Twenty-20 England Vs Australia

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

having destroyed Warne... .. milked Lee...

Well He won't get to face Warne - he won't be playing in the ODI's and I think that most English Batsmen will see Lee as a man to milk

Originally Posted by Rachael

Options might open up if Flitoff is injured or Giles is out... but otherwise I'd suggest Bell would be told that his "long run" is being deferred until Thorpe retires. What else could they do?

Really can't see this England team moving away from a 5 bowler policy, and I can't see KP being used as the spinner. Thorpe could move aside but he is too classy to lose. KP is still unproven in Tests - fact... Really can't see them deferring on Bell.

For me Bell is the better batsmen, he just does not have the explosive power or the stupid haircut of KP...

For me KP would have to make a huge case - he got 3 centuries against SA and was not even selected to face Banagladesh, I think that gives a good indication of what the managment are thinking.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

For me Bell is the better batsmen, he just does not have the explosive power or the stupid haircut of KP...

You'll not be surprised to hear (given the way he's been hailed as "the new Atherton") that I'm inclined to agree... and it was interesting hearing this discussed by the TMS crew during the Bangladesh tour: when asked which of the two was likely to score the most centuries.... I think the verdict was "Bell".

That said.. I do try to give folk a chance.. and the more I hear about Pietersen the more convinced I get that the tabloid following rabble that love his power and his aggression have actually completely missed (and taken attention away from) his all-round game.

NE has sung Pietersen's praises many times.. but one thing does seem clear: he's actually got very good touch for a big man... and is in a different league to (say) Flintoff when it comes to just running the ball into a gap for a quick 1 or 2 when the field is set back... and whilst unlikely to ever score VERY slowly... does appear able to have it all in terms of temperament, judgement and the like.

Hick without the hang-ups? I guess we'll find out over the next 12-18 months!

[Lemming]

There is no question that England need a five bowler attack. Hoggard, Harmison and obviously Flintoff are fixtures in the side, Giles is pretty much the same and S. Jones got 15 wickets in South Africa and has bowled superbly well with controlled fast swing in the tests this summer thus far. This is really our only option in the bowling department, less than that would ensure not being able to bowl Australia out in a couple of tests I feel.

Pietersen has to wait for an injury or someone's serious lack of form. If any relatively inexperienced player should play it has to be Bell at the moment. We have to keep realistic about Pietersen, test cricket is named appropriately, getting scores in ODI doesn't mean he will get hundreds in tests. In tests the Aussies will set more aggressive fields, and test every last inch of his technique. OK they may get whacked for a few, but they may find a weakness against the short ball (a ball not used too often in ODI by the laws of the game) or outside off-stump (incidentally both of those reason were why Michael Beven couldn't hold down a test spot, and his ODI record was brilliant).

I really hope Pietersen will shine in all forms of the game and go on to become a world-class player and a fixture in the England middle order. But I would advise staying "real" for the time being, and I don't think I would stick him in the test side even if he had an amazing ODI series.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hick without the hang-ups? I guess we'll find out over the next 12-18 months!

wish you'd stop comparing players, really annoys me when people are the new this or the new that. Whenever I see it I cringe - Flintoff is not the "new" Botham - he is Flintoff, don't give him that expectation it just heaops in pressure on players to perform in a certain way or to a certain standard. Having said that Bell does look so much like Atherton at the crease, but he has a better range of shots...

Hick is a good guy to compare KP to in some ways (please don't call him the "new" Hick though), all the hype and then when he played in Tests his inabilty to cope with the short ball (his feet froze to the crease) and suddenly he looked like a rabbit in the headlights...

For my Lemming is right, KP is not guaranteed to succeed.. I like him but if you offered him, Bell or Thorpe - I would go with Bell for pure class and Thorpe beacuse he has seen it and done it. KP will play Test's for England, and hopefully a lot of them - but for me the fact that he did not play against Bangladesh indicates the selectors thinking...

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

There is no question that England need a five bowler attack.

