Not Again...

[Ernest]

Shaun Udal think's he has a chance of playing at Edgbaston next week in the second Test between England and Sri Lanka.

Udal is pinning his hopes on the selectors picking two spinners and if they do - Udal has been given the nod.

Originally Posted by Shaun Udal

David said if England do consider two spinners at Edgbaston then my name's going to be one at the top of the list.

When will David Graveny and the rest of the England selectors realise that England don't have 2 spinners good enough to both play in the same England team, it's been tried and failed. Sri Lanka used to playing spin will be rubbing their hands no doubt if this is true, also Udal is 37, a bit of a backward step if England do pick him.
Link here Here

Anyone think I am wrong and that England should play 2 spinners, and that Shaun Udal should be one of them?.

[Collyisamackem]

There is no way in the world we will pick two spinners on Thursday. It would be daft. If we're going to underbowl one spinner, then we're certainly not going to utilise two!

[Vrock]

LOL

No chance, England won't play a second spinner considering Sri Lanka's very good ability against spin bowlers and also why reduce your strength (seam) by one just to have a second spin bowler who doesn't exactly take major advantage of conditions?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Anyone think I am wrong and that England should play 2 spinners, and that Shaun Udal should be one of them?.

Yup. It's a move I was anticipating as Edgbaston sucks for seamers (recall Brett Lee last year? Couldn't get ANYTHING from the pitch... and then batted against Flintoff and co as if it were the easiest thing in the world).

Udal is a far more accomplished bowler than Plunkett or Mahmood... and the only thing that would concern me would be Flintoff's ability to manage such an attacking bowler: he's not a "block an end up" bowler like Giles and needs attacking fields and a license to invite strokeplay.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Udal is a far more accomplished bowler than Plunkett or Mahmood... and the only thing that would concern me would be Flintoff's ability to manage such an attacking bowler

By accomplished you mean older right? Therefore more dangerous, because age automatically gives you an extra edge.

I hardly think the Sri Lankans would be running away in fear at the sight of Udal. Besides, if it doesn't turn then we're putting even more of a strain on Flintoff and Harmison!

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Rachael

the only thing that would concern me would be Flintoff's ability to manage such an attacking bowler: he's not a "block an end up" bowler like Giles and needs attacking fields and a license to invite strokeplay.

Managed him pretty well in India at Mumbai, 4-14 I think he got.

Panesar can be used in the same light as Udal, he does spin the ball and did look dangerous when England actually set some attacking fields against Sri Lanka, sparse they were of course.

Don't forget Panesar's wickets in India mainly came through attacking bowling, not just blocking an end up and hoping that they would crack.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Udal is a far more accomplished bowler than Plunkett or Mahmood... and the only thing that would concern me would be Flintoff's ability to manage such an attacking bowler: he's not a "block an end up" bowler like Giles and needs attacking fields and a license to invite strokeplay.

You mean Udal gets carted all over the place, that was one of my concerns.

If you are right over Edgbaston then it raises two questions.

It would hurt Sri Lanka worse than England, because England have the better seam bowlers in comparason.

Udal is an off spin bowler and I think players don't have problems playing off spin any more, Murali was easy to play at Lords, I think Warne would have been far more effective with the ball going away from the bat.

Which bring me to Udals age (37), and the fact we selected keedy in the WAT A Team for 2004.
So I think and nothing to do with being a Lancastrian, keedy would should if England are silly enough to pick to spinners- he should be given the nod.

For anyone who does not know Keedy, he is a SLA who gets wickets by attacking, not afraid to bowl round the wicket, and probably is the best spinner in England.

But really England struggle to get to spinners good enough to play together, look at what happened last time we tried, England could lose if this ploy is tried.
EDIT:

Originally Posted by Rachael

the only thing that would concern me would be Flintoff's ability to manage such an attacking bowler:

What makes you think this?, managing an attacking bowler is the easiest option there is, the field placings are easy when buying a wicket.
But if you mean the first Test at Lords, the pitch was that easy- the proof was both sides scored over 500, to risk buying a wicket was risky, Sri Lanka might just have set England an ungettable small total, batting last for over 200 is a risk.

[admin]

I can't see any overriding reason to change the team. We know from the Ashes series that Graveney doesn't like changing the side. Nobody from Lords played poorly enough to be dropped so if Edgbaston does turn then Panesar will get more overs. In a nutshell, unchanged team, Panesar likely to get more overs.

[Ernest]

I agree England played well enough at Lords the pitch did neither side no favours, but I think Graveney should not give hints that can turn into rumours, obviously Udal thinks he has a chance of playing.

Also the TMS experts were telling us what Flintoff should do, over and over again, it was not as simple as they put it, had Flintoff got it wrong, England could have lost like they nearly did against the Aussies last year.

IMO Flintoff did get it right with Panesar, Englands seamers looked the most likely to take wickets, the number of dropped chances proved that.

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Ernest

IMO Flintoff did get it right with Panesar, Englands seamers looked the most likely to take wickets, the number of dropped chances proved that.

But when the chances were going down, and Sri Lanka looked on top Freddie set nothing like attacking fields and kept on bowling the seamers. Having Panesar in the mix would have given some variety to the attack, one of the reasons many of us felt he should have been in the side for in the first place.