***Official*** England in Pakistan

[tooextracool]

SP Jones didn't play in the last test, and didn't do an awful lot (although he wasn't really given the chance) at Edgbaston. Anyway that would only strengthen my case anyway. If you notice I was arguing AGAINST the notion that England were a one-man team.

im not arguing that actually, i was just arguing the point that flintoff was the most consistent bowler in this series.
jones outbowled flintoff at Lords, outbowled him at Old trafford and outbowled him at trent bridge. the only dilemma is whether he outbowled him at edgbaston, which he most certainly did in the first inning. he was just unfortunate to not get more wickets.
and fine edit that to ' jones outbowled flintoff in almost every test match that he played in'

 

[Barney Rubble]

fair enough, maybe i was looking for 'unproven' because hes still not a proven player against spin.

Yeah, that's probably the size of it.

Wow, I didn't think I'd ever manage to out-smart you on anything cricket-related! Even if this was more an issue of semantics......

 

[social]

no it doesnt, because it includes performances when the pitches havent suited him, which has happened a hell of a lot.

Why are you protecting him, TEC?

Generally, you class anyone with a record as poor as his as "rubbish."

How about I make it easy for you.

Name a worse regular spinner in test cricket that Giles?

 

[tooextracool]

Based on your criteria, Clarke should play as a spinner in the vain hope that a Chennai pitch appears every now and again.

theres a major difference between a pitch that turns square and a slow turner. for one thing, a pitch that turns square is seen very rarely, while a slow turner is seen a lot more often.

As for Watson, he has been picked as a batsman that can bowl 10-15 overs a day.

But prior to his injury, he was about the quickest bowler in Aus and has the potential to be something.

People tend to forget that Flintoff at 24 was a pretty average batsman and bowler.

On all likelihood, Watson will end up as a better batsman than Flintoff and a serviceable bowling option.

people forget that not everyone turns into flintoff.
your comment that watson was picked because australia need 5 bowlers is quite ludicrous, because he cant bowl, its like england picking collingwood for a 5th bowling option.
and it doesnt matter how useful he was prior to injury, because hes not good enough now, and until he actually becomes half decent he can only be picked for his batting skills and as a part time bowler.

 

[marc71178]

L L!

Even the great WI team of 80's performed poorly with bat against Imran's Pak in Pak and lost the series.

Can't judge a team's performance on the basis of one series!

The point that was made in the series was that this was the first time this Australian line-up had faced such a hostile, all-round attack and they were found wanting.

 

[greg]

im not arguing that actually, i was just arguing the point that flintoff was the most consistent bowler in this series.
jones outbowled flintoff at Lords, outbowled him at Old trafford and outbowled him at trent bridge. the only dilemma is whether he outbowled him at edgbaston, which he most certainly did in the first inning. he was just unfortunate to not get more wickets.
and fine edit that to ' jones outbowled flintoff in almost every test match that he played in'

I wasn't arguing that Flintoff was England's most consistent performer with the ball. You obviously misunderstood my post. I said he was England's most consistent performer overall, in that he had a major impact with Bat OR ball (not with Bat AND Ball) in every match after Lords. This was in the context of someone writing that England only won matches because of Flintoff.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Name a worse regular spinner in test cricket that Giles?

Nicky Boje.

 

[greg]

Nicky Boje.

Borderline spinner. More of a batter really

 

[tooextracool]

Why are you protecting him, TEC?

Generally, you class anyone with a record as poor as his as "rubbish."

How about I make it easy for you.

Name a worse regular spinner in test cricket that Giles?

i dont rate giles highly. i still think that hes far more useful than any other spinner in england, especially because he can bat. you cant afford to go into a test match with no spinner because if a dead flat pitch takes turn during the game, your basically behind on the game.
as far as naming a worse regular spinner theres always nicky boje and chandana, both of whom are rubbish.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Borderline spinner. More of a batter really

By default.

 

[tooextracool]

I wasn't arguing that Flintoff was England's most consistent performer with the ball. You obviously misunderstood my post. I said he was England's most consistent performer overall, in that he had a major impact with Bat OR ball (not with Bat AND Ball) in every match after Lords. This was in the context of someone writing that England only won matches because of Flintoff.

you said that he was the only consistent english player in the entire series, im just pointing out that jones was just as consistent.

 

[social]

i dont rate giles highly. i still think that hes far more useful than any other spinner in england, especially because he can bat. you cant afford to go into a test match with no spinner because if a dead flat pitch takes turn during the game, your basically behind on the game.
as far as naming a worse regular spinner theres always nicky boje and chandana, both of whom are rubbish.

Boje has a similar record (better if anything) and is a much better batsman.

Anyway, it keeps coming back to my intial point.

England deservedly won the Ashes but their victory was based around consistently excellent performances by a core group of players with others chipping in occasionally.

Should Eng desire to become a dominant team, then those "fringe" players either have to improve or be replaced.

If they do not improve, does Eng have the depth to replace them?

In the case of Giles, it would appear not.

 

[tooextracool]

Boje has a similar record (better if anything) and is a much better batsman.

his record doesnt exactly matter, because it makes him look like a better bowler than he actually is.

Anyway, it keeps coming back to my intial point.

England deservedly won the Ashes but their victory was based around consistently excellent performances by a core group of players with others chipping in occasionally.

Should Eng desire to become a dominant team, then those "fringe" players either have to improve or be replaced.

If they do not improve, does Eng have the depth to replace them?

