| #1 | |
|
|
My team for the Oval Test
Vaughan
Strauss Key Trescothick Collingwood Flintoff Foster wk Cork Giles Hoggard Harmison Cork is selected just for this Test. England need an experienced replacement for S Jones. Asking Tremlett to play his first Test their would be too much. If not Cork then Anderson who has been quietly been recovering his form this season - he is Lancs leading wicket taker with 48. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
My XI:
Trescothick Strauss Vaughan Bell Collingwood Pietersen Flintoff Cork Read Hoggard Harmison Rather like the RH Corkie 'one off' suggestion... Batting in more depth and why select an alleged slow bowler when we ain't got one worthy of the name...... Cheers Robt P. |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Robt P" <robert.pollard2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:1125407208.805787.141010@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... > My XI: > > Trescothick > Strauss > Vaughan > Bell > Collingwood > Pietersen > Flintoff > Cork > Read > Hoggard > Harmison > > Rather like the RH Corkie 'one off' suggestion... > Batting in more depth and why select an alleged slow bowler when we > ain't got one worthy of the name...... > > Cheers > Robt P. > My XI Strauss Vaughan Trescothick (wkt keeper) Stuey used to do it and I don't think Tres can do any worse than G Jones, he's quite a reasonable keeper! Bell P Collingwood Pietersen Flintoff M Yardy A Giles Hoggard Harmison Now there's controversy for you! The depth of batting does it for me, not to mention six bowlers of varying degrees of class! Yardy has an incredible variety with his mixers! If S Jones is fit then Yardy must go. Regards SB |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Mr Blowfish" <s@s.nothere.co.uk> wrote in message news:GrydnZ2dnZ30eoHrnZ2dnewKid6dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@karoo.co.uk... > > "Robt P" <robert.pollard2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message > news:1125407208.805787.141010@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... >> My XI: >> >> Trescothick >> Strauss >> Vaughan >> Bell >> Collingwood >> Pietersen >> Flintoff >> Cork >> Read >> Hoggard >> Harmison >> >> Rather like the RH Corkie 'one off' suggestion... >> Batting in more depth and why select an alleged slow bowler when we >> ain't got one worthy of the name...... >> >> Cheers >> Robt P. >> > > My XI > > Strauss > Vaughan > Trescothick (wkt keeper) Stuey used to do it and I don't think Tres can do > any worse than G Jones, he's quite a reasonable keeper! > Bell > P Collingwood > Pietersen > Flintoff > M Yardy > A Giles > Hoggard > Harmison > > Now there's controversy for you! The depth of batting does it for me, not > to mention six bowlers of varying degrees of class! Yardy has an > incredible variety with his mixers! If S Jones is fit then Yardy must go. > > Regards > > > SB > > > > Oh PS Keep Pieterson at third man, fine leg, long off you no the score, and replace Tres with Collingwood in the slips, Bell can do a job in the covers, gully, short leg etc. |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:49:02 GMT, "David Lewis"
<dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Ignoring the usual issues, what's with moving our most successful batsman of >the series away from his preferred position at the top of the order to >somewhere where I certainly can't recall him batting before? I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
In message <a1rah1tma9i815gbjlb3a6du3fkt8hf7rj@4ax.com>, Simon Pleasants
<plesbit@hotmail.com> writes >On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:49:02 GMT, "David Lewis" ><dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>Ignoring the usual issues, what's with moving our most successful batsman of >>the series away from his preferred position at the top of the order to >>somewhere where I certainly can't recall him batting before? > >I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises >there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the >innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that >he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to >have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick >opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the >past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to >our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. I am not moving Vaughan back simply because that is his best position. Trescothick is very vulnerable at the top of the order against anyone who can bowl consistently and move the ball. He is fine player of spin and thus suited to the middle order where his destructive talents could have freer rein. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:34:21 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises >>there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the >>innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that >>he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to >>have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick >>opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the >>past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to >>our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. > >I am not moving Vaughan back simply because that is his best position. >Trescothick is very vulnerable at the top of the order against anyone >who can bowl consistently and move the ball. He is fine player of spin >and thus suited to the middle order where his destructive talents could >have freer rein. RH Well at least I've managed to get logical response out of you this time. However I'm still not convinced and here's why: Trescothick's, though not obviously, has become the key to England's middle order. When he fires at the top of the order the middle order tend to respond. When he gets out early, there are usually further quick wickets. This cannot be a co-incidence. His style of attacking the bowling seems to free the shackles from the middle order. It doesn't always pay off, that sort of batting won't. I also think he's improved a lot - he self destructs far less and is being removed by excellent deliveries more often. He also leaves a lot more early in his innings when he's not quite sure what's happening - he seems prepared to wait a little longer before shifting up a gear. In the past I wouldn't have had much faith in him surviving a real working over but I would have a lot more now. The top of the order is exactly where he should be because others, particularly Vaughan, feed off a dominating Trescothick. He'll never be an ATG, he'll never move his feet and he'll never have the elegance of a flowing Vaughan, the grittyness of a rear-guard Thorpe or the flamboyance of a Flintoff / Pietersen but he's opened the batting for more than 4 years, averages over 45 in test cricket and has gelled neatly into one of the best opening partnerships we've had in a long time, I believe in the top 10 we've ever had (I'm sure someone would correct me) and I think it would be wrong to change that now. At Lords Tresco / Strauss in I2 was by far the biggest English partnership (80 runs) and second only to Clarke / Katich in the match. At Edgbastion Tresco / Strauss in I1 was by far the biggest partnership of the match (112 runs) on either side. At Old Trafford, despite the early loss of Strauss, Vaughan's great innings was set up by Trescothick's now forgotten one at the top of the order as they added 137 for the second wicket, the highest partnership in the match on either side. At Trent Bridge the opening stand of 105 by Tresco / Strauss was second only to the excellent lower middle order antics of Flintoff and Jones and bigger than anything the Australians managed in either innings. And if you want to go back to South Africa you'll see that the importance of the openers was even more pronounced. No, I've said it before and I say it again, the opening partnership is working and it should not be tinkered with. |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Simon Pleasants" <plesbit@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:h84bh15u4fiehm8lphgebv5umtgt3e7d4t@4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:34:21 +0100, Robert Henderson > <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises > >>there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the > >>innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that > >>he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to > >>have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick > >>opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the > >>past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to > >>our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. > > > >I am not moving Vaughan back simply because that is his best position. > >Trescothick is very vulnerable at the top of the order against anyone > >who can bowl consistently and move the ball. He is fine player of spin > >and thus suited to the middle order where his destructive talents could > >have freer rein. RH > > Well at least I've managed to get logical response out of you this > time. However I'm still not convinced and here's why: > > Trescothick's, though not obviously, has become the key to England's > middle order. When he fires at the top of the order the middle order > tend to respond. When he gets out early, there are usually further > quick wickets. This cannot be a co-incidence. His style of attacking > the bowling seems to free the shackles from the middle order. It > doesn't always pay off, that sort of batting won't. I also think he's > improved a lot - he self destructs far less and is being removed by > excellent deliveries more often. He also leaves a lot more early in > his innings when he's not quite sure what's happening - he seems > prepared to wait a little longer before shifting up a gear. In the > past I wouldn't have had much faith in him surviving a real working > over but I would have a lot more now. The top of the order is exactly > where he should be because others, particularly Vaughan, feed off a > dominating Trescothick. > > He'll never be an ATG, he'll never move his feet and he'll never have > the elegance of a flowing Vaughan, the grittyness of a rear-guard > Thorpe or the flamboyance of a Flintoff / Pietersen but he's opened > the batting for more than 4 years, averages over 45 in test cricket > and has gelled neatly into one of the best opening partnerships we've > had in a long time, I believe in the top 10 we've ever had (I'm sure > someone would correct me) and I think it would be wrong to change that > now. > > At Lords Tresco / Strauss in I2 was by far the biggest English > partnership (80 runs) and second only to Clarke / Katich in the match. > > At