer so far.