Does in retrospectBob Wills saying that sending someone like Swann in at 3 to try and hit a few quick runs would be a good idea. What do you think? Reckon it would have been worth a go.
He is, but he does play back a bit too much. Hence "or".Thought Prior was the best player of spin bowling in the XI?
The top six are all specialist batsmen; it's up to them to do the job when you've got four sessions to chase 150. There shouldn't be any need to do anything out of the ordinary in such a case really.Bob Wills saying that sending someone like Swann in at 3 to try and hit a few quick runs would be a good idea. What do you think? Reckon it would have been worth a go.
Was thinking about it before to be honest. Especially considering Broad looked like he was playing the spinners the best.Does in retrospect
Prior moving up does too, and it wouldn't've been as outrageous.
Yeah, at least he actually plays back though; he doesn't just play from the crease like Bell has in this series.He is, but he does play back a bit too much. Hence "or".
Quite.Yeah, at least he actually plays back though; he doesn't just play from the crease like Bell has in this series.
AgreedNot a fan of sending players like Swann up the order to get quick runs, not in this sort of situation anyway. If they were renowned as a truly devastating batsman like Gilchrist or something then yeah I'd give it a go. But sending in bowlers who can bat a bit in the hope they might score runs....no, if they fail then it just puts you extra wickets down, puts extra pressure on the rest of the batsman, and increases the chances of a genuine batsman being stranded without a partner.
Wouldn't if he was trapped on the crease first ball.Sending Swann in at 3 would be a bit spewy but it does let you see what you can get away with in terms of attacking shots.