Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius  Rachael said the West Indies should play a specialist or "genuine" batsman at 6, instead of Bravo. And I'll say again what I said then- Bravo is one of the best batsmen in the Carribean. His batting's his stronger suit IMO, and I think he has the capability of averaging over 40 by the end of his career. The Windies could add a specialist batsman into that no. 6 position, but he wouldn't do as well as Bravo, and so by not picking him you don't really miss out on anything. |
I agree with that, in particular as an Australian supporter who thinks likewise about Symonds and the number "6" Australian spot.
Although Symonds is firstly and most importantly a batsman, and a bits and peices bowler at best. Much like Steve Waugh was except Symonds has the added dimension of spin, perhaps he is more like Mark W.
Thing about Bravo is that like Andrew Flintoff, Chris Cairns, Imran Kahn and Ian Botham he is a bowling allrounder.
But in Bravo's and the West Indies particular case I agree, he is the most talented option they have currently got batting "6"
New Zealand I disagree though, in my eyes it looks like they are just loading up with bowlers for the sake of having bowlers. And it is leading to bowlers who dont deserve to get a game being played that hardly get a bowl and offer little with the bat.
I dont understand with the limited population base that New Zealand has to work with, why Scott Styris is not in their test team.
And in England who are probably aiming for more than New Zealand's case, in my eyes it would look more like they do not have confidence in the 4 first choice bowlers they picked and require a spare.
I have a few veiws about England players currently
Sidebottom like Clark of Australia, very good but unfortunately selected to late in his career.
Anderson worth persisting with and improving, drop him and he will have the same problem as Sidebottom.
Flintoff needs to comeback solely on his bowling skills.
Panesar should be the one of the first 3-4 names picked on the England test selection sheet.
Strauss I used to be a big Bell fan for captaincy, but his tapering form has brought me back to Strauss or Pietersen as Captain, I would actualy like to see it happen in Englands upcoming series against South Africa.
Vaughan I would like to see him retained as an opener though (Strauss @ 3) but not as captain or vice captain.
Cook worth persisting with but only as an opener
Bell also worth persisting with and hopefully nail down the #5 spot
Pietersen going through a few growing pains but the current game plan does not seem to suit his more free flowing style, I think like Symonds 5-6 years ago too many people are in his ear about altering his style. Rather than helping KP it appears to be hindering him, go back to the "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle and I think the talents and game style that originally won him England selection will come back to his game. Might also be a good time to elevate him to vice-captain alongside Strauss.
Collingwood is the fire still in his belly, or has he burnt out ?
Ambrose another example of a keeper/batsmen who made his biggest impact just after joining the team, but has found it hard to produce with the bat since. I saw a discussion involving Ian Smith (ex Kiwi keeper), Michael Holding and Alec Stewart talking about England and its woe's finding the all encompasing Adam Gilchrist style keeper it was looking for the other night. What interested me the most was Stewart talking about the re-building of Prior as a keeper batsmen after his first stint in the England side, and at the rate Ambrose is slipping backwards I think that is where England will end up, rather than trying another keeper like Mustard.
Broad his current form is patchy but lets remember he is a development player. I personally would not drop him for Tremlett, Hoggard or Harmison (*in Harmisons current form, if he can recapture 2005 form thats different)
But if Flintoff or Jones hit their lofty previous peaks I would consider his spot fair game. But if it happens the good thing about him is he is young enough and hopefully hungry enough to have a brief spell in the wilderness to gather some strength, new tricks and consistency to make a better fist of his next stint in the squad. Rome was not built in a day, and as an Australian I can inform you nor was Brett Lee. Brett got sent back to the wilderness, rediscovered his desire to play at the top level and lifted his performance level's to new heights. The good thing about Broad like Lee is that they got their first taste at top level young enough, to take full advantage of being able to re-build after a set back.
But cripes sake drop Broad in the middle of Wimbledon common rather than the middle of the Sahara where you dropped Sidebottom Mark 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius In the West Indians' case, the fifth bowler is Jaggernaught, a spinner. The Windies hardly ever play a spinner, even though all of their best bowlers at regional level are spinners, and it never makes sense- ever- to go in to a Test match without a specialist spinner, unless you have a simply awesome pace attack which the Windians don't. Now, you could argue that they could drop a specialist paceman for the spinner. They tried this with Suliemann Benn in the first Sri Lankan test, and it was no more successful than anything else the West Indies have tried with their attack. Bravo had to bowl first change, and he's no kind of first-change bowler. So the five-man attack IMO suits the West Indies the best.
As to the effect that Jaggernaught had on the match- he got one wicket. Not good reading, perhaps, but that one wicket was Hussey on 56. What if Jaggernaught hadn't played? What if Hussey had got to a hundred? What if Australia had declared at 550? What if the West Indians never got close? The result would still have been the same, but the tone of the match, and of the rest of the series, would have been changed completely. The fact is, we don't know what would have happened if Jaggernaught hadn't played, therefore we can't say he didn't make a contribution as a fifth bowler. |
We can he got 1 wicket.
What if another West Indian batsmen played and they got another 95 runs ?
What if Hussey went on and got a slow hundred and Symonds didn't fire ?
What if one of the West Indies batsmen who could tweek the ball a bit came on instead of Jaggernaught and got 2 wickets.
At the end of the day they hardly used him. And I stand by my comments is a fifth bowler superfluous to the requirements of an international test side.
Much the same way 4 ruckmen would be superfluous to an Aussie Rules team, or 4 strikers would be superfluous to a soccer side. Add to that you are robbing midfeilders or defenders and most likely creating a deficiency somewhere else in your squad.