| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| Quote:
50 odd runs isn't going to be the difference between winning or losing a Test Match I'm afraid, and even then, you're banking on that extra batsman actually making any runs - thats not guaranteed at all. Bringing in another strike bowler like Anderson, who is a proven wicket taker - could prove all the difference between winning and losing a Test Match, specially on wickets that look like favouring the bowlers. I simply do not subscribe to the philosophy of propping up our batting weakness with another batsman - those batsman selected need to do what they're picked for - make runs. It seems incredible to me, that whilst people on here are clearly concerned about our batting weakness, they resolutely defend Trescothick's inclusion based on past performance, yet won't drop him for a more reliable/consistent batsmen and even go to the extreme of bringing in another batsman to make up the shortfall in identified weaknesses! This kind of philosophy so smacks of 'defensiveness', if England hope to win these Tests against the Kiwi's they need to attack them from the outset - gain the upper hand in bowling them out cheaply and then hope our batsman can get their sh*t together and put some runs on the board. Quote:
Hopefully take wicket or two between them? Are you kidding me? The Kiwi's would have a run-fest with our part timers, and have exactly the opposite effect to what is really needed - to keep the pressure on the Kiwi batsmen and not give them any breathing space whatsoever to try and score any runs. The key to winning this Test series is for England to take wickets - bringing in part timer bowlers to make up for a lack of specialist seamer is madness. The only reason you bowl a part time bowler is when you're out of idea's and the frontline specialist bowlers simply aren't taking wickets - you bring in a part timer to 1/ rest the specialist seamers 2/ try something different 3/add in some variety you do not use them as a makeshift substitute for specialist seamers becuse you filled up the extra seamer slot with a batsman. Scott |
12-05-2004, 12:13 PM
in reply to Kirsty Harris's post starting "Freddie more than merits his place in..." | |||
| |||
| In the 2002 series when we played NZ, it is interesting to note that we played just TWO specialist seamers - Caddick and Hoggard. The other bowlers were Giles and Flintoff. Bear in mind also that Flintoff was at this point a much, much less threatening bowler than he is now. So we were effectively relying on just two bowlers to take the bulk of the wickets - and it worked. I know we only drew that series, but we had much the better of the drawn Test - we'd have won it if it weren't for the weather, I think, and our loss in the last Test was mainly due to a lower-order batting collapse (and why was the lower-order weak? Because the extra batsman was Ramps, who failed totally in the series - now if he was the option today as the extra batsman, I'd opt for the extra bowler! But he isn't, and in Strauss and Collingwood we have two genuinely solid bats who will strengthen the line-up.) So for this series I would reccommend playing Flintoff - who coped admirably against the Kiwis last time and is now a more threatening bowler than he was then. I think he will be capable of shouldering the burden of a first-change bowler - he coped well enough in the WI. Then, as Giles isn't the player he was and we don't have another decent spinner, I would bring in Jones (my pick) or Anderson as a fourth bowler. In 2002 England took 53 wickets out of a possible 60. Caddick took 19 wickets, Hoggard 17, Flintoff 9, Giles 6 and Butcher 2. I think that Harmison and Hoggard are more than capable of taking 35 odd wickets between them. This leaves a potential 25 to be shared between Flintoff, Jones, part-timers and run-outs, etc. I think that is quite possible. Just as an extra batsman can make top-order batsman complacent, so an extra bowler can do the same to bowlers. Regardless of how many bowlers we play, Harmison and Hoggard are the strike bowlers, the men who get the new ball, and they need to do most of the job. If they don't, we won't win, regardless of how many bowlers we play. This is not weakening the bowling. To my mind, four bowlers is standard for a Test side - five bowlers is strengthening it. Four is just normal. The attack in the WI consisted of five bowlers basically because the management were unsure as to whether Giles would do well, but wanted a spin option. They didn't trust Giles enough to make him one bowler of four, so they played him as part of a five-man attack, encouraged also by the fact that he is a good-ish bat - the "hedging your bets" idea that has been pointed out earlier. On early season pitches in NZ or England I just do not see the point of ever playing more than four bowlers. |
| |||
| Quote:
Because by including Flintoff you get extra variety in the bowling department, extra rest periods for the frontline seamers, and a Test Match proven bowler and batsman. As highly regarded as Collingwood is in the batting deprtment, his bowling isn't up to much, and he is as yet still unproven as a batsman in the Test Arena. Quote:
Scott |
|
12-05-2004, 12:33 PM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "In the 2002 series when we played NZ,..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
Interesting post. Although I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. Did you ever consider the reason we didn't win the series against New Zealand was because we only played two front line seamers? What could have happened had our bowling attack been more potent than the one that actually played? Once again using stats and seeing what happened in the past does not always provide the answers to what will happen in the future, particularly as our bowlers are somewhat better now than they were then. I also dispute your conclusion (and other people's views) that if the two strike bowlers in Hoggard and Harmison can't take the wickets no-one else will? Huh? How do you work that one out? If the recent tour in the West Indies taught us anything about our bowling attack it was that different pitches suit different bowlers - how else do you explain that Harmison took a 7-fer in one match, Hoggard a 4-fer in one, Jones a 5-fer in one, and Flintoff a 5-fer in one? Coincidence? I don't think so. The wickets in England won't be a lot different to those in the West Indies - so do you still maintain we only need two front line seamers to take the wickets? Scott |
| ||||
| Rackael Quote:
Who does vaughan turn to when things are going pear shaped?Flintoff,he is the man always called on to steady the ship,his bowling stats would be even better,if his team-mates bothered to hold on to catches of his bowling. Collingwood could not do the job in the bowling department,that is asked of Flintoff,as for the batting.over the last year or so flintoff has nothing to prove,he has done it,Collingwood on the other hand has everything to prove,can he bat at the highest level,he is the one with somthing to prove. |
| |||
| There's no doubt in my mind that Freddie is one of four seamers you would select. If you want the spinning option then Giles plays and Freddie bats at six, if not then the extra batsman plays and Freddie bats at seven. The back up isn't great but the more bowling they get the better they will get, Collingwood in particular. |
|
12-05-2004, 01:08 PM
in reply to Scott-Wozniak's post starting "Yorky Lad
50 odd runs isn't going to..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
How often did England, in the 1990s, knock over the top four batsmen against the Australians, or West Indies, or South Africans, or Kiwis, only for Ian Healy, or Adam Gilchrist, or Ridley Jacobs, or Sean Pollock, or Lance Klusenor, or Chris Cairns to come in and take the game away from us with a gritty 50? Let's take an example of this - Eng score 200 in the first innings - it is below par, but some determined bowling by Caddick/Gough/Fraser sees the opposition reduced to 100/5. There is a good chance England could snatch a first innings lead. But no - out comes their gritty No.7 who scores 50, as well as another 50 runs in partnerships, which takes them to our score. The chance of an important lead has been lost and England go on to lose the match, generally by about 50-100 runs. This for me, was the story of the 1990s - England's lower order would collapse horribly, while the opposition's would score the crucial runs that enabled it to win close-scoring matches. The bowling was generally our strong suit - the fragility of the middle-order would let us down. This is the case now - our bowling attack is good enough to get the Kiwis out. But a middle order that read 6Flintoff, 7Jones 8 Hoggard 9 Harmison 10 Jones 11 Anderson could be very, very fragile - to the extent that even when the top order did do their jobs and score some runs, the lower order would fail to press home their advantage. This was the case in the second Test against Pakistan, 2001 - the top order did its jpb, with Vaughan and Thorpe getting centuries. But we then collapsed from 282-2 to 357 all out, with Alec Stewart stranded NO on 39 because no-one could stay with him. We ended up losing the Test. A strong lower order not only prevents collapses, it also pushes home an advantage. [/quote]The only reason you bowl a part time bowler is when you're out of idea's and the frontline specialist bowlers simply aren't taking wickets - you bring in a part timer to 1/ rest the specialist seamers 2/ try something different 3/add in some variety you do not use them as a makeshift substitute for specialist seamers becuse you filled up the extra seamer slot with a batsman. Scott [/quote] Scott - on an early season pitch in England, the only reason you bowl a fifth seamer of any kind, part-time or specialist, is when you're out of ideas and the other four haven't taken wickets. The point you make about adding an extra batter - that it makes the other batsman complacent and less likely to do their job - holds true for bowlers. If your two opening bowlers, the strike bowlers, get through their spell without taking a wicket, you are in a much worse postion than if the top two batsmen fail. This is because the new ball is gone, the batsmen are set and your best bowlers are tired. Harmison and Hoggard need to do their job - which is to take about 30-35 wickets between them in the series. I have confidence in Harmison, Hoggard, Jones/Anderson and Flintoff taking wickets. I think any four of these 5 will take the wickets needed. As I said before, bear in mind that in 2002 against the Kiwis, Flintoff and Giles (less threatening than the Flintoff of today and Jones) were supporting Caddick and Hoggard, and only 20 overs of Butcher's part-timers were needed in the whole series. I really believe that we have four bowlers who are good enough to not need anyone else. |
|
12-05-2004, 01:47 PM
in reply to Scott-Wozniak's post starting "sostenurter
Interesting post. Although..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
Regarding the point about all England's bowlers doing well, you're completely right. The point I was trying to make about Harmison and Hoggard needing to succeed is that they are the strike bowlers who get the new ball. They have to make inroads with the new ball, otherwise the support bowlers are screwed - they'll have an old ball facing well-set batsman. Flintoff's five-fers came after Hoggard and Harmison had set him up by removing both of the openers, so that he had relatively new-ish batsman to attack. The only case where this didn't happen was Jones's five-fer, when he came into the attack very soon anyway, and thus with the new ball to help him. My point is that if you have four seamers and give them all 7 overs at the start of an innings, that's 28 overs in. If you haven't taken a wicket, or have taken only one, the fifth bowler is up against it, against at least one well-set batsman. He's either got to be a lot better than the other four - in which case - why is he playing as fifth seamer? or the other four will have to have been bowling utter pies. If this is the case, then however well the fifth seamer is bowling, he won't have any support, and if your four top bowlers are bowling pies, you're not going to win a Test match however many bowlers you play. I can see the point you are making about variation, different kinds of seam, reverse swing etc. But we have four quite different seamers as it is, who all complement each other nicely, and if they fail, I don't see a fifth bowler making a difference. I am trying to think of examples in my mind where a specialist fifth seamer (not a fifth bowler, a fifth seamer,) has ever made a matchwinning contribution to a match. I honestly can't think of one. This is because in situations where a fifth bowler is required - eg on flat pitches where batsmen will score runs - the fifth bowler is going to be a spinner, who will profit on that pitch. Pitches that suit seamers are quick, bowler-friendly tracks where big scores will not be made. So on pitches that suit seamers, it's generally agreed that four, and very often, three seamers will be able to do the job. On the rare occasion five seamers are picked on these pitches, they either don't get a bowl or come in too late to the innings to make much of a difference. Or the reason they're picked is that no-one has much faith in the other four, so they think that playing five mediocre seamers is better than four. If anyone can come up with an example of a specialist fifth seamer making a matchwinning contribution(and I'm not saying there isn't an example, just that I can't think of one), I will give this idea more credence. Until then, I remain sceptical, and think we should play with four seamers. If we get to the situation in the first Test against NZ where we desperately need a fifth bowler(I don't mean just bringing in a part-timer to fill in a couple of overs, i mean desperately needing a fifth bowler ie - they're a 150-0 after 50 overs), let alone seamer, I will be very disappointed with the four frontline bowlers. And even then, I won't think there is much a fifth seamer could have done about it sostenurter |
|
12-05-2004, 02:08 PM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "Scott - I can't agree with that at all..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
No-one disputes runs can be vital in winning Test Matches, and it's easy to look back at previous Test Matches and point out when 50 runs was vital to winning the game. In the bigger picture, I noticed you decided to avoid the question I posed to you about whether England could have won that previous series against the Kiwi's had they had a more potent bowling attack rather tham the two front line bowlers you seem to think need to take all the wickets. I simply do not agree with the premise of 'fattening up' a weak batting line up with the addition of an extra batsman purely because the identified weaknesses in the batting line up are not being dealt with. Neither does it follow that bringing in an extra batsman will make any difference whatsoever to the number of runs put on the board. Fletcher is fully aware that our batting line up is the weak link in our game - thats exactly why he brought in Jones to replace Read in the hope he would add vital runs down the order, it's also one of the reasons he persists with playing Giles. I've said before on here, and I'm not going into it again, that the problems with the two openers needs to be sorted out - not 'plastering over the cracks' by bringing in an extra batsman. Quote:
Neither do I subscribe to the view that playing 4 seamers + Flintoff will lead to any complacency amongst the bowlers - thats just naivety - these aren't County 2nd XI players - they're established International Cricketers and they'll go out and do the very best they can regardless of who else is in the team. Neither do I follow your argument that Hoggard and Harmison have to take wickets with the new ball. Yes, they're strike bowlers and one of their functions is to take wickets - but go look in your stats bag and tell me the number of times that England's two strike bowlers have taken the majority of the wickets in a Test Match. Nice theory - it just doesnt work in practice. What do you do if Hoggards main weapon is swing - and the balls not swinging? By playing 4 specialist seamers + Flintoff, you have 5 world class international seam bowlers to choose from and can select a variety of bowling partnerships - the more variety and options you have = the more chance you have of taking wickets. Not just from the new ball - but throughout the innings. England's best chance of winning this series is in applying pressure to a good batting line up, maintaining that pressure throughout the innings by keeping runs down and taking wickets. Quote:
I've said it before - if England want to play the Kiwi's at their own game - and match them batting for batting - they will lose. Scott |
|
12-05-2004, 02:26 PM
in reply to sostenurter's post starting "Scott - I reply to some of these points..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
I accept much of what you're saying here - but there are inconsistencies and some flaws in what you're saying. Firstly not all wickets get taken with the new ball, secondly some bowlers prosper on certain wickets where others don't, thirdly some bowlers will be bowling well when others aren't and fourthly some conditions suit certain bowlers when they won't suit others. This is exactly the reason variety is needed, but just as importantly - variety in bowling partnerships. I'm talking about maintaining bowling pressure throughout the innings - not just with the new ball. I'm talking about openers (or middle order batsmen) not being able to relax once they've seen off the new ball strike bowlers, because they then have to face another bowling partnership perfectly capable of drying up scoring rates and taking wickets themselves. I'm talking about maintaining extreme pressure on these batsmen through the whole innings - not just via new ball opening bowlers. To be able to apply this kind of pressure throughout an innings on wickets that are likely to favour the bowlers - we need to play 4 specialist seamers + Freddie. This is the strategy I beleive will enable England to win this series - by playing to our strengths and not fielding a like for like side and slug it out on the batting with the Kiwi's - their batting is just so much stronger than ours. Scott |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
