An absolutely brilliant game of cricket down at the Heath on Sunday, witnessed in part by none of other than England captain Andrew Strauss, again. I have to say I think I bowled rather well, and by all accounts the second spinner's berth is wide open for the forthcoming Ashes tour to Australia – coincidence? You do the math...
Anyway, to the cricket, and it genuinely was one of the best games I've played for the Heath in, ooh, probably about a decade now. Reassuringly returning as captain, Charlie won the toss and we elected to field. Gamecox made a quick start, after a speculative and expensive solitary over from Ben Sonley, but were then pegged back by the accuracy of Jez and Brad, who also picked up two wickets.
From there, Charlie turned to the spinners – myself and Richard Austin, and we proceeded to wheel away for pretty much the rest of the Gamecox innings. After a poor start, Henry suggested that my right arm was getting too low, and thereafter I found a decent rhythm and a level of accuracy that had been markedly missing for the past few games. I got a couple of deliveries to really zip and turn, and picked up two wickets off a nice, long 11 over spell – of course these were off the rankest balls I bowled, but then such is the way with leg-spin (it could have been four were it not for two dropped chances at mid-off...).
At the other end Richard bowled tidily and also found some turn to pick up two wickets himself, and at the tea break, Gamecox were 183 for 6 – a gettable target, although it would have been nice to take more wickets. We were thwarted here by a gentleman of no less than 71, who made a composed 40-odd.
Capper and Haddock started the Heath response in solid style, putting on yet another half-century opening stand. But when both fell in consecutive balls from the oppo's unlikely-looking medium pacer, and then Matt and Napes followed soon after, we looked in some trouble.
Fortunately Richard and Ben strode to the rescue with a partnership of sensible accumulation. Even though Ben took some time to get going, Richard was aggressive against the Gamecox spinners, and runs began to flow. During their partnership there was a nice moment of controversy as I wided their off-spinner (the captain's son). Both were none too impressed (although the ball was pretty rank) – my guess is that Capper's shout from the boundary of “great decision, Tom!” probably didn't help too much... Just as Ben looked set however, there was a bit of a mix-up and he was run out in slightly ignominious fashion.
But Richard kept on going to reach his half-century off just 35 balls, and some big shots from Brad and Spence brought the target down to an eminently gettable 4 an over from the past four. But when Richard 'the finisher' Austin departed, the dots agonisingly mounted. When the opening bowler returned, things were still in the balance. Until Brad smote him over the trees for a colossal six. Surely the game was in the bag?
Well, no. Brad was bowled with 2 needed and it came down to the final over. Fortunately, Jez ran a single off the first ball, and on the third, Spence chipped one just, just over the heads of the infield and the batsmen scampered through for the winning run. Victory! With two balls and three wickets to spare – a brilliant match. And perhaps, in the end, that wide proved crucial. Guffaw.
Showing posts with label andrew strauss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label andrew strauss. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Edgbaston - final preview
Plenty of predictions are being made about Thursday's Edgbaston Test - that there will be problems starting the game (because of a water-logged outfield), problems continuing it (because of the rain forecast) and problems bringing it to a positive conclusion (because the pitch is a bowler's graveyard) - but, after the vast swing in the sides' fortunes between Cardiff and Lord's, it is impossible to know what next to expect this Ashes summer.
My feeling at both Cardiff and Lord's was that England's batting was careless and vulnerable, but they have topped 400 in each 1st innings: no disaster. And one change to a bowling attack that had struggled to take 6 wickets in 180 overs at Cardiff enabled them to take all 20 in 170 at Lord's. Sure, the overcast conditions helped Anderson to swing the ball in the 1st innings but Hughes, Haddin, Johnson, Katich and North all fell to attempted hooks and pulls. A strange series, then, so far.
In my book, the toss is a crucial one: if Ponting, a bad 'Punter' at Cardiff and Lord's, can make it 3rd time lucky and Australia get first use of an Edgbaston featherbed, they may be able to exert some proper first innings pressure on England's batting line-up, with particular question marks, to my mind, lingering over Ravi Bopara (clearly struggling for form in the Lord's 2nd innings), Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Prior's 2 Test centuries have both been scored against the West Indies and both were the 3rd of the England innings; it is one thing playing cameos with a declaration looming, quite another proving yourself a number 6 under pressure.
