Bothan says,Hussain out Colly,or Strauss in

[Essex Eagle]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

RBLC


People argue against bits and pieces players and want more specialists yet you're saying here - drop a specialist spinner and bring in a batsman who bowls a bit?


Scott

But Giles figures are no more than a not very good batsman 'who bowls a bit' to be honest

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Statto

Scott,
i agree that when we dont need a spinner he gets dropped but
1/ We always seem to have one no matter what
2/ when we do need a spinner we need an effective one not an effective lower order batsman this could ultimately mean a spinner who cant bat, which seems unthinkable for fletcher

Statto

Well I can see Fletchers thinking with Giles (I'm not saying it's right, only that I can see it) that playing Giles gives him a spin option as and when he needs it, but when he doesn't - he gets a useful lower order bat who can stick around and add a few runs with the tail. He's basically 'hedging his bets' with Giles, but it does smack a little of indecisiveness, he's not sure if spin will be needed. This is basically why you'll only ever see a real 'specialist' spinner playing when the pitch definately looks like a spinners pitch - but anything else - Giles will play.

You're right in one sense - Fletcher needs to be more decisive regarding spin - play a specialist spinner when pitches look like suiting spin, or in my view another seamer when they look like suiting seam. At the moment he's caught in two minds - which is why he plays Giles - a spinner who can bat a bit.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

But Giles figures are no more than a not very good batsman 'who bowls a bit' to be honest

EE

See my post above which explains this!

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Scott, like yourself I dont totally rely on facts and figures, and I think I'm right (I'm starting to see collingwood more in the jonty rhodes mould at the moment !!) and I've neve rseen collingwood bowl so dont care whether he does or not especially (as you pointed out) tresco and butch can bowl. i think the extra 50 runs would be more helpful as we are going to be looking at totals of 300 tops IMO. We'll agree to differ !!!

RBLC

Yep, I think we need to agree to differ on this one. Where I do agree is on Collingwood's fielding - he really is superb and can almost claim a place on his batting/fielding alone.

Scott

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

if 4 seamers cant do it then 5 wont

EE

Explain your logic in this?

Is this the same argument that goes if 2 Openers, 3 Middle order 1 Allrounder 1 WK/Batsman can't make enough runs then 2 Openers, 3 Middle order 1 Allrounder 1 WK/Batsman + 1 more batsman will?

LOL

Scott

[Statto]

Scott,
i totally agree with you about this but the indecisiveness is why its so infuriating as we always seem to be in no-mans land with neither a full strength seam attack or an attacking spinner to run through sides

[Essex Eagle]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

EE

Explain your logic in this?

Is this the same argument that goes if 2 Openers, 3 Middle order 1 Allrounder 1 WK/Batsman can't make enough runs then 2 Openers, 3 Middle order 1 Allrounder 1 WK/Batsman + 1 more batsman will?

LOL

Scott

When has picking 5 seamers ever made a difference?

Its only my opinion of course but at the start of the year in England with the Green tracks around i'd want to bolster the batting.

Giles will hardly bowl. so why not play someone likely to score more heavily as runs could be vital in this series.

If we pick another seamer who cant bat we are back to the days of playing 4 no 11's again.

[Statto]

This was my piont earlier, that we are too dependant on making the slow bowlers bat, but never seem to be looking for a seamer who can bat

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

When has picking 5 seamers ever made a difference?

EE

I really do wish you people (you meaning not just you, but everyone else who holds this opinion) would stop persisting with the notion that Flintoff makes up the fourth specialist seamer slot in the England side. He does not, he is there as an allrounder and should not be expected to have to take on the full responsibilities of a fourth specialist seamer. Flintoff's bowling is there as an addition to the specialist seamers, to add variety to the attack, to add reasonable rest periods for the front line strike bowlers. As good as Flintoff is as a bowler - he is not the finished article, he needs added variety to his deliverys - specifically a ball that moves away from the right handers. Flintoff should be used as an allrounder should be used - not as a frontline stock bowler. That just leaves you 3 specialist seamers - and in my mind that is not enough.

I think the above answers your question to an extent, but with the added comment that England have not often been in the position to be able to pick from a pool of very good seam bowlers. As I'm sure you're aware, bowlers work in pairs, in partnerships - adding in an additional seamer adds variety to the number of bowling partnerships you can have. As was seen in the West Indies, with the variety of bowling styles England posessed at least one of the 4 bowlers was more successful than the others on each pitch they played on - coincidence? I don't think so, it was down to the variety of bowling styles and which pitch suited which bowler.

Please don't use the West Indies as an example of how 4 seamers did the business. The one and only Test Match where our bowling was put to the test - they failed quite miserably - in the fourth Test. Up until then, the matches didn't go beyond the 3rd day - how can you judge how 3 specialist seamers and 1 allrounder would do in a 5 day Test Match based on that?

The reason I'm fairly stubborn on this point is because I beleive quite strongly that England's best hope of beating the Kiwi's lies in their bowling strength - in bowling them out cheaply. If you're going to try and match the Kiwi's strength for strength in the batting - In my mind - England will lose, simply because their batting isn't good enough and adding in one more batsman won't make the slightest bit of difference.

Scott

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Forgive me if I'm wrong scott, but in the fourth test wasnt it A: played on a batting paradise and B: didnt half the team leave the field with a case of the ****s ?