Thanks Nasser - Now let's move on

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

After Lara's 400 did you fall asleep and miss Flintoff's hundred off 224 balls over 327 minuites at St John's. This is the second time today you have claimed this about Flintoff, and frankly it's not true!!

FF, Rachael just isn't a Flintoff fan. I don't know what he has to do exactly to gain her respec'.
I suspect several two day double hundreds and fifteen wickets per match, every match for a couple of seasons might bring her round.

But I doubt it.

[high_on_linseed]

Originally Posted by Oliver

With a top class attack, it is still possible to dominate another side (even the "best") playing sensible cricket.
I don't think that the agressive style, that the tabloid (quick fix) readers (and therefore not true cricket fans) wish to see, is sensible in this country. More often than not, the ball swings outrageously in England. If a bowler knows how to use the conditions then aggressive batting won't score many runs unless the batsmen is unreasonably fortunate.

Fine in Australia, but not here.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Just look at the amount of attacking innings that have been played in England to refute this.
Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist are just "unreasonably fortunate" when they come play here, huh? Did the same apply to Greenidge, Haynes, Richards?

[high_on_linseed]

Originally Posted by Rachael

we're stuck, as we always seem to be, needing to bat down to 8 in order to compensate for lack of "grittyness" in the top order.

.

We should bat down to 8 if possible anyway, regardless of who is in the top order. And less important than how the runs are made is simply whether the batsman can make runs or not. A batsman can grit it out for 20, and play every ball circumspectly for a whole session if he so chooses. But then another can come in, swing and (if they get lucky) knock that off in five or six blows.

If we really need to grit things out, the plyers you rightly praise plus Vaughan and even Flintoff have shown they CAN do that if the situation so demands. But, given the choice they'd rather play their natural attacking games, and why not?
Finally, It's funny to think now that Vaughan was pigeon-holed as a dour blocker when he first come into the England side, just as Collingwood is being similarly pigeon-holed as a nudger. Let's wait and see shall we.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Just look at the amount of attacking innings that have been played in England to refute this.
Hayden, Ponting and Gilchrist are just "unreasonably fortunate" when they come play here, huh? Did the same apply to Greenidge, Haynes, Richards?

No, fine you can give those guys all the plaudits you like. Some of them are truly fantastic batsmen. But I have to say that England have had fairly pop-gun like attacks throughout all of those periods.

At a time when the teams coming at us have had four good ones coming in - that slides in rather beautifully with a theory of mine. If the attack is top class, the batsmen play better.

I have to say that during any Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist assault, very little went to hand...but that was partially because our attack was filled with such greats as John Lever, Chris Old, Mike Hendrick, Paul Allott, Jon Agnew, Norman Cowans, Derek Pringle, Dean Headley, Alex Tudor, Alan Mullally, Dominic Cork & Jimmy Ormond.

No, your not going to get many edges from that lot.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

Finally, It's funny to think now that Vaughan was pigeon-holed as a dour blocker when he first come into the England side, just as Collingwood is being similarly pigeon-holed as a nudger. Let's wait and see shall we.

Thanks to one of those curiously misdirected email responses, I have gleaned this information from R W S.

Originally Posted by R W S

According to David Lloyd (here (

Originally Posted by R W S

http://msn.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,8-1137097,00.html)) Its a stated aim to have Vaughan at 4 'in the longer term'.

IF that is so, then I think he should return to "dour blocker." Afterall now that Nasser's gone we'll need one of those.
At least he has the capability of really turning it on - though preferably when he's already got a hundred against his name.

But I'm not going to have that argument with you again.
We should beg to differ on that one and see how history records this period.
Suffice to say, now that England actually have four bowlers who CAN bowl, and well (I'm not telling you who they are - but they didn't all play in the Lord's Test) I don't think other sides are going to be able to smash us all round the ground like they did in the past.

Here's hoping at any rate.

They'll try however and it is when they try, that we must take the chances that come our way.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I don't think other sides are going to be able to smash us all round the ground like they did in the past.

Apart from Brian Lara

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Apart from Brian Lara

Yes, Brian Lara, who was caught behind and not given out on naught. In the Antigua Test. I wonder how things might have turned out, but for that decision.

[Rachael]

I've huge admiration for Vaughan.. both in the way he can dominate the bowling.. and for the tencity of his anchorman batting. Where I feel he absolutely sucks is simply in finding the right happy line between the two and finding the right moment to move from one to the other.

Vaughan's weakness was Knight's strength.. but SINCE Knight we seem to have struggled to find a guy to head the batting and make that call. Perhaps Strauss is that man: I hope so. Whoever it is.. I'll be happier to see Vaughan at four: he looks better responding to an innings once the tone and tempo have been set (and perhaps adjusting it according to the circumstances in which he comes to the crease) rather than trying to set the tone and tempo from the outset.

Aside from anything else.. if he screws up trying to set a furious tone and tempo.. we've lost the one guy who's left (post Nasser) who inspires confidence that he can haul us out of the mire!

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Yes, Brian Lara, who was caught behind and not given out on naught. In the Antigua Test. I wonder how things might have turned out, but for that decision.

True, but having looked at that clip many many times. I still feel the umpire made the right deicison. Lara was not out. Even so the fact that he went onto to score 400, without offering another chance proves that there is still a long way to go.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Oliver

.
We should beg to differ on that one and see how history records this period.
Suffice to say, now that England actually have four bowlers who CAN bowl, and well (I'm not telling you who they are - but they didn't all play in the Lord's Test) I don't think other sides are going to be able to smash us all round the ground like they did in the past.

Here's hoping at any rate.

They'll try however and it is when they try, that we must take the chances that come our way.

Oliver,

I completely agree with your theory about how having good bowlers leads to an improvement in the batting side. Look at Australia - over the past ten years, so much of their success has been built on having two of the best bowlers of all time - Mcgrath and Warne. I really don't think their batting owuld have been as formidable if they hadn't had these two guys knocking ovr the opposition's batting line-up for paltry totals. Look at what happened recently when Mcgrath and Warne weren't playing, against India. The surprising thing wasn't that India racked up huge totals - this is understandable, given that Australia's attack was weakened and India have the best batting line-up in the world. The surprising thing was that Ajit Agarkar ran through Australia's batting line-up! I don't want to downplay Agarkar's achievement, but to my mind, one of the main reasons for his success was the mental pressure on the Australian batsman, caused by the fact that for once, they couldn't guarantee that the bowlers were going to rescue them by knocking over the opposition! Yes, the Australian batsmen are great, great players, but how many times have they had to come into bat after two days in the field, chasing a target of 400 just to avoid the follow-on? Not very often. Having successful bowlers gives confidence to the whole team, and if Harmison, Jones, Flintoff and co. can start to regularly bowl out sides for low totals, I think you will see our batting start to improve greatly!