Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Abject. Five hundred and lots plays a brace of 200s.


Still think England can nick one of the next two, though. They will, if they've got any sense, go back to six batsmen, keeper, and four bowlers. I'd like Jones to play instead of Broad. Wouldn't even mind Harmison back in - yes, it's that desparate.


Side for Edgbaston: Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pieterson, Vaughan, Collingwood/ Shah, Flintoff, Ambrose, Jones, Panesar, Harmison/ Sidebottom.

Ambrose? Still? Nah, I'd be chucking him if I were a selector. What about Phil Mustard? Avergaes 23 in ODIs and 26 in county matches. He's got to be better than Ambrose, surely?


So I'd have Cook; Strauss; Vaughan©; Bell; Pieterson; Mustard(wc); Flintoff; Broad; Anderson; Jones; Panesar


I'm still not sure about bringing Colly back in but he had a good knock for Durham at the weekend.

What does Broad do in that team? He seems incapable of taking wickets - there only to store up an end for a while. Might as well play the proper extra batsmen until Broad has developed a bit more bowling threat.


Number six is a key position in test cricket and you have to have a proper batter there.


The keeper could be any keeper from Foster, Mustard, Davies, Scott, Ambrose etc. I'm not fussed - but none of the candidates is a test match six.

For my money Broad offers a good all rounder. He's developing nicely with the bat and although not a deadly bowler offers a good alternative at one end with either Flintoff or Anderson at the other.


Why is no6 "key" compared to 5 or 7? Foster might be a good bet. Was assured a few years ago until he broke his arm and has never got back. First class average is decent too.


You've only got 3 fast bowlers (flintoff, jones and harmy/sidey) - all three of whom aren't at full fitness or match-readiness - not wise imo.

Number six is not any more key than five or seven, I just meant it's a proper, full-on batting position - not one you can chuck a 'keeper averaging 30 in first class cricket (as just about all the available candidates do) into as a best effort approach.


Flintoff has just bowed 40 overs. If Sidey is fit he can bowl lots too - as can Jimmy if he is retained. Colly and Pieterson could mop up 15 overs a day between them, easy. But Jones is a wicket taker who does something different.


Broad is developing, just that. Developing. I like him and think he has a big future but he is being milked by the Saf batsmen right now and they need jolting out of their comfort zones.

Maybe we move Flintoff up to 6 then, as you suggest, and move whichever w'keeper we play to 7. But it shouldn't be Ambrose. He's been dreadful.


Maybe Flintoff has bowled 40 overs but he looked pooped at the end and became ineffective. If Sidebottom is fit is a big if - to come straight back and bowl 40 overs is a big ask. You'd dropped Anderson from your team for some reason. Jones should definitely come back - agreed. Not keen on Colly or Pieterson bowling on these pitches - always reeks of desperation to my mind.


I'd be prepared to replace Broad with Sidebottom, perhaps, but his contribution with the bat has been worth his average bowling display.


Shut-it Bren - this is the only fun we're going to be having until the next match! Enjoy it whilst you can mate.

90 overs in a day, David. 4 x 20 plus 10 fiddled from a fifth bowler. It's a fairly normal sort of equation.


The four would be Flintoff, Anderson, Panesar Jones. You're right, I forgot Jimmy, who deserves to stay for now.


Five full bowlers is great if, a) your batting can carry it (England's can't) and b) it actually offers some variety (Broad, Pattinson, Anderson does not).


None of it matters, though, if three of your top five batsmen play like tarts.

Ted Max Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> None of it matters, though, if three of your top

> five batsmen play like tarts.


On this, I think, we are in unanimous agreement. When do we start asking serious questions about Vaughan? Could we relieve him of his captaincy and hope the batting improves? Who replaces him? And his captaining duties are the only bits he does well. Field placings etc.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Another great job from Leon - sorted a consumer unit and EICR for me last minute. Highly recommend 
    • Admin, please move this if it's in the wrong section. Can anybody recommend a reasonably local dietician (or possibly nutritionist? Not sure what the difference is). My GP has suggested I see a dietician, but there isn't one attached to the practice. I have googled, but it's very hard to tell what people may be like from an online description, and I want somebody who is properly qualified. Alternatively, please PM me if you know of people I should avoid! Thanks x
    • A vet might be able to trace its owners if it's chipped. Also I believe twb who posts on here has a mobile scanner. Poor cat.
    • If you look at the application linked to in the OP, you'll see it's a Licensing Act 2003 one, in this case for the purposes of sale by retail of alcohol and for the provision of late night refreshment: "TAKEAWAY COFFEE/ HOT SNACKS 2300-0100". IF the shop counts as a Hot Food Takeaway, then section P48 of the Southwark Plan https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Southwark Plan 2022 reduced 1.pdf , which appears to be the latest one linked to on Southwark's site, will I presume be applied in any  planning application (Is there one?). It says: "New hot food takeaways will only be permitted where: ..... 3. The proposed location is further than 400 metres from any existing or proposed primary or secondary school’s boundary; ....." It incorporates  policy laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework, and thence the London Plan.  Over the years KFC, and others, have taken a  number of appeals against local planning authority decisions on Takeaways to the Planning Inspectorate.  Some have been allowed.  KFCs 'commentary on evidence contained in London Plan Topic Paper: Hot Food Takeaways', https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/nlp_ad_91.pdf may be of interest to some. I'm guessing it's referring to https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_plan_topic_paper_on_hot_food_takeaways.pdf of 2018, but haven't yet checked.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...