Ponting Clean Sweep on Awards night

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Pure fiction - are you sure you are talking about the Ashes in 2005.

Lords Test: Thorpe should have played at 6 with Flintoff replacing Giles, Hoggard or Jones and playing at 7: Giles didn't even get a bowl in the crucial first innings, and Hoggard and Jones only had time for 18 between them.... and the Aussie second innings saw Hoggard bowl no more than 12 overs in a day, Simon Jones even fewer in his busiest dayand Giles only got a chance at 9 overs.

At Edgbaston, only Giles shouldered a respectable workload in Australia's first innings: Hoggard and Harmison shouldered 19 between them... and the other pair only bowled a pathetic 15 and 16 a piece. In Australia's second innings, Hoggard and Jones bowled just 5 overs each. Had Thorpe played at 6 with Flintoff replacing Hoggard (and batting at 7) the side would have been stronger.

Hoggard could also have skipped the Old Trafford pitch: even a cursory glance at the batting surface, outfield and weather forecast should have told the management he was the man to miss out. He was needed for just 5 overs in the 1st Aussie innings and just 13 in the second Aussie innings...

There's no way Hoggard could have missed the Trent Bridge Test... and Giles (who never got a bowl in the first innings) or Harmison (who had dropped below the other seamers in the pecking order by this point and only bowled 9 overs in the first innings) would perhaps have been the guy to omit.

With Jones pulling up injured this is the one game where the luxury of a 5th bowler meant the side was able to take a knock in its stride - but with Thorpe in the side the game should still have been won (or at least drawn).

Of course.. the final Test saw Flintoff play as one of a four man attack as I'd been recommending... but with Collingwood taking the place that Thorpe should have had.

Australia let England off lightly: the lack of batting was NOT as exposed as it has been this winter... basically because McGrath trod on a ball and the Aussie selectors kept plugging away with Gillespie and Kasprowicz when MacGill and Watson would have been a better option. Had the 2006/07 Aussie side been touring... England would have been stuffed... exposed by batting frailties that Thorpe at 6 would have rectified.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Lords Test: Thorpe should have played at 6 with Flintoff replacing Giles, Hoggard or Jones and playing at 7: Giles didn't even get a bowl in the crucial first innings, and Hoggard and Jones only had time for 18 between them.... and the Aussie second innings saw Hoggard bowl no more than 12 overs in a day, Simon Jones even fewer in his busiest dayand Giles only got a chance at 9 overs.

Vaughan was captain at Lords - so who got bowled was down to him an no-one else, it was Vaughan who called on the players to bowl - if he got it wrong then it was him to blame, Flintoff carried the can over Panesar, so Vaughan should carry the can over Giles.

Rachael how could Thorpe have played at 6 at Lords 2005, when he retired::England v Bangladesh at Chester-Le-Street - Jun 3-7, 2005 was his last Test match:: - and Thorpe was not a #6, and still you don't realise that the selectors picked Flintoff to play at #6 because he did poor at #7, he averaged over 40 at #6 in 2005, so I don't see your problem.

Originally Posted by Rachael

At Edgbaston, only Giles shouldered a respectable workload in Australia's first innings[... ]Had Thorpe played at 6 with Flintoff replacing Hoggard (and batting at 7) the side would have been stronger.

Rachael with respect you are so wrong, Flintoff at #6 scored 68 in Englands first innings, and 73 in Englands second innings.
Had Flintoff batted at #7 England would have lost because in the second innings the no's 8-11 scored only 20 runs - Flintoff would have run out of partners - and being there was so little in it - England would have lost.

Flintoff also bowled 15 overs and took 3 wickets in the first innings,Vaughan chose who he bowled - the pitch at that stage must have suited Giles, who is BTW not now considered good enough.
Flintoff bowled 22 over in England's second innings - taking 4 wickets . making his bowling contribution 18.5 an innings, @ an average of 3.5 wickets an innings, so couple that with his 141 runs - IMO his selection at #6 was correct.

