So when did Hoggard join the ranks of test batsman?

The wicket that was going to come at any moment is the tail enders, I never said that the wicket was going to be Pieterson's. In fact if you actually read what I said you will find that I stated Pieterson never looked like getting out until he had to score the runs him self as Hoggard was only blocking.

The problem is that they where at the time batting to get back into the game - not batting to draw the game. There is a huge difference.

Once again your thoughts on the Australian players Gilchrest and Symonds has no relevance to the English batting line up.

Rachel, once again what you have written has nothing to do with tailenders - you are refering to the batsman that have already been dismissed. And please if every batsman batted for 10 hours then all games in test history would be a draw and cricket would have died before it even began.

The question was on a blocking tailender being put in the order higher than stroke playing tailenders, not the theories that you are preaching of test batsman - the object of the game when batting with a tailender is to rotate the batting by the tailender getting singles to allow the test batsman to pick up the boundaries and keep the score going along, but once you a player who only blocks it stops the scoring and places extra pressure on the batsman.

Rachael once again you go away from what we are talking about - the 150 was not scored by tailenders and they where not looking at trying to get to Australia's score in Adelaide. That was setting a score for Australia to reach and the tailenders never batted in that innings so has no relevance.

No a dependable blocker is not what a test batsman wants to bat with which is what Hoggard is - as the batsman than has to do all the scoring. Gillespie on the other hand is not a blocker (has a very good defensive block) but is a tailender who is a stroke player that can defend.

First up, the point of playing Hoggard ahead of the sloggers is that he is NOT a walking wicket: a senior batsman can depend on him to value his wicket. Secondly, Hoggard not scoring does NOT put pressure on Pietersen to score: most matches these days end within 5 days... so who cares if one partnership sees the board click over at between 2 and 2.5 an over rather than between 2.5 and 3.0 runs an over? It's how many not how they are scored that matters!

Ok, Its not how but how many that matters.

Hoggard test batting average is 7.54
Harmison test batting avergae is 11.43
Monty test batting average is 13.40

So by your admission Hoggard should not bat above Harmison or Monty because what matters is how many that matters - I am glad you finally agree with me.

How many has to be looked at in partnerships and team scores: on straight averages you could even argue that Stewart was a better no 6/7 than Russell... but the 7 runs / innings difference hides the fact that Stewart seemed tempermentally incapable of batting in a supporting role - he came in, hit his runs and left the team in the lurch where Russell tended to stick around and let his senior colleagues do their stuff.

Put it this way: Stewart was more likely to hit a quick 50... but I was glad it was Russell batting with Atherton to save the match in the marathon innings in SA!

ps. Gilchrist's cameo today was surely the classic example of when accelerating the run rate doesn't hurt in Test cricket: it came when it didn't matter

Rachael, do you post these sorts of comments just to get some attention?

Gilchrist's innings was important to the Australians, I disagree with you that his innings came when it didn't matter. If his contribution didn't matter then Ricky Ponting would have declared and not sent him in, the fact of the matter is that Australia were looking to declare and wanted some quick runs, so they sent in Gilchrist - his 100 runs from 57 balls is important because it was exactly what Australia wanted - quick runs!

Had Gilchrist not gone out and made those runs, England at the moment would have had a bigger chance of winnings this Test match.

__________________
CC

Had Gilchrist been caught at gully on zero... as he might well have been... Clarke, Warne, Lee, Clark and McGrath would almost certainly have got Australia to a declaration with a 500 lead instead of Clark and Gilchrist getting Australia to a declaration with a 550 lead - big deal!

The challenge facing England would stil be the same: six and a half sessions of disciplined batting.

Now.... when Laxman scored remarkably quickly when putting on his monster partnership with Dravid that was a tad different... and the time left in the match was a major consideration... but in a match that's likely to end with a session or two to spare (assuming the thing isn't over tomorrow)... run rate really isn't hugely consequential!

Pieterson should bat four all the time.
He is their best batsmen and the earlier he can get in the better.
After he has established himself at four, down to three.
Hoggard is a number 11 if I have ever seen one.
Harmison is a slogger who gets it right some times so he either gets out quick or makes a fast 20/30.
Monty looked quite good.
From all I have heard about his batting I thought he would be the reincarnation of Bruce Reid.
Those three fours he hit would have done Ponting proud.

__________________
" You don't want the truth,you can't handle the truth."