You have such low regard for them that you don't think they can each manage 4 short (6-over) spells a day? I ask because if they DO each want that fairly paltry workload.. someone's going to have to miss out: having 5 bowlers doesn't entitle England to bowl 120-150 overs a day.. which is what 5 bowlers pulling their weight would require!

In theory you should only really need 3 bowlers to get through a Test: that's just an average of 30 overs a day each.. and if one of those is a quality spinner he ought to be good for 40+

Out of interest.. I just looked at Hadlee's final Test: England batted 141.5 overs (that's 5 sessions) and Hadlee bowled 37.5 overs. Sneddin bowled 2 fewer and Bracewell bowled 4 more (42). The second England innings didn't even last 2 sessions and Hadlee had already bowled 21 overs.

if you have good bowlers pulling their weight then there ain't time in the day for a fourth bowler to do more than a token bit... let alone a 5th!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

if you have good bowlers pulling their weight then there ain't time in the day for a fourth bowler to do more than a token bit... let alone a 5th!

That is the key comment Rachael; arguing that England need five bowlers is an acknowledgement that the four are not up to the job. All good and great Test sides in history have had four bowlers, and that has sufficed them; it is contradictory to argue that England's main bowlers represent a potent force, and then to denigrate them by saying five are needed.

[flanflinger]

Nice thought. But 5 bowlers with England is possible because we have Flintoff who can bat up the order.

Australia can get away with four bowlers because they have two of the best bowlers ever in their team, I don't think any England fan would claim that this quartet of Fast Bowlers is in the same class as the West Indies attack of the 80's. Nor could we claim that we have any of them are as good as Waqar or Wasim in their prime. None of them are as good as Hadlee - but he carried that Kiwi attack, often single-handely... are you really trying to say that three bowlers is the ideal!!

What we can say is that 5 bowlers is very well balanced and means if one has an off-game (which they all seem to do) or breaks down, then another one can step up, which is why it works - it is not about amount of overs..

The fact that it is 5 bowlers makes England stronger IMHO

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The fact that it is 5 bowlers makes England stronger IMHO

No doubt they do, as they would any team. I agree that England have the option of playing five bowlers because they have an all-rounder, and given the current paucity of back-up bowling resources, sticking to the four bowlers and one all-rounder model would seem to be the optimal approach. However, is this the ideal approach, if the current constraints were not there? I would think that a team would always be better off with one or two very good bowlers and two or three back-up ones, as opposed to four or five 'okay-ish' ones one of whom is an all-rounder. Flintoff as an all-rounder is different from say Imran, Sobers, Miller or Botham, because all of them had one very strong suit, and were world-class performers in that discipline; Flintoff is not there yet, and it is also not clear which is his stronger suit.

Also, playing four bowlers and an 'all-rounder' means that one specialist batsman sits out; if England had a more potent bowling attack, they could play a specialist batsman at six, allowing them to more regularly outscore the Australians, who, let's not forget, have seven specialist batsmen.

[flanflinger]

Marnello,

Intresting cmment on Flintoff that he is not there yet, and yet Ponting acknowldged that Flintoff would be the only England player that would get into their World beating XI...

I think that says something about the quality of the guy in both disciplines...

and possibly also indicates that he would be very happy with a proper 5 man attack... (he often has to turn to Martyn, Clarke and Lehmann to get a few overs out of them)

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

...

For my Lemming is right, KP is not guaranteed to succeed.. I like him but if you offered him, Bell or Thorpe - I would go with Bell for pure class and Thorpe beacuse he has seen it and done it. KP will play Test's for England, and hopefully a lot of them - but for me the fact that he did not play against Bangladesh indicates the selectors thinking...

Spot on - I have no doubts that KP will be a test match batsmen by the winter, but I think Enhgland are unlikely to change the batting line up they currently have for the test matches that they currently have prior to the Ashes, unless an injury forces them to. Why would they drop a batsmen (like Bell) who has been doing well for England in test matches for a guy who is unproven in test matches (although he has done very, very well in ODI's). It isn't really logical, IMO.