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's no way Hoggard could have missed the Trent Bridge Test... and Giles (who never got a bowl in the first innings)

Just my point - NO bowler should have missed any game, and for the record being we are talking about Flintoff at 6 - He scored 102 in England's first innings - and just 26 in England second innings - giving Flintoff match figures of 128 - or an average of 64 an innings batting at #6.
Flintoff bowled 40 overs that match - with Jones taking a 5fer in the first innings - and Hoggard 5 wickets in the match.
The rest of the wickets were shared - all the bowlers were needed in that match - Giles bowled 28 overs in Australia's second innings, and Harmison took 4 match wickets.
England needed 5 bowlers that much was plain to see.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Australia let England off lightly: the lack of batting was NOT as exposed as it has been this winter

Australia were out played, they could not come to terms with the reverse swing of Jones and Flintoff, the pace of Harmison, nor the swing and accuracy of Hoggard - and Giles bowled some crucial overs.
Australia had the same problem England have had in 2006 - they did not get good enough starts, but they did not have as many injured or sick batsmen as England - so no comparison.
Hayden could not get starts at either Birmingham or Nott's , and Ponting was not consistent.

Originally Posted by Rachael

basically because McGrath trod on a ball and the Aussie selectors kept plugging away with Gillespie and Kasprowicz when MacGill and Watson would have been a better option.

Had McGrath played the outcome would have been no different - he did make a return if my memory serves me right - hey you cite Mcgrath being injured - well Trescothick had to go home, Harmison was troubled, Giles had not played for a year - Flintoff had not played since surgery - and Bell is a burden against the Aussie's, Simon jones was not available injured - England would have been glad of just one player standing on a ball - all sides can make excuses.
And good point about the Aussie selectors - matched only by the the England selectors choosing Harmison - Trescothick and Giles who never had a hope of playing.
But what this post proves is that when on form - Flintoff at #6 is a must - look at his figures, batting and bowling.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Vaughan was captain at Lords - so who got bowled was down to him an no-one else, it was Vaughan who called on the players to bowl - if he got it wrong then it was him to blame

Vaughan juggled his bowlers nicely... he just had (as throughout most of the series) more of them than he needed.. but I really don't see why you are arguing here: you were the first to acknowledge that Engand's 2005 Ashes batting was NOT great: that the England series win was depite, rather than because of, the batting. This was shown up badly at Lords (where England did NOT get away with it, and Flintoff contributed 0 and 3), at Edgbaston (where the first innings ended two sessions early, failing to make it through 80 overs, and where the second innings was a mess - 75/6 at one point).

How you can argue that England were better off with (say) Giles rather than Thorpe at Lords is beyond me: batting wasn't particularly difficult for anyone with the nous to cope with the slope... and a player like Thorpe would have been odds-on to play at least one big innings (coming in at 3-18 or 4-19 and building a huge partnership with Pietersen, who was almost completely untroubled the other end).

Similarly at Edgbaston... where Flintoff played a cameo instead of supporting Pietersen and gave his senior partner just 43 deliveries of a 105 ball partnership... meaning 68 from Flintoff was matched by just 35 from Pietersen and the senior player was left stranded.

In Thorpe's last England test innings of any significance he reached 67 off 197 balls... during which time his first partner (Strauss) was given 96 balls to face and his second partner (Flintoff) was given 75 balls to face. That's a total of 171 balls that his partners got to receive... and that would have seen Pietersen (or anyone who followed him) supported from an hour after lunch until pretty much the same time on day two rather than until just 3 balls after tea - enough time for the likes of Pietersen to ensure a double-century partnership!

