*Official* Second Test at Lords

[TT Boy]

Could Collingwood do the job?

No. KP should bat 3 but like fellow South African Allan Lamb, he doesn't fancy it.

 

[Richard]

That lbw was not mote unrealistic than some dropped catches that make the cut for FCA sometimes.

Ironic that you pointed-out Corrin's inadequate English just a matter of hours ago...

 

[Richard]

I don't think this such a bad decision.

Monty is not good enough, can't bat or field.

Swann did not get a wicket although he did get runs.

Rashid is young, attacking, will get better and can bat.

The problem we have is getting wickets, Swann did not get any, who is going to get them?

If you select Swann for the next test and he fails with ball again, what would you then decide?

Our spinners failed on a turning pitch, can't see Rashid being any worse myself?

JMO

Rashid can quite easily be just as bad. All evidence points to Swann being better at this point in time. Rashid is currently a not-particularly-effective bowler. No, he is not an excellent attacking option at all.

 

[Richard]

Are you saying we should pick Harmison then??

As I said...

Harmison for Broad would have some merit (can't see Harmison being successful really, but nor can I see Broad being), but I feel Plunkett for Broad would possibly make more sense... and that's virtually none whatsoever. At least Plunkett is a hopeless bowler who can bat a bit, same as Broad. Though he's nowhere near as good as Broad with the bat.

 

[Richard]

No. KP should bat 3 but like fellow South African Allan Lamb, he doesn't fancy it.

Why should he bat three if he doesn't fancy it? If your best player wants to bat four and feels his potential is maximised there, that's probably the best bet. And why on Earth should Lamb have batted three when Gower was the automatic choice there for 90% or more of his career?

 

[Matt79]

Well, Hauritz definitely playing at Lords you'd think. Amazing 12 months for him, given he couldn't get a state game this time last year. Well done lad - been lucky to get a go, but is doing the best with the chances he's been given.

 

[stephen]

England should lose Broad and Panesar for Onions and Harmison (who could be a real handful at Lords).

Australia should remain unchanged if the deck looks good or bring in Clark for Hauritz if the deck looks green.

 

[wpdavid]

Why should he bat three if he doesn't fancy it? If your best player wants to bat four and feels his potential is maximised there, that's probably the best bet. And why on Earth should Lamb have batted three when Gower was the automatic choice there for 90% or more of his career?

Not before Lamb first made the side though. Actually, the real need was for an opener: a role which you'd have thought Lamb was pretty well suited judging by how well he played the quicks with not many on the board. Instead, Tavare & Randall had to have a go. Still, all a long time ago now.

As for KP, obviously there's a temptation to stick him at 3 regardless given the way he's dicked about in this game. If he was making 100's at 4, then he'd have a point. Agreed with the earlier post that Bopara is probably better suited at 4 or 5 at this stage of his career.

 

[Richard]

Not before Lamb first made the side though. Actually, the real need was for an opener: a role which you'd have thought Lamb was pretty well suited judging by how well he played the quicks with not many on the board. Instead, Tavare & Randall had to have a go. Still, all a long time ago now.

I suppose. I guess the question was why the best openers all had to choose South Africa and leave us with a mish-mash of nothing county openers and middle-order bats like Tavare, Randall etc. who were shoehorned into a role they weren't suited to.

As for KP, obviously there's a temptation to stick him at 3 regardless given the way he's dicked about in this game. If he was making 100's at 4, then he'd have a point. Agreed with the earlier post that Bopara is probably better suited at 4 or 5 at this stage of his career.

Most players are. How many players have come straight in and batted three from the start of their periods of success? Can't think of many, though Nasser Hussain was one. He'd played his debut Test 6 years previously to that though. Overwhelmingly the favoured pattern is to come in at five or six, then move to three as you progress through the gears.

As regards Pietersen, well TBH I can't see him being moved. All this grandiose statement about teaching him a lesson - heard Tony Greig saying Strauss should tell him to cut-out the "silly" shots or he'd be dropped - there's a reason teams never actually do this, and it's that players like Pietersen are, rightly, undroppable and unmoveable. If they want to bat somewhere or play in a certain way, they will do, and even though their failures will be disproportionately criticised, their successes will be easily regular enough to say I told you so.

