4 or 5 bowlers in the attack?

If Flintoff can't bowl 20 overs a day then it's not worth picking him. As Bob pointed out- Post Ashes 2005, england has been a better team when Flintoff isn't playing. It's been 4 years now, so it surely can't just be coincidence. Whether the others get too relaxed with Flintoff in the side, or whether he's become an intimidating and disruptive influence, the fact is he's just not bringing much to the table in test match cricket anymore.

Anderson, Broad, Onions and Flintoff would be a seriously good quicks unit.
Each of them capable of hitting 90mph and swing it, I reckon the Aussies will find them a handful, TBH.

I'm a bit suspicious of the calibration of the speed gun so far this season to be honest.

Not really sure it's realistic that this extra speed has genuinely been summoned up in a couple of months.

I suspect if England continue to clock the speeds they are once the Ashes starts, that Clark will also be hitting 90mph+, and Johnson pushing 95mph.

True, Bob, but I reckon Edwards has been bowling at the sort of pace they say and Taylor's looks about right too considering his speed has been down.

A bit of psychological sneakery as part of the phony war ahead of the Ashes then by the speed gun operators?

Henry wrote:If Flintoff can't bowl 20 overs a day then it's not worth picking him. As Bob pointed out- Post Ashes 2005, england has been a better team when Flintoff isn't playing. It's been 4 years now, so it surely can't just be coincidence. Whether the others get too relaxed with Flintoff in the side, or whether he's become an intimidating and disruptive influence, the fact is he's just not bringing much to the table in test match cricket anymore.

He just misses all the games against crap opposition. How many times does it need saying?

That's your take on it, Beamer - others would disagree and say it's merely an increasingly feeble excuse.

I'm amazed anyone really thinks we stand a better chance against Australia without Flintoff than with him tbh.... amazed.

Whatever the stats may say.

You're confusing the 2005 Flintoff with the injury prone, largely ineffective shell of a man that remains in 2009.

Growler wrote:Sorry vilks, you've misread me ........ I was talking merely about Fred being bowled to a standstill simply *because* he was able to retain control. The management regularly spoke of using him in bursts - then went on to have him bowling 8-10 over spells cuz one of the others went for 25 in their first three overs of a new spell.

Ah yes, just re-read it, my mistake.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:You're confusing the 2005 Flintoff with the injury prone, largely ineffective shell of a man that remains in 2009.

injury prone yes, still a very good bowler. IMO...

Flintoff couldn't prevent a whitewash in 06-07.

Henry wrote:Flintoff couldn't prevent a whitewash in 06-07.

I believe his Captaincy and utterly lost batting were the main reasons for Flintoff's part in the 5-0 Whitewash. His "friendly" selections of Giles and his completely static monotone voice for every interview never fared well for observers, critics and probably his own teammates.

His bowling in Brisbane was very impressive compared to the rest who never really showed up, apart from Hoggard in Adelaide and Panesar in Perth.

Henry wrote:Flintoff couldn't prevent a whitewash in 06-07.

He might be better than Jesus, but he's only one player!

He's still a good bowler, yes. Probably not quite the bowler he was from 2003-2005, but still a good bowler nontheless. His batting is the problem. Complete pants. If he plays, he not only bats below Prior, but Broad and maybe even Swann as well.

Henry wrote:He's still a good bowler, yes. Probably not quite the bowler he was from 2003-2005, but still a good bowler nontheless. His batting is the problem. Complete pants. If he plays, he not only bats below Prior, but Broad and maybe even Swann as well.

His batting isn't a problem if you pick him as a bowler. Infact it would be a bonus if he suddenly started hitting the ball well again.

I'd probably bat him below Broad but not Swann.

4!

holcs wrote:4!

A well thought out argument Chas

Interesting to hear Croft saying he'd play 2 spinners at Cardiff. Trouble is Monty is in no form whatsoever...

Okay here goes JK.

My thinking is, although the SENO's have lost the TGM's, I believe that their bowling attack is far more potent than their batting is at the moment, especially in English conditions. Katich and Clarke fared poorly over here, North is inexperienced at Tests, Hussey is in poor poor form, and that leaves the unknown of Hughes and of course Ponting who would be the only nail on performer over here for me.

Therefore, we need to score big runs in order to compete and challenge for a series win.

I'm inclined to agree, but I also think they'll go with the 5 bowlers.

If they do then its even more important that we only play 4. As that weakens their batting further.

Not that we will of course.

Maybe we should play Rashid, especially if its gonna be a turning deck.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Maybe we should play Rashid, especially if its gonna be a turning deck.

Not sure what form he has but cant be much worse than the Montster!! Seriously don't think we have a 2nd spinner in any kind of form. He'll throw big fat Sam in there and lengthen the batting

holcs wrote:If they do then its even more important that we only play 4. As that weakens their batting further.

Not that we will of course.

holcsy, I'm sure "they" refers to the English selectors, not us convicts . . . we won't go in with 5 bowlers

Rashid is too callow to be thrown at the Aussies. If there was any intention of him getting a game, he would have been blooded in the Caribbean.

The only option going for second frontline spinner is Monty. Just a pity that Northants only have 2 championship matches before the squad is announced.