I'm not guaranteeing this is what would have happened... but the sort of innings commonly played by Thorpe towards the end of his career offerred far, FAR more support to a surviving top order bat (like Pietersen) than the sort of cameo Flintoff played that day.... and even if he'd merely batted for 30 minutes and got out... Flintoff's cameo would have come and gone with Pietersen the other end... and England would have ended the day in better shape!

ps. Thorpe retired because England decided to try and regain the Ashes without him: he was available for selection when the series began!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Vaughan juggled his bowlers nicely... he just had (as throughout most of the series) more of them than he needed[...]but I really don't see why you are arguing here: you were the first to acknowledge that Engand's 2005 Ashes batting was NOT great:

Let's talk about the whole series - all the bowlers contributed, and yes Vaughan used them well.

I agree I said at the time(2004-2005) that Englands batting was not as good as the Australian batting, but what you have not mentioned is that I also argued that England had no strength in depth to their batting, but had a superior bowling attack - led by Harmison and Flintoff, in fact Simon jones - Hoggard and Giles all played crucial roles - taking away any of those bowlers to add a batsman (of which England had none experienced enough), I am certain England would have not regained the Ashes.
I never faltered in saying Englands batting was not that good, and in praising the England seam bowlers - so I am being consistent

Originally Posted by Rachael

How you can argue that England were better off with (say) Giles rather than Thorpe at Lords is beyond me: batting wasn't particularly difficult for anyone with the nous to cope with the slope.

You are picking only one match, would Thorpe have made any difference we will never know, but in the bigger picture England secured the Ashes - so the lost game at Lords was not relevant.
And I don't think Thorpe was available.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Similarly at Edgbaston... where Flintoff played a cameo instead of supporting Pietersen and gave his senior partner just 43 deliveries of a 105 ball partnership.[...]meaning 68 from Flintoff was matched by just 35 from Pietersen and the senior player was left stranded.

First Flintoff did not play a 'cameo' - it was obvious that England after being beat at Lords came out with the plan to smash the Australia bowling, and Flintoff was an intrigal part of that plan - don't forget his 78 in the second innings.
Also Pietersen was not Flintoff's senior.

Originally Posted by Rachael

In Thorpe's last England test innings of any significance he gave his partners (Strauss and Pietersen) he reached 67 off 197 balls... during which time Strauss was given 96 balls to face and Flintoff was given 75 balls to face. That's a total of 171 balls that his partners got to receive.

At the time you are talking about Flintoff was at his best - he forged match saving partnerships with Thorpe, with G O Jones (he also was in form at that time) - and even with Strauss, this was out of necessity after the top order had crumbled once again- including Vaughan.

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. Thorpe retired because England decided to try and regain the Ashes without him: he was available for selection when the series began!

I am not sure you are right - did he not make himself unavailable - but no matter for some reason you are comparing thorpe at 6 - with Flintoff at 6, when Thorpe I don't think ever batted as low as 6.

No other series would prove that Flintoff was a true #6 all rounder than Ashes 2005, with the possible exception of West Indies in England 2005.

Rachael Flintoff averaged over 40 at #6 against Australia in 2005, over 50 against India in India in 2006 at#6, not counting the Test pre Ashes 2005 at #6.

Was Thorpe a better batsman than Flintoff like you are saying - of course he was, and the rest on the England batting also.

[Wiljoy]

Originally Posted by Ernest

First a word about Ponting - he deserves all the awards he gets, he is probably the best cricket player this planet has ever seen and that counts Don Bradman also, who made his runs in more genteel, and easier times (Bodyline Excluded).

Four English players retired, well I would have thought he would mean.

Harmison
Vaughan
Giles - although I don't think he is finished.
Bell - no third chance to play with the big boys .

I'ts only a few days since I rebuked Rachael for her colour-tinted glasses accessment on this forum,saying vertually that Ding dong Bell was the best thing since sliced bread for English cricket,and here you are saying his international career is virtually ended,...well I totally agree with you for once Ern,when Bell is mentioned in Australia,laughing invariably starts,definately not a International standard player, wrong temperament.