 

[wpdavid]

As regards Pietersen, well TBH I can't see him being moved. All this grandiose statement about teaching him a lesson - heard Tony Greig saying Strauss should tell him to cut-out the "silly" shots or he'd be dropped - there's a reason teams never actually do this, and it's that players like Pietersen are, rightly, undroppable and unmoveable. If they want to bat somewhere or play in a certain way, they will do, and even though their failures will be disproportionately criticised, their successes will be easily regular enough to say I told you so.

Sure. I don't know if you heard the interview, but Greig was basically BSing about giving Pietersen a stiff talking to, as if that would achieve anything when everyobe knows he's far and away our best batsman. Even so, he stopped short of seriously suggesting that KP should be dropped, unless I missed that bit.

 

[pasag]

Hope we don't lose the toss.

 

[Uppercut]

It's Lord's so the draw should be the odds-on favourite, unless they've retained the T20 pitches. Flintoff will be knackered after Cardiff so he might have to be replaced too,

Agree with the obvious swap of Onions for Panesar, but I don't think they will change a second bowler. Flower doesn't seem to be the kind of guy who would allow Harmison to leapfrog Onions into the team.

The pitch for the West Indies game was a seamer too- over in three days.

 

[superkingdave]

Think we might just see one change now, Onions/Harmison in for Panesar hopefully

 

[UncleTheOne]

How on Earth anyone continues to press for Rashid's inclusion is beyond me, now that everyone has seen at first hand how anodyne he generally is in the First-Class game, with the Lions-Australia match.

absolutely. the rashid bandwagon is a mindboggling one. potential or not, he is still just an average bowler at best.

 

[four_or_six]

I'd be happy to just see Onions in for Panesar. Definitely would thing about swapping some other players (Broad, Bopara...) after the next test if things are still bad. But with the draw today, even if we lose at Lords (though I think it'll be a draw tbh) we're still in the series, so we've got time and there's no need to do anything rash for the Lords match.

And I hope that that innings might have helped Monty get his mojo back, and he goes back to South Africa over-35s and starts taking some wickets.

 

[social]

Both teams face tough choices

Eng, apart from a few players, were basically dreadful and it took 22 players to score the same number of runs as 7 Aussies

Monty, Swann and Broad should really be dropped as none are likely to have an impact with their bowling in this series. However, both Broad and Swann give the side added depth with their batting so they'll almost definitely win reprieves

My only change would be Onions for Panesar but I can also see the selectors having a knee-jerk and dropping Anderson for Harmy which would only pile more pressure on Freddie to bowl more overs - a counter-productive move if there ever was one!

The Australians should also be concerned as they should have won the first test and they can only throw away so many golden opportunities before it returns to bite them on the arse.

IMO, they should adopt a rotation policy with their young quicks to avoid burn-out and either Lee or Clark should replace Siddle to provide a bit more experience

I dont expect that to happen (Lee will still be injured and Clark is not favour of the month) so they are likely to be unchanged

 

[zaremba]

Why should he bat three if he doesn't fancy it? If your best player wants to bat four and feels his potential is maximised there, that's probably the best bet. And why on Earth should Lamb have batted three when Gower was the automatic choice there for 90% or more of his career?

AWTA. It's not as though he's hiding at 4.

 

[GIMH]

If Anderson gets dropped, dead set I won't watch a single ball

 

[Pizzorno]

I think Broady let himself down in this Test and although i'm a big fan of his, I think we should drop him for Lords. Normally i'd have a bit of persistence with him because he's a definite talent but I think we just can't afford to carry any of our bowlers in such a tight series. Onions is in the form of his life so I wouldn't mind giving him a go, but I also think it's worth playing Sidebottom if not for anythin more than some left arm variation.

 

[aussie]

Because Swann doesn't deserve to be dropped and there is no reason to pick Sidebottom whatsoever?

Not to mention Onions has to be next bowler in line

The selectors, Strauss & Flower need to be proactive rather than robotic with the selections for Lord's.

Not just because Onions has had a decent start vs WI means he MUST replace Monty. Based on how he & Harmo bowled in the warm-up before the 1st test, he should play in 2nd test. Plus IMO Sidebottom also does offer a more likely wicket-taking option (presuming the bowling conditions for the series improves) than Onions.