***Official*** Pakistan in England

[steds]

England should do this now.

With three of Inzi, Razzaq, Akmal and Afridi left to get out? I'm not so confident.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think Nasser agrees with me about KP. Yes, it's a day five pitch, but he's arguably getting more turn than Monster.

I don't want to put the mockers on him, but his off-spin definitely looks like it's under-utilised.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Think Nasser agrees with me about KP. Yes, it's a day five pitch, but he's arguably getting more turn than Monster.

I don't want to put the mockers on him, but his off-spin definitely looks like it's under-utilised.

And more bounce presumably.

Wonder if England will continue to really rush through their overs with these two and actually get in a couple or so more overs than the minimum - and thus get a new ball for a couple or so if needed... methinks pigs will fly before that we'll see that sort of professionalism from England.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Panesar was quite excellent that session. For mine, he bowled better in that final spell than Giles did at any point in the Ashes. The odd crap ball, but he was attacking and inventive, and caused problems for all the batsmen. Two deserved wickets, and could have had more too.

 

[Goughy]

Why has there, during the course of this Test, been the repeated mention of Bell being dropped for Flintoff. It makes no sense at all. Plunkett is the obvious one. I don't understand why you would weaken the batting to add an extra bowler that is not needed.

My England Team for Old Trafford
ME Trescothick
AJ Strauss
AN Cook
KP Pietersen
PD Collingwood
IR Bell
A Flintoff
C Read
MJ Hoggard
SJ Harmison
MS Panesar

Before people complain about Flintoff at 7, he is not a specialist batsman. He has by far the lowest average of any of the top order players and having him at 7 would strenghtn the batting no end. Gilchrist batted 7 for Aus and that is part of what made them so good. It is not an insult for Flintoff to bat at 7.

Also the bowling would be Flintoff, Harmi, Hoggard and Panesar with a couple of others to fill in if needed.

Its a far stronger team than keeping Plunkett and dropping Bell

 

[Scaly piscine]

Not sure why England are bowling their faster bowlers when the ball is turning square, I could see the point if Hoggard was bowling off-cutters or something. The strategy should have been to keep bowling KP & Panesar and get through the overs quickly so England can get some more overs in as I said earlier.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why has there, during the course of this Test, been the repeated mention of Bell being dropped for Flintoff. It makes no sense at all. Plunkett is the obvious one. I don't understand why you would weaken the batting to add an extra bowler that is not needed.

My England Team for Old Trafford
ME Trescothick
AJ Strauss
AN Cook
KP Pietersen
PD Collingwood
IR Bell
A Flintoff
C Read
MJ Hoggard
SJ Harmison
MS Panesar

Before people complain about Flintoff at 7, he is not a specialist batsman. He has by far the lowest average of any of the top order players and having him at 7 would strenghtn the batting no end. Gilchrist batted 7 for Aus and that is part of what made them so good. It is not an insult for Flintoff to bat at 7.

Also the bowling would be Flintoff, Harmi, Hoggard and Panesar with a couple of others to fill in if needed.

Its a far stronger team than keeping Plunkett and dropping Bell

We don't want to break one of our 3 best bowlers again thanks.

 

[Goughy]

We don't want to break one of our 3 best bowlers again thanks.

Either he is fit or he isnt. If he is not capable of bowling the same number of overs Plunkett has done then he should not play.

You cant worry about injuries or you would never do anything. As I said either he is fit or not.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Either he is fit or he isnt. If he is not capable of bowling the same number of overs Plunkett has done then he should not play.

You cant worry about injuries or you would never do anything. As I said either he is fit or not.

What happens if the pitch does nothing for spinners (which it should if the groundsmen did their job)? Then we've got Panesar getting spanked for 100 runs in the day.

 

[Goughy]

What happens if the pitch does nothing for spinners (which it should if the groundsmen did their job)? Then we've got Panesar getting spanked for 100 runs in the day.

Then keep Plunkett for Panesar. I did not really want him in for the Old Trafford test anyway. I only put him in my lineup as I only wanted to deal with 1 issue at a time (though I did sneak Read in there).

90 overs in a day. 20 per each main bowler and 10 filling in. Thats less than 7 overs per session and given the supposed condition of the track you do not want to be bowling for a full day.

What will happen is that England will play 5 bowlers and Panesar will bowl 10 overs in the day and be a totally pointless selection that just weakens the batting.

There may sometimes be a case for 5 bowlers but the next test is not one of them. There is seldom enough overs in a day to justify 5 bowlers.

 

[Fusion]

That's a fine 50 from Inzi. Always a rock for Pakistan.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why has there, during the course of this Test, been the repeated mention of Bell being dropped for Flintoff. It makes no sense at all. Plunkett is the obvious one. I don't understand why you would weaken the batting to add an extra bowler that is not needed.

My England Team for Old Trafford
ME Trescothick
AJ Strauss
AN Cook
KP Pietersen
PD Collingwood
IR Bell
A Flintoff
C Read
MJ Hoggard
SJ Harmison
MS Panesar

Before people complain about Flintoff at 7, he is not a specialist batsman. He has by far the lowest average of any of the top order players and having him at 7 would strenghtn the batting no end. Gilchrist batted 7 for Aus and that is part of what made them so good. It is not an insult for Flintoff to bat at 7.

Also the bowling would be Flintoff, Harmi, Hoggard and Panesar with a couple of others to fill in if needed.

Its a far stronger team than keeping Plunkett and dropping Bell

That strikes me as the same sort of thinking that lead us to play 5 in midfield during the World Cup; we'd be picking our best players rather than our best XI. Bell might look more of a test player than Plunkett just now, but one of the key factors in our Ashes victory was our 5 man attack.

