***Official*** 1st Test at The Gabba

[Matt79]

I actually thought Anderson produced some decent overs in conditions that obviously didn't suit him. I suppose the question is whether conditions are ever going to suit him in Oz.

 

[tooextracool]

conditions are never going to suit a bowler who cant bowl accurately. Anderson had his moments this test match, but by and large his accuracy was disgraceful and he either hasnt got enough practice under his belt or simply isnt test class at the moment.

 

[Matt79]

I think this test has shown the stupidity of not including enough acclimitization time into tours. I know the quest for the almighty dollar requires they squeeze as much international cricket in as possible, but one-sided squash matches damage the brand. Australia has lost something like only 6 matches at home since 1995, and you suspect some of the reason is that teams rock up to the Gabba every tour not adequately prepared. Even play the one-dayers first or something if tour matches can't be allowed.

 

[Goughy]

Flintoffs batting must bring people round to my long held belief that England must play 6 specialist batsmen.

Flintoff is a natural #7 and there just are not enough overs in a day to justify 4 specialist bowlers and Flintoff.

Flintoff at 6 makes Englands batting lineup very weak. Who knows, the extra batsman may have already led to this Test being far closer to being saved.

Giles bowled 30 out of 200 overs. Whats the point playing him. He would be a useful player if he averaged 40 with the bat but his inclusion plays havoc with balance.

England must pick 6-1-1-3 for the next Test and demand one of the batsman fills in when needed.

 

[Matt79]

Agreed, except for occasions where they want to play two specialist spinners on favourable tracks.

From what I've seen Pieterson is a decent enough trundler and Collingwood handy enough to chance only taking 4 bowlers.

For most of the 2005 series one of the 5 bowlers was always underbowled - usually Hoggard.

 

[irfan]

Yep Hoggy bowled the opening spell and then trundled off

 

[Perm]

Pietersen, Bell and Collingwood are more than capable of picking up the slack when required. Kevin Pietersen especially showed how good he can be with a couple of really good deliveries that beat Michael Hussey's outisde edge and Collingwood bowls regularly in ODI games. Flintoff is definately a #7.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can see the reasoning behind it, but after a team takes 10 wickets for 800+ it would be a slightly odd response to drop a bowler, wouldn't it?

 

[Matt79]

But as stated before, the answer to your problems isn't an extra mediocre bowler in the team. It's not like Harmison, Anderson and Giles' performance suffered because they were overbowled, they were just average.

 

[Perm]

Considering none of them bowled well then not really, we all know that England have the potential to bowl a lot better than they did in this test match. Ponting, Langer and Hussey all feasted on some pretty poor bowling from Harmison and Anderson while Hoggard was only effective at times and Giles didn't bowl that much at all.

 

[Matt79]

and the "overworking flintoff" argument doesn't mean as much if he's batting seven rather than six. On the face of it you need him as a bowler a lot more than you do as a batsman, so maybe better to let him concentrate on that more.

 

[Craig]

I still think the (non)decision to not ask for a tour game against Queensland at 'Gabba was stupid. Honestly the first Test is there and thought you would gain something in having a chance to get used to conditions there. They are completely different from Adelaide, Sydney and Canberra.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But as stated before, the answer to your problems isn't an extra mediocre bowler in the team. It's not like Harmison, Anderson and Giles' performance suffered because they were overbowled, they were just average.

I agree they weren't too flash, but playing an extra batter is an inherently conservative move. I could equally argue that as Strauss wasn't dismissed by a decent ball & just played rash shots we should play another bowler & have (say) Saj & Gilo pick up his batting slack (all 23 runs of it).

By all means change personnel, but I don't think changing the make up of the team (particular when our 7 & 8 have been brought back precisely because of their batting) is the way to go.

 

[Matt79]

But wouldn't haven't Flintoff at 7 allow you to play the best spinner and the best wicketkeeper in the country without worrying about your tail so much?

 

[Goughy]

I agree they weren't too flash, but playing an extra batter is an inherently conservative move. .

Why? Ive never understood that mentality. Its about picking the strongest 11 and trying to win games.

Batting depth is the must important aspect of any team. Also runs on the board allows you to be more aggressive with the bowling and the fielding positions.

There is potentially an infinate number of runs to score but only 10 wickets to take and only 90 overs in a day that can be bowled.

Balance, depth and being a cohesive unit are the important things.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I can see the arguments on both sides, really. Flintoff at 6 is a real problem, but if you drop Anderson (for instance) it limits your options with regard to picking two spinners, adds to the workload of the seamers and removes the ability to hide ineffective bowlers. A five man attack, when possible, is a great strength because of the versatility it offers and the fact that it doesn't require four consistent, strong performances. Aside from Flintoff, none of the English seamers are players I think can be relied on in all conditions, and it really does look far less potent when you consider the likelyhood of Harmison having a bad day and Hoggard being unthreatening in some conditions.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why? Ive never understood that mentality. Its about picking the strongest 11 and trying to win games.

Batting depth is the must important aspect of any team. Also runs on the board allows you to be more aggressive with the bowling and the fielding positions.

There is potentially an infinate number of runs to score but only 10 wickets to take and only 90 overs in a day that can be bowled.

Balance, depth and being a cohesive unit are the important things.

For precisely the reason you allude to. In any given cricket match the captain never knows how many runs he will need before play begins, he does know that (aside from overly generous declarations) he will need to take 20 wickets to win a test. Sacrificing one fifth of a front line bowling attack in the search for elusive (and arguably illusory) runs can only ever be a defensive move.

 

[Goughy]

For precisely the reason you allude to. In any given cricket match the captain never knows how many runs he will need before play begins, he does know that (aside from overly generous declarations) he will need to take 20 wickets to win a test. Sacrificing one fifth of a front line bowling attack in the search for elusive (and arguably illusory) runs can only ever be a defensive move.

I obviously disagree, especially when one of the bowlers ie Giles averages only 2.7 wickets per Test in games England have won.

It could be argued they are already playing only 4 bowlers.

4 bowlers is plenty to pick up 20 wickets to win. To win your bowlers must bowl well. A fifer etc must happen. One guy must do damage and as a group. You cant just pick lots of bowlers and hope they have a good day. You must select the best and go with it and trust them to do the job.

 

[Nate]

Pietersen gunned it, Clark unlucky. Hopefully we can make some early in-roads tomorrow morning.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I obviously disagree, especially when one of the bowlers ie Giles averages only 2.7 wickets per Test in games England have won.

It could be argued they are already playing only 4 bowlers.

4 bowlers is plenty to pick up 20 wickets to win. To win your bowlers must bowl well. A fifer etc must happen. One guy must do damage and as a group. You cant just pick lots of bowlers and hope they have a good day. You must select the best and go with it and trust them to do the job.

You're using a specific example to counter a general point. As I said before, by all means change the personnel, but I personally prefer five bowlers as five are more likely to take 20 wickets than four in the same way as 7 batsmen are likely to score a higher total than six are.