England v West Indies, 1st Test, Lord's, May 6-10

JKLever wrote:Woah, steady on.

Flintoff is still capable of 90mph bowling - nothing like an over the hill Beefy yet.

Freds problems are all fitness...

He doesn't take wickets at 90 mph, though. Even 60 mph Beefy bought a few wickets. And Fred's batting is carp now.

Do you think he will make it through a five test series?

Rob I wrote:

He doesn't take wickets at 90 mph, though

In the last 2 injury riddled years - 21 wickets @ 32 - less expensive than Jimmykins who supposedly leads our attack.

Even 60 mph Beefy bought a few wickets.

Really, in his ultra slow mode from 1987 onwards he took 17 wickets in his last 13 test matches at an average of 54 when picked on reputation.

And Fred's batting is carp now.

But that has no impact on his ability to bowl 90mph. And he's still averaging more with the bat in the last 2 years than Botham did in his last 13 tests.

Do you think he will make it through a five test series?

Maybe, maybe not. I'd rather have a Fred in 2 tests before he breaks down than some county nomark.

The idea that Fred is going through a Botham 1987-1992 phase is silly, especially when the evidence is there than he still has the pace. Even if the last 3 years have not been as productive as 2003-6.

All as maybe JKL and I'm not disputing any of it.

However, on the basis that Fred supposedly 'gives the side balance', any side that does not accomodate him is still merely considered an interim measure while we wait for him to regain full fitness.

Whatever the mitigating circumstances some might cite to explain it, the reality is that England perform more effectively without him in the side, and far from balancing the side, his presence actually does exactly the opposite, as he still plays as an all rounder in a 5 man attack, a role which his batting is quite patently not capable of sustaining.

England therefore have some stark questions to answer and need to stop kidding themselves that the Fred of 2005 is just a couple of matches away from returning to his ebullient best. That cricketer is gone, finito, he is but a joyous memory and will never return.

Those questions then: -

1. Is he going to be capable of playing a full part in a 4 man attack and bowl 15-20 overs a day?

2. If not, is it acceptable that we get maybe a couple of spells of 4/5 overs a day out of him, with the additional risk of him breaking down at any time?

3. What are the alternatives to selecting him at all?

I'd argue strongly now the answers to both 1 and 2 are no, and England need to get on with the serious business of planning the answer to 3.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

Those questions then: -

1. Is he going to be capable of playing a full part in a 4 man attack and bowl 15-20 overs a day?

2. If not, is it acceptable that we get maybe a couple of spells of 4/5 overs a day out of him, with the additional risk of him breaking down at any time?

3. What are the alternatives to selecting him at all?

I'd argue strongly now the answers to both 1 and 2 are no, and England need to get on with the serious business of planning the answer to 3.

But the selectors won't though, that's the f**king problem.
In time honoured fashion they will "stick" with the old and avoid looking for the new.
The total reverse of the selection policy of 10 years ago - over-egged and over-done.
How often have we heard the bleats for Vaughan, Simon Jones, Harmison and now Flintoff.

Bury head in sand, hope for the best, pick a crock and then pay the price when said crock drops out at moments notice.
The sooner the p**cks acknowledge that 2005 is dead ... done ... over ... finished ... history... the better.

And there's no point stating that xxx is rubbish or yyy is crap or zzz won't hack it.
The poor buggers that get slated are never given another chance to prove themselves.
Anderson is a fair example ... IMO he's finally, after a shed load of crap performances, come good.
Braod too is making up well .... but who else have they really tried (or given hope to) and stuck with?

Please don't say Khan ....
PS whatever did Hoggard do wrong ?? No selector has ever explained that one as yet!

2005 was both the best and the worst thing that has happened to English cricket in my lifetime.

The best thing at the time, but as the ensuing years have slowly unwound, the baggage that came with it has set the England side back another decade.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:2005 was both the best and the worst thing that has happened to English cricket in my lifetime.

The best thing at the time, but as the ensuing years have slowly unwound, the baggage that came with it has set the England side back another decade.

Word.

I agree - re Fred balancing the side.

We absolutely cannot build a side around him or wrap him in cotton wool to the detriment of the team.

I think he deserves a fair crack though - it's not as if its one injury that keeps occuring - he's been unlucky with the last 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if they're a result of having so little sustained fitness for 2 years in the first place.

"Breaking down" becomes a habit IMO.
The mindset tends to move into negative and also self preservation where the body is concerned .... which ultimately must affect performances.

Not saying Fred doesn't give 100 percent out in the middle ... ironically it's BECAUSE he gives it his all that lays him open to injury so often ... and invariably soon after he returns from "recovering" from the previous one!

I say just leave Fred to have a few glorious years in ODIs and 20/20s and stuff the tests where he's just a very injury prone bowler these days. Although rightly or wrongly there's no doubt he'll be wheeled out for a couple of tests this summer.

So how come I haven't seen Collingwood and Shah surface in IPL yet? Am I missing something?

I'd have the same batting as the last test against the Windies with Prior at six. I don't think Bell, Baughan or Afzaal have any business getting in ahead of the incumbents. That leaves England with 4 seamers- Broad, Jimmikins, Hoggard and Bresnan just sounds right to me.

Afzaal?? Time to lay off the photocopier ink, methinks.

Yeah, where the hell'd Afzaal jump up from?

Eric Air Emu wrote:
So how come I haven't seen Collingwood and Shah surface in IPL yet? Am I missing something?

Only 4 overseas players per side. Collingwood, Shah and some dobber called McGrath have been kicking their heels on the Delhi bench.