In the case of Giles, it would appear not.

no they dont have any depth in the spin department, and there isnt much of an argument about that. there also isnt an argument that giles is an ordinary spinner. for me geraint jones deserves to be dropped and there should be question marks about ian bell. if the selectors were smart enough, hoggard wouldnt get a single test in the subcontinent(unless its an overcast day or a green wicket at the toss) and the rest of the side is more or less good enough.

 

[greg]

you said that he was the only consistent english player in the entire series, im just pointing out that jones was just as consistent.

I don't want to get into a silly argument, but if you read back through the thread you will see that it is fairly clear that i was talking about consistent performance in the context of making major (ie. potentially matchwinning) contributions to a game - something that Flintoff did with either bat or ball (or both) in every test after Lords. Simon Jones made no major contribution at Edgbaston, regardless of how well he may or may not have bowled, and obviously did not at the Oval since he did not play.

The context of the thread was someone claiming that England were only winning on the back of matchwinning performances from Fred (thereby implying that they were a one man team). I accepted that he was a major part of our success (providing as he did significant contributions in every test) but pointed out that he was by no means the only part, with significant contributions coming from other (but generally different) players in each individual match.

 

[greg]

Boje has a similar record (better if anything) and is a much better batsman.

Anyway, it keeps coming back to my intial point.

England deservedly won the Ashes but their victory was based around consistently excellent performances by a core group of players with others chipping in occasionally.

Should Eng desire to become a dominant team, then those "fringe" players either have to improve or be replaced.

If they do not improve, does Eng have the depth to replace them?

In the case of Giles, it would appear not.

It goes without saying that to be a dominant (but not no.1) team England will have to find players in certain areas. However the fact that we don't have any particular competition for places in either the spin or wicketkeeping departments is not really a sign of "lack of depth" but rather a lack of any quality in the positions to start with (although the w/k situation is obviously not quite that simple, complicated as it is by the batter/keeper balance question). There is no quality to come in and replace these positions, but then if there were they would be in the team already. I am more than happy with the depth, both immediate and longterm in all other areas of the team. Of course any replacements wouldn't be as good, but then that is the case in any test side.

 

[social]

It goes without saying that to be a dominant (but not no.1) team England will have to find players in certain areas. However the fact that we don't have any particular competition for places in either the spin or wicketkeeping departments is not really a sign of "lack of depth" but rather a lack of any quality in the positions to start with (although the w/k situation is obviously not quite that simple, complicated as it is by the batter/keeper balance question). There is no quality to come in and replace these positions, but then if there were they would be in the team already. I am more than happy with the depth, both immediate and longterm in all other areas of the team. Of course any replacements wouldn't be as good, but then that is the case in any test side.

I probably should've been more specific.

What I was questioning was whether Eng had "quality" back-up (i.e. capable of doing a better job) in case certain members of the team continue to under-perform.

e.g. is there a batsman as good as Bell or is it a case of hoping Shah, etc perform above themselves.

It seems to me that the spinning and batting back-up ranks are pretty thin at the moment.

 

[social]

his record doesnt exactly matter, because it makes him look like a better bowler than he actually is.



no they dont have any depth in the spin department, and there isnt much of an argument about that. there also isnt an argument that giles is an ordinary spinner. for me geraint jones deserves to be dropped and there should be question marks about ian bell. if the selectors were smart enough, hoggard wouldnt get a single test in the subcontinent(unless its an overcast day or a green wicket at the toss) and the rest of the side is more or less good enough.

I actually think Hoggard will prove to be valuable in the sub-continent as, along with Flintoff, he has durability and stamina that others lack. Harmy might struggle due to the fact that he relies more on bounce and seam whilst the latest reports here were that Jones will struggle to be fit.

I can understand why the selectors have shown faith in Geraint and Bell as selectors are always loathe to change a successful team. However, neither has shown anything to suggest that they will be successful test cricketers in the long term.

 

[shaka]

Flintoff says in his new autobiography that he was shot at during a game in India four years ago but was told to "sweep it under the carpet".

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,16673802-23212,00.html

 

[honestbharani]

2.5 wickets per test at an ave of 40 from 50 tests says differently.

Based on your criteria, Clarke should play as a spinner in the vain hope that a Chennai pitch appears every now and again.

As for Watson, he has been picked as a batsman that can bowl 10-15 overs a day.

But prior to his injury, he was about the quickest bowler in Aus and has the potential to be something.

People tend to forget that Flintoff at 24 was a pretty average batsman and bowler.

On all likelihood, Watson will end up as a better batsman than Flintoff and a serviceable bowling option.

IT was actually the Mumbai pitch where Clarke did his star turn.

 

[honestbharani]

It goes without saying that to be a dominant (but not no.1) team England will have to find players in certain areas. However the fact that we don't have any particular competition for places in either the spin or wicketkeeping departments is not really a sign of "lack of depth" but rather a lack of any quality in the positions to start with (although the w/k situation is obviously not quite that simple, complicated as it is by the batter/keeper balance question). There is no quality to come in and replace these positions, but then if there were they would be in the team already. I am more than happy with the depth, both immediate and longterm in all other areas of the team. Of course any replacements wouldn't be as good, but then that is the case in any test side.

Honestly, for me, the better keeper has to be selected, plain and simple. Geraint looks very bad and it isn't inconceivable that he may drop a rather simple but vital catch in the subcontinent or in the WC or in some other important match. For ODIs, I can understand the logic behind selecting someone like Jones, but for tests, you always pick your best keeper.