A similar argument can be deployed against Ian Bell, whose 8 Test centuries have always been the 2nd, at least, of the innings in which they were scored. That could potentially be misleading - accusations levelled at Bell that he has often 'slipstreamed' Kevin Pietersen show a lack of understanding of the differences between their batting styles - but his conversion rate of 8 centuries from 27 fifties (similar to Cook's 9 from 29, contrast Strauss 18 from 32, KP 16 from 31) is a poor one, a statistic that does not lie.
So make sure you're tuned in at about 10.45 tomorrow - if play is to start on time - since Andrew Strauss' flip of the coin could perhaps be a crucial one.
My feeling at both Cardiff and Lord's was that England's batting was careless and vulnerable, but they have topped 400 in each 1st innings: no disaster. And one change to a bowling attack that had struggled to take 6 wickets in 180 overs at Cardiff enabled them to take all 20 in 170 at Lord's. Sure, the overcast conditions helped Anderson to swing the ball in the 1st innings but Hughes, Haddin, Johnson, Katich and North all fell to attempted hooks and pulls. A strange series, then, so far.
In my book, the toss is a crucial one: if Ponting, a bad 'Punter' at Cardiff and Lord's, can make it 3rd time lucky and Australia get first use of an Edgbaston featherbed, they may be able to exert some proper first innings pressure on England's batting line-up, with particular question marks, to my mind, lingering over Ravi Bopara (clearly struggling for form in the Lord's 2nd innings), Ian Bell and Matt Prior. Prior's 2 Test centuries have both been scored against the West Indies and both were the 3rd of the England innings; it is one thing playing cameos with a declaration looming, quite another proving yourself a number 6 under pressure.
A similar argument can be deployed against Ian Bell, whose 8 Test centuries have always been the 2nd, at least, of the innings in which they were scored. That could potentially be misleading - accusations levelled at Bell that he has often 'slipstreamed' Kevin Pietersen show a lack of understanding of the differences between their batting styles - but his conversion rate of 8 centuries from 27 fifties (similar to Cook's 9 from 29, contrast Strauss 18 from 32, KP 16 from 31) is a poor one, a statistic that does not lie.
So make sure you're tuned in at about 10.45 tomorrow - if play is to start on time - since Andrew Strauss' flip of the coin could perhaps be a crucial one.
Labels:
andrew strauss,
ashes,
conversion rate,
Edgbaston,
ian bell,
kevin pietersen,
matt prior,
Ravi Bopara
Monday, 29 June 2009
HHCC vs Southwell Ramblers
It had to come to an end some time. Yes, Hyde Heath lost their first match of the season, and I’m ashamed to say it was under my captaincy. Whenever they’re given a bit of a pasting, the England team generally talk of “taking positives out of the game”, and it's true that one often learns more about the game of cricket from defeat than from victory. It was certainly interesting drowning our sorrows in The Plough and attempting to see where it all went wrong. I wonder what England Captain Andrew Strauss – who, rumour has it was watching our match for a brief period – would have made of it all.
In truth, it went wrong right from the start. I lost the toss and Southwell Ramblers skipper Tim invited us to bat first. From memory, this is the first time that we have had to bat first all season, and the different pressures involved in setting a target seemed too much for our batsmen, who perished to a succession of decidedly average shots. Haddock was the first to go, with a leading edge high to mid off, and Capper, today at no. 3, was bowled attempting a horrible sort of sweep to a full pitched delivery. It’s a testament to the strength of our batting line-up that we have managed to compile big scores despite the recent poor form of our main batsman. But not today.
It was good to see James Aird back with us, but not so good for me to have to give him out LBW without scoring. He was plum. Napier Munn was then also LBW and the two Richards – Cousins and Austin – departed in quick succession. When Atif was caught for 0, our innings really was in tatters. I came out at number 9 with the score (as far as I can recall) 48 for 7. A right old mess. Southwell then brought the spinners on, and for a brief time, Ben and I managed to steady the ship. I was timing the ball well and feeling pretty good, until drilling a return catch to be dismissed for 26. It was the kind of half-shot – torn between a full lofted drive and finding the gap along the ground – that characterised our dismal batting display. The tail wagged a bit, but we were finally dismissed for 125, and it was never going to be enough.
