England - A rabble?

[Langeveldt]

I agree, also Monty should be playing Giles can only get a couple of wickets every couple of matches Monty seems more bowling consistent (He's a rubish batter and fielder though.) but he can take wickets.

He's had one good season.. We don't know if he can dominate any Australian batsmen.. People are banding Panesar around like he's some sort of solution.. he's just a good bowler who probably should have been picked ahead of Giles

 

[BoyBrumby]

Obviously Jonah is a huge miss, regardless of how much he'd have got the Duke to reverse. Our openers not having a fifty between them from 8 digs hasn't helped either.

I'd also partly blame not learning from the mistakes of our last tour; then we came with (from memory) with Fred & Gough both in various states of disrepair & this time we named Giles & Anderson in the team despite them being short of cricket (to put it politely), ignoring the success that Panesar had in our summer.

Harmison has been awful, stating the obvious as that is. Personally I hope we don't make the same mistake as Oz did with Gillespie last year, but I've little doubt he'll play at Perth.

 

[cover drive man]

He's had one good season.. We don't know if he can dominate any Australian batsmen.. People are banding Panesar around like he's some sort of solution.. he's just a good bowler who probably should have been picked ahead of Giles

I read an intresting interview with Warne before the ashes he said if he plays some of us (meaning ausies) might try to atack him even if it costs the odd wicket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Harmison has been awful, stating the obvious as that is. Personally I hope we don't make the same mistake as Oz did with Gillespie last year, but I've little doubt he'll play at Perth.

I expect he will play at Perth, but that'll be a last chance scenario for him, unless he England loses. If he takes 3 or 4 wickets in the match he will be persisted with though, regardless of the cost.

If England loses that match, Harmison will likely play out the series once he's not injured.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's had one good season.. We don't know if he can dominate any Australian batsmen.. People are banding Panesar around like he's some sort of solution.. he's just a good bowler who probably should have been picked ahead of Giles

He doesn't have to dominate Australian batsmen to be more effective than Giles. Chris Gayle is probably a more effective bowler than Giles at the moment - short on match practice and all. I think the main thing is that you play your best players, and Panesar > Giles, regardless of matchwinning ability.

 

[Langeveldt]

He doesn't have to dominate Australian batsmen to be more effective than Giles. Chris Gayle is probably a more effective bowler than Giles at the moment - short on match practice and all. I think the main thing is that you play your best players, and Panesar > Giles, regardless of matchwinning ability.

I'd play an extra batsman (or fast bowler) and have Pietersen as a part time spin bowler.. I don't think England have a spin bowler capable of winning them a game, and Pietersen is as effective as Giles if you want a part time option..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd play an extra batsman (or fast bowler) and have Pietersen as a part time spin bowler.. I don't think England have a spin bowler capable of winning them a game, and Pietersen is as effective as Giles if you want a part time option..

Panesar is probably more effective than Harmison and Anderson right now though.

 

[greg]

I'd play an extra batsman (or fast bowler) and have Pietersen as a part time spin bowler.. I don't think England have a spin bowler capable of winning them a game, and Pietersen is as effective as Giles if you want a part time option..

What a load of cobblers. You can just ignore the fact that Panesar has already won games for England with the ball, or you can just continue to treat this Aussie batting lineup as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Panesar is currently in England's top 3 bowlers, on all surfaces and should be in the team. His supposed 'form' on this tour (which for all the talk has not produced anything but respectable figures) has involved him not bowling once on anything older than a third day pitch. And people clearly don't understand test cricket if they think a four man pace attack (especially a four man pace attack with one man carrying an injury and two others woefully out of form) is seriously viable in test cricket. The only reason the Windies were able to get away with it was because they bowled their overs at 11-12 an hour.

So Panesar apparently shouldn't be in the team because "England don't have a spinner who can win them a game"? Perhaps they should just settle for two bowlers, Flintoff and Hoggard to bowl ALL their overs in that case, and just play 9 batsmen?

 

[greg]

I read an intresting interview with Warne before the ashes he said if he plays some of us (meaning ausies) might try to atack him even if it costs the odd wicket.

