A Warne-ing for Broad

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12052_5626634,00.html

I agree with his comments regarding Luke Wright. He thinks the latter is a bits and pieces player who shouldn't be going on a test tour to SA.

Red wrote:I agree with his comments regarding Luke Wright. He thinks the latter is a bits and pieces player who shouldn't be going on a test tour to SA.

Strange that no one here thought that.

It's all well and good stating these 'rules' but facts are our bowling attack cannot be relied on for 20 wickets. That's not saying our top 6 can be relied on for runs, but then runs don't really win matches in the same regard as wickets. If Broad is a sub-par 7 then I think that Swann makes up for it at 8. They both teeter on the brink of a number 7 IMO.

Hopefully we ignore him, as I'd actually like to see us go for a win or two - we're not NZ.

I think Broad is probably a better bat than what Warnie gives him credit for. He looks more adept at handling the requirements of test, than limited overs cricket with the bat.

Red wrote:I think Broad is probably a better bat than what Warnie gives him credit for. He looks more adept at handling the requirements of test, than limited overs cricket with the bat.

True. I mean, Warne fails to recognise that the likes of Adam Gilchrist at #7 is warranted because the two great bowlers, plus the very good back-ups made it easy to pick him there. Usually a team's number 7 is only a decent batsman if they have the calibre in the attack to just be utilising the four bowlers and some part-timers.

Furthermore, there's no set rules as to the make up of a good Test side. If we have two very decent number 8s at 7 and 8 then so be it; can't complain about their contribution with the bat in the last series we played.

The only thing I would say is that, with some of the possible pitches coming up for England we may actually be able to take 20 wickets with four bowlers. But they'd have to fire and we have hardly been able to trust them anytime anywhere.

Sage, Warnies talking sh!t.

Hmmm, not sure that five carp bowlers will take any more wickets than four carp bowlers, and we will have to defend in SA, probably a lot.

Not a number seven in a million years.

When you consider that England felt Chris Read was too high at seven - a guy with 16 FC hundreds - it's comical that they would even consider Broad for that position in a side with the most flaky and weak batting line-up in years.

He has the makings of a decent number eight.

Common sense says it should be six bats, keeper, four bowlers - Collingwood and Trott to chip in some overs for "variety". Or it should be Rashid at seven, with his second spinner status viewed more as a bonus option should the wickets start ripping, rather than a front-line thing.

Four man attack, supplemented by Colly and Trott's medium pacers, again being the plan A.

No sense says: Luke Wright.

I think that Broad has said that if was given the choice, he would bat at 8 because it gives him licence to go out and play his shots.

Luke Wright: Cheaping England test caps

He should't get near the test side barring some freakish injuries or an outbreak of H1N1

With the popgun attack we're taking to South Africa then if we only play four bowlers we're effectively playing for draws from the start. You could say that with such a negative approach we might only lose 2-0 or 3-0 rather than 4 or 5, but I'd rather we went out there with a positive approach and see how it turns out. If you play to minimise your chances of losing when you play away series against strong opposition, you forget how to play positively for wins even against the weaker sides.

I maintain my view that you can't play four bowlers in Test cricket unless you have two world-beaters among them who can run through sides on any surface. Unless you're playing someone really crap on a helpful pitch, or defending a series lead when the cautious approach can be preferred. Broad and Swann are two "7.5's" so I wouldn't complain about having them at 7 and 8.

JKLever wrote:Luke Wright: Cheaping England test caps

I thought Pattinson closed the book on that option.