Re: England v Australia, 3rd Test, Edgbaston, Jul 30 - Aug 3

by Henry Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:02

Henry wrote:I think England will try their hardest to be unchanged, although Harmison for Broad is still tempting. Onions shouldn't get the chop (sorry). Strauss hardly bowled him in this test, and he wasn't complete wank when he did bowl.

by JGK Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:02

Invader Zim wrote:
JGK wrote:Clark in for Hauritz.
Surely we can't persist with Johnson unless he shows some improvement in the tour match...
Red wrote:Lee is unlikely to be available until the fifth test.
Hope we are 2 up before then...
JGK wrote:Who is toying with the idea of opening with Watson - Andy Flower?
snigger

Midge will come good but Hauritz will always be carp.

by Shoeshine Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:04

JGK wrote:
Invader Zim wrote:
JGK wrote:Clark in for Hauritz.
Surely we can't persist with Johnson unless he shows some improvement in the tour match...
Red wrote:Lee is unlikely to be available until the fifth test.
Hope we are 2 up before then...
JGK wrote:Who is toying with the idea of opening with Watson - Andy Flower?
snigger

Midge will come good but Hauritz will always be carp.

Hauritz has done pretty well in the series so far. He's Australia's Ashley Giles, a limited player who gets the most from what he has. It's not fair to hold him responsible for the lack of a successor to Shane Warne.

by JGK Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:05

I can hold Hauritz responsible for dropping a regulation c&b off Strauss in the first dig when Strauss was about 40. Actually, Strauss' extra 120 runs were the difference in the match.

by JKLever Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:11

Henry wrote:I think Aus should drop Hughes, move Hussey up to open, bat Haddin at six and Johnson at seven, and play 5 bowlers.

Hussey
Katich
Ponting(c)
Clarke
North
Haddin+
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

Farking hell, don't give them ideas....

by JGK Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:14

Why drop Hughes - he's only been out once this series.

by Henry Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:19

Huh? Hughes was out fair and square at Cardiff, and in the first innings at Lord's too. No doubt as far as I can remember?

Maybe i'm biased, but I don't think Andrew Strauss would claim a catch he didn't think he had taken, so I think Hughes was out in the second innings at Lord's as well.

by JKLever Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:21

Looking forward to the rest of the series now, I can't see Aus winning the next 3 like in 1997 but I can see them doing just enough to retain the urn....

by Shoeshine Mon 20 Jul 2009, 15:25

Henry wrote:Huh? Hughes was out fair and square at Cardiff, and in the first innings at Lord's too. No doubt as far as I can remember?

Maybe i'm biased, but I don't think Andrew Strauss would claim a catch he didn't think he had taken, so I think Hughes was out in the second innings at Lord's as well.

He was caught by Strauss. No matter how many times it is pointed out that television makes all low catches look like they bounced, people just put their fingers in their ears and say they aren't listening.

by LeFromage Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:26

Flintoff showed that aggression can buy you wickets on flat pitches, so I think England will be extremely tempted to bring Harmison back in, to spread the load.

No-one else in the Lord's XI can bowl fast and hostile spells. Anderson's bouncers are just medium-paced long-hops. And Broad is powder puff.

Harmison for Broad?

Onions was disappointingly scattergun, and supposedly has a bit of an elbow problem.

Sidebottom, his replacement?

by Shoeshine Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:28

I think they might well go for Harmison for Onions, but I think Broad has probably done enough this Test match.

by LeFromage Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:32

Really? 3-127, going at four an over?

Harmison, Broad and Flintoff looks a bit "samey" in terms of style.

Would prefer a bit of variety.

by Shoeshine Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:36

I didn't say it was outstanding, I said he'd probably done enough.

True about the lack of variety in such an attack though.

by LeFromage Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:44

Depends on the definition of "enough". He takes his Test wickets @ 40.

I think I'm right in saying only Ashley Giles has a worse average of bowlers who've taken 50+ Test wickets for England.

Seems to me he rarely does "enough".

by Shoeshine Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:48

That then takes us back to the same question about a young bowler learning his trade and so on. I think that's been covered enough really, so it simply comes down to whether you think he's going to come good or not.

By the way, that stat would apply to bowlers at the end of their careers, so the likes of Flintoff and Anderson would have had similar figures at some point before the average started to fall.

by Henry Mon 20 Jul 2009, 17:59

Sidebottom is apparently swinging it at close to 90mph again, so he shouldn't be ruled out of the equation. If he doesn't play at Edgbaston, i'd have him down as almost a certainty for Headingley.

Onions wasn't too bad. He didn't really get a good solid bowl in either innings. Like I said the other day- I like his style. Seems a tough, no nonsense sort of character.

by LeFromage Mon 20 Jul 2009, 18:05

Henry wrote:Sidebottom is apparently swinging it at close to 90mph again, so he shouldn't be ruled out of the equation. If he doesn't play at Edgbaston, i'd have him down as almost a certainty for Headingley.

Onions wasn't too bad. He didn't really get a good solid bowl in either innings. Like I said the other day- I like his style. Seems a tough, no nonsense sort of character.

Sprays it too much. He shouldn't - it should be perfectly obvious to him where his strength lies: he's gets in so close to the stumps that he should be able to make the batsmen play at everything. With the extra zip he seems to get off the pitch, he only has to keep hammering away on a tight line all day and he'll take plenty of wickets.

It's either a lack of discipline or technique, but he bowls too many four balls.

by JKLever Mon 20 Jul 2009, 18:45

I'd keep Broad in, I like the depth in the tail being the strong bottomordermonger that I am. And that strength has seen us ok in this series so far.

Prior 6,Fred 7,Broad 8,Swann 9 - I likes it.

Sidders & Harmison have let England down, they need to wait their turn. Particularly GBH.

by PeterCS Mon 20 Jul 2009, 18:53

JKLever wrote:I'd keep Broad in, I like the depth in the tail being the strong bottommonger that I am. And that strength has seen us ok in this series so far.

Prior Posterior 6,Freddled Gruntphuttock 7,Broadarse 8,Sidebottom 9, Topbottom 10 - I likes it.

Hardarse has let England down, he needs to wait his turn.

Even on FB, you shouldn't be admitting to that sort fo thing, JK.

by JKLever Mon 20 Jul 2009, 20:02

Arse.

by Guest Mon 20 Jul 2009, 20:46

JKLever wrote:I'd keep Broad in, I like the depth in the tail being the strong bottomordermonger that I am. And that strength has seen us ok in this series so far.

Prior 6,Fred 7,Broad 8,Swann 9 - I likes it.

I'd move Swanneee up to #8 on current form, which might boot Broad in the bottom.

by Guest Mon 20 Jul 2009, 20:56

Swann should be ahead of Broad anyway, the guy has 4 FC 100s.

by JKLever Mon 20 Jul 2009, 20:57

vilkrang wrote:Swann should be ahead of Broad anyway, the guy has 4 FC 100s.

Doesn't look as comfortable against the short ball as Broad though, has to be said.

by Guest Mon 20 Jul 2009, 20:59

Yeah but what has Broad ever done for Northants?

Nothing.

by beamer Mon 20 Jul 2009, 21:09

JKLever wrote:
vilkrang wrote:Swann should be ahead of Broad anyway, the guy has 4 FC 100s.

Doesn't look as comfortable against the short ball as Broad though, has to be said.

Broad should have more FC 100s than that by the time he's 30, although if he stays in the Test side he will have fewer opportunities than Swann has of course. Both are more than decent number 8s though.

by Sponsored content