Quote:
Originally Posted by flanflinger  Tell that to Australia who had a Number 7 who averaged 47 and scored 17 of them. That was why they were the best in the world. The no 6 is a front line batsmen, and as such should be scoring Hundreds. |
That's what it all comes down to, isn't it- Gilchrist! Gilchrist was unique, and it's pointless to me trying to copy that kind of success for England. Yes, there have been quite a few no. 6 batsmen who scored hundreds, NE mentioned De Villiers for South Africa. But he didn't mention Kallis. Kallis, the allrounder, who's a good back-up pace bowler who can bat at no. 4 or even 3. If Kallis wasn't in the team, I doubt that they'd have the luxury of playing a specialist batsman in that posiiton. And look at Symonds for Australia- he sin't really more successful than other no. 6's we've had in the past 10 years. But he can bowl.
Which is really what England need. They don't have a world-class specialist like Laxman or De Villiers or Doug Walters to come in at 6, as such anyone they put in will simply be dead weight. What they really need to strengthen is their bowling, and someone like Flintoff who can contribute at 6 and bowl well is far more valuable IMO than a specialist batsman like Shah or Bopara or anyone else who'll just fail when everyone else does.