Strategies to win the Ashes

[Mike]

Mark Richardson's latest column provided the recipe to beat the Aussies in the Ashes:

1. To beat the Aussie batsmen the England bowlers need to bowl a good length ball hitting the top of off stump and do it ball after ball. That way the batsman's margin for error is very small.

2. To beat the Aussie bowlers requires infinite patience because they DO bowl a good length ball hitting the top of off stump and do it ball after ball. Therefore, shot selection is going to be vital. Mark Richardson notes, "There is nothing flashy about the way they bowl. They are not quick and do not, in fact, do anything that special but their experience and skill combines to allow them to carry out plans with ruthless efficiency."

Can our England boys play with the same determined discipline and "ruthless efficiency"? Can they handle the relentless pressure the Aussies will apply?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Yes. We can - its whether we will. Crusher vaughan has instilled a bit of yorkshire steel in our team and hopefully we wont be as daft as e were in SA series in 2003 in our shot selection.

I'd like to find a more accurate first change than anderson who doesnt keep it tight. GIles will, freddie will, hoggy will harmo might(but any waywardness will surely countered by wickets at some stage) but you cant bet the farm on anderson. Very daft suggestion - Martin Bicknell anyone ????????

Batting wise tresco is all or nothing Strauss will be OK (as long as he gets out of this daft habit of swishing a pull shot when ever he can and giving his wicket up) Vaughan is still class Thorpe is class. But man for man we're still short.

The main thing we need to do in the first test is make it last 5 days, and aim not to lose.

[Ernest]

Mike ,
You can see the kiwi's are afraid of the Aussies.
If the Aussie attack is not that fast, but accurate, then the answer is to grind them down, and we have the players to do just that, in Thorpe and Strauss at the top of the order in particular.
But if that is the best the Aussies have to offer, then when their bowlers start to get tired, then they are set up for the Trescothick and the Flintoffs to exploit.
Michael Vaughan and Butcher/key can play either way.
Sounds like out attack in the more devastating of the two, Flintoff is very accurate, in fact that is his trade mark, so we need Harmison not just to bowl fast, but with control.
Certain grounds like Headingly and possably Old Trafford, should favour, all our seamers, Hoggard in particular at Headingly, and Giles could come into play at Old Trafford.

[Rachael]

Richardson's certainly spot on in terms of approach: winning is going to be by consistently maintaining a high level of pressure three sessions a day for 5 consecutive days rather than finding a moment or two of inspiration a couple of times a day.

Interestingly.. England's great run of results of late have NOT been down to that consistency. Against the lesser opposition we've actually lost a stack of sessions.. but then been let off the hook in others.. and managed to swing things with the odd spectacular partnership or exceptional bowling spell.

Approach wise.. I think Fletcher is on track.. and Vaughan's got the focus on bowling to plans and being patient when attacking... and has just been let down in the execution by periodic poor spells (especially with the new ball)... but tactically speaking, I really don't think Tresco, Vaughan and Jones in particular have really shown any clue in longer than I care to remember when it comes to judging a pitch, judging an attack, pacing an innings, finding the balance between looking to be positive and demonstrating patience.

It's not that the batsmen are incapable of such feats: Tresco played a monumental innings against Pakistan a few years back... and Vaughan's frequently done well when the match situation has dictated how he needs to play... but I really do think we're dependent on Strauss and Thorpe in particular to bring some thinking-in-the middle to the party.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Thorpe obvious, but tresco CAN show application - last test against SA springs to mind. Strauss CAN but again seems to be prone to pulling stuff to a fielder at mid wicket rather than leave well alone. Key I think will show application - if picked.

Whose the 3rd seamer gonna be rachael ? Jimmy, Jones, caddick, tudor (!) Bicknell, Kirtly ............and who would you want to see if not picked.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Interestingly.. England's great run of results of late have NOT been down to that consistency. Against the lesser opposition we've actually lost a stack of sessions.. but then been let off the hook in others.. and managed to swing things with the odd spectacular partnership or exceptional bowling spell.