When our turn came in the field, I decided that short spells were the way to go. We had a lot of bowling and I wanted to give everyone a quick burst to see who would be most likely to produce the killer spell that we so desperately needed. Jez took a wicket in the opening over and Richard Austin bowled superbly from The Plough end to take four for 15, including Southwell’s two star batsmen. At 50 for 5, they were in trouble and we were well in the game. I then made a double bowling change, replacing myself with Airdy and Richard with the off-spin of Atif. In retrospect, as Richard Cousins pointed out, it was here that our momentum was lost. Neither bowler had played for some time, and Atif in particular struggled to find the right length. Airdy bowled well, but with his extra pace and a fast outfield, boundaries were coming, and we couldn’t afford them.
And yet, it all could have been turned round in an instant when their young batsman chipped the simplest of return catches to Atif. Somehow, unbelievably, he dropped it, and our chance to break the partnership had gone. Jez returned to remove the same batsman but by then the score was 115. We sensed the possibility of something special, but in reality it was too little too late.
So what did we learn? Firstly, if catches win matches, then shocking drops have a demoralising effect on the bowler and, indeed, the whole team. But in reality we lost the match because nobody in the top six got over 20. Being part of a performance like that, it’s clear why we always field first. But in a way that merely compounds the problem. If you always conceal a weakness then there’s never a chance to rectify it. I think some strategy is needed: a clear definition of the role of each batsman when we have to set a target. But first, a proper net session might not be a bad idea.
In truth, it went wrong right from the start. I lost the toss and Southwell Ramblers skipper Tim invited us to bat first. From memory, this is the first time that we have had to bat first all season, and the different pressures involved in setting a target seemed too much for our batsmen, who perished to a succession of decidedly average shots. Haddock was the first to go, with a leading edge high to mid off, and Capper, today at no. 3, was bowled attempting a horrible sort of sweep to a full pitched delivery. It’s a testament to the strength of our batting line-up that we have managed to compile big scores despite the recent poor form of our main batsman. But not today.
It was good to see James Aird back with us, but not so good for me to have to give him out LBW without scoring. He was plum. Napier Munn was then also LBW and the two Richards – Cousins and Austin – departed in quick succession. When Atif was caught for 0, our innings really was in tatters. I came out at number 9 with the score (as far as I can recall) 48 for 7. A right old mess. Southwell then brought the spinners on, and for a brief time, Ben and I managed to steady the ship. I was timing the ball well and feeling pretty good, until drilling a return catch to be dismissed for 26. It was the kind of half-shot – torn between a full lofted drive and finding the gap along the ground – that characterised our dismal batting display. The tail wagged a bit, but we were finally dismissed for 125, and it was never going to be enough.
When our turn came in the field, I decided that short spells were the way to go. We had a lot of bowling and I wanted to give everyone a quick burst to see who would be most likely to produce the killer spell that we so desperately needed. Jez took a wicket in the opening over and Richard Austin bowled superbly from The Plough end to take four for 15, including Southwell’s two star batsmen. At 50 for 5, they were in trouble and we were well in the game. I then made a double bowling change, replacing myself with Airdy and Richard with the off-spin of Atif. In retrospect, as Richard Cousins pointed out, it was here that our momentum was lost. Neither bowler had played for some time, and Atif in particular struggled to find the right length. Airdy bowled well, but with his extra pace and a fast outfield, boundaries were coming, and we couldn’t afford them.
And yet, it all could have been turned round in an instant when their young batsman chipped the simplest of return catches to Atif. Somehow, unbelievably, he dropped it, and our chance to break the partnership had gone. Jez returned to remove the same batsman but by then the score was 115. We sensed the possibility of something special, but in reality it was too little too late.
So what did we learn? Firstly, if catches win matches, then shocking drops have a demoralising effect on the bowler and, indeed, the whole team. But in reality we lost the match because nobody in the top six got over 20. Being part of a performance like that, it’s clear why we always field first. But in a way that merely compounds the problem. If you always conceal a weakness then there’s never a chance to rectify it. I think some strategy is needed: a clear definition of the role of each batsman when we have to set a target. But first, a proper net session might not be a bad idea.
Labels:
andrew strauss,
cricket,
england,
hyde heath,
village
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
The Ashes plan or horses for courses?
