Originally posted by VargI can see why you declared.
What a disgrace.
I reckon Fletcher will get the boot after we lose this series and hopefully Flintoff the dimwit will lose the captaincy too.
Fletcher has done great things turning this team around but wants to stick with what has worked in the past not go with what is right now.
Flintoff captains like he bats - without using his brain.
Losing this wa ...[text shortened]... that we had a real chance in this series, even after the first Test but now we have blown it.
I mentioned this earlier after England were singing and dancing after Day 1.
They only scored 260 odd off 90 overs which was poor in terms of RR.
If they had scored quicker on day 1 they could have declared at exactly the same moment on day 2 and had 600+ on the board.
I thought the declaration was made at the right time. Did you also not get an wicket at the end of day 2 ? good declaration in my book.
Yup Mahmood for Anderson. My man Gilo has to go.
Originally posted by Ian68Let me start by saying I agreed with Fletcher playing Giles @ the Gabba.
Name the cricketer: In his last test he dropped a sitter off the opposition's best batsman and had an eight ball duck in the 2nd innings.
Clue: [b]It isn't Monty Panesar.[/b]
I thought he should have played Panesar & Giles @ the Oval. I think it was the Aussie selection of leaving Mcgill out which cost Panesar a place which would have meant Anderson dropping out.
Q: Would Panesar have made a difference - I doubt it. The greatest bowler in the game failed to bowl England in the first innings so why do we think Panesar would have bowled out Aus in theirs.
That catch was not a sitter & Panesar would have dropped that himself. However the question is why was Giles not on the boundary which would have made it a sitter ? God only knows - maybe Freddie moved him in.
What cost England was a bad decision for Strauss in the 2nd innings and the batting there after. Giles was supposed to provide 20 runs @ number 8 but failed, that 20 twenty may have saved the game.
As for Panesar and his wonder ball to dismiss Y Khan, lets not forget Giles produced the same to dismiss Martyn in the last ashes.
For me now (hindsight is wonderful) Fletcher must drop Giles for Panesar and Anderson for Mahmood.
Originally posted by dan182The problem for England is that despite the ovious talent of Bell and Pietersen, and the determination of Collingwood, the batting is still prone to collapse. To compensate they need to play their best five bowlers. I'm not sure who exactly constituted our best five bowlers going into this series, but three of them were clearly Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar. If Fletcher wanted to use Giles in place of Harmison/Anderson then fair enough.
Let me start by saying I agreed with Fletcher playing Giles @ the Gabba.
I thought he should have played Panesar & Giles @ the Oval. I think it was the Aussie selection of leaving Mcgill out which cost Panesar a place which would have meant Anderson dropping out.
Q: Would Panesar have made a difference - I doubt it. The greatest bowler in the game faile ...[text shortened]... r me now (hindsight is wonderful) Fletcher must drop Giles for Panesar and Anderson for Mahmood.
Personally I agree with what Boycott said before the series, that Fletcher has taken England so far and run out of ideas. It's time for someone new to take England to the next level.
Originally posted by Ian68Let me say this if Panesar is deemed the best England bowler then he should play. For me prior to the series the best 3 were Flintoff, Hoggy and Harmy.
The problem for England is that despite the ovious talent of Bell and Pietersen, and the determination of Collingwood, the batting is still prone to collapse. To compensate they need to play their best five bowlers. I'm not sure who exactly constituted our best five bowlers going into this series, but three of them were clearly Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar. I ...[text shortened]... land so far and run out of ideas. It's time for someone new to take England to the next level.
But to say because the batting can collapse we need an extra bowler. Thats just silly because if the bowlers fail to restrict the opposition (this could be because of good batting, flat pitch or just bad bowling) then the match would practically be over because the batting could collapse. If you believe the batting to be weak then you have to play an extra batter or the strongest batter.
I will be shocked if Panesar fails to play the next match purely because England need a change.
With hindsight I would play Panesar and Mahmood for Anderson and Giles at the WACA. If the WACA looks like taking spin then Panesar in for Anderson.
England now are in such a weak position they have to play Panesar before the ashes is over. I do feel very sorry for him now because if he comes in everyone will expect him to succeed and I think he will struggle against that batting line up.
Originally posted by dan182I agree - let's not forget that England played well with the team they had for the majority of this test match, IMO the collapse on day 5 was the main cause we lost, not that Giles made one mistake dropping Ponting. The collapse was just bad decision after bad decision. Strauss was definitely not out, but dancing around with Warne in form was asking for it. Pieterson needed to settle but went after Warne straight away, Bell got himself run out, Jones threw his wicket away, Harmison was also not out.
I can see why you declared.
I mentioned this earlier after England were singing and dancing after Day 1.
They only scored 260 odd off 90 overs which was poor in terms of RR.
If they had scored quicker on day 1 they could have declared at exactly the same moment on day 2 and had 600+ on the board.
I thought the declaration was made at the right time. D ...[text shortened]... end of day 2 ? good declaration in my book.