Two things here Rachael, we have lost sessions that is cricket, but no we have not been let of the hook, we have played ourselves out of trouble.
Spectacualar partnerships are what cricket is about, as are exceptional bowling spells, all top bowlers have such spells.

It has to be remembered that not long ago, Autralia were outplayed in quite a few spells, against Shri Lanks, and still came out on top.

Rachael]It's not that the batsmen are incapable of such feats: Tresco played a monumental innings against Pakistan a few years back... and Vaughan's frequently done well when the match situation has dictated how he needs to play... but I really do think we're dependent on Strauss and Thorpe in particular to bring some thinking-in-the middle to the party.

Strauss and Thorpe, are key players in the middle, but so are the top order of vaughan/Tresco/Key, before they are exposed.

Originally Posted by RBLC

Whose the 3rd seamer gonna be rachael ? Jimmy, Jones, caddick, tudor (!) Bicknell, Kirtly ............and who would you want to see if not picked

It has to be Simon Jones if he is fit, which I doubt or Anderson/Hoggard.

Tudor/Caddick/Bicknell/Kirtly, I know this was aimed at Rachael, but the four aformentioned, have been there, wore the T Shirts, and lost it.

[Rachael]

I don't think there's any question about the ability of ANY of the English players to apply themselves, RBLC.. they all have the discipline to manage a solid innings. What seems to me to be lacking is what Knight brought to the ODI side.. what Collingwood now brings to the ODI side... and what has been strnagely lacking in the Test side... namely the ability to think straight and make good calls when out there in the middle.

No one disputes that there's a time and a place for taking on the bowlers a bit... for encouraging them to strain for something special by putting the bat to perfectly respectable deliveries. Thing is... picking the right time to try that.. and then picking the right balls to punish.. and punishing them in ways that still stack the odds in your favour... seems to need a bit more wit than Tresco and Vaughan in particular have ever really seemed able to muster.

Strauss seems promising on that front.. and Thorpe has the sense and discipline to set a good example further down the order... but they are both nudgers-and-nurdlers who can actually build pressure through improvised dinks without resorting to the big strokes.

Thing is.. the other players are more orthodox "block or blast" types.. and when there are plenty of crummy deliveries to blast they do well.. and when there is nothing to hit and we're in trouble they do OK just blocking... but in ordinary sessions where things are less clear-cut.. they frequently seem a bit lost: either shot selection seems to get a bit random, to no good effect... or it gets gung ho, with even the very best deliveries being taken on in suicidal manner.

Seems to me to be quite at odds with the bowling and the captaincy in the field.. which seems to me to be flexible and responsive enough, calm, considered, purposeful and based on a real sense of understanding what situations call for.

Originally Posted by rblc

Whose the 3rd seamer gonna be rachael ? Jimmy, Jones, caddick, tudor (!) Bicknell, Kirtly ............and who would you want to see if not picked.

Strikes me that in an ideal world we'd get enough overs out of Flintoff and Giles to go with just Hoggard and Harmison as frontline seamers (perhaps backed by 2-3 occasional bowlers). That would allow us to play an extra top order bat (ideally, for me, Bell at six, offering a few overs a day and leaving a 7-8-9-10 that is very respectable indeed).

My next best alternative would be to find a genuine new-ball bowler to open with Harmison (one who can show Harmison what it means to be a new-ball bowler) so that Hoggard can focus on making good use of the ball as the shine comes off it.

My own preference would be Caddick if he is bowling well... because he's pretty much the only credible option. Failing that I guess Bicknell HAS to be better than Jones / Anderson as a 1st change option... as would Saggers.

[Ernest]

At times when I read a post, I have to pinch myself to make sure I an not dreaming, well I have just read such a post, and yes I did pinch myself, and yes the post does exsist.