Edgbastion Tresco / Strauss in I1 was by far the biggest > partnership of the match (112 runs) on either side. > > At Old Trafford, despite the early loss of Strauss, Vaughan's great > innings was set up by Trescothick's now forgotten one at the top of > the order as they added 137 for the second wicket, the highest > partnership in the match on either side. > > At Trent Bridge the opening stand of 105 by Tresco / Strauss was > second only to the excellent lower middle order antics of Flintoff and > Jones and bigger than anything the Australians managed in either > innings. > > And if you want to go back to South Africa you'll see that the > importance of the openers was even more pronounced. No, I've said it > before and I say it again, the opening partnership is working and it > should not be tinkered with. Absolutely. The other point is that Tresco hasn't always been brilliant against Warne this summer - there's been at least 2 occasions when he's made a good start against the quicks and then Warne's dismissed him pretty quickly. But beyond that, to move him to a position where he hasn't batted since goodness knows when (maybe David North can help on that one?) in a match of this importance just seems bizarre to me. Cheers David |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
David Lewis wrote:
> "Simon Pleasants" <plesbit@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:h84bh15u4fiehm8lphgebv5umtgt3e7d4t@4ax.com... > >>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:34:21 +0100, Robert Henderson >><philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>>I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises >>>>there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the >>>>innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that >>>>he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to >>>>have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick >>>>opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the >>>>past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to >>>>our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. >>> >>>I am not moving Vaughan back simply because that is his best position. >>>Trescothick is very vulnerable at the top of the order against anyone >>>who can bowl consistently and move the ball. He is fine player of spin >>>and thus suited to the middle order where his destructive talents could >>>have freer rein. RH >> >>Well at least I've managed to get logical response out of you this >>time. However I'm still not convinced and here's why: >> >>Trescothick's, though not obviously, has become the key to England's >>middle order. When he fires at the top of the order the middle order >>tend to respond. When he gets out early, there are usually further >>quick wickets. This cannot be a co-incidence. His style of attacking >>the bowling seems to free the shackles from the middle order. It >>doesn't always pay off, that sort of batting won't. I also think he's >>improved a lot - he self destructs far less and is being removed by >>excellent deliveries more often. He also leaves a lot more early in >>his innings when he's not quite sure what's happening - he seems >>prepared to wait a little longer before shifting up a gear. In the >>past I wouldn't have had much faith in him surviving a real working >>over but I would have a lot more now. The top of the order is exactly >>where he should be because others, particularly Vaughan, feed off a >>dominating Trescothick. >> >>He'll never be an ATG, he'll never move his feet and he'll never have >>the elegance of a flowing Vaughan, the grittyness of a rear-guard >>Thorpe or the flamboyance of a Flintoff / Pietersen but he's opened >>the batting for more than 4 years, averages over 45 in test cricket >>and has gelled neatly into one of the best opening partnerships we've >>had in a long time, I believe in the top 10 we've ever had (I'm sure >>someone would correct me) and I think it would be wrong to change that >>now. >> >>At Lords Tresco / Strauss in I2 was by far the biggest English >>partnership (80 runs) and second only to Clarke / Katich in the match. >> >>At Edgbastion Tresco / Strauss in I1 was by far the biggest >>partnership of the match (112 runs) on either side. >> >>At Old Trafford, despite the early loss of Strauss, Vaughan's great >>innings was set up by Trescothick's now forgotten one at the top of >>the order as they added 137 for the second wicket, the highest >>partnership in the match on either side. >> >>At Trent Bridge the opening stand of 105 by Tresco / Strauss was >>second only to the excellent lower middle order antics of Flintoff and >>Jones and bigger than anything the Australians managed in either >>innings. >> >>And if you want to go back to South Africa you'll see that the >>importance of the openers was even more pronounced. No, I've said it >>before and I say it again, the opening partnership is working and it >>should not be tinkered with. > > > Absolutely. The other point is that Tresco hasn't always been brilliant > against Warne this summer - there's been at least 2 occasions when he's made > a good start against the quicks and then Warne's dismissed him pretty > quickly. But beyond that, to move him to a position where he hasn't batted > since goodness knows when (maybe David North can help on that one?) in a > match of this importance just seems bizarre to me. > > Cheers > > David > > But then the team named above is leaving out one of the players who's averaging over 40 in the series. Let's hope that Jones S recovers in time for next Thursday - 18 wickets at 21 so far, and a more than impressive 34.0 strike rate! |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Toby Briggs" <toby.briggs@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4315a636$0$45130$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfr eenews.net... > > > > > But then the team named above is leaving out one of the players who's > averaging over 40 in the series. > Yes, I know, but I couldn't be bothered to enter that particular discussion again. It's probably why RH is trying to make a middle order batsman out of Trescothick at this stage of his career. We'll probably hear more of the same if people are right about Joyce & Shah being next in line for the middle order if Bell & Pietersen don't come up to scratch. > Let's hope that Jones S recovers in time for next Thursday - 18 wickets > at 21 so far, and a more than impressive 34.0 strike rate! I read about his strike rate too, and was astounded. He really is becoming an outstanding bowler - a real triumph for Fletcher & Cooley. I think we need him to be fit at the Oval, unless Harmison finds some form at last. Cheers David |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:28:31 GMT, "David Lewis"
<dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Absolutely. The other point is that Tresco hasn't always been brilliant >against Warne this summer - there's been at least 2 occasions when he's made >a good start against the quicks and then Warne's dismissed him pretty >quickly. But beyond that, to move him to a position where he hasn't batted >since goodness knows when (maybe David North can help on that one?) in a >match of this importance just seems bizarre to me. It is generally agreed, amongst the commentators at least, that Tres is England's best player of spin. But that doesn't make him immune to it, nor is Warne, probably the finest spinner in the history of the game, just "any old spinner". But rather than shuffle our entire order just because one of the openers is a good player of spin (and let's face it, the other one's looked clueless) it might be a better idea to teach our middle order how to play it! |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
In message <4315a636$0$45130$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreene ws.net>,
Toby Briggs <toby.briggs@gmail.com> writes >> > >But then the team named above is leaving out one of the players who's >averaging over 40 in the series. Six catches offered, six catches dropped. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
| #13 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <4315a636$0$45130$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreene ws.net>, > Toby Briggs <toby.briggs@gmail.com> writes > >>> >> >> But then the team named above is leaving out one of the players who's >> averaging over 40 in the series. > > > Six catches offered, six catches dropped. RH Sadly that does happen! He has taken 14 catches in 21 ODIs, so it's not as though he's a useless catcher - 80 catches in 82 FC matches too! What do you think of S Jones' bowling this series? 18 wickets at 21 (SR of 34). Let's hope that he's fit for the final Test, don't need any has-beens coming to the party!!! |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Simon Pleasants" <plesbit@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iucbh11fvbfmlagmkmmmcu9n7ka10faih2@4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:28:31 GMT, "David Lewis" > <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >Absolutely. The other point is that Tresco hasn't always been brilliant > >against Warne this summer - there's been at least 2 occasions when he's made > >a good start against the quicks and then Warne's dismissed him pretty > >quickly. But beyond that, to move him to a position where he hasn't batted > >since goodness knows when (maybe David North can help on that one?) in a > >match of this importance just seems bizarre to me. > > It is generally agreed, amongst the commentators at least, that Tres > is England's best player of spin. But that doesn't make him immune to > it, nor is Warne, probably the finest spinner in the history of the > game, just "any old spinner". > > But rather than shuffle our entire order just because one of the > openers is a good player of spin (and let's face it, the other one's > looked clueless) it might be a better idea to teach our middle order > how to play it! Quite. Actually, Bell played Warne pretty well at Old Trafford, apart from when he was trying to give him the charge in the 2nd innings, and Pietersen's looked OK against him too. Of course, neither of those made the XI we were given in this thread. Going back to Tresco, I wonder how he'd fare starting against spin. I remember Alec Stewart saying that he was OK against the spinners when he'd opened, but not so good arriving at the crease with them on. Cheers David |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Nsyc3xH7lEFDFw8a@anywhere.demon.co.uk... > Vaughan > Strauss > Key > Trescothick > Collingwood > Flintoff > Foster wk > Cork > Giles > Hoggard > Harmison > So I take it you don't want England to win the Ashes? Dave |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:16:18 GMT, "David Lewis"
<dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Going back to Tresco, I wonder how he'd fare starting against spin. I >remember Alec Stewart saying that he was OK against the spinners when he'd >opened, but not so good arriving at the crease with them on. I'd be concerned, actually. Against the quicks he is statue-esque, no matter how long he's been in, but against the spinners he is quite mobile. But I wonder how mobile he would be when first coming in - something a lot of batsman have issues with. Knowing the way he bats I would always fear him having a big yahoo against a spinner before he's really got his footwork going or really knew what the pitch was up to. |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: My team for the Oval Test
"David Lewis" <dandjlewis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PnhRe.39002$5m3.23422@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk... > > "Simon Pleasants" <plesbit@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:h84bh15u4fiehm8lphgebv5umtgt3e7d4t@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:34:21 +0100, Robert Henderson >> <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>I've had this discussion with him before and got nowhere (no surprises >> >>there). He seems to think if Vaughan was moved back to open the >> >>innings then he'd regain his magical form of long ago. The fact that >> >>he became crap a long while before he dropped down the order seems to >> >>have gone unnoticed. And the fact that the Strauss / Trescothick >> >>opening partnership has been extremely successful for England over the >> >>past year and a bit and in no small way has been the spring board to >> >>our success in the corresponding time period has also escaped him. >> > >> >I am not moving Vaughan back simply because that is his best position. >> >Trescothick is very vulnerable at the top of the order against anyone >> >who can bowl consistently and move the ball. He is fine player of spin >> >and thus suited to the middle order where his destructive talents could >> >have freer rein. RH >> >> Well at least I've managed to get logical response out of you this >> time. However I'm still not convinced and here's why: >> >> Trescothick's, though not obviously, has become the key to England's >> middle order. When he fires at the top of the order the middle order >> tend to respond. When he gets out early, there are usually further >> quick wickets. This cannot be a co-incidence. His style of attacking >> the bowling seems to free the shackles from the middle order. It >> doesn't always pay off, that sort of batting won't. I also think he's >> improved a lot - he self destructs far less and is being removed by >> excellent deliveries more often. He also leaves a lot more early in >> his innings when he's not quite sure what's happening - he seems >> prepared to wait a little longer before shifting up a gear. In the >> past I wouldn't have had much faith in him surviving a real working >> over but I would have a lot more now. The top of the order is exactly >> where he should be because others, particularly Vaughan, feed off a >> dominating Trescothick. >> >> He'll never be an ATG, he'll never move his feet and he'll never have >> the elegance of a flowing Vaughan, the grittyness of a rear-guard >> Thorpe or the flamboyance of a Flintoff / Pietersen but he's opened >> the batting for more than 4 years, averages over 45 in test cricket >> and has gelled neatly into one of the best opening partnerships we've >> had in a long time, I believe in the top 10 we've ever had (I'm sure >> someone would correct me) and I think it would be wrong to change that >> now. >> >> At Lords Tresco / Strauss in I2 was by far the biggest English >> partnership (80 runs) and second only to Clarke / Katich in the match. >> >> At Edgbastion Tresco / Strauss in I1 was by far the biggest >> partnership of the match (112 runs) on either side. >> >> At Old Trafford, despite the early loss of Strauss, Vaughan's great >> innings was set up by Trescothick's now forgotten one at the top of >> the order as they added 137 for the second wicket, the highest >> partnership in the match on either side. >> >> At Trent Bridge the opening stand of 105 by Tresco / Strauss was >> second only to the excellent lower middle order antics of Flintoff and >> Jones and bigger than anything the Australians managed in either >> innings. >> >> And if you want to go back to South Africa you'll see that the >> importance of the openers was even more pronounced. No, I've said it >> before and I say it again, the opening partnership is working and it >> should not be tinkered with. > > Absolutely. The other point is that Tresco hasn't always been brilliant > against Warne this summer - there's been at least 2 occasions when he's made > a good start against the quicks and then Warne's dismissed him pretty > quickly. But beyond that, to move him to a position where he hasn't batted > since goodness knows when (maybe David North can help on that one?) in a > match of this importance just seems bizarre to me. I'm a bit behind on my reading, so have only just come across this prompt. From memory, Trescothick last played in the middle order for Somerset in about 1998 or 1999, a year or two before making his England debut. -- David North Email to this address will be deleted as spam Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk |
