Cricket 3

[Hereward]

Useless bastards. :leaving:

[Hereward]

OK, so it's too late now, four wasted years and all. But, I want Moores replaced, he's not up to the job, Vaughan out too, Collingwood and Ambrose dropped. Perhaps it's time for Robert Key as captain, with Shah at 6, Foster as wicketkeeper and Jones in place of Sidebottom. I am so fed up with this amateurish crap.

[Jeor]

Looks like Collingwood saved his bacon, but Smith and Boucher held the run-chase together. With Boucher the last man before the tail it could have gone either way, but they ended up getting there reasonably comfortably in the end.

If Ambrose could have held on for longer, England would have had a good shot at this game. Sidebottom stayed there for a while, but you got the feeling that if England could have scrambled a few more runs together and set something more around 330, South Africa would have felt the heat a bit more.

[Daeric]

Vaughns stood down as the Captain so it seems likely that hes going to be dropped for the Oval test which is no surprise considering the forms hes in, and the only real replacement for him at number 3 is Rob Key

Sidebottom has clearly not recovered from his back problem, he was tidy but slow and with little pace and swing, I'd replace him with either Harminson, Hoggard through I'd prefer Jones.

Collingwood is a bit iffy, failed badly in the 1st inning but got that vital century in the 2nd. His bowling was terrible so he doesn't really warrent a place in the side. Could Shah or bring back Broad and continue to devolp him.

On the Captain I would say the safe bet would be Straus, he did for the Pakistan tour sos got experience. An outside shot might be Collingwood or Pieterson, since I'd prefer Collingwood gone thats a no and rather not burden Pieterson with the role, he might respond like Smith did for SA but its probably not worht risking it, or theres Key who I would place alongside Strauss, one of those two.

[williamjm]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1466999' date='Aug 3 2008, 20.58']Vaughns stood down as the Captain so it seems likely that hes going to be dropped for the Oval test which is no surprise considering the forms hes in, and the only real replacement for him at number 3 is Rob Key[/quote]

I note that Vikram Solanki scored 270 at the weekend which might be timely.

[quote]Collingwood is a bit iffy, failed badly in the 1st inning but got that vital century in the 2nd. His bowling was terrible so he doesn't really warrent a place in the side. Could Shah or bring back Broad and continue to devolp him.[/quote]

He bowled two overs and nearly dismissed Kallis (I think) although Ambrose dropped the edge, so I'm not sure I'd say his bowling was that terrible although I don't think he came claim to be in the side for his bowling if he's only asked to bowl 2 overs. I'd like to see Shah given an extended run in the side sometime but dropping the player who just scored a century while leaving alone the players who haven't scored one so far this series would be a bit of an odd selection decision.

[quote]On the Captain I would say the safe bet would be Straus, he did for the Pakistan tour sos got experience. An outside shot might be Collingwood or Pieterson, since I'd prefer Collingwood gone thats a no and rather not burden Pieterson with the role, he might respond like Smith did for SA but its probably not worht risking it, or theres Key who I would place alongside Strauss, one of those two.[/quote]

I think Strauss and Pietersen are the favourites, certainly Strauss would be a reasonable choice as he had been competent and successful in the past although I don't think he's a particularly great captain. Collingwood has resigned the one-day captaincy today as well, saying it was too much of a distraction from his batting, so he's definitely out of contention.

[Hereward]

It's going to be Pietersen, God help us. I wouldn't be surprised if we got thrown out of international cricket before the year is out.

Edit: They've done it. Stupid bastards. They've also passed over Shah yet again, in favour of Bopara. Stupid bastards.

[Multaniette]

Mebbe the selectors bear Owais Shah a personal grudge?

Given the choices, the perfect english line-up IMO is,

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
Jones
Sidebottom
Anderson

12th Man: Broad

[Paxter]

[quote name='Multaniette' post='1467532' date='Aug 4 2008, 20.57']Mebbe the selectors bear Owais Shah a personal grudge?

Given the choices, the perfect english line-up IMO is,

Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen
Shah
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior
Jones
Sidebottom
Anderson

12th Man: Broad[/quote]

Do you bear a personal grudge against Monty? Poor Panesar, just because he drops a sitter at fine leg he finds himself out of the team!

I do agree with you selections though (but Panesar has to replace Jones).

Why the selectors continue to overlook Owais Shah is a complete mystery to me. Not to mention the fact that Ambrose has somehow managed to keep his place in the team. Amazing really.

RE: Pietersen's captaincy - hmmmm...I just hope it doesn't affect his batting (look at what happened to Vaughan - he averaged 52 when not captain and well below 40 as captain). Whether Pietersen has a good enough cricketing brain to captain his country in all three forms of the game - that also remains to be seen. Personally, I would have picked Strauss for tests and Pietersen for one-dayers/T20s. But after the Vaughan-Collingwood experiment, I think the selectors were pretty keen to maintain the same captain across all forms of the game. Can't say I blame them. The other candidate for test captain (IMO) was Alastair Cook - but he is no good in one-dayers so you still end up with the same problem.

[Hereward]

I think overlooking Strauss again sends a fairly clear message that his place in the team is extremely precarious. Bopara's last three test innings have been 0, 0 and 0. I can imagine he'll be fairly nervous come the Oval!

[Multaniette]

[quote]Do you bear a personal grudge against Monty? Poor Panesar, just because he drops a sitter at fine leg he finds himself out of the team![/quote]

I believe in selecting the four best bowlers - Panesar just doesn't happen to be among them - specially on the english pitches.

[Daeric]

I would drop Collingwood for Broad, but apart from that I don't see much wrong with that ling up.

[Sir Thursday]

As far as Pietersen for captaincy goes, it really doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It might force him to knuckle down and stop making so many rash mistakes, but at the same time it might crush him altogether, and I haven't seen too much evidence to suggest he's going to be a genius as a captain in the field.

This idea of having one captain in all forms of the game seems like an unnecessary straightjacket the selectors have put on themselves - if half the team are ruled out because they are unlikely to play in ODIs, then surely the team makeup is sufficiently different to make it feasible to have two different captains. Having the two captaincies separate didn't work before, it's true, but I don't think that's because they were separate - would England really have beaten NZ in the ODIs if Vaughan was playing and captain? I don't think so somehow.

I would have gone with Strauss - last time he was captain he suddenly started playing a lot better - the added responsibility seemed to galvanise him. He was definitely a better captain than Flintoff, and was unlucky to lose out when an interim captain was being picked. On the otherhand, he hasn't done all that well in the series thus far (averaging 23.2, although to be fair he has been unlucky once or twice), and is not necessarily guaranteed a place.

If you don't want it to be Strauss, that leaves Cook, Bell, Collingwood, and Flintoff as possible non-Pietersen contenders. Cook sounds like a possibility, but he is still pretty young and might not have the experience under his belt yet. Collingwood has enough to worry about right now and I seem to remember it being made fairly clear that Flintoff would never be captain again. So of those, I think I'd go with Bell. Added bonus: he's in the ODI squad, so no split captaincy worries. I don't worry about Bell's temperament in the same way I worry about Pietersen's - he isn't going to be taunted into doing something rash.

As others have said, I think Shah deserved an opportunity before Bopara as I don't see Bopara as a Test match batsman. His test figures thus far bear that out.


Sir Thursday

[Slick Mongoose]

Bopara? The selectors have been smoking crack..... Nothing new there, then. :rolleyes:

I think it's clear that Peitersen wanted to be England captain for himself, not for England. It's worrying.

[williamjm]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1467559' date='Aug 4 2008, 14.27']Not to mention the fact that Ambrose has somehow managed to keep his place in the team. Amazing really.[/quote]

Ambrose was dropped from the one-day squad to be replaced by Matt Prior, which I think is an indication that Ambrose is on his way out of the test side unless he scores a big century in the next test.

[quote]So of those, I think I'd go with Bell. Added bonus: he's in the ODI squad, so no split captaincy worries. I don't worry about Bell's temperament in the same way I worry about Pietersen's - he isn't going to be taunted into doing something rash.[/quote]

It does seem a bit odd that he wasn't even mentioned in the captaincy discussions - does he have any experience of captaining? (not that lack of experience hurt KP's chances)

[IheartTesla]

Pietersen as captain of England? Well, now I've seen everything. Although there wasnt any other real contender whose position in the side is guaranteed.