I have been critisised for putting my opinions above the like of Michael Atherton ect, Michael Atherton I would wager,and every other commentator on TV or in the newspapers wpuld agree that the best spot to play Freddie Flintoff is at number 6, Fletcher no less put him there because he realised Flintoff was wasted at no 7, he had to bat with the tail, and he was better than that.
So Rachael wants to move Bell to no 6, when he is a top order batsman in waiting, and I assume that Rachael would turn back the clock to the bad old days, and play Flintoff at 7, against the advice of the like of Atherton, Fletcher and vaughan.
Rachael is of course entitled to her opinion, just like the rest of us, but I hope it is realised that mucking about with the possition of Fintoff would fly againsed the opinions of all cricket pundits worth their name.

I have said in the past, more than once, that England are thin on the bowling front, and if Flintoff, and or Harmison were to be injured, we could kiss the ashes goodby, because at the moment there are no credible replacements.
This is just how hard pressed we are, and Rachael makes that point, I must add IMHO.

Originally Posted by Rachael

My own preference would be Caddick if he is bowling well... because he's pretty much the only credible option. Failing that I guess Bicknell HAS to be better than Jones / Anderson as a 1st change option... as would Saggers

Rachael is saying here, that Caddick is the only option to open the bowling with Harmison, and Rachael also says, that Caddick could show Harmison how to be a new ball bowler, it's all in Rachaels post.

I would say to that, if caddick was so good, why did we not win more, when he and Gough opened the bowling?.
Look what Rachael is saying, "Bicknell Has to be better than Jones/Anderson,as would Saggers"
What a backward step, Caddick/Saggers.

But is Rachael right, Are these aging players better than Anderson/jones// because if she is right, England are in a mess, if either Flintoff ot Harmison are injured, because with respect to Rachael, Caddick and Saggers are finished, and if they are the best we have, we may be top of the world at the moment, but enjoy the moment while it lasts.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Freddie Flintoff is at number 6, Fletcher no less put him there because he realised Flintoff was wasted at no 7, he had to bat with the tail, and he was better than that.

Right now, Ernest, Flintoff comes in ahead of Jones, Giles and Hoggard who can bat. If Bell played at 6 and everyone moved down one place.. that would not change. The only difference is that we'd go from 9-out, all-out to 10-out, all out (one bunny in Harmison, rather than two in Harmison and Anderson).

The case for Flintoff at six is based on us playing Jones and four bowlers: where a year ago the likes of Atherton might have expected a batsman like Jones to come in ahead of the immature Flintoff.. almost everyone would now accept that for the time being.. Flintoff should come in ahead of Jones.

I'm not questioning that logic.. merely the advisability of playing just 5 specialist bats so that we can fit in a second rate specialist bowler.

Originally Posted by Ernest

I would say to that, if caddick was so good, why did we not win more, when he and Gough opened the bowling?.

I wouldn't pretend that either Caddick or Gough were ever truly great.. and certainly wouldn't contend that either could now bowl as effectively as they did at their peak.. but right now we're short of a genuine opening bowler to compliment Harmison... as Hoggard and Anderson are ideally first change bowlers... and Jones hates the new ball.

It's no long term solution.. but two tall, genuine new-ball bowlers with econoical actions that allow them to bowl long spells at a good pace and with steep bounce would be an appealing short term fix to get us through next summer.

Originally Posted by Ernest

Look what Rachael is saying, "Bicknell Has to be better than Jones/Anderson,as would Saggers"
What a backward step, Caddick/Saggers.

We're talking about next summer, and next summer alone. In England. Trying to win at Headingley, especially, where bowlers like Bicknell have always thrived.. and where Saggers might be expected to do a great job... and where Caddick has bowled sensationally well in the past.

If either Jones or Anderson were actually looking the part then this would not arise.. but sadly.. neither would even figure in any county wish list this winter: right now, Jon Lewis knocks spots off the pair of them.

[Andy Mellon]

I personally wouldn't mind Harrison being given a try. He looks a great bowler from what I've seen. Also, as he showed against Essex this year, he can bat a bit too.

Certainly, I think recalling Saggers would be taking a step back. I've not seen anything in him that shows he's got what it takes at international level.

I think if you were looking for Mr. Reliable to be the English version of Glenn McGrath, the closest we've got is Jon Lewis, and I reckon he'll go the same way as Mike Smith and never be given a proper chance at international level.