To anyone following the build-up to today's England team selection for the first of the two upcoming Tests against the West Indies, that selection will have come as a surprise - neither Ian Bell, nor Michael Vaughan (around whom speculation has centred) made the 12-man squad, nor even Owais Shah, with Ravi Bopara preferred for the No. 3 berth, whilst Steve Harmison was passed over in favour of Durham teammate, Graham Onions, and Yorkshire's Tim Bresnan.
What is unclear about the selection, however, is how far it signals England's Ashes intentions. A top 7 of Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and Broad may look adequate against the inexperienced West Indies attack, but it is surely a little lightweight to face the Australians. At No.8, Broad was a luxury, but, at No.7, he will shoulder run-scoring responsibility; Bopara scored one century against West Indies at No.6 (after being dropped on 4), but coming in first down against a top bowling attack on pitches with some life (Lord's aside) is quite a different matter. Putting two players in 'make or break' situations inevitably pressurises the rest of the batting line-up.
The 5-bowler selection may be a reflection of the difficulty of forcing a result at Lord's (the last 6 Tests there have been drawn), rather than a statement for the summer, although it's worth remembering that the team for the final Windies Test of the winter had the same balance. If this balance works well in the first Tests, it could well be kept for the summer, especially if Flintoff returns at No.7.
Whatever the side's balance, players I'd regard, at this stage, as inked-in Ashes certainties are Strauss(c.), Cook (reluctantly), Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior (with reservations), Broad and Anderson. With Swann or Panesar as the main spinner, this leaves 3 further places up for grabs: 2 batting and 1 bowling if England are being conservative, 2 bowling and 1 batting if caution is thrown to the wind, and one of each if Flintoff is fit.
The brusque message sent to Bell and Harmison, the most notable 'snubees', is that they are going to have to make themselves impossible to leave out between now and July, rather than simply returning to 'their' spots in the team. Bell, in particular, repeatedly puts being dropped down to a 3-month loss of form, rather than a failure, over a longer period, to do justice to his talent by scoring match-dictating centuries under pressure.
In the race for Ashes places, it's all to play for, which is just as it should be. Since Andy Flower doesn't have the luxury of a settled team, the best he can do is to stimulate competition for places and hope that the results will follow. It'll be interesting to see which players react best.
What is unclear about the selection, however, is how far it signals England's Ashes intentions. A top 7 of Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior and Broad may look adequate against the inexperienced West Indies attack, but it is surely a little lightweight to face the Australians. At No.8, Broad was a luxury, but, at No.7, he will shoulder run-scoring responsibility; Bopara scored one century against West Indies at No.6 (after being dropped on 4), but coming in first down against a top bowling attack on pitches with some life (Lord's aside) is quite a different matter. Putting two players in 'make or break' situations inevitably pressurises the rest of the batting line-up.
The 5-bowler selection may be a reflection of the difficulty of forcing a result at Lord's (the last 6 Tests there have been drawn), rather than a statement for the summer, although it's worth remembering that the team for the final Windies Test of the winter had the same balance. If this balance works well in the first Tests, it could well be kept for the summer, especially if Flintoff returns at No.7.
Whatever the side's balance, players I'd regard, at this stage, as inked-in Ashes certainties are Strauss(c.), Cook (reluctantly), Pietersen, Collingwood, Prior (with reservations), Broad and Anderson. With Swann or Panesar as the main spinner, this leaves 3 further places up for grabs: 2 batting and 1 bowling if England are being conservative, 2 bowling and 1 batting if caution is thrown to the wind, and one of each if Flintoff is fit.
The brusque message sent to Bell and Harmison, the most notable 'snubees', is that they are going to have to make themselves impossible to leave out between now and July, rather than simply returning to 'their' spots in the team. Bell, in particular, repeatedly puts being dropped down to a 3-month loss of form, rather than a failure, over a longer period, to do justice to his talent by scoring match-dictating centuries under pressure.
In the race for Ashes places, it's all to play for, which is just as it should be. Since Andy Flower doesn't have the luxury of a settled team, the best he can do is to stimulate competition for places and hope that the results will follow. It'll be interesting to see which players react best.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Catching: Dravid's record and England's slips
Just a very short post to anoint a true 'cricket tragic' - reading the cricinfo blogs on a Friday night, I feel well placed to do so. The worthy whom I honour is Sambit Bal, editor of those blogs, who recently missed a flight to watch Rahul Dravid take his record-breaking 182nd Test catch - the previous holder was Mark Waugh, if you were wondering - against New Zealand.
(The bowler, for the record, was Zaheer Khan, India's best ever overseas and very possibly worthy of a place in a World XI until the recent flowering of Mitchell Johnson.)
Anyway, Dravid's record got me thinking about England's slip fielding. If Flintoff's bowling in the Ashes this summer (read Sambit Bal here on England's unhealthy obsession with the urn), I presume that the inconsistent Alistair Cook will be alongside Strauss and Collingwood in the slips (or at gully). Could someone who watched more of the West Indies series than me let me know what there is to worry about behind the wicket other than Matt Prior and quite how sorely Marcus Trescothick is missed?
(The bowler, for the record, was Zaheer Khan, India's best ever overseas and very possibly worthy of a place in a World XI until the recent flowering of Mitchell Johnson.)
Anyway, Dravid's record got me thinking about England's slip fielding. If Flintoff's bowling in the Ashes this summer (read Sambit Bal here on England's unhealthy obsession with the urn), I presume that the inconsistent Alistair Cook will be alongside Strauss and Collingwood in the slips (or at gully). Could someone who watched more of the West Indies series than me let me know what there is to worry about behind the wicket other than Matt Prior and quite how sorely Marcus Trescothick is missed?
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Not Michael Vaughan...
Earlier today, Afghanistan went through with a whimper to the Super Eight phase, after losing to the UAE by 5 wickets and seeing Bermuda beaten by the Dutch. They will start that phase from the bottom of the table and it is, alas, hard to see them making a great deal of movement from that position, with the ruthless Irish side awaiting them on Saturday and the second-placed Canadians on Monday.
Nonetheless, the World Cup Qualifiers have provided a welcome distraction from the movement of Michael Vaughan towards the forefront of media speculation ahead of this summer's home test series against West Indies and Australia. The traditional English season-opener between the MCC and the champion county, Durham, starts tomorrow, with attention focusing on the battle between MCC batsmen Ian Bell, Vaughan and Rob Key for the number 3 berth that Owais Shah failed to make his own in the West Indies.
Even the eminently sensible Lawrence Booth, one of the very best cricket writers around, has put the case for Vaughan's reinstatement, arguing that "England tend not to beat Australia by playing it safe." Certainly Andrew Strauss would be well-advised to take note of the importance of risk-taking - he has historically been ultra-conservative in setting a total, whether sending in James Anderson as nightwatchman against the West Indies this year or pressing on to his own century against Pakistan in 2006, and cannot afford to pass up any comparable opportunity to force the game against the Aussies - but this argument surely cannot be made to pick a man who has scored only 2 Test centuries in his last 17 matches. Booth may have a certain claim to authority, having been a firm advocate of Kevin Pietersen before the 2005 series, but Pietersen had just taken a one-day series against South Africa unprecedentedly by storm, whilst Vaughan has scored one century against Surrey in a pre-season tournament in Abu Dhabi.
If Vaughan is picked, as Booth suggests, for his tactical nous, the effect, ironically, would be to implement the second of the demands (the other being Peter Moores' departure) that brought about Kevin Pietersen's unceremonious downfall as captain. In short, it would be an absurd move that would highlight once again the absurdity of England's management since the end of the Indian tour. I would love to be proven wrong, since there are few finer summer sights than a Vaughan cover drive - there can, however, be few more aggravating than that of Vaughan walking off with his trademark quizzical glance pitchwards, stumps strewn everywhere.
Nonetheless, the World Cup Qualifiers have provided a welcome distraction from the movement of Michael Vaughan towards the forefront of media speculation ahead of this summer's home test series against West Indies and Australia. The traditional English season-opener between the MCC and the champion county, Durham, starts tomorrow, with attention focusing on the battle between MCC batsmen Ian Bell, Vaughan and Rob Key for the number 3 berth that Owais Shah failed to make his own in the West Indies.
