Announcing the squad

Merlin wrote:Why 2 keepers?

In case one gets injured perhaps? Unless you're that confident in any of our batsmen's ability to stand in for a 5-day Test without conceding 100 byes...

beamer wrote:

Merlin wrote:Why 2 keepers?

In case one gets injured perhaps? Unless you're that confident in any of our batsmen's ability to stand in for a 5-day Test without conceding 100 byes...

Send for a replacement in the event of injury to the selection...
Much rather see another batsman being blooded... and anyway, it's only a 3 Test tour, right?
BTW both Shah and Bell have kept ... could alternate with them I guess!!

JKLever wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:

JKLever wrote:Yeah, but he looked completely out of form all summer, not just against India like the others.

He'll come back but I can't really argue against his non selection in a place like SL

No, I suppose his 'new' game wont like the lack of apparent bounce I suppose. Cook was as muntery as he was though and IRB has hardly covered himself in glory.

It's just frustrating, I know you'll have highlights, check him out in SA and before when he was rinsing it - so many more runs down the ground... only squaring up when there was some width.

No question, but bowlers have learned his weak areas and are bowling better to him.

Not convinced Cookie is going to prosper either to be fair.

Cook'll score runs, he has class.

Not sure about the cl

Hmmmm - get the feeling Bopara (who has ridden that one international fifty to his name for quite a long way thus far) is being viewed as a number six bat who will turn his arm over (as will Collingwood) to compensate for the two spinners, two seamers attack England go with.

Surprised Tremlett doesn't even rate a mention from the selectors - even an explanation why a guy who was picked ahead of Broad for the India Tests, who bowled with distinction, should now be kicking his heels all winter.

Seems like he's been dropped from the Test because the handful of ODI games they've given him since that Test series have suggested he's not best suited to limited overs cricket.

Makes sense to someone, I'm sure...

Batfink Begins wrote: We need some vicious wicket-taking balls. He only need bowl 5 a match, which is a possibility.

On a good day, when it's not too hot....and yet not too chilly; not too humid....and yet not too dry;with a following wind; and the pitch will need to have some bounce and zip, so first session of the match, or last day when it becomes uneven (forget about days 2,3 & 4).............................

Dello wrote: Bopara (who has ridden that one international fifty to his name for quite a long way thus far) is being viewed as a number six bat who will turn his arm over

Not sure thats entirely fair on him, he's been stuck at 8 for the most part and has been not out whilst the tail have gifted their wickets away.

beamer wrote:

Merlin wrote:Why 2 keepers?

In case one gets injured perhaps? Unless you're that confident in any of our batsmen's ability to stand in for a 5-day Test without conceding 100 byes...

Not sure anyone has that degree of confidence in Prior do they?

doctorspin wrote:

beamer wrote:

Merlin wrote:Why 2 keepers?

In case one gets injured perhaps? Unless you're that confident in any of our batsmen's ability to stand in for a 5-day Test without conceding 100 byes...

Not sure anyone has that degree of confidence in Prior do they?

Exactly my point - Mustard ought to be the first and only choice and leave Prior at home.

JKLever wrote:

Dello wrote: Bopara (who has ridden that one international fifty to his name for quite a long way thus far) is being viewed as a number six bat who will turn his arm over

Not sure thats entirely fair on him, he's been stuck at 8 for the most part and has been not out whilst the tail have gifted their wickets away.

He's also got a dogged determination about him which is good to see.
Just wish Bell had that conviction to go with the alleged "talent".

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

Agree with your assessment of our quicks B@z, but I do agree with the Fink (rarely though it is) that we could have taken Tremble instead of the Priory.

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

Agree with your assessment of our quicks B@z, but I do agree with the Fink (rarely though it is) that we could have taken Tremble instead of the Priory.

Tremlett may be unlucky - but someone had to miss out. Only taking one keeper is playing with fire. What if the one selected breaks a finger on the morning of the match?

