stevegrant Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 5, surely. We need to take 20 wickets, it's as simple as that. My XI would be: Strauss Cook Shah Pietersen Collingwood Prior Swann Broad Rashid Anderson Harmison I've put Rashid in there ahead of Panesar as his batting and fielding is better, but also because he's a bit unknown, which might cause the Windies a few problems.
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 5, surely. We need to take 20 wickets, it's as simple as that. My XI would be: Strauss Cook Shah Pietersen Collingwood Prior Swann Broad Rashid Anderson Harmison I've put Rashid in there ahead of Panesar as his batting and fielding is better, but also because he's a bit unknown, which might cause the Windies a few problems. i agree but id be surprised if Harmison is recalled going by what Flower said after the 4th test. I like the idea of Swann and Rashid too. I cant remember the name of the other young bowler that joined up with the squad but i wouldnt be surprised if he was included.
stevegrant Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 Amjad Khan is the other one. Never seen him bowl, so haven't a clue whether he'd be up to the job. To be fair to Harmison, he's not been helped by being constantly in and out of the team in the last couple of years. Either give him a run of games to prove he can or can't still do it or draw a line under it and tell him he's not getting back in the side. You can't expect any bowler to just come in on the odd game having been out in the cold and take 5-fors.
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 Amjad Khan is the other one. Never seen him bowl, so haven't a clue whether he'd be up to the job. To be fair to Harmison, he's not been helped by being constantly in and out of the team in the last couple of years. Either give him a run of games to prove he can or can't still do it or draw a line under it and tell him he's not getting back in the side. You can't expect any bowler to just come in on the odd game having been out in the cold and take 5-fors. dont get me wrong im a fan of Harmison, he should have played in the 4th test instead of Sidebottom imo but he is just 'out of favour' with the selection panel for one reason or another. Khan is very fast, tall hit the deck bowler, very much like Harmison
georgeismyname Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 It says on cricinfo that it looks like Amjad Khan is going to make his debut as he has been "receiving back-slaps during the morning warm-up" although the team won't officially be announced until the toss
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 It says on cricinfo that it looks like Amjad Khan is going to make his debut as he has been "receiving back-slaps during the morning warm-up" although the team won't officially be announced until the toss they might just not like him :-)
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 we win toss and will bat, Khan, prior and monty in for ambrose, sidebottom and bopara
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 strauss cook shah pieterson collingwood prior broad swann khan anderson panesar
georgeismyname Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 I don't like that selection at all. Why drop a centurion (Bopara) and keep someone who has failed with the bat all series (Shah)? Also, why Panesar? What has he done in the last however long? (I hope he proves me wrong and gets a match-winning 5-fer!)
keithd Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 i had a cheeky fiver on Cook getting a duck. priced at 20-1 thought it'd be worth a punt.... this is why i'm pants at betting and bookies love mugs like me
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 6 March, 2009 Posted 6 March, 2009 Amjad Khan is the other one. Never seen him bowl, so haven't a clue whether he'd be up to the job. To be fair to Harmison, he's not been helped by being constantly in and out of the team in the last couple of years. Either give him a run of games to prove he can or can't still do it or draw a line under it and tell him he's not getting back in the side. You can't expect any bowler to just come in on the odd game having been out in the cold and take 5-fors. Problem is Steve, is that Harmison is not bowling at any where near the pace he's bowled at in the past and these Windies pitches are very slow and boring and do not provide exciting test matches.
JustMike Posted 6 March, 2009 Author Posted 6 March, 2009 I don't like that selection at all. Why drop a centurion (Bopara) and keep someone who has failed with the bat all series (Shah)? Also, why Panesar? What has he done in the last however long? (I hope he proves me wrong and gets a match-winning 5-fer!) i do feel for Bopara but Shah has been on the fringe for a while and deserves a chance, not just one or two games here and there but a few back to back, give the selectors a chance to have a good look. My guess is they will play him in the 2 test v Windies here as well, if he fails then i guess Bell, Bopara or even Vaughn will be considered.
keithd Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 Amjad Khan is the other one. Never seen him bowl, so haven't a clue whether he'd be up to the job. think you may have your answer steve.... ok, its his first test so maybe i ought not judge....but from what i can see the answer is no. yep few good balls but at this level its got to be 6 good balls an over. plus i'm unsure about his action.....
JustMike Posted 9 March, 2009 Author Posted 9 March, 2009 think you may have your answer steve.... ok, its his first test so maybe i ought not judge....but from what i can see the answer is no. yep few good balls but at this level its got to be 6 good balls an over. plus i'm unsure about his action..... his action is ok for me apart from when he releases the ball he is looking at the ground directly beneath him ala Anderson when he first emerged. If he can find a way to produce some of his good balls consistantly then yes, but on current showing id rather have Harmison. On the game itself, Monty has come back well, a good mix of pace and delivery, Anderson was unwell so i hope he is 100% today and we get the wickets early, if not, a draw and a series defeat it is.
L1Minus10 Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 What exactly has been the point of this series. If it wasn't for our abysmal 51 all out it would have been 0-0 with little or no time lost to light or rain....
Hatch Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 People keep talking about the need to get 20 wickets to win a single match. We've ony just about got 20 wickets during the whole series.
JustMike Posted 9 March, 2009 Author Posted 9 March, 2009 What exactly has been the point of this series. If it wasn't for our abysmal 51 all out it would have been 0-0 with little or no time lost to light or rain.... agreed, its been..well...boring. Thank god for the digicel girls :-)
jeff leopard Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 The 3rd test (as in the resheduled 2nd test) was good cricket, apart from the result. But yeah, Gayle has pretty much guaranteed the Windies their first series win in ages but what a soul-crushing dull way of achieving it.
Barfy Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 (edited) his action is ok for me apart from when he releases the ball he is looking at the ground directly beneath him ala Anderson when he first emerged. If he can find a way to produce some of his good balls consistantly then yes, but on current showing id rather have Harmison. On the game itself, Monty has come back well, a good mix of pace and delivery, Anderson was unwell so i hope he is 100% today and we get the wickets early, if not, a draw and a series defeat it is. Did I hear the commentary correctly yesterday? Has Mushtaq been drafted into the coaching staff? If so, this might be the catalyst for Monty to start really showing some of the potential he has. As for the series, I haven't managed to see as much as I would have liked, but then it doesn't sound like I've missed too much. Apart from the farcical referral system that is. I'd be very concerned if I was a WIndies cricket fan. With pitches either being un-useable or totally benign demand for test cricket there is going to plummet. Without the English fans, almost all of the grounds would have been empty. And now with Stanford out of the picture, there's not even going to be the big Twenty20 tournaments to ignite interest! Edited 9 March, 2009 by Barfy
JustMike Posted 9 March, 2009 Author Posted 9 March, 2009 Did I hear the commentary correctly yesterday? Has Mushtaq been drafted into the coaching staff? If so, this might be the catalyst for Monty to start really showing some of the potential he has. As for the series, I haven't managed to see as much as I would have liked, but then it doesn't sound like I've missed too much. Apart from the farcical referral system that is. I'd be very concerned if I was a WIndies cricket fan. With pitches either being un-useable or totally benign demand for test cricket there is going to plummet. Without the English fans, almost all of the grounds would have been empty. And now with Stanford out of the picture, there's not even going to be the big Twenty20 tournaments to ignite interest! yes you heard correctly, he clearly has made a difference, that and maybe monty being dropped was the kick he needed. Impressed by Anderson today, deserved his wicket just before tea. The thing i am impressed with both Anderson and Broad is that they have consistantly bowled a good line and length and on another pitch else where would have had a hat full of wickets between them, just hope they dont get too downhearted about their efforts on batsmans pitches and carry this form into the home games v windies and then the aussies.
L1Minus10 Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 agreed, its been..well...boring. Thank god for the digicel girls :-) Granted... the difference between us is that I watch cricket to see some decent cricket and you watch it to knock one out.:smt049
L1Minus10 Posted 9 March, 2009 Posted 9 March, 2009 People keep talking about the need to get 20 wickets to win a single match. We've ony just about got 20 wickets during the whole series. Out of our current set of bowlers, only Flintoff and Panesar will really bother the Aussies at all. One is injured and one is out of form. Broad has to decide if he's going to try and be a strike bowler or be the 'workhorse' of the attack. Sidebottom and Anderson just aren't good enough to be honest and on this showing, nor is Amjad. harmison is a waste of space. I can see us going back to Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard to be honest...
Hatch Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 237 / 6 at Lunch. Probably declare and have 2 sessions at the Windies. Doesn't really matter if we lose.
keithd Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 declarated leading by 239, setting windie pops 240 off 40. i expect they'll have a go for a while, lose a couple of wickets they'll shut up shop, if still got 5 or 6 in hand with 6 an over required off say, 8 or 10 they may have a pop draw.
Nellie Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 Two down for 31. With Gayle severely hampered, it could be quite close. All depends on Chanderpaul and Sarwan. That said, Amjad's just come on and the Windies could get them in extras.
Nellie Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 We're looking pretty good for getting the most unlikely of results. 85-5.
jeff leopard Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 90-6 all the big hitters are out, apart from gayle, whose hopefully crook. its going to be a tense end to a frustrating series, but potentially we could really phuq them over just four more wickets needed
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 10 March, 2009 Posted 10 March, 2009 Strauss pays the price for declaring too late again. Well played Anderson who i thought bowled his heart out without much luck in the match.
keithd Posted 12 March, 2009 Posted 12 March, 2009 Strauss pays the price for declaring too late again. Well played Anderson who i thought bowled his heart out without much luck in the match. yep, agreed. can somebody please tell Monty the laws/rules of the LBW decision... i admire his enthusiasm, but his consistant appealing in all honesty probably cost him a wicket. he had a.n.other plum but was turned down - admittedly by the awful harper - im sure he got cheesed off with his constant bad appeals.
Hatch Posted 12 March, 2009 Posted 12 March, 2009 i admire his enthusiasm, but his consistant appealing in all honesty probably cost him a wicket. he had a.n.other plum but was turned down - admittedly by the awful harper - im sure he got cheesed off with his constant bad appeals. he also wasted our last referral on an LBW decision that I could see was going a foot over the stumps and I was 6000 miles away.
keithd Posted 12 March, 2009 Posted 12 March, 2009 he also wasted our last referral on an LBW decision that I could see was going a foot over the stumps and I was 6000 miles away. yep, if he'd not wasted that he'd have referred the one which WAS out. not saying it'd have defo changed the result, but we were all over them at that stage and you just never know......
JustMike Posted 12 March, 2009 Author Posted 12 March, 2009 Granted... the difference between us is that I watch cricket to see some decent cricket and you watch it to knock one out.:smt049 ahhh i watched it to see some decent cricket but after 2000 odd runs it got a bit boring :-)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now