Quote:
|
I rather suspect that some of this is pointed at me following my views on How after the last ODI - which is fair enough - but I'm not changing my opinion just yet.
|
Only a little, Scott. To be perfectly honest, I was myself sceptical about what How could do under the circumstances- I figured at most, a 60 from 70-odd balls. However, I was pleasantly surprised, even though I maintain that there is a need for that kind of player in every team.
Quote:
|
How only plays because currently they don't have anyone better, and in my mind that isn't a strong enough reason to play someone not ideally suited to the short format game.
|
Well, playing someone who's worse because he's more aggressive doesn't strike me as being particularly good selectorial policy. You are right in that he'll need to prove his worth under really tough batting batting conditions- say, in the subcontinent- but his performance in that match, as well as his strong performances in South Africa, leave me optimistic.
Quote:
|
The 10 overs from the others produced 1-66 which actually isn't that bad and shows how poorly both Broad and Anderson bowled for their figures of 1-86 and 2-75. Anderson going at 8.6 runs per over simply isn't good enough.
|
I think if you're going to play Anderson, you'll have to accept that every now and then he will go for a few runs- that's just the type of bowler he is. However, as Ernest says, he did come back very well at the end (1-25 off his last four) which is to his credit.
About Broad- he's a good bowler, but I can see two areas of improvement. One is to add a yard of pace. If he can bowl it at the 137-38 mark instead of 132-33, that will make him more dangerous. The other is to not use the bouncer so much. Although he actually bowls it quite well, it should really be more of a shock ball, which really shouldn't be used more than three or four times in the ten overs.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that both Wright and Mascarenhas are doing a similar job and neither in my mind offer anything extra with their bowling - one of them needs to give way to Swann in my opinion at the possible expense of weakening the batting, but that's a price they have to pay.
|
Yes, it strikes me as being too defensive when you weaken the bowling attack, to put in a slightly more competent batsman at no. 8. It's the job of the top order to score runs, and it's the job of the bowlers to take wickets,and there should be enough faith on both counts for them to do just that.
Quote:
|
I don't agree about Shah, he's earnt his place in that side and he's earnt his opportunity, he plays for the circumstances and the team and that's why his returns are not particularly spectacular as his batting position doesn't really offer him the opportunity of either playing himself in or taking his time. Shah's time will come.
|
We'll have to agree to disagree on that count. I just don't like him as a batsman, and even though he only bats at 6 (I'm not sure where he bats on the County circuit), only averaging 25 is a little too low IMO. I think other players, like Joyce or Strauss, have more class (plus being left-handers) and I think are worth a go at that position- or else, having one of them open and put either Bell or Mustard in that position. Otherwise, find someone who's accustomed to batting at 6 in the one-dayers at county level, and give the position to him. Just some ideas which I think are worth considering.
21-02-2008, 10:59 PM
in reply to Scott-Wozniak's post starting "I rather suspect that some of this is..." 
Linear Mode