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Don't seem much reeeeespec there man.

doctorspin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Don't seem much reeeeespec there man.

Alright then - how about that's b******s, STFU?

Basil wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Don't seem much reeeeespec there man.

Alright then - how about that's b******s, STFU?

I suspect that's closer to your true feelings and meaning....reeespec man.

doctorspin wrote:

Basil wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Don't seem much reeeeespec there man.

Alright then - how about that's b******s, STFU?

I suspect that's closer to your true feelings and meaning....reeespec man.

Basil wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

Agree with your assessment of our quicks B@z, but I do agree with the Fink (rarely though it is) that we could have taken Tremble instead of the Priory.

Tremlett may be unlucky - but someone had to miss out. Only taking one keeper is playing with fire. What if the one selected breaks a finger on the morning of the match?

Have Shah keep till a replacement is flown out - (only a 10 hour flight to Colombo).
Prior won't be missed all that much.

doctorspin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Don't seem much reeeeespec there man.

Well ...........it was originally a Fink statement after all ... so whatdaya expect?

Won't the development squad be in India during the seniors' tour of Sri Lanka?

How far is India from Sri Lanka? Couple of hours?

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Batfink Begins wrote:Broad, Anderson, Hoggard, Sidebottom -> folly IMO, such a 'much of a muchness' it's unbelievable - with a left-arm and negligible differences in pace being the 'variation'. Ridiculae.

Not that I would'nt have taken all of them, just would've had one of the taller fookers instead of one of the keeps.

With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

Agree with your assessment of our quicks B@z, but I do agree with the Fink (rarely though it is) that we could have taken Tremble instead of the Priory.

Tremlett may be unlucky - but someone had to miss out. Only taking one keeper is playing with fire. What if the one selected breaks a finger on the morning of the match?

Have Shah keep till a replacement is flown out - (only a 10 hour flight to Colombo).
Prior won't be missed all that much.

Not entirely sure that the rules would enable us to effectively have a 12th man act as keeper - fiendishly unfair too - straight off the plane on to the field of play. I know it happened once before when Bob Taylor and Bobby Parks did the job when Bruce French was incapacitated, but I'm struggling to think of another example.

What's more important?
A spare keeper who most likely will carry drinks for the whole series and is only there "just in case"?

Or a quick who can keep his hand in, give our bats some decent bowling to practice to fiddle with and, more importantly, an immediate standby in the event of one of the other quicks getting crocked ... more likely to happen given the rigours of bowling in the heat and dust.

Basil wrote:
With respect - that's b*****s.

Broad is 6' 6" - there's your height to provide bounce
Anderson - swing with just enough pace to count
Hoggard - swing with the new ball, and cutters with the old.
Sidebottom - left arm over

I said I'd take them all. I wouldn't be too displeased with seeing any three of them in the First Test attack. I already said about the left arm of SiBo and whilst it is a difference, he's still of a similar style.

Jimmy, yes, can get his pace up as can Broad - but I don't think it will last long in the heat, unless there's some mad stamina work going on. Whilst Broad is that tall, I've never seen a sustained spell of banging it into the pitch - I don't think there's as much natural bounce in his wiry frame. He needs to put on a few.

Jimmy bowled really brilliantly at times versus India and with more support wouldn't have got murdered. Maybe if his workload isn't so harsh, he'd be constantly firing. He may get to be used a bit more in short burst if Swanny plays with Monty.

I actually wouldn't mind Meathead at 6, Swann 7, Broad 8, 2 of the 3 and Monty 11.

Oh, and jiggly-fo-figgly.

[quote="Batfink Begins"]

Basil wrote:

Oh, and jiggly-fo-figgly.

Back atcha with knobs on

If you've got Prior as your number one keeper, you don't need a reserve keeper. Any of the other batsmen could sub in for him perfectly well if he's injured. Or Harmison.

Or perhaps we've all got this wrong. Mustard is the first choice keeper, there is no reserve keeper ... Prior's just out there as one of the reerve batsmen.