🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Dixon wrote:
> Most likely Anderson out, Panesar in? Personally I'd drop Harmison !!

Harmison bowled poorly, but at least has the potential to improve
quickly, so I'd roll the dice and persevere with him for Adelaide.
Panesar has to come in. Giles will be needed in Adelaide, but probably
shouldn't play from Perth onwards. I'd consider replacing Hoggard for
Adelaide (and therefore have 3 seamers = Mahmood perhaps?, Harmison,
Flintoff) since the only swing on the scene will be in obscure
nightclubs. Read in for Jones. You've got to have a keeper, and keeping
to two spinners needs a better skill set than the Jones repertoire.
Pieterson at #4.

Something like this p'raps...

Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Giles, Read,
Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar (12th man, anyone who can field like Gary
Pratt).

Australia have an interesting conundrum. Normally the mantra is "don't
change a winning team", but Watson is not fully recovered from his
injury, and even if he was would not be match fit. Leave him out again.
Over the past year Stuart Clark has simply proved to be a better bowler
than the post injury Brett Lee we've had to put up with for the past
few seasons, and Clark also has a reasonably good FC record in
Adelaide. Keep him, bring McGill in, and release Lee to club cricket or
Pura Cup duties for NSW to keep him match fit and get him nicely pissed
off and angry before the series heads for the WACA.

> Was quite encouraged by G Jones last night, some lovely fluid strokes
> before he got the one that kept low from McGrath. Admittedly though
> there wasn't much pressure yesterday and the field was very attacking.

2 things come to mind. Firstly he is always getting bowled, something
like 1 in 3 dismissals? His defence just doesn't seem to be up to the
task. So what if the ball kept low? Its a 5th day wicket with lots of
cracks, and McGrath and Clark are bowling straight most of the time -
you would expect a few to keep low and I would expect that at breakfast
the conversation would have been to take that into account considering
that the objective was to occupy the crease for as long as possible
while praying for thunderstorms.

Secondly, the "lovely fluid strokes" - there was no pressure at all and
it was easy to score. I think the media is going on a bit too much with
the 370 score - highest 4th innings Gabba total in donkeys years etc
etc blah blah. Yes 370 is a better effort than 157, but 370 compared to
602/9dec & 202/1dec on a batting paradise doesn't say much. They had to
bat out 2 days, and were skittled in 100 overs.

Richard Dixon wrote:
> Most likely Anderson out, Panesar in? Personally I'd drop Harmison !!
>
> Was quite encouraged by G Jones last night, some lovely fluid strokes
> before he got the one that kept low from McGrath. Admittedly though
> there wasn't much pressure yesterday and the field was very attacking.
>
> Richard


