Bothan says,Hussain out Colly,or Strauss in

[Pete]

Seeing as the ICC doesn't care about cricket, just making money. Why don't we ask them if we can play an extra batsman as well as Scott's extra bolwer?

But seriously, if it's not swinging, i'd leave hoggard out and try to find someone who doesn't need swing to take wickets. Despite him having the ****s in that Antigua test match he was pretty crap. At least Harmison kept it tight. They need to work on Yorkers too! Yorkers, yorkers and more yorkers. Much more effective than a slower ball. D'ya think if Steve finds out how to york someone, he'll then bowl 3 in a row? Which will be more effective than his 3 slower balls in a row that he tried in a ODI match, which in the end just got picked and disappeared for 4.

[high_on_linseed]

If one of the bowlers gets injured it will be very bad luck, we will struggle and probably lose the game. But everyone will know it is because one of the bowlers got injured, and we should then say "never mind, its only a game"! It is not actually losing that bothers me to be honest, but when the team plays badly or simply doesnt perform as well as they can. So, yeah, there is that risk, and I would take it.

[high_on_linseed]

Flintoff is a better bowler than Anderson at the moment. If you think otherwise, you havent watched many test matches in the last year.

[sostenurter]

Scott,

Regarding the 2002 series. I know we didn’t win that series, but my point all along has been that we were superior in that series, deserved to win it, and had the better of the drawn Test – and it was abroad, making it more of a challenge than the current series. Eventually we lost it because of poor batting – in the first innings we bowled NZ out for a respectable 200, but then only scored 160. We did then probably let NZ get too many in their second innings – 269 – but this was due to the fact that, for whatever reason, Giles only bowled one over (and only one over in the first innings), so we were operating with just three seamers plus Butcher (who actually did rather well – 2-35) . The problem was not that we didn't have enough bowlers, but that one bowler wa a spinner. If we go into the upcoming Tests with four bowlers who are pacemen, that won't be a problem . Also, despite conceding this total, we should still have won or at least drawn the match. The target was 313 – we made 233 after collapsing from 121-2. We did play the extra batsman in that match, but he was Ramprakash, and he had an awful tour! This time round, we’ll have Strauss or Collingwood, who are should both provide better resistance than him. In any case, the problem in that Test was not bowling – if you make only 160 in your first innings you will be on the back foot.


The point I made about strike bowlers wasn’t intended to belittle the other bowlers – they also do an important job – I was just making the point that the new ball is a vital asset in cricket, especially on early season pitches in England, and one that should not be wasted. And whilst I don’t know how many times opening bowlers take the majority of wickets, I do know that England’s best period of success in the last 15 years came in 2000-2001, when we had a high-quality, settled new ball partnership in Gough and Caddick - in that run of four series we won on the trot, they played and were generally outstanding in all four. But of course, obviously you need to take wickets at other times of the innings and of course you need bowlers who can do that. And I agree that you need to maintain pressure throughout an innings – it’s just that I believe we can do all this with four seamers – I also believe that the four we have provide us with plenty of variety and work well as a team.



Having answered your challenge, I’d like to set one for you! Give me an example, one example, of a match where a fifth seamer has made a match-winning contribution. It doesn’t have to be a five-fer or a hat-trick, just a two or three wicket burst that has changed the course of the match – and a specialist seamer, not a part-time bowler who is always in the side as a batsman and has come on and taken two wickets. I have been racking my brains and I honestly cannot think of one example of a fifth seamer changing the match. I can think of quite a few examples of England playing five seamers, but not one where the fifth seamer has even bowled that much, let alone changed the game. Please don’t deride this as being past history or having no bearing on the upcoming series – it’s a serious point, because every time we have played five seamers, one of the things I’ve outlined in my previous posts has happened – they don’t get much of a bowl and by the time they do they don’t have much of a chance to make an impact on the match. So Scott - give me one example, and I still may not completely agree with you but I might be able to see more clearly where you are coming from.

sostenurter

[freddie flintoff 142]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

Flintoff is a better bowler than Anderson at the moment. If you think otherwise, you havent watched many test matches in the last year.