Yup Mahmood for Anderson. My man Gilo has to go.
As for Flintoff, the sky commentator said of him when he came out to bat, 'England need their captain to steady the ship now'. I thought straight away that Freddie is just not this type of guy, especially as he seems out of form with the bat.
I'm liking Collingwood more and more. One of my favourite players was Graham Thorpe because you knew that if we were in trouble (especially 2002-2004) and top order wickets started to fall quickly, you knew he was the man to get us out of trouble. Of course this always relied on the other batsmen not throwing their wickets away often, which is unfortuntaley what happened on day 5 while Collingwood was holding on.
So I think it was just fantastic bowling by Warne and 3-4 wickets thrown away at the wrong time by England that cost us the match, and don't think this is bad tactics or a reason to get rid of Fletcher. Fletcher is trying to make do with what's available, which isn't as much as what we had in 2005. If we'd had more reliable top order batsmen (i.e. in-form Tresco instead of inexperienced Cook, Vaughan, and Flintoff not just back from an injury) I think he would have played Panesar instead of Giles. However using Giles he's trying to 'hang on' to the ashes by hoping the team wins, and if not has enough batting to bat out a draw, rather than attack Aus and actually 'win them back'.
It's obvious now that hoping for a win isn't going to work - Panesar should be played in order to attack.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeWe batted well in the first innings. Bowled well? The Hog did, Flintoff was fine, but then... The collapse was why we lost, but playing with two potential wickets takers was why we never had a chance to win.
I agree - let's not forget that England played well with the team they had for the majority of this test match
Originally posted by mtthwYes i agree - I meant we played well considering the fact that our team isn't great (i.e. Hog and Flint the only two threatening bowlers).
We batted well in the first innings. Bowled well? The Hog did, Flintoff was fine, but then... The collapse was why we lost, but playing with two potential wickets takers was why we never had a chance to win.
Originally posted by dan182Playing an extra batsman may work, but Giles is no batsman. If Fletcher wanted to go down that route he should have played Ed Joyce not Giles and used Pietersen/Collingwood/Bell as the fifth bowler.
Let me say this if Panesar is deemed the best England bowler then he should play. For me prior to the series the best 3 were Flintoff, Hoggy and Harmy.
But to say because the batting can collapse we need an extra bowler. Thats just silly because if the bowlers fail to restrict the opposition (this could be because of good batting, flat pitch or just bad bo ...[text shortened]... n everyone will expect him to succeed and I think he will struggle against that batting line up.
Originally posted by Ian68He went mid way and chose the bowler who could bat which I thought was fair enough.
Playing an extra batsman may work, but Giles is no batsman. If Fletcher wanted to go down that route he should have played Ed Joyce not Giles and used Pietersen/Collingwood/Bell as the fifth bowler.
Either way I am sure Monty will get his chance.
Originally posted by Ian68I don't think Giles adds anything with the ball that someone like Pietersen or Mike Yardy doesn't and adding Yardy or another batsman would certainly strengthen it.
Playing an extra batsman may work, but Giles is no batsman. If Fletcher wanted to go down that route he should have played Ed Joyce not Giles and used Pietersen/Collingwood/Bell as the fifth bowler.
Originally posted by VargI agree - Yardy looked good in the few one dayers he played and should have been included in the squad.
I don't think Giles adds anything with the ball that someone like Pietersen or Mike Yardy doesn't and adding Yardy or another batsman would certainly strengthen it.
God knows what Fletcher was thinking (not a lot probably), picking Anderson and Giles as both are recovering from recent long term (1 year) injuries. Needless to say, neither did anything in either test.
Both must go.
Originally posted by howardgeeQuite simple really - he was trying to balance the team and bat to number 8.
I agree - Yardy looked good in the few one dayers he played and should have been included in the squad.
God knows what Fletcher was thinking (not a lot probably), picking Anderson and Giles as both are recovering from recent long term (1 year) injuries. Needless to say, neither did anything in either test.
Both must go.
It is the batting that has cost England so far in the ashes so I very much doubt playing Panesar will have changed anything.
Shane Warne has struggled at times in this ashes and I do not care what anyone says because Panesar ain't EVER going to out bowl Warne.
Monty is playing in Englands next game so we will see how he gets on.
Originally posted by dan182That was the fourth highest total in a test from a losing team, ever. It was a horrible collapse, but to say the batting lost it is putting it way too strongly. We lost because we didn't take wickets.
Quite simple really - he was trying to balance the team and bat to number 8.
It is the batting that has cost England so far in the ashes so I very much doubt playing Panesar will have changed anything.
This is the point - Panesar doesn't have to outbowl Warne. All he has to do is outbowl an unfit, rusty, Ashley Giles. Or an unfit, rusty, Jimmy Anderson, if you insist on Giles at 8. One or two top order wickets in the Australian innings could have made all the difference. And that wouldn't have been too much to expect.