Even the eminently sensible Lawrence Booth, one of the very best cricket writers around, has put the case for Vaughan's reinstatement, arguing that "England tend not to beat Australia by playing it safe." Certainly Andrew Strauss would be well-advised to take note of the importance of risk-taking - he has historically been ultra-conservative in setting a total, whether sending in James Anderson as nightwatchman against the West Indies this year or pressing on to his own century against Pakistan in 2006, and cannot afford to pass up any comparable opportunity to force the game against the Aussies - but this argument surely cannot be made to pick a man who has scored only 2 Test centuries in his last 17 matches. Booth may have a certain claim to authority, having been a firm advocate of Kevin Pietersen before the 2005 series, but Pietersen had just taken a one-day series against South Africa unprecedentedly by storm, whilst Vaughan has scored one century against Surrey in a pre-season tournament in Abu Dhabi.
If Vaughan is picked, as Booth suggests, for his tactical nous, the effect, ironically, would be to implement the second of the demands (the other being Peter Moores' departure) that brought about Kevin Pietersen's unceremonious downfall as captain. In short, it would be an absurd move that would highlight once again the absurdity of England's management since the end of the Indian tour. I would love to be proven wrong, since there are few finer summer sights than a Vaughan cover drive - there can, however, be few more aggravating than that of Vaughan walking off with his trademark quizzical glance pitchwards, stumps strewn everywhere.
Labels:
Afghans,
andrew strauss,
Canada,
ian bell,
kevin pietersen,
Lawrence Booth,
MCC,
Michael Vaughan,
owais shah,
Rob Key
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Suggestions for England's next coach?
As I write, a Dimitri Mascarenhas-inspired England are fighting back well in the first innings of the 4th one-dayer. It is worth noting, in passing, that Mascarenhas' ODI batting strike rate of 96.41 is the best in the England team and his economy rate of 4.53 second only to Flintoff's (in spite of the Chris Gayle pasting in the last match) and far ahead of his next best teammate - the statistics aren't the full story, but Shane Warne's perennially high estimation of Mascarenhas' potential in international one-day cricket may perhaps be justified.
The main significance of this match, though, is that it may determine whether Andy Flower can really be deemed a credible candidate for the vacant England coach's job - especially if, as seems very possible, the series ends today. With only one victory over the Windies this winter - and that largely down to the Duckworth-Lewis miscalculations of his opposite number, John Dyson - Flower can surely not compete with seasoned international coaches such as John Wright and Mickey Arthur, tipped for the job in the Sunday Times by John Stern, editor of the Wisden Cricketer. The (much-cited) strength of Flower's relationship with Strauss is all well and good, but how hard can it really be to get on with the affable England captain?
Yet I share Scyld Berry's scepticism that Arthur, on the brink of bringing South Africa to the pinnacle in both forms of the game, would choose to leave that challenge behind. In Arthur's interview on Radio Five Live this morning, he doesn't quite rule the possibility out (the very fact of giving the interview might be viewed as putting himself in the shop window), but seems to stress that he sees the England job as something he'd like to do further down the line (most probably after his contract with SA ends in 2012).
John Wright and John Dyson have had some success with India and Sri Lanka respectively, but both are at early stages of projects with New Zealand and West Indies. Stories of Wright's often confrontational dressing-room approach - he once took Sehwag by the collar after a reckless dismissal - might also work against him. With Graham Ford also ruling himself out and John Buchanan evidently enjoying the prospect of managing the Kolkata Knight Riders, it is hard to see what precisely the head-hunters' options are...
Any ideas?
The main significance of this match, though, is that it may determine whether Andy Flower can really be deemed a credible candidate for the vacant England coach's job - especially if, as seems very possible, the series ends today. With only one victory over the Windies this winter - and that largely down to the Duckworth-Lewis miscalculations of his opposite number, John Dyson - Flower can surely not compete with seasoned international coaches such as John Wright and Mickey Arthur, tipped for the job in the Sunday Times by John Stern, editor of the Wisden Cricketer. The (much-cited) strength of Flower's relationship with Strauss is all well and good, but how hard can it really be to get on with the affable England captain?
Yet I share Scyld Berry's scepticism that Arthur, on the brink of bringing South Africa to the pinnacle in both forms of the game, would choose to leave that challenge behind. In Arthur's interview on Radio Five Live this morning, he doesn't quite rule the possibility out (the very fact of giving the interview might be viewed as putting himself in the shop window), but seems to stress that he sees the England job as something he'd like to do further down the line (most probably after his contract with SA ends in 2012).
