• 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.

Ashes XI

S

Steulen

International Regular
Prince EWS said:
He is one of the four main bowlers. He nearly always bowls more overs than Jones/Anderson.
Click to expand...
That's the weird thing about the current England line-up. They have a specialist bowler who hardly bowls. As long as there are enough runs from no. 8, they can afford that luxury. But if Flintoff is regarded a full bowler workload-wise, why not have Giles - Hoggard - Harmison at 9-10-11 and do one of the following:

1) an extra batsman at 6 (this would make room for Pietersen, for instance) with a specialist keeper (Read) at 8.
2) an extra allrounder at 8 (Collingwood)
3) try out any young spinner you can find to see if he has what it takes

Oh, and the Ashes XI: Langer Strauss Ponting Martyn Katich Flintoff Gilchrist Warne Gillespie Harmison-at-home McGrath
 
Somerset

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Ashes Test XI:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Thorpe
Gilchrist
Flintoff
Warne
Gillespie
Harmison
McGrath

Ashes ODI XI:
Gilchrist
Trescothick
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Symonds
Flintoff
Hogg
Gillespie
Harmison
McGrath
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Judging by Mavric's side, only Flintoff....
Click to expand...
Not if Watson is picked !!

If Watson was picked, he would be there ahead of Flintoff.
 
SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
mavric41 said:
Hey to be fair, I think only Taibu would make the England side.
Click to expand...
Come on. You know thats not what I meant :)

Make a combined Australia-England side
or
a combined Australia-Zimbabwe side

whats the difference ? :)
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
FaaipDeOiad said:
He is not picked as such, in terms of being among the four main bowlers in the side. He is picked as an all-rounder.
Click to expand...
If England only had 4, Flintoff would be in for certain, he's a front line bowler with the ability to bat at 6.

In fact at the moment I'd say his bowling is ahead of his batting.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Steulen said:
That's the weird thing about the current England line-up. They have a specialist bowler who hardly bowls. As long as there are enough runs from no. 8, they can afford that luxury. But if Flintoff is regarded a full bowler workload-wise, why not have Giles - Hoggard - Harmison at 9-10-11 and do one of the following:

1) an extra batsman at 6 (this would make room for Pietersen, for instance) with a specialist keeper (Read) at 8.
2) an extra allrounder at 8 (Collingwood)
3) try out any young spinner you can find to see if he has what it takes

Oh, and the Ashes XI: Langer Strauss Ponting Martyn Katich Flintoff Gilchrist Warne Gillespie Harmison-at-home McGrath
Click to expand...
I semi-agree.

The way Flintoff has been bowling, the England side would look a lot more balanced with another allrounder at 7 and Read at 8, but the problem is, I cant really think of one worthy of playing test cricket. Rikki Clarke is a poor player full stop, and Collingwood's bowling isnt up to test level, nor is Kabir's batting (in fact I think hed struggle to even bat above Giles!).

Perhaps picking another specialist batsman and using Vaughan more would be an option, but Vaughan would have to want to bowl and be willing to work on it, and I dont think he would be willing to do this.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Steulen said:
Streak or Blignaut even
Click to expand...
Blignaut's bowling seems to have gone down the plughole in recent times (although his batting has really improved) so I doubt it.

Speaking of Streak though, he would be the ideal player to fix the situation I described in my last post about England's balance...
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Prince EWS said:
nor is Kabir's batting (in fact I think hed struggle to even bat above Giles!).
Click to expand...
Giles is a very under-rated person with the bat in hand.

Tends to bat at 6 or 7 for Warwickshire.
 
chaminda_00

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Steulen said:
That's the weird thing about the current England line-up. They have a specialist bowler who hardly bowls. As long as there are enough runs from no. 8, they can afford that luxury. But if Flintoff is regarded a full bowler workload-wise, why not have Giles - Hoggard - Harmison at 9-10-11 and do one of the following:

1) an extra batsman at 6 (this would make room for Pietersen, for instance) with a specialist keeper (Read) at 8.
2) an extra allrounder at 8 (Collingwood)
3) try out any young spinner you can find to see if he has what it takes

Oh, and the Ashes XI: Langer Strauss Ponting Martyn Katich Flintoff Gilchrist Warne Gillespie Harmison-at-home McGrath
Click to expand...
IMO playing Flintoff in a side with only four bowlers is too much of a workload for him. He does bowl more over then Anderson or Jones, but if you take them out of the side then he will have to bowl even more overs. I don't think England would use Bell, Vaughan or Trecothick too much with the bowl, so the four bowlers would take up Anderson/Jones' workload. It probably the best solution to get Read back in the Test side, but the extra workload on Flintoff will burn him out.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
chaminda_00 said:
IMO playing Flintoff in a side with only four bowlers is too much of a workload for him. He does bowl more over then Anderson or Jones, but if you take them out of the side then he will have to bowl even more overs. I don't think England would use Bell, Vaughan or Trecothick too much with the bowl, so the four bowlers would take up Anderson/Jones' workload. It probably the best solution to get Read back in the Test side, but the extra workload on Flintoff will burn him out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would take a decision to make Vaughan bowl more, and Im pretty sure he doesnt want to...

The only way it would work was if England had another good allrounder knocking at the door. He could then bat at 7, and have Read bat at number 8. But as far as I know, England do not posess this player, so their current setup is best. That is, of course, unless Vaughan decides to bowl more...
 
Link

Link

State Vice-Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
How could he make the test combined side? He's never even played a test!
Click to expand...
i mentioned that point in a sort of tounge-in-cheek fashion
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Link said:
i mentioned that point in a sort of tounge-in-cheek fashion
Click to expand...
I can see where FaaipDeOiad got confused.

When you said "thats a pretty low average" he thought you meant that the 2 people picking him was the low average, where you actually meant his test batting average of 0 was low.... An easy mistake to made the way you phrased it.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
marc71178 said:
If England only had 4, Flintoff would be in for certain, he's a front line bowler with the ability to bat at 6.

In fact at the moment I'd say his bowling is ahead of his batting.
Click to expand...
i would happily have freddy in the team as a bowler alone. He could replace any of the seamers asides maybe hoggard.
 
Link

Link

State Vice-Captain
sledger said:
i would happily have freddy in the team as a bowler alone. He could replace any of the seamers asides maybe hoggard.
Click to expand...
Its disturbingly true, thats just a great testament to how much he has come on in recent years. He is probally our best ODI bowler (Gough has too many limitations for me, age for a start). His batting is not eclipsed by his bowling though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top