The Indians managed to level the series at Galle. The third Test should be interesting - hopefully the fabled middle order can get their act together and score some runs. Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly failing is a bit worrisome, but one of them should be able to fire next Test.

[Paxter]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1467802' date='Aug 5 2008, 00.51']I would drop Collingwood for Broad, but apart from that I don't see much wrong with that ling up.[/quote]

I have to disagree with this. Would Broad have scored a near-match-saving hundred in that third test match coming in at no. 6? I think not. He would have come in at 8, made a 30 or 40 and then gotten tonked around when he was bowling. For the sake of the balance of the team, Collingwood must stay or be replaced by Shah. Broad, however, cannot replace Collingwood. Broad can only i) replace Flintoff if/when he next gets injured or ii) replace one of the bowlers when he's good enough to bowl at test level (which he isn't right now).

Multaniette: Panesar's record on English wickets is impeccable - average of 28.60, rpo 2.72, SR 63.0. If anything, it is overseas where he has struggled. He is easily in England's best XI ahead of Jones. Jones has to prove that he is better than Sidebottom or Anderson in order to secure his spot in the team.

[Hereward]

I'm so depressed about this. I have a visceral dislike for Pietersen and I think he'll be a disastrous captain. But even if he isn't, I don't think I want us to win in the manner, and with the gloating, that he is likely to do it in. We're a poor team and I don't see much scope for improvement.

Edit: 'cause hate's a very strong word.

[Jeor]

Well, the ECB at least didn't beat around the bush for weeks before appointing a successor, but like Hereward, I think they got it wrong this time. Flintoff's disastrous end to the captaincy should have already warned them that picking a captain who's supposed to 'lead by example' is fraught with danger. Both Flintoff and Pietersen are talented, individualistic performers who already play a key role in the team. It didn't work for Flintoff and it may not work for Pietersen.

Pietersen is the only real legitimately attacking batsman in the English lineup. That's fine for a captain who can lead the line when on the offensive, but you certainly don't want to constrain his natural game, which is what they're doing by putting this responsibility on him, with very little captaincy experience as well. He already has to deal with being the only firepower in the batting lineup (no offense to the other English batsmen, who have good records, but they don't strike fear into bowlers the way Pietersen might), no need to give him reasons to start double-guessing himself.

Would have been better to split the captaincy with Strauss/Pietersen for Tests/ODIs. Pietersen would make for a reasonable ODI captain; he wouldn't have to curb his attacking instincts or feel the extra weight of responsibility in the ODI game, and it's not a tactically demanding game (compared to Tests).

[Daeric]

[quote]I have to disagree with this. Would Broad have scored a near-match-saving hundred in that third test match coming in at no. 6? I think not. He would have come in at 8, made a 30 or 40 and then gotten tonked around when he was bowling. For the sake of the balance of the team, Collingwood must stay or be replaced by Shah. Broad, however, cannot replace Collingwood. Broad can only i) replace Flintoff if/when he next gets injured or ii) replace one of the bowlers when he's good enough to bowl at test level (which he isn't right now).[/quote]

Collingwood was and is still is in my eyes no kind of form with the bat. He managed a century, it happens but he also failed horribly in the 1st Innings and is not up to scratch with the ball. Broads while in a slight slump with the ball is still doing it better then Collingwood and I'd rather have a consistent batter like Broad then Collingwood at the moment.

All it would require is the dropping of Ambrose for Prior, have Prior bat at 6, Flintoff at 7 and Broad at 8.

[Hereward]

[quote name='SirRots' post='1468729' date='Aug 5 2008, 13.00']Collingwood was and is still is in my eyes no kind of form with the bat. He managed a century, it happens but he also failed horribly in the 1st Innings and is not up to scratch with the ball. Broads while in a slight slump with the ball is still doing it better then Collingwood and I'd rather have a consistent batter like Broad then Collingwood at the moment.[/quote]

Collingwood may be in no real form, but he still battled out an ugly 100. I still don't think you can regard someone who has never scored a century in any form of professional cricket as a superior batsmen to Collingwood, however scratchy he may look while doing so.