England's worst ever series performances

[Furball]

For the last ****ing time, England's problem this series was their middle order batting. What ****ing difference would picking Steve Finn have made?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

No difference at all. He couldn't have done better than Monty, Anderson, Broad or Swann.

 

[honestbharani]

For the last ****ing time, England's problem this series was their middle order batting. What ****ing difference would picking Steve Finn have made?

No difference at all. He couldn't have done better than Monty, Anderson, Broad or Swann.

Are you guys seriously asking this?


He might well have scored more than Morgan for starters, and he might have gotten a couple of wickets cheaper than what they managed. Maybe he would have been able to break through the defence of Younis or Azhar. Maybe he would have slogged a 20 odd and got them to 160 instead of 140. Maybe he would have helped bowl them out for 89 instead of 99.


The bottomline is I still think he would have contributed more to this English side's cause of trying to beat Pakistan in these conditions than Morgan, and that is what you look at when picking a side.


But obviously, you gotta play 6 batsmen for the heck of it, clearly the rules state that.

 

[Jono]

Even if you think Finn would have done better than Morgan, as if you'd choose Finn instead of another middle order batsman though.

You agree in principle that they needed another batsman right? So say Bopara was actually decent, you'd pick him ahead of Finn right?

 

[honestbharani]

Even if you think Finn would have done better than Morgan, as if you'd choose Finn instead of another middle order batsman though.

You agree in principle that they needed another batsman right? So say Bopara was actually decent, you'd pick him ahead of Finn right?

Sure. Which is why I kept qualifying my statements that GIVEN the squad and the situation, I would pick Finn over Morgan. I don't rate Bopara either, so I would have picked Finn ahead of him too. Now if it was someone better than them, like say, a Colly or one of the new guys who are supposedly so good, then, it is a different story.


Team combinations are always a means to an end. If you think that 5-5-1 is a better combination than 6-4-1, you always go for that, esp. when the 6th batter is as woeful as Morgan.

 

[Jono]

Finn looks like the nicest bloke, tbf

 

[smash84]

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not having that. England were playing a team from the sub-continent but the conditions were nothing like you'd find in Pakistan or India. There was no energy sapping humidity, it was no warmer than a hot summers day in England, there was for the most part a pleasant breeze blowing across the grounds and although lacking pace there was plenty of bounce in all three wickets the teams played on. The bottom line is England were 'incompetent', period. They're simply hopeless against spin and they were thoroughly out played and rolled over by a mediocre team featuring one half decent quick and two 'offies'. This time next year we'll be where we should be in the rankings, third or fourth.
.

As if......

I can't wait for newbies to start getting confused by my avatar.

 

[marc71178]

Are you guys seriously asking this?

More to the point are you seriously still continuing this **** line of reasoning?

He might well have scored more than Morgan for starters, and he might have gotten a couple of wickets cheaper than what they managed.

Finn bowling would've meant one of the other 4 missing out. Seeing as all of the other 4 bowled better than was to be expected (and better than Finn has ever done so in the past) - you don't pick a 5th bowler in case of a couple of "mights"

 

[Shri]

Hb, what is this? I don't even-

 

[honestbharani]

More to the point are you seriously still continuing this **** line of reasoning?



Finn bowling would've meant one of the other 4 missing out. Seeing as all of the other 4 bowled better than was to be expected (and better than Finn has ever done so in the past) - you don't pick a 5th bowler in case of a couple of "mights"

Why again is he going to bowl their overs? He may well have bowled Trott's overs and a few more but really, even if you have 5 bowlers, you only bowl the ones who look like taking a wicket the most. I am just saying he might have been that guy in a couple of spells.


Look, picking a guy who might make a contribution is better than picking a guy who will not make a contribution. That is my reasoning, that's it. If it is too hard for you guys to get your heads around too, then just stop bringing it up every ****ing post.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Pakistan could have picked Umar Akmal over Cheema/Junaid, but they didn't because they thought Junaid /Cheema might suddenly be needed.

 

[Furball]

But obviously, you gotta play 6 batsmen for the heck of it, clearly the rules state that.

When the bowling is regularly dismissing the opposition for below par scores and the batting is struggling to put more than mediocre totals on board, then the solution is not to weaken the batting further by dropping a batsman for a bowler.

The solution was to drop Morgan for another batsman.

 

[Shri]

Exactly.

 

[honestbharani]

When the bowling is regularly dismissing the opposition for below par scores and the batting is struggling to put more than mediocre totals on board, then the solution is not to weaken the batting further by dropping a batsman for a bowler.

The solution was to drop Morgan for another batsman.

Exactly.

Am not arguing that. See my reply to Jono. But given I feel the replacement is of the same level as Morgan and there is no other specialist bat on the touring squad, I would have gladly replaced him with a bowler and moved everyone up one slot.

 

[Furball]

Morgan, regardless of how badly he was playing, is quite obviously a better batsman than Finn.

 

[Shri]

Am not arguing that. See my reply to Jono. But given I feel the replacement is of the same level as Morgan and there is no other specialist bat on the touring squad, I would have gladly replaced him with a bowler and moved everyone up one slot.

Thats why we are all saying its idiotic for starters. Chances of Morgan playing one good innings and winning a game 75/100. Some random bowler doing the same 1/100.

 

[Prince EWS]

Chances of Morgan playing one good innings and winning a game 75/100.

Generous.

 

[Shri]

Generous.

Replace Morgan with the word batsman.

 

[marc71178]

Why again is he going to bowl their overs? He may well have bowled Trott's overs and a few more but really, even if you have 5 bowlers, you only bowl the ones who look like taking a wicket the most. I am just saying he might have been that guy in a couple of spells.


Look, picking a guy who might make a contribution is better than picking a guy who will not make a contribution. That is my reasoning, that's it. If it is too hard for you guys to get your heads around too, then just stop bringing it up every ****ing post.

Dear god, I didn't think it was possible for your argument to get any worse, but you are actually doing it.

Trott bowled a whole 12 overs in 3 Tests, being used so sparingly because the other's were bowling well.

Now, if Finn were a top order batsman who was a better bowler than Trott then you might have a case for him playing in place of Morgan.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Going on Morgan's series performance, I think there's a case for him to replace him as a batsman if your not going to replace him with Davies.