Hardly a reason not to play him, is it? I don't see the Australians giving their wickets away to any of our other bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

Well, Harmison, Anderson and Giles have all seen more concerts than they've taken test wickets on tour.

Having said that, the concerts can't be blamed for the poor showing, but it seems their taste in music might.

It's just not a good look I suppose when you aren't winning. If they were 2-0 up, no one would give a cobblers about it.

 

[cover drive man]

Hardly a reason not to play him, is it? I don't see the Australians giving their wickets away to any of our other bowlers.

Of course that just might be the magazine stiring things up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How exactly was the first 2 and a bit days of the 2nd Test a "poor showing"

If that Giles catch had been taken, then Australia 4 down for less than 100 whilst facing 551 isn't the worst position England have been in.

The Giles catch wasn't taken though, and England are 2-0 down...whittling the effort down to days, then sessions, then good minutes of play doesn't cover the fact they are way behind. I don't say this to gloat over Australia's position in the tests, but things are getting pretty desperate when this is what supporter's of the team are reduced to in order to defend their performance. I really want to see a tight contest in some of the remaining tests and hope England step up to the plate.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not defending the performance so much as pointing out that it's nowhere near as bad as has been made out.

That Second Test was lost in a couple of hours of awful batting - it wasn't like the whole match was one disaster show after another.

 

[Langeveldt]

What a load of cobblers. You can just ignore the fact that Panesar has already won games for England with the ball, or you can just continue to treat this Aussie batting lineup as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I'd say they were better than sliced bread, certainly the best batting lineup in the world at the moment.. I seem to remember both Harmison and Anderson winning games for England with the ball, and a fat lot of good that has done this tour.. It's a very typical English reaction to build someone up as soon as they have done something good and then shoot them down when they stop producing the goods, I prefer to wait until they've been playing for a few years. (Unless they are as obviously tripe as Mahmood or R. Peterson)

So Panesar apparently shouldn't be in the team because "England don't have a spinner who can win them a game"? Perhaps they should just settle for two bowlers, Flintoff and Hoggard to bowl ALL their overs in that case, and just play 9 batsmen?

I don't think that would be a good idea, sounds pretty silly to me.

 

[silentstriker]

I seem to remember both Harmison and Anderson winning games for England with the ball, and a fat lot of good that has done this tour..

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You should ignore bowlers who win you matches with the ball? Panesar may or may not be effective, we don't know yet, but he's proven he should get the chance on back of his performances.

 

[shortpitched713]

(Unless they are as obviously tripe as Mahmood or R. Peterson)

Mahmood has as much, if not more potential to be a matchwinner for England as Harmison. I think it should be pretty much a 50-50 between him and Anderson for the 3rd Test. Posssibly in favor of Mahmood as the pitch is reported to be as flat as a pancake.

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You should ignore bowlers who win you matches with the ball? Panesar may or may not be effective, we don't know yet, but he's proven he should get the chance on back of his performances.

Not at all (I'd have had Panesar ahead of Giles if it was one or the other)

I'd just rather have an effective pace bowler over an unproven Spin bowler.. Mind you, in Englands case that probably isn't possible at the moment.. Lets just say if Simon Jones was fit I'd play him, leaving no specialist spinner in the team

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not at all (I'd have had Panesar ahead of Giles if it was one or the other)

I'd just rather have an effective pace bowler over an unproven Spin bowler.. Mind you, in Englands case that probably isn't possible at the moment.. Lets just say if Simon Jones was fit I'd play him, leaving no specialist spinner in the team

Why would you play Jones ahead of Panesar instead of Anderson or Harmison?

 

[Langeveldt]

Why would you play Jones ahead of Panesar instead of Anderson or Harmison?

I have more faith in one of them recovering form than Panesar continuing his..

Also, unless Perth has changed dramatically, Harmison should be a handful.. Bet he won't be though

 

[GIMH]

I have more faith in one of them recovering form than Panesar continuing his..

Also, unless Perth has changed dramatically, Harmison should be a handful.. Bet he won't be though

Damn shame noone took that bet