If 4 front-line bowlers aren't enough to bowl a Pakistan without Younis Khan out, I see no reason to suppose they'd be enough if he plays in the 2nd (as seems increasingly likely). That's leaving aside the fact that Fred has bowled (IIRC) a grand total of 5 20/20 overs since he started the comeback trail.

Mind you, we've just seen Colly's rarely used (i.e. poo) offies, so anything's possible!

 

[Sprint]

Inzys ninth successive fifty against England. Wow, the man is a treat to watch.

 

[Goughy]

That strikes me as the same sort of thinking that lead us to play 5 in midfield during the World Cup; we'd be picking our best players rather than our best XI. Bell might look more of a test player than Plunkett just now, but one of the key factors in our Ashes victory was our 5 man attack.

If 4 front-line bowlers aren't enough to bowl a Pakistan without Younis Khan out, I see no reason to suppose they'd be enough if he plays in the 2nd (as seems increasingly likely). That's leaving aside the fact that Fred has bowled (IIRC) a grand total of 5 20/20 overs since he started the comeback trail.

Mind you, we've just seen Colly's rarely used (i.e. poo) offies, so anything's possible!

I disagree with the analagy and the fact that it is not the best XI. 4 plus fill in is all that is ever needed unless in exceptional circumstances. The XI I named looked very strong.

Depth of batting is always more important than depth of bowling as everyone has to bat and an extra bowler can often be like carrying a passenger and playing with 10. Also a long tail allows momentum to swing quickly to the opposition and is a major weakness.

 

[Goughy]

I always admired the Aussies for selecting teams like in these 4 games. Only playing 3 bowlers

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T4_25-28JAN1997.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/AUS_IN_RSA/AUS_RSA_T1_28FEB-04MAR1997.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/AUS_IN_RSA/AUS_RSA_T2_14-17MAR1997.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/RSA_IN_AUS/RSA_AUS_T2_02-05JAN1998.html

England would be at a far bigger advantage in terms of a similar selection as Flintoff is far superior to Bevan as a bowler.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I disagree with the analagy and the fact that it is not the best XI. 4 plus fill in is all that is ever needed unless in exceptional circumstances. The XI I named looked very strong.

Depth of batting is always more important than depth of bowling as everyone has to bat and an extra bowler can often be like carrying a passenger and playing with 10. Also a long tail allows momentum to swing quickly to the opposition and is a major weakness.

Batting hasn't looked an issue for us in this test; Fred may or may not weaken it at the expense of Bell, but Bell for Plunkett would certainly weaken the bowling. If we have a world-class all-rounder surely it makes sense to play him as such? Moreover, I think most teams strive to have the 6 batsmen, 5 bowlers & wicketkeeper make-up. It's squeezing that into XI players that is the tricky bit. Australia may've got away with 4 bowlers, but they were blessed with two all-time greats & another (Dizzy) who wasn't too far off it at his best.

The batting in your line-up looks strong (Read's prescence notwithstanding), but bowling wise it looks light to me.

& you might disgree with my analogy, but would you care as to tell us as to why? I was quite chuffed with it, myself!

 

[superkingdave]

I don't think your analogy works because picking Plunkett is the equivalent of having Phil Neville in the side

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think your analogy works because picking Plunkett is the equivalent of having Phil Neville in the side

Nah, he's Peter Crouch & Bell is Frank Lampard. Keep up.

 

[Goughy]

Batting hasn't looked an issue for us in this test; Fred may or may not weaken it at the expense of Bell, but Bell for Plunkett would certainly weaken the bowling. If we have a world-class all-rounder surely it makes sense to play him as such? Moreover, I think most teams strive to have the 6 batsmen, 5 bowlers & wicketkeeper make-up. It's squeezing that into XI players that is the tricky bit. Australia may've got away with 4 bowlers, but they were blessed with two all-time greats & another (Dizzy) who wasn't too far off it at his best.

The batting in your line-up looks strong (Read's prescence notwithstanding), but bowling wise it looks light to me.

& you might disgree with my analogy, but would you care as to tell us as to why? I was quite chuffed with it, myself!

Well the Aussies only played 3 bowlers in the tests I listed not 4.

As for this Test we only played 4 bowlers, Hoggard, Harmi, Plunkett and Panesar.

Bring in Fred for either Plunkett and Panesar and you strengthen every area. Batting, bowling and fielding.

Bring in Fred for Bell and the bowling is strengthened but the batting is weakened and there is not enough overs for 5 specialist bowlers.

As I said, we only have 4 bowlers in this test and bringing Fred in for one of them would make an exceedingly strong XI.

As you said batting has not been a problem for us in this test. Well its a sample size of one and I fail to see the logic of weakening the one area we have performed well in.

I also disagree with your specified breakdown of an ideal team. I think most teams want at least 7 batsmen not 6. The game has evolved

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well the Aussies only played 3 bowlers in the tests I listed not 4.

As for this Test we only played 4 bowlers, Hoggard, Harmi, Plunkett and Panesar.

Bring in Fred for either Plunkett and Panesar and you strengthen every area. Batting, bowling and fielding.

Bring in Fred for Bell and the bowling is strengthened but the batting is weakened and there is not enough overs for 5 specialist bowlers.

As I said, we only have 4 bowlers in this test and bringing Fred in for one of them would make an exceedingly strong XI.

I refer you back to my earlier point. How did we get on with 4 bowlers?

&, as for there not being enough bowlers in the day, surely there's merit in keeping bowlers fresh & chomping a the bit to get on? It's certainly better than the alternative of flogging them into the ground, especially when 3 of our seamers are under injury clouds to varying degrees.