John Wright and John Dyson have had some success with India and Sri Lanka respectively, but both are at early stages of projects with New Zealand and West Indies. Stories of Wright's often confrontational dressing-room approach - he once took Sehwag by the collar after a reckless dismissal - might also work against him. With Graham Ford also ruling himself out and John Buchanan evidently enjoying the prospect of managing the Kolkata Knight Riders, it is hard to see what precisely the head-hunters' options are...
Any ideas?
Friday, 30 January 2009
Starting XI against the West Indies
Right, pretty boring one to start off, but I'm worried Tom may cry if it's just him that keeps on posting…
What would be your starting XI against the West Indies?
The opening partnership picks itself: they have both just scored runs against the Nevis Invitational XI and we haven't really got anyone better.
I'm going for Shah at three. He has waited long enough for his chance, and every time Bell plays it seems as if he is batting for his life. Always one innings before he is dropped he scores a good looking 70 odd and he’s saved for the next two tests. I also think Shah has a bit of grit about him, I think he is a guy that will play better the bigger the occasion. If he gets runs against West Indies A then they have no choice. Also Bell looks like a vole!
Colly: I would love to have a solid number 5 in our team, but as England don’t seem to have one, what can they do? Collingwood can add a bit of determination to the innings, he can keep his head and help England rebuild, if his technique does not let him down first. I would love to see someone else in there but he’ll do for now.
KP and Flintoff, enough said.
Prior: Best of a bad bunch (I use the word best loosely).
Broad: I think he has potential as a bowler and we need to develop him for all formats of the game. He could come on and I see no reason to replace him, plus he also just turned down the chance of not getting picked for the IPL unlike some other prats, Sajid Mahmood anyone. IPL picks.
Sidebottom: as we seem to have shut the door on Hoggard and he was England’s player of last year, if he is fit, I think he works as solid metronomic operator to tie up one end and if it swings then great news.
Monty: we have to give him another chance seeing as he took 7 wickets in the warm up game. If he again proves ineffective then we need to give either Swann or Rashid a prolonged run in the team as a succession plan for the next Ashes series.
Harmison: I know hoping for a repeat of last time is clutching at straws, but I’m English, I thought that is what we did. I know he is a homesick, serial breeding, lazy shit... but he's not James Anderson.
My Starting XI:
Strauss (C)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (W)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Harmison
What would be your starting XI against the West Indies?
The opening partnership picks itself: they have both just scored runs against the Nevis Invitational XI and we haven't really got anyone better.
I'm going for Shah at three. He has waited long enough for his chance, and every time Bell plays it seems as if he is batting for his life. Always one innings before he is dropped he scores a good looking 70 odd and he’s saved for the next two tests. I also think Shah has a bit of grit about him, I think he is a guy that will play better the bigger the occasion. If he gets runs against West Indies A then they have no choice. Also Bell looks like a vole!
Colly: I would love to have a solid number 5 in our team, but as England don’t seem to have one, what can they do? Collingwood can add a bit of determination to the innings, he can keep his head and help England rebuild, if his technique does not let him down first. I would love to see someone else in there but he’ll do for now.
KP and Flintoff, enough said.
Prior: Best of a bad bunch (I use the word best loosely).
Broad: I think he has potential as a bowler and we need to develop him for all formats of the game. He could come on and I see no reason to replace him, plus he also just turned down the chance of not getting picked for the IPL unlike some other prats, Sajid Mahmood anyone. IPL picks.
Sidebottom: as we seem to have shut the door on Hoggard and he was England’s player of last year, if he is fit, I think he works as solid metronomic operator to tie up one end and if it swings then great news.
Monty: we have to give him another chance seeing as he took 7 wickets in the warm up game. If he again proves ineffective then we need to give either Swann or Rashid a prolonged run in the team as a succession plan for the next Ashes series.
Harmison: I know hoping for a repeat of last time is clutching at straws, but I’m English, I thought that is what we did. I know he is a homesick, serial breeding, lazy shit... but he's not James Anderson.
My Starting XI:
Strauss (C)
Cook
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (W)
Broad
Sidebottom
Panesar
Harmison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)