They still get paid, mind, so I doubt they're suicidal about the whole thing.

Sorry, I obviously meant Scott Newman.

Newman seems destined to remain a talent unrealised due mainly to reports that he doesn't really give a toss. A shame, as he's got game.

Is Blobert still in the mix?

Anyway - thank God there's some decent cricket on the horizon.

lardbucket wrote:Anyway - thank God there's some decent cricket on the horizon.

You're looking forward to the Somerset/Durham match tomorrow as well?

lardbucket wrote:Is Blobert still in the mix?

Super Bobby's playing for the Lions against the Windies soon (this week?). Captaining them, no less.

I guess a score from him puts him in the mix.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:2005 was both the best and the worst thing that has happened to English cricket in my lifetime.

The best thing at the time, but as the ensuing years have slowly unwound, the baggage that came with it has set the England side back another decade.

I guess it's a bit like the rugby in 2003, although in that case we always knew that most of the players were coming towards the end of their careers, but the slump afterwards was perhaps made worse by poor management. The additional problem for the cricketers is that in terms of age and potential there was a feeling that the Ashes win shouldn't have been the peak for that group of players, and that has led to them clinging onto the hope that some of the players will recapture that form and making it harder to get out of the team than into it.

If this year's Ashes turns out to be another whitewash or something close to it, the only solution has to be to basically rip up the teamsheet and start again. Get rid of virtually everyone associated with 2005 and before. Even KP if his negative influence on the side outweighs what he can contribute with the bat. Get in a proper new coach with no links to the past, let a young team develop, keep a couple of more experienced players who have the right attitude to help them along, and target 4 years' time.

Of course it won't happen, and they will still be wheeling out the likes of Harmison and Bell in 2013 in the hope of recapturing the spirit of '05...

Is Lords still a bit of a road? I thought I saw some pretty huge first innings totals in the last FC match played there.

If so are two spinners a possibility given our batsmen and their propensity to play with their pads against finger spin? If Devon Smith plays that is a dead set certain wicket in the finger spinners first over of the match.

Having said that our reserve batsmen including those vying for the opening position looked pretty fuggin awful against the swinging ball at Chelmsford the other day so the spinners might not be needed.

Broad, Anderson, Onions and Swann might be the attack?

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Collywobbles
Bopara
Prior (wk)
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Onions

vs

Gayle
Smith/Richards AKA walking wickets
Sarwan
Simmons
Shiv AKA GOD
Nash
Ramdin
Taylor
Benn
Edwards
Baker (Richardson and Pascal need a spectacular performance to get in)

WIFAN wrote:Is Lords still a bit of a road? I thought I saw some pretty huge first innings totals in the last FC match played there.

Not so much a road but a very good batting track which will last for 5 days with the only help being from overhead conditions.

Broad, Anderson, Onions and Swann might be the attack?

I'd pick Tremlett ahead of Onions who is almost Jimmyesque in his ability to bowl top delveries & toot in the same over

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Collywobbles
Bopara

God help us if this is the batting line up. 2 of them have been sat on their arses in SA with no cricket & Cook has played the one game and didn't look comfortable with the inury to his hand.

I'm looking forward to see in which direction the selectors are going - I'll be very dissapointed if both Colly & Shah are picked with nothing in the way of form.

The England selectors seem set on the continuity approach to me, and as Shah is the man in possession of the number 3 spot they will give him these 2 tests to cement his position. Bopara was the next man inline for a batting spot and as Freddie is out he would slot in at number 6. Whilst they have not played much cricket, it fits in with their rather dour selection policies IMHO.

Bopara should bat at 3, Collingwood and Shah should be dropped - one for lack of cricket, the other for utter failure.

But it will be Bell at 3, Bopara at 6, the rest of the team just about unchanged except for Donkey Harmison for rubbishy Amjad.

JKLever wrote:

Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Collywobbles
Bopara

God help us if this is the batting line up. 2 of them have been sat on their arses in SA with no cricket & Cook has played the one game and didn't look comfortable with the inury to his hand.

I'm looking forward to see in which direction the selectors are going - I'll be very dissapointed if both Colly & Shah are picked with nothing in the way of form.

I'd rather that than Bell getting a cheap recall. It would send out entirely the wrong message to recall him for some easy early season county runs, he needs to be told that he has to earn his place back the hard way and others who get dropped for poor performances will have to do that as well.

As far as the other two go, it's not their fault they're not in the starting line-up in their IPL teams. This is a warm-up series for the Ashes, we have to play our first choice batsmen (which Collingwood certainly is, if not necessarily Shah) into form.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a moment of randomness from the England selectors, perhaps a desperate attempt to pick a supposed all-rounder to fill the Flintoff slot (remember a few years back when they picked the likes of Anthony McGrath and Rikki Clarke?)

beamer wrote:
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a moment of randomness from the England selectors, perhaps a desperate attempt to pick a supposed all-rounder to fill the Flintoff slot (remember a few years back when they picked the likes of Anthony McGrath and Rikki Clarke?)

Don't forget those teams designed to 'combat' the Windies with Del Pringle batting at #6.

I was at this bloody match.... A whole day lost to rain and they still utterly mullered us.

Just look at this bunch of gashlords.

Rob I wrote:

I was at this bloody match.... A whole day lost to rain and they still utterly mullered us.

Just look at this bunch of gashlords.

Actually the top 5 are decent bar Moxon, but you think we would've batted in depth given how good their bowling was. I remember that game well...