***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[Sanz]

MP Vaughan
EC Joyce
----------------
----------------
A Flintoff
ID Blackwell
AF Giles
G Chapple
CT Tremlett
SP Jones
JM Anderson

That's the England "Injured IX" - here's hoping we never have enough to fill the two remaining spots.

I dont understand how can people say that Vaughan, Jones, Giles, Tremlett etc are regulars. I am sorry they are not, they have been injured for a while. As for Blackwell, didn't people want him to be dropped when he played last time ?

Okay Anderson and Freddie were missing but I dont think England lost due to its bowling.

 

[Sanz]

Still all the Durham players were above par.

Of Course Scaly Whine - Colly's score of ZERO was so above par. Without that score of Naught England would have been crushed.

 

[Sanz]

No Sanz, just because they've been injured a while doesn't stop them being regulars.

My Point is
a. they have been out for so long that England should have been able to find their replacements.
b. You cant take credit away from SL because of that.

 

[Autobahn]

Wait Lanka was also without its regulars - Arvanida and Ranatunga.

well in that case we'll be having back Allan Lamb and Nick Knight in their prime

I would pay top dollar though to watch Lamb and Pietersen batting together

 

[Barney Rubble]

To be fair though Barney, not all of those would be first choice players, certainly Blackwell and Chapple wouldn't be, and one of the other 3 quicks.

I wouldn't say Joyce is either.

No, but it's all a matter of what our options are - losing Giles and Blackwell, even though only one is a first-XI player, meant the callup for two uncapped players in Dalrymple and Loudon. Every new injury, even if it's to a backup player like Chapple or Joyce, forces yet another selectorial rethink and yet another slight nuance in the intended gameplan.

I dont understand how can people say that Vaughan, Jones, Giles, Tremlett etc are regulars. I am sorry they are not, they have been injured for a while. As for Blackwell, didn't people want him to be dropped when he played last time ?

Okay Anderson and Freddie were missing but I dont think England lost due to its bowling.

We're talking about England's long injury list, right? So explain to me how Vaughan, Jones and Giles, at least two of whom are unquestionably in England's strongest ODI XI, and the other one most likely is (not to mention Vaughan being the captain!), are exempt from being included on England's injury listbecause they are injured??? It makes no sense.

Just because they've been injured for a long time doesn't mean their absence isn't hurting England. And re: Tremlett, he would have been a certainty for a callup a long time ago if fit - don't forget, he was named in both the Test and ODI squads for the first of the winter tours before he picked up a knock.

As for Blackwell, again I say, just because people might want him dropped doesn't mean him being injured isn't hurting the selectors' plans. It's preventing them from picking who they want - hence, from a selectorial point of view, it's a bad thing.

 

[Sanz]

Okay !! If not for those Injuries, England would have won(and will win) every match they play. England have won every ODI tournament they have played under Vaughan.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Okay !! If not for those Injuries, England would have won(and will win) every match they play.

I'm not asking you to say that. I'm just asking you to look at the facts, instead of coming up with some seemingly random conjecture about how Michael Vaughan isn't an England regular, etc etc.

England are a poor ODI outfit, even with our best side out. The fact is, however, that you can't really judge our potential because of how many injuries we have at the moment. At best, you can judge how much strength in depth we have - the answer to which appears to be "virtually nil"!

 

[Sanz]

Last time Vaughan,Jones and Giles played an ODI was in July 2005 and we dont know when they are going to get back. All this talk about them being regulars is only because their replacements have not been able to perform well and neither have the remaining regulars with the exception of KP. Had their replacements done well and/or had England done well in ODIs, those replacements would be the regulars by now and there would be talks about Vaughan leading only in TESTs.

The problem with England's ODI team is that their regulars dont perform like Regulars (Of course KP being the exception).

 

[Barney Rubble]

Last time Vaughan,Jones and Giles played an ODI was in July 2005 and we dont know when they are going to get back. All this talk about them being regulars is only because their replacements have not been able to perform well and neither have the remaining regulars with the exception of KP. Had their replacements done well and/or had England done well in ODIs, those replacements would be the regulars by now and there would be talks about Vaughan leading only in TESTs.