Anderson is a better bowler but freddie is in better form, thats how i would define it as.

[Rachael]

Freddie's bowling has looked stronger and stronger as the winter has progressed... and if the poor guy could just do it for long enough each day to be a genuine stock bowler he'd be a godsend... but as it is... he's still a one-dimensional part-timer who no top batsman should regard with any really concern.

Anderson's form is dreadful... but even in the midest of a slump he still has that most basic of variations: the ball that goes the other way. In England, this time of year, I'd take ANY swing bowler who can master that basic bit of varitaion ahead of Flintoff (who can't). That means Caddick, Bicknell, Ealham, Irani, Saggers - or any of a dozen or more other county trundlers who are superb once the conditions are vaguely favourable.

In Sri Lanka.. no seam bowler on earth was going to really trouble any decent batsman. For much of the fourth Test in the WI the same was true. IN those situations Freddie is good news: he ties batsmen down a little. In the forthcoming series I hope there's going to be very, very little need for that - we should mostly be able to go for wickets.

As one with more confidence in the batting of Giles and Hoggard than in the batting of Flintoff.. I'd not complain if he sat this series out. Don't suppose it will happen.. and will be happy enough to see him tried to see what happens... but personally I'm not expecting much!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Freddie's bowling has looked stronger and stronger as the winter has progressed... and if the poor guy could just do it for long enough each day to be a genuine stock bowler he'd be a godsend... but as it is... he's still a one-dimensional part-timer who no top batsman should regard with any really concern.

Anderson's form is dreadful... but even in the midest of a slump he still has that most basic of variations: the ball that goes the other way. In England, this time of year, I'd take ANY swing bowler who can master that basic bit of varitaion ahead of Flintoff (who can't). That means Caddick, Bicknell, Ealham, Irani, Saggers
As one with more confidence in the batting of Giles and Hoggard than in the batting of Flintoff.. I'd not complain if he sat this series out. Don't suppose it will happen.. and will be happy enough to see him tried to see what happens... but personally I'm not expecting much!

I had to look twice,I thought I was seeing things,You would rather bowl Cadick,Bicknell,Ealham.(Irani) Saggers,before Flintoff,with respect to them,two has beens,and three mediam pace plodders,Gee you must dislike Flintoff,
Without his containing bowling,I doubt if we would have beat the Windies 3-0,and i am hopeing you have tounge in cheek,when you describe his batting,lower than Giles or Hoggard..

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Yorky Lad

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.

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.

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

Scott

That's pretty much my take on it too! I think having a strong seam bowling attack would be a positive move. Let's face it, the NZ side won't be too worried about facing up to Tres and Butcher, with all due respect...

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

Jones,Hoggard,Harmison and Anderson,could not function without Flintoff,trouble is ,they dont always play well at the same time do they,no swing for Hoggard,he is knocked all over the park,the sames goes for Anderson.he is either brilliant or erratic,Harmison can take a while to get going as well.
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.

Yep, I'm with you on this, ernest - over the last couple of years, Flintoff has become a quality player. To my mind, you have to forget about his early performances for England...but even then, when he wasn't quite the finished article, he still had something special about him...

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by sostenurter

Regarding the 2002 series. I know we didn’t win that series, but my point all along has been that we were superior in that series, deserved to win it, and had the better of the drawn Test

I had the misfortune to be there on the last day of the series defeat to NZ, and I have to disagree - we did not deserve to win that series. The way we played that day was an absolute embaressment, we were so dire it was beyond belief. There was no fight or spirit in the team, and we capitualuted very tamely indeed in a game we should have won. I can't think of a worse England performance ever (that I've seen) - even in games we lost to Austrailia. It wasn't bad luck, it was bad cricket that cost us. It may well be we had the better of the drawn game, but after the way we played in the last test we deserved to lose.

I also think, in hindsight, it was, in a funny way, a GOOD thing for the side - it was a wake up call. Since then, we may have had our up's and down's, but at least the players have generally had more fight in them.