View Single Post
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 22-12-2007, 08:18 PM in reply to greg's post starting "I think Harmison is rated a little too..."
engssmoothcriminal's Avatar
engssmoothcriminal engssmoothcriminal is offline
(ENG) Passed Clare Taylor's 226 Test runs
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Shrewsbury
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire CCC (Shrewbury town FC)
Posts: 231
Well Anderson getting the same marks as Broad is just nonsense. As debuts go Broad's was pretty impressive particularly the mental strength he showed in dealing with then adjusting to being twice warned for running on the pitch in his first couple of overs. On a dead track he kept it under 3 an over and bowled fewer 4 balls than a veteran of 20 tests and countless ODI's Anderson generally manages in a 5 an over spell. Yes he's still raw and pretty one dimensional but he's not a liability in a 4 man attack which Anderson for all his qualities unfortunately is and if it's a straight choice between the two for NZ then it really should be no contest.

A 7 for Collingwood is also pretty flattering. Another modest series with the bat (also seriously underbowled by Vaughan as well as wasted in the slips) and there were some pretty soft dismissal's in there which is most unlike him. And the fact that Harmison surpassed everyone's pre tour expectations of another Ashes horror show does not mean he merits an 8. Yes it was a positive step in the right direction but if we are being brutally honest it was not really the display of a man with over 200 test wickets who should have been leading an inexperienced attack.

In terms of Vaughan's captaincy I was a bit more than "slightly dissapointed". It was poor and whilst people seem to be focussing primarily on the coach his position as captain must be under scrutiny. His inability to adapt his tactics to suit the conditions showed a surprising lack of flexibility (the refusal to use the useful medium pace of Collingwood and Bopara whilst he steadfastly bowled the quicks into the ground) and the "innovative" field changes every other ball really didn't help am ordinary attack find their rhythm. And the fields he set Monty were identical to the Giles keep the runs down whilst the quicks attack from the other end fields of a couple of year ago which when Monty was the designated match winner was a waste and allowed Sri Lanka to milk him to death without being forced to take any risks. Batsmen like Jayawardene and Vandort (who for some reason was getting fields you'd set to Chris Gayle in full flow with men set back on the fence from ball one) don't get flustered and make errors if they're not hitting boundary's and the somewhat overpraised conservative Ashes fields were never going to work.

Last edited by engssmoothcriminal : 22-12-2007 at 08:51 PM.
Reply With Quote