That's a fair point. However, there has been plenty of talk about Vaughan leading only in Tests, and the general concensus is that it's never going to happen. Which is a shame, because it might not be the worst idea.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Bah! I put it down to injuries... er, we never win at lords.... its because strauss is captain, thats why, er, sri lanka are one of the best teams in the world....come on, can Malinga really be allowed to bowl like that???? That is to say our bowlers just couldnt get the right line... those guys with orange and yellow ties are too much of a distraction. . The umpire was too inexperienced..... 6 excuses for why we didnt win on saturday, all of it is still unnaceptable

 

[Scaly piscine]

In a word, COBBLERS.

I think you'll find Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett had the best bowling figures of the England side.

 

[Sanz]

I think you'll find Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett had the best bowling figures of the England side.

Collingwood also had the best batting figure.

 

[aussie]

Oh yes, I forgot he got that 22* in a pointless cause.

i was refering to his bowling..

 

[marc71178]

Okay !! If not for those Injuries, England would have won(and will win) every match they play.

Please show me where anyone who isn't a blinkered Durham fan has said anything like that?

 

[marc71178]

I think you'll find Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett had the best bowling figures of the England side.

I think you'll find that Collingwood is predominantly a batsman - 0(7) and that Harmison and Plunkett opened the bowling and completely threw away the advantage of the toss whilst bowling horrendous numbers of wides.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think you'll find Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett had the best bowling figures of the England side.

When the others were the least experienced in the side by far (and one of them a Yorkie kid at that) you would have expected that.

Harmison and Plunkett were utterly awful up front, on the most helpful wicket you will see this summer. I appreciate that SW-H is still really on the comeback trail, but the square leg umpire was in more danger than the batsmen on more than one occasion.

 

[Sanz]

Please show me where anyone who isn't a blinkered Durham fan has said anything like that?

Sorry about that..No one really said that.

I started the argument only because Jason continues to SL performance no matter how well they do. If England were without some of their regulars then so are Lanka, they are also without their captain, they are also trying to rebuild. Tharanga, Kapugedra, Malinga etc aren't their established players either. Besides they are playing away from home.

 

[Top_Cat]

Article about Marc Trescothick;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/wisdencricketer/content/story/250403.html

After reading that, my first thought was "Err, so does he actually LIKE Tresco?!" because he's basically saying he's valuable but boring, good but crap.

What the?

Plus, some of it is just innaccurate; yes Tresco plays in the V and through cover mainly but I've also seen him hook the fastest bowlers for six on a few occasions (got them on DVD lest anyone not believe me). Tresco may reign in his aggressive intent a lot of the time but geez, I've seen him hit some HUGE sixes with barely any effort, especially to cow corner.

One thing I agree with; Tresco is vastly under-rated.

 

[wpdavid]

I think you'll find Harmison, Collingwood and Plunkett had the best bowling figures of the England side.

Oh well, that makes Harmison & Plunkett's widefest perfectly acceptable then. So as long as they're outperforming Mahmood, Bresnan and Darylimple (or however you spell the guy's name) then they're doing their job?

I can just about forgive Plunkett, who still has the excuse of youth, but Harmison's 8 wides has to be as bad a performance as you could wish to see from an experienced England bowler. Yet again, serious underachievement from the lazy lank. Still, apparently it's OK because he did better than Saj.
As for Collingwood, yes he bowled well but, yet again, he looks as if he's batting about 2 places too high. Still, he's making Bell look good, which must be some kind of an achievement.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Article about Marc Trescothick;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/wisdencricketer/content/story/250403.html

After reading that, my first thought was "Err, so does he actually LIKE Tresco?!" because he's basically saying he's valuable but boring, good but crap.

What the?

Plus, some of it is just innaccurate; yes Tresco plays in the V and through cover mainly but I've also seen him hook the fastest bowlers for six on a few occasions (got them on DVD lest anyone not believe me). Tresco may reign in his aggressive intent a lot of the time but geez, I've seen him hit some HUGE sixes with barely any effort, especially to cow corner.

One thing I agree with; Tresco is vastly under-rated.

Trescothick > 90% of other openers in the world.