Ashes I - 2013 - In England

Ridiculous team. Kerrigan shouldn't be playing his first ever England match in an Ashes test and Woakes isn't suited to bowling at the Oval, nor is he a number six.

Kerrigan may come good, if he gets a wicket and relaxes. I don't hold much hope for Woakes, in this match, though.
 
Always been a fascination in England for bits and pieces cricketers, never really seen any true all-rounders bar Flintoff. Giles, Craig White, Samit Patel, Bresnan, probably a few others.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Definitely. Bresnan's there as bowler who can bat a bit, looks like they're trying to make Woakes out as a proper all-rounder. I wanted Tremlett to play today just to get him going before the away tests. I'm happy with Root as a back-up spinner, not very happy with all these dry pitches either, need some greener pitches for our seamers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I was willing to give Woakes some slack earlier because his county stats are very impressive but every single game of international cricket I've seen him play has seen him dissappear.

I don't understand how he was selected, surely Cook has faced him in the nets and said to someone. 'Guys, I don't think Woakes bowling is up to much, if he's playing I'm not having him as my third seamer'.

Kerrigan's selection doesn't even deserve the words to criticise it, he's playing because Panesar pissed on a bouncer and he's next in line and they want to have a look at him. Panesar wouldn't be playing here.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Its players like Woakes that make my blood boil in tests, if you're an all-rounder get into the team on the merit of your batting or bowling, not because you aren't good enough at either. Madness to pick him as a 3rd seamer and a number 6.

He should either be in team because he bats well enough to be in the team, and at number 6 with Tremlett, or because he's a good enough bowler in which case he bats at 8 and you pick a batsman for 6.

If you have to play two spinners then you pick two spinners and two seamers. Not two seamers, two spinners and a nothing.

See Samit Patel for an 'all-rounder' I truly despise.
Click to expand...


Patel :lol:

bloody useless test player.
 
Personally I think this is England's best test side:

Cook
Compton
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Root
Prior
Broad
Swann
Tremlett/Finn/Onions/Bresnan (depends who is in rhythm and what type of pitch it is)
Anderson

The only difficulty for me is 3rd seamer.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Always been a fascination in England for bits and pieces cricketers, never really seen any true all-rounders bar Flintoff. Giles, Craig White, Samit Patel, Bresnan, probably a few others.
Click to expand...
Giles was the best English spinner, for a good while, in fairness. Gavin Hamilton was the worst.
 
Gary Ballance is in top nick at the moment, 3 100's in a row! Has a really good first-class record too, anyone seen him before?
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Giles was good but if that England side had Swann in it'd have been much better.
Click to expand...
My point was that, for most of Giles' career, he was picked because he was our best spinner. His batting and fielding were just a bonus.

Swann's actually one of the rare examples where we picked a 'bits and pieces' player and they came good. It was his batting form that got him into the ODI side and there that he proved himself as a bowler.
 
Giles an all-rounder? fecking hell, turn it up.

Bell masterclass on here in Aus at the moment. Ears up lads.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
My point was that, for most of Giles' career, he was picked because he was our best spinner. His batting and fielding were just a bonus.

Swann's actually one of the rare examples where we picked a 'bits and pieces' player and they came good. It was his batting form that got him into the ODI side and there that he proved himself as a bowler.
Click to expand...


Always felt Giles' other attributes helped him stay in the side but you are right there wasn't much around spin wise. Looking at Lions game I'm disappointed Ballance wasn't given a chance at 6 today, scored a 100 against an attack featuring 3 of the 5 (4 if Watson doesn't bowl) playing this test. At least he's an actual fecking batsman.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Botham was before my time and I saw Flintoff's very brief peak. Great strike bowler and dangerous number 6.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean about Flintoff really. He was fantastic in the 2005 Ashes with bat and ball so people remember him as being fantastic with bat and ball, but for the rest of his career he was basically an ok batsman and bowler who was capable of an unbelievable spell or an unbelievable knock but with little consistency.

His averages of 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball are good, but nothing special. He was basically Stuart Broad that could bat a little more.
 
NinjaFletch said:
That's what I mean about Flintoff really. He was fantastic in the 2005 Ashes with bat and ball so people remember him as being fantastic with bat and ball, but for the rest of his career he was basically an ok batsman and bowler who was capable of an unbelievable spell or an unbelievable knock but with little consistency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a VERY gettable early batsman and a clogger with the ball. Not without weapons and not without genuine ability but he was a steam in and thump it type of bowler. I honestly never really rated him that high either. But he was a bit of ac ounter attacking cricketer.

Never should have captained the whitewash in Aus though.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Always felt Giles' other attributes helped him stay in the side but you are right there wasn't much around spin wise. Looking at Lions game I'm disappointed Ballance wasn't given a chance at 6 today, scored a 100 against an attack featuring 3 of the 5 (4 if Watson doesn't bowl) playing this test. At least he's an actual fecking batsman.
Click to expand...
In the 06/07 Ashes he was picked over Panesar, when he shouldn't have been. It's hard to know whether that was because of his batting and fielding, or because they felt Monty would struggle with the pressure of playing in Australia, though.

Agree on Ballance. He's done as much as could've been asked and is unlucky not to be playing.
 
NinjaFletch said:
That's what I mean about Flintoff really. He was fantastic in the 2005 Ashes with bat and ball so people remember him as being fantastic with bat and ball, but for the rest of his career he was basically an ok batsman and bowler who was capable of an unbelievable spell or an unbelievable knock but with little consistency.

His averages of 31 with the bat and 32 with the ball are good, but nothing special. He was basically Stuart Broad that could bat a little more.
Click to expand...


From 2003-05 I think Flintoff was superb. In fact it appears he average 40 with the bat and 28 with ball, he was supreme with the ball in South Africa too. A bit cack with the bat outside England over that period though.
 
ghaliboy said:
Yeah, a VERY gettable early batsman and a clogger with the ball. Not without weapons and not without genuine ability but he was a steam in and thump it type of bowler. I honestly never really rated him that high either. But he was a bit of ac ounter attacking cricketer.

Never should have captained the whitewash in Aus though.
Click to expand...


Who could reverse-swing it, bowl yorkers, cutters, and was fast. But yeah just steam-in and thump it.
 
Derp, completely leave out the 'not without weapons and not without genuine ability' and all that.

:lol: Tit.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
From 2003-05 I think Flintoff was superb. In fact it appears he average 40 with the bat and 28 with ball, he was supreme with the ball in South Africa too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously his peak lasted longer than one series. I wasn't really implying otherwise, I just feel like Flintoff's reputation is much higher than it should be because he was man of the series in the best remembered Ashes series.

He's be the weakest bowler in this England team, and competing for a place with Bresnan (whose averages with bat and ball are virtually identical to Flintoff's).
 
NinjaFletch said:
Yeah, obviously his peak lasted longer than one series. I wasn't really implying otherwise, I just feel like Flintoff's reputation is much higher than it should be because he was man of the series in the best remembered Ashes series.

He's be the weakest bowler in this England team, and competing for a place with Bresnan (whose averages with bat and ball are virtually identical to Flintoff's).
Click to expand...


In his prime? I'd think he'd be the best, Anderson gets too much praise IMO, when the ball's not doing much he's not brilliant. I just think it's a massive shame Flintoff had so many injury issues.
 
ghaliboy said:
Derp, completely leave out the 'not without weapons and not without genuine ability' and all that.

:lol: Tit.
Click to expand...


When you don't really expand on them it just sounds like you're trying to cover bases. 'Oh yeah he was good at some things but just a standard hit the deck bowler'.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
In his prime? I'd think he'd be the best, Anderson gets too much praise IMO, when the ball's not doing much he's not brilliant. I just think it's a massive shame Flintoff had so many injury issues.
Click to expand...

By the very nature of cricket when the balls not doing much you're not brilliant, Anderson is the best exponent of conventional and reverse swing in the team (if not the world), nips the ball off the seam and bowls a tight line and length. He'll probably retire as England's leading wicket taker, which doesn't happen by chance. Broad is a more consistent bowler than Flintoff was and is also capable of those magic spells, hence the better average.

In his prime? Yeah, course he would get in but I'm talking across the whole of his career and I just don't see him as a better bowler than Anderson or Broad, nor a good enough batsman to bat at 6 for England these days.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
When you don't really expand on them it just sounds like you're trying to cover bases. 'Oh yeah he was good at some things but just a standard hit the deck bowler'.
Click to expand...

I didn't need to. Doing a bit is just part and parcel of being a quality bowler. When he had a head of steam up he could bowl rapid and in great areas. It was those times when the momentum was going his way which he was dangerous as feck and a genuinely world class all-rounder. Turn it around to when he was in Aus, burdened by the captaincy he took wickets here and there and didn't do all that well.
 
ghaliboy said:
I didn't need to. Doing a bit is just part and parcel of being a quality bowler. When he had a head of steam up he could bowl rapid and in great areas. It was those times when the momentum was going his way which he was dangerous as feck and a genuinely world class all-rounder. Turn it around to when he was in Aus, burdened by the captaincy he took wickets here and there and didn't do all that well.
Click to expand...


I agree, never captaincy material.
 
NinjaFletch said:
By the very nature of cricket when the balls not doing much you're not brilliant, Anderson is the best exponent of conventional and reverse swing in the team (if not the world), nips the ball off the seam and bowls a tight line and length. He'll probably retire as England's leading wicket taker, which doesn't happen by chance. Broad is a more consistent bowler than Flintoff was and is also capable of those magic spells, hence the better average.

In his prime? Yeah, course he would get in but I'm talking across the whole of his career and I just don't see him as a better bowler than Anderson or Broad, nor a good enough batsman to bat at 6 for England these days.
Click to expand...


Across his career of course not.
 
I got hit by my brother flush on the foot a while a go and could barely walk for a few days. I can't imagine how much it would hurt to get hit by someone who actually bowls quickly.
 
Good hundred, but its one thing doing it in a dead rubber, another doing it in matches that actually mean something.
 
Fair play, probably just saved his test career with that too.

Interesting phase of the game and nicely poised, I think, does Watson have the mettle to go big? Can England get a look at that long tail?
 
Vaughan said Cook's been excellent in the slips but I swear he's dropped a few clangers this series.
 
England's slip fielding has been a bit sporadic all series, some good takes and some horror drops.
 
Ofcourse he is, he's a very good bowler.

Just with hind sight, appears not ready for this oppurtunity. Happens sometimes.
 
Going to be hard for us to win this match unless Kerrigan or Woakes show a bit of form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.