The Ashes Tour 06/07
- Thread starter ICB
- Start date
That has to be the end for Trescothick. I like him a lot, but you can't keep doing that. Once, fair enough - twice and you just start unbalancing the team because everyone is always wondering if you're going to stay or go in the middle of a tour. 
I'm not convinced by Bell at number three. I hope I'm wrong.
Matt
I'm not convinced by Bell at number three. I hope I'm wrong.
Matt
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
Well that's it.. we're fucked..
No Jones, Vaughan, Tresco, Flintoff still not 100%, Harmisson not bowling line & length.. Let's just give the Aussies the Ashes & fly home early for Christmas..
No Jones, Vaughan, Tresco, Flintoff still not 100%, Harmisson not bowling line & length.. Let's just give the Aussies the Ashes & fly home early for Christmas..
Flashman said:
I read somewhere, can't remember where (.. so probably unfounded speculation/gossip
) that he has colitis/chrones disease. Both these can be bought on by stress AFAIK (hence stress related...).Not sure why neither Tres or the TCCB don't just come out and say what the problem is... couldn't be any worse than the constant speculation. Either way looks like it's the end of his career, which is a real shame, but better than this on/off stuff, which must be stressful... and on we go....
liquidlunch
fargonebeauty
Why wouldnt you bring her along for a couple of weeks and fly her home when she got bored?You needed him to fire,bad luck for sure.Our press is reporting a stress related illness,nothing new there but he is such a good player it was worth another chance.
On the bright side a left arm quick has stepped up and taken a few wickets here and there
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...s-the-it-factor/2006/03/03/1141191849845.html
Pretty sure he will play in the first test as he just destroyed West Aust with a 4/36 yesterday he is certainly in good form.
On the bright side a left arm quick has stepped up and taken a few wickets here and there
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/...s-the-it-factor/2006/03/03/1141191849845.html
Pretty sure he will play in the first test as he just destroyed West Aust with a 4/36 yesterday he is certainly in good form.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Gawd no.Flashman said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Also as I understand it Teacher's Pet has already been promised the wicketkeeping spot.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I'd prefer Collingwood there, since I think he's a sticker.
I don't think it's going to matter what order we bat in. It's going to be tough.
To be honest, one thing that never ceases to amaze me is the endless soul-searching over whether billy batsman goes in at number 3 or 5 or 1 or whatever. Yes, there are some tactical considerations but... it's the same bloody game!
It doesn't suddenly turn into croquet. Whatever position someone bats in they may face any of the opposition bowlers against a ball in any condition.
You could take any winning test side, shuffle their top six like a deck of cards, and you would still have a winning test side.
To be honest, one thing that never ceases to amaze me is the endless soul-searching over whether billy batsman goes in at number 3 or 5 or 1 or whatever. Yes, there are some tactical considerations but... it's the same bloody game!
It doesn't suddenly turn into croquet. Whatever position someone bats in they may face any of the opposition bowlers against a ball in any condition.You could take any winning test side, shuffle their top six like a deck of cards, and you would still have a winning test side.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Really? Bat Botham at number one? Boycott at six?Jazzz said:
There's reasons why people bat at different numbers. One is an aptitude (or otherwise) for facing the new ball, but speed of scoring is also an issue. Although there are quickfire openers (Gayle for instance) you want somebody higher up who's going to stick around for a long time whereas lower down, if you can't score quickly you're liable to run out of partners before you've really built your innings.
Jazzz said:I don't think it's going to matter what order we bat in. It's going to be tough.
To be honest, one thing that never ceases to amaze me is the endless soul-searching over whether billy batsman goes in at number 3 or 5 or 1 or whatever. Yes, there are some tactical considerations but... it's the same bloody game!
You could take any winning test side, shuffle their top six like a deck of cards, and you would still have a winning test side.
You really don't understand cricket do you?
Rubbish.Jazzz said:I don't think it's going to matter what order we bat in. It's going to be tough.
To be honest, one thing that never ceases to amaze me is the endless soul-searching over whether billy batsman goes in at number 3 or 5 or 1 or whatever. Yes, there are some tactical considerations but... it's the same bloody game!
You could take any winning test side, shuffle their top six like a deck of cards, and you would still have a winning test side.
Cook is useless against Warne. So it makes sense for him to face the new ball, with pace, on a good wicket than to have him at number 6 facing a deteriorating wicket and a rampant blonde mullet.
Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. But yes, really, if you swapped Botham and Boycott at 1 and 6 your team should not average much less for test cricket. There are the factors you mention, yes seeing off the new ball is a duty of openers so that's where to put your slower scorers, and yes it does occasionally happen that a recognized bat gets stranded by the tail, but this is all not nearly so much a big deal as everyone seems to make out... when people endlessy worry about whether the no.3 or 4 spot is right for so-and-so...! If someone fails to score runs at 4 it's probably because they had a bad run, or their minds were distracted by some girl giving them trouble. Not because they can only bat at 5, and forget how to play otherwise.
There are considerations for openers - I accept that. I just don't think it's nearly the issue everyone thinks it is, and for the places 3-6 it's really going to make very little difference where one bats, in fact probably psychological considerations are more important that tactical ones.slaar said:
If Cook is truly as useless against Warne as you say, he shouldn't be in the side - unless I am mistaken Australia will have MacGill playing too, if any batsman is going to succeed they have will have to see off plenty of legspin.
