The ``ASHES`` and the Pietersen diillema

[Swervy]

I dont think I said England were crap. You can trace back from where it started. Yes I was very sarcastic with the reapeated remark "second best attack indeed" or something like that . That was just showing irritation at the confidence with which you made the first statement. I was over doing it maybe.

If I was confident about that...its becuase I am....and no-one yet has suggested anything on here to actually make me think I am wrong about that one....and I would be a happy man if someone could show how wrong i am on that point

Someone made a nine point argument on what England can do and I had answered that while I agree with everything, I am surprised that only three points relate to bowling whereas if England are to beat Australia, they have more bowling issues than batting. I agree a year back it was reverse. But now, with the coming in of Strauss and Pieterson AND the bad form of Harmison the things have changed. Thats all.

Oh, I dont think Englands batting is as good as Australia's. This is not what I am saying. But it is beginning to look better. Vaughan is the one big worry in the batting and who goes in at number three ???

I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.In my mind, England have more question marks around the batting than the bowling. Of course that could go out the window if Harmison,Hoggard and Flintoff all got injured or something,because beyond the current test team, things are tough in the bowling dept for England (I would still say Anderson can still be in the running,and maybe one or two others).

And maybe pietersen can come in and make an impact straight away (I think he has the talent and the fight to do that).

So for me and England team of:
1.Trescothick
2.Strauss
3.Vaughan
4.Thorpe
5.Pietersen
6.Flintoff
7.G jones
8.Giles
9.Hoggard
10.Jones
11.Harmison

could give the australians are bit of a headache

 

[SJS]

If I was confident about that...its becuase I am....and no-one yet has suggested anything on here to actually make me think I am wrong about that one....and I would be a happy man if someone could show how wrong i am on that point




I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.In my mind, England have more question marks around the batting than the bowling. Of course that could go out the window if Harmison,Hoggard and Flintoff all got injured or something,because beyond the current test team, things are tough in the bowling dept for England (I would still say Anderson can still be in the running,and maybe one or two others).

And maybe pietersen can come in and make an impact straight away (I think he has the talent and the fight to do that).

So for me and England team of:
1.Trescothick
2.Strauss
3.Vaughan
4.Thorpe
5.Pietersen
6.Flintoff
7.G jones
8.Giles
9.Hoggard
10.Jones
11.Harmison

could give the australians are bit of a headache

Yes I think thats a goiod side. It has three issues.
1. Trescothick - I am never too sure of this guy. I am not a great fan of his batting.
2. Vaughan's poor form though I am glad you put him at number three.
3. Harmisons poor form.

Now this looks like two batting issues against one bowling issues doesnt it. Well, there are six batsmen plus Jones and I think the problem is there but the strength that Strauss, Pieterson, a resurgent Thorpe, a dshing Flintoff bring makes it less worrisome.

Harmison I see as the spearhead. Flintoff is the number three bowler as on date. It is Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff. And Harmison is key for the shock value. You either need to be like McGrath and just keep bowling a miserly line moving a bit either way for centuries at end. If you cant do that, and few other than Pollock today in the world can, then you need the shock of the sudden unplayable delivery and it is here that Harmison has a major role. Thus a Harmison issue is a much bigger issue with four bowlers amongst whom he is the spearhead.

 

[Swervy]

Yes I think thats a goiod side. It has three issues.
1. Trescothick - I am never too sure of this guy. I am not a great fan of his batting.
2. Vaughan's poor form though I am glad you put him at number three.
3. Harmisons poor form.

Now this looks like two batting issues against one bowling issues doesnt it. Well, there are six batsmen plus Jones and I think the problem is there but the strength that Strauss, Pieterson, a resurgent Thorpe, a dshing Flintoff bring makes it less worrisome.

Harmison I see as the spearhead. Flintoff is the number three bowler as on date. It is Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff. And Harmison is key for the shock value. You either need to be like McGrath and just keep bowling a miserly line moving a bit either way for centuries at end. If you cant do that, and few other than Pollock today in the world can, then you need the shock of the sudden unplayable delivery and it is here that Harmison has a major role. Thus a Harmison issue is a much bigger issue with four bowlers amongst whom he is the spearhead.

Thing about Trescothick is that when he gets in he can do severe damage (maybe that 'when' should be an 'if') and he can win games (which is what England have to do)...I dont think they have anyone else in the county game who can do that from the opening position. Some may say he can only perform at the Oval or whatever..I say who cares..if he can score a big fast hundred in the last game of the series, it might be enough to save the series.

What England now have the ability to do that they didnt have (or only had fleetingly...Headingley 01 is an example) is to fight fire with fire. I always though that is what Hussain wanted to do vs Australia (ie be aggressive,score quickly, steal the initiative), but I didnt think they had the ability to do it (vaughan did it last series,his big big scores were all scored at a fast pace, but no Flintoff, Tresco out of touch etc) )...now though they have Tresco (who can do it),Vaughan (when in form), Pietersen, flintoff,and even Geraint jones(the type of player who could really get up McGrath and co noses).
That is what is needed..India have done it in the past, but no-one else has, well not recently...England have that capability,and thats what i see as an England batting strength.

the weakness though is totally summed up by http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...N_RSA/SCORECARDS/ENG_RSA_T2_26-30DEC2004.html (the first innings)

some of the shots were dire..England are screwed if they play like that (it wasnt even particularly great bowling by SA)

 

[SJS]

Thing about Trescothick is that when he gets in he can do severe damage (maybe that 'when' should be an 'if') and he can win games (which is what England have to do)...I dont think they have anyone else in the county game who can do that from the opening position. Some may say he can only perform at the Oval or whatever..I say who cares..if he can score a big fast hundred in the last game of the series, it might be enough to save the series.

What England now have the ability to do that they didnt have (or only had fleetingly...Headingley 01 is an example) is to fight fire with fire. I always though that is what Hussain wanted to do vs Australia (ie be aggressive,score quickly, steal the initiative), but I didnt think they had the ability to do it (vaughan did it last series,his big big scores were all scored at a fast pace, but no Flintoff, Tresco out of touch etc) )...now though they have Tresco (who can do it),Vaughan (when in form), Pietersen, flintoff,and even Geraint jones(the type of player who could really get up McGrath and co noses).
That is what is needed..India have done it in the past, but no-one else has, well not recently...England have that capability,and thats what i see as an England batting strength.

the weakness though is totally summed up by http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...N_RSA/SCORECARDS/ENG_RSA_T2_26-30DEC2004.html (the first innings)

some of the shots were dire..England are screwed if they play like that (it wasnt even particularly great bowling by SA)

Agreed

 

[SJS]

I would have been happier if someone else opened with Trescothick and Strauss came in at number three. Unfortunately thats not feasible.

 

[Swervy]

I would have been happier if someone else opened with Trescothick and Strauss came in at number three. Unfortunately thats not feasible.

I agree about Strauss, I would rather see him (from an English perspective at least) in at 3.

Maybe England will try to turn a few Aussie heads by sticking vaughan in opening, its worked before!!!!!!!

 

[SJS]

I agree about Strauss, I would rather see him (from an English perspective at least) in at 3.

Maybe England will try to turn a few Aussie heads by sticking vaughan in opening, its worked before!!!!!!!

I know but to me it looks like Vaughan is more comfortable coming on to the front foot. Already Trescothick doesnt have a great back foot defense. It makes for a bit uncomfortable opening. If Vaughan was in form, then maybe but I do see him as a primarily frnt foot batsman.

 

[aussie]

aussie

the fact remains though to everyone other than that superb bowling attack, every other team in world cricket other than the west indies and zimabwe has a fairly evenly matches bowling attack. Lets look at ti:

England: Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff, Anderson, Giles

New Zealand: Bond, Tuffey, Martin, Franklyn, Mills, Vettori

Pakistan: Akthar, Sami, Naved, Shabbir, Umar -Gul, Kaneria, Razzaq

India: Pathan, Khan, Agarkar, Nehra, Balaji, Harbhajan, Kumble

Sri Lanka: Vaas, Fernando, Nissanka, Malinga, Murali, Herath, Chandana

South Africa: Pollock, ntini, Nel, Langevelt, Boje,

 

[Swervy]

the fact remains though to everyone other than that superb bowling attack, every other team in world cricket other than the west indies and zimabwe has a fairly evenly matches bowling attack. Lets look at ti:

England: Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff, Anderson, Giles

New Zealand: Bond, Tuffey, Martin, Franklyn, Mills, Vettori

Pakistan: Akthar, Sami, Naved, Shabbir, Umar -Gul, Kaneria, Razzaq

India: Pathan, Khan, Agarkar, Nehra, Balaji, Harbhajan, Kumble

Sri Lanka: Vaas, Fernando, Nissanka, Malinga, Murali, Herath, Chandana

South Africa: Pollock, ntini, Nel, Langevelt, Boje,

I am not even going to start up with this again..I have stated why i think Englands is better than all of those you have listed, and I have come up with reasons..I will leave it at that

 

[aussie]

aussie

k mate i'll leave it their

 

[Marcus]

I know but to me it looks like Vaughan is more comfortable coming on to the front foot. Already Trescothick doesnt have a great back foot defense. It makes for a bit uncomfortable opening. If Vaughan was in form, then maybe but I do see him as a primarily frnt foot batsman.

What about Bell opening? ok he bats at 3 for England 'A' but if hes good enough play him opening, strauss at 3, Vaughan 4, etc etc

 

[Swervy]

What about Bell opening? ok he bats at 3 for England 'A' but if hes good enough play him opening, strauss at 3, Vaughan 4, etc etc

and who do you leave out???

i think most english supporters would be a bit hacked off if pietersen was left out

 

[marc71178]

I think u guys r under estimating Hearth and Suraj (maybe not now butin a couple years).

How can you underestimate someone who hasn't ever played Internationals?

 

[marc71178]

Well just give Sri Lanka 18 months under Atapattu, it amazing what a good captain can do to a team. Just look at England under Vaughan, compared to them under Hassain.

They were hardly that bad under Hussain.

And does Atapattu have 18 months left in him?

 

[marc71178]

the fact remains though to everyone other than that superb bowling attack, every other team in world cricket other than the west indies and zimabwe has a fairly evenly matches bowling attack. Lets look at ti:

England: Harmison, Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff, Anderson, Giles

New Zealand: Bond, Tuffey, Martin, Franklyn, Mills, Vettori

Pakistan: Akthar, Sami, Naved, Shabbir, Umar -Gul, Kaneria, Razzaq

India: Pathan, Khan, Agarkar, Nehra, Balaji, Harbhajan, Kumble

Sri Lanka: Vaas, Fernando, Nissanka, Malinga, Murali, Herath, Chandana

South Africa: Pollock, ntini, Nel, Langevelt, Boje,

Yes, and lets look at how many names you've selected for other nations.

NZ - 6.
Pak - 7.
India - 7.
SL - 7.
SA - 5, but that 5 will never play together as an attack.

England's 5 all play together regularly.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How can you underestimate someone who hasn't ever played Internationals?

Quite easily. They don't have to be Internationals for them to be underrated/underestimated.

 

[marc71178]

What about Bell opening?

No.

Not a good idea.

 

[marc71178]

Quite easily. They don't have to be Internationals for them to be underrated/underestimated.

If they're not Internationals it means the selectors don't rate them highly enough yet, so how can someone else be under-rating them as part of a back-up in Internationals?

 

[Tom Halsey]

And IMO that is a very big point to make.

Despite playing nowhere near their best, they went there and won the series reasonably comfortably.

Now if the players could all fire together in July and August, who knows?

Fair point, but it's a very big if though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If they're not Internationals it means the selectors don't rate them highly enough yet, so how can someone else be under-rating them as part of a back-up in Internationals?

I'm not saying you were under-rating anyone, but person A could have said that player A shouldn't even get into his State side when in reality he is good enough to be a back up of the Internationals.