don_quixote
Trent End
i still dont understand why we're not playing panesar
CRICKET!! breaking news, gossip, lies, whatever etc..
- Thread starter benjybars
- Start date
don_quixote
Trent End
i still don't understand why we're not playing panesar
D
dubversion
Guest
i STILL don't understand why we're not playing Panesar 
this is just embarassing.
this is just embarassing.
Just as I was beginning to look forward to turning the radio on first thing in the morning...
Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.
Compounded by Fletcher's analysis of the game:
And this:
Because a run-out and a bad umpiring decision are much more culpable than the shots Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones played to get themselves out.
I'm going to be in Melbourne for the MCG test (read: dead rubber) and I'm dreading it.
Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.
Compounded by Fletcher's analysis of the game:
Fletcher has come under pressure for not selecting Monty Panesar after a series of toothless displays from England's bowling attack, but once again he insisted England had been right not to play two spinners at the Adelaide Oval. He also maintained that Giles was the natural choice over Panesar due to his superior batting, despite seeing the spinner register just 20 runs in the first innings and only one in the second.
And this:
Fletcher felt the loss of Andrew Strauss and Ian Bell in quick succession this morning had undermined England's efforts to claim a draw.
Because a run-out and a bad umpiring decision are much more culpable than the shots Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones played to get themselves out.
I'm going to be in Melbourne for the MCG test (read: dead rubber) and I'm dreading it.
S
simon silverdollar
Guest
such a shocking display. i don't even think i can bring myself to watch it when its repeated on telly tonight.
giles has obviously got to go. the only reason for giles to be in the side is as a bulwark against a total england batting collapse (as at the Oval last year). but such a deeply conservative worst-case-scenario strategy is worse than unnecessary now that we need to win two tests. not to mention the fact that giles failed to be any kind of bulwark against an england collapse today.
other worries:
flintoff's batting: he's not be in form in tests for ages.
anderson's bowling; seems like he's got the worst of mahmood's traits- often rubbish length- with none of his good traits- reverse swing, pace.
don't really see the point of geraint jones.
i think harmison's doing alright though. a better pitch and he could have got quite a few wickets.
giles has obviously got to go. the only reason for giles to be in the side is as a bulwark against a total england batting collapse (as at the Oval last year). but such a deeply conservative worst-case-scenario strategy is worse than unnecessary now that we need to win two tests. not to mention the fact that giles failed to be any kind of bulwark against an england collapse today.
other worries:
flintoff's batting: he's not be in form in tests for ages.
anderson's bowling; seems like he's got the worst of mahmood's traits- often rubbish length- with none of his good traits- reverse swing, pace.
don't really see the point of geraint jones.
i think harmison's doing alright though. a better pitch and he could have got quite a few wickets.
jenks
thread death
We didn't back ourselves at any stage during the match - we should have piled on the runs in the first innings - just as Australia did to us in the first test. Set them 700 and know you're only going to bat once - would have been great for Flintoff to have been allowed to cart the Aussies to all points and given Giles a boost as well.
Selection is a major problem - sentiment has lead to the inclusion of Giles. I think also an element of showing us punters who is in charge 'Let's ignore the clamour for Monty, it's a populist choice and cricket wants nothing to with that kind of approach to selelction'.
Anderson has never really shown himself to be world class and is certainly no better than Mahmood. This is where it all worked so well last year - one of the five bowlers always stepped up when it mattered and at least two of the others were miserly and another would frustrate their bowlers by getting the tail to wag.
Yes KP scored a bucketload but Christ, can someone have a word about appropriate shot selection at the start of an important innings?
Finally - Jones, has the time come for Read to replace him? Did you see the ugly shot he got out to?
I could go on but my major feeling is fury for them fucking up such a no brainer of a situation. I thought these kind of collapses were behind us
Selection is a major problem - sentiment has lead to the inclusion of Giles. I think also an element of showing us punters who is in charge 'Let's ignore the clamour for Monty, it's a populist choice and cricket wants nothing to with that kind of approach to selelction'.
Anderson has never really shown himself to be world class and is certainly no better than Mahmood. This is where it all worked so well last year - one of the five bowlers always stepped up when it mattered and at least two of the others were miserly and another would frustrate their bowlers by getting the tail to wag.
Yes KP scored a bucketload but Christ, can someone have a word about appropriate shot selection at the start of an important innings?
Finally - Jones, has the time come for Read to replace him? Did you see the ugly shot he got out to?
I could go on but my major feeling is fury for them fucking up such a no brainer of a situation. I thought these kind of collapses were behind us
don_quixote
Trent End
i'm not sure i have that much of a problem with geraint jones, i think he's got a lot better behind the stumps and i think he's just as patchy as read with the bat. however read's scores from last summer were 38, 55, 33 and jones' were 11*, 4, 19, 6, 18, 16, 8. i really hate dropping test players based on how they perform in odi's - that doesnt make sense? especially since they were in india. i'm just baffled really.
i can't blame flintoff for declaring at 551, that's a no brainer at that stage of the match. you could pile on the runs, but that's precisely the defensive move that we're critisising the team for in picking giles.
and giles. i really like giles, i think he's been england's best spin option in the past x years, scored a brilliant 50 at the oval last year, took the wicket of all these top order aussies last year but he hasnt played cricket in 12 months and we're expecting him to take wickets off the back of one tour game?! he wasn't played in the south australia game whilst we played panesar. it just didnt make any sense!!
however; the whole test was like the bad dream that 2005's ashes could have turned into. giles drops ponting the way warne dropped pietersen. the way we just needed to bat out for a draw in the final day and we completely failed whereas in 2005 we succeeded. there was the back of the innings resistance by collingwood and anderson whereas in 2005 it was flintoff and jones at edgbaston, but in 2005 it was 50 runs added for the last wicket and i am under the impression collingwood and anderson added about 10. it was every nightmare completely unleashed.
i can't blame flintoff for declaring at 551, that's a no brainer at that stage of the match. you could pile on the runs, but that's precisely the defensive move that we're critisising the team for in picking giles.
and giles. i really like giles, i think he's been england's best spin option in the past x years, scored a brilliant 50 at the oval last year, took the wicket of all these top order aussies last year but he hasnt played cricket in 12 months and we're expecting him to take wickets off the back of one tour game?! he wasn't played in the south australia game whilst we played panesar. it just didnt make any sense!!
however; the whole test was like the bad dream that 2005's ashes could have turned into. giles drops ponting the way warne dropped pietersen. the way we just needed to bat out for a draw in the final day and we completely failed whereas in 2005 we succeeded. there was the back of the innings resistance by collingwood and anderson whereas in 2005 it was flintoff and jones at edgbaston, but in 2005 it was 50 runs added for the last wicket and i am under the impression collingwood and anderson added about 10. it was every nightmare completely unleashed.
I just remember Headingley 1981, a wee lad listening to the radio late at night, how Botham with the bat and Willis with his 8-for with the ball, destroyed Australia when we were all set for victory. Losing the unloseable test. I know how you feel. As an Australian, well, it's great, but startling as well. England actually batted for enough overs in the second innings (73) but scored oh! so! slowly!
This is exactly it, but I'd extend it to the whole 2005 team. At some point in the series everyone played a massive part - Bell the only exception, but even he was outstanding in the field. It was a joy to watch, and the only way you can win: everybody on that team has to be prepared to step up if someone else isn't quite firing. If Flintoff had a bad day it didn't matter because Jones, Harmison or Hoggard would pick up a 5-for. Australia lost because they were carrying three or four players throughout each game - Hayden, Martyn and Gilchrist with the bat, and at least one fast bowler. They came close because of huge performances from Warne and Lee, plus Ponting and Langer in bursts. Now the roles are almost exactly reversed - as they had been for so long before 2005. Not quite, because I don't think everyone on the Ozzie team is match winner, but 8 or 9 are.
don_quixote
Trent End
i still don't understand why we didn't play panesar
S
simon silverdollar
Guest
it's really annoying, as when we were playing well we were a match for the australians, perhaps even more than a match. we just didn't play well often enough!
when trescothick and vaughan get fit there's going to be some major selection headaches, given the performance of bell and collingwood (and the not quite in form but still brilliant cook).
i've heard someone say that bell is a decent wicket keeper. can anyone confirm this? it'd be brilliant if he was...
when trescothick and vaughan get fit there's going to be some major selection headaches, given the performance of bell and collingwood (and the not quite in form but still brilliant cook).
i've heard someone say that bell is a decent wicket keeper. can anyone confirm this? it'd be brilliant if he was...
don_quixote
Trent End
the vaughan headache isnt a problem til next summer thankfully. i don't know who will make way, for me ian bell has pretty much become undroppable. i haven't heard this wicket keeper thing though, i know it's always been touted that trescothick can keep wicket, but for me trescothick's days are over; and i'm pretty sure geraint jones is a gonner too.
So in a few weeks time Shane Warne will shuffle from the crease for the last time. Ahh cricket, the sport of metaphors. I'll be there at Sydney and it looks like we will be farewelling Glenn McGrath as well. I'm still in the first stage of grief. It hasn't really happened. A thoroughly enjoyable figure he's been, especially all with all those character adding flaws. He will be missed somewhat.
I'll have to play this tonight:
I'll have to play this tonight:
S
simon silverdollar
Guest
who'd have thought it?
as much as england can be the most frustrating and disappointing team to watch, there's something really impressive that a team so wracked by injury, with such inexperienced players can find it in themselves to beat the best side in the world twice in the space of just over a week.
collingwood is magnificent, obviously. but i've also got a big soft-spot for nixon. like collingwood, you know he's going to give his all, and that's he's never going to give up. and he sledges ponting, despite being a 36 year old county player. and he does the splits between overs. what more do you want from a cricketer?
as much as england can be the most frustrating and disappointing team to watch, there's something really impressive that a team so wracked by injury, with such inexperienced players can find it in themselves to beat the best side in the world twice in the space of just over a week.
collingwood is magnificent, obviously. but i've also got a big soft-spot for nixon. like collingwood, you know he's going to give his all, and that's he's never going to give up. and he sledges ponting, despite being a 36 year old county player. and he does the splits between overs. what more do you want from a cricketer?
don_quixote
Trent End
this is unbelievable
When I was enduring a miserable time as an Englishman in Australia in December, a regular refrain from Aussies was "the problem with English cricket is that there's no infrastructure"; ie - no system that nurtures talent and brings it to the fore.
Well, Australia lose/rest a few key players, and this happens:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,2014724,00.html
Oh, to be back in Sydney now
But it raises a bigger question - to what extent is Australia's success over the last decade or so down to such things as a culture of sporting excellence, the vaunted infrastructure of the cricket academy, etc; or is it simply the result of a golden generation of players (Warne, Ponting, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden), and the extraordinary fortune to have them all playing at the same time?
Well, Australia lose/rest a few key players, and this happens:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,,2014724,00.html
Oh, to be back in Sydney now
But it raises a bigger question - to what extent is Australia's success over the last decade or so down to such things as a culture of sporting excellence, the vaunted infrastructure of the cricket academy, etc; or is it simply the result of a golden generation of players (Warne, Ponting, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden), and the extraordinary fortune to have them all playing at the same time?
don_quixote
Trent End
actually really sad about bob woolmer