***Official*** NatWest Series/Challenge

[FaaipDeOiad]

I fail to see how he can be selected, it would be a complete farce.

It certainly wouldn't be a farce, he's been the most impressive England batsman against Australia to date. It would be a bit unfair on Bell or Thorpe, but it wouldn't be a "farce".

 

[viktor]

Since the introduction of the new rules we have seen 3 of the most one sided and boring one dayers of recent times, all in succession.

i dunno about today though; without solanki, eng might have been 120 all out...match could have been over in 15....

 

[aussie]

I fail to see how he can be selected, it would be a complete farce.

it would but he did play a good sensible innings, especially early on when he left the ball well. So overall his innings could get the selectors thinking.

 

[wpdavid]

i dunno about today though; without solanki, eng might have been 120 all out...match could have been over in 15....

...I'm trying to work out why that would have been a bad thing. OK apart from the ticket holders.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's the nature of the ODI beast, attacking play. I guess Gilly plays a lot of what could be deemed stupid shots too, they usually go for four. It doesn't bother me that we get out attacking to be honest, better that than defending over after over awaiting one with your name on it.

The point is to know when to attack, something which seems to be beyond the comprehension of Tresco, Vaughan, Flintoff and Geraint. Pietersen and Collingwood seem to better with this, that's what is making Pietersen so much more effective with the bat than Flintoff at the moment. Obviously you still get flashes of responsible batting from that 4 I mentioned.

 

[aussie]

Ponting M.O.S interesting choice....

 

[King_Ponting]

i would have gone with lee, to be perfectly honest.

 

[aussie]

yeah i would have gone for him as well

 

[wpdavid]

All over, Australia looking in ***y form. Goodbye Shep u will be missed, nice to see the players giving him a hug. Mr.Harmison will want to forget this game 9.5-0-81-0

Great. Just like 4 years ago, our best bowler gets splattered all over the Oval after the feeble batting has given him nothing to defend on an absolute road. Just in time to give the Aus batters the psychological edge for the tests, I fear. Even before today, his performances have tailed off somewhat, truth be told.

But as for the batting. Please don't give me Mcgrath & Lee as some sort of excuse - they've been doing it for over a year now. They were no better against WI & NZ last summer or in SA during the winter. Yes, of course the Australians bowled well. It's called doing your job. And it's about time some of our much vaunted batsmen did theirs on something approaching a consistent basis. End of rant. (Stomps off muttering about bloody amateurs, spineless wallies, etc, etc)

 

[Scaly piscine]

I'm trying to figure out what the point of Harmison virtually bowling out on a batsman's paradise was, I can't help thinking it was another decision influenced by the Gough Preservation Society - he's not playing in the Tests so Gough should have took the stick.

 

[marc71178]

Anyone now think it was a bad move placing Solanki in?

Nobody doubted that, it was replacing Jones that was wrong.

 

[marc71178]

Surely if Solanki wanted a toilet break, he could at least have left the field?

As Super sub he can only leave during a power play.

 

[marc71178]

FWIT I think they'll opt for Bell, gut feeling.

There's no way on earth they can drop Bell.

 

[marc71178]

Four wickets in his last 14 ODI's for Goughie. Good grief.

But he's keeping it tight, so can't drop him!

 

[greg]

Toss decisive yet again - i refer to my previous post. Any thoughts?

Arguing about the respective merits of the pitches is missing an obvious point. The toss at Lords WAS decisive, for the simple reason that England deserve to be ranked with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in games where they are batting first. Under Vaughan (and including 'joke' games in the Champions Trophy) they have won 6 and lost 13 in these circumstances. Batting second on the other hand they are comfortably up there with Australia, having won 16 and lost 3.

It is, incidentally, the one area IMO, which remains a slight concern for England in the test arena. Whereas they have performed above what might have been expected when they have had the supposedly difficult task of batting second (and last) in several tests under Vaughan they still seem to struggle to some extent when the underlying characteristics of the match have yet to be formed, and therefore the players seem to find it difficult to focus on what they are trying to achieve - most obviously apparent in the first innings of test matches. Substandard bowling performances can often go unnoticed because their batting has usually been able to recover the situation, but poor batting performances can rarely be recovered. Exhibits A, B and C would be two test matches vs South Africa (Lords 2003 and Durban 2004/5) and the third test vs Sri Lanka in 2004.

 

[marc71178]

Goodbye, Goughie, thanks for everything. Chris Tremlett'll take it from here.

Simon Jones would be ahead of him surely?

 

[Barney Rubble]

Simon Jones would be ahead of him surely?

Yeah, but Jones is already in the team........

 

[marc71178]

It certainly wouldn't be a farce, he's been the most impressive England batsman against Australia to date. It would be a bit unfair on Bell or Thorpe, but it wouldn't be a "farce".

For a start, all he's done it is in ODI.

His FC form this year's not that good at all.

Then add in the fact that Thorpe and Bell have done absolutely nothing to warrant being dropped.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah, but Jones is already in the team........

Of course, I was forgetting he'd just been subbed off! :doh:

 

[greg]

England aren't operating the sub rule to its maximum potential. With hindsight i'm sure they will realise that it makes more sense to name one of the bowlers as the sub, with Solanki in the team at the start. Basically it makes more sense to try and compensate for their obvious weakness (batting first) than to magnify their strength (chasing).

That's if they refuse to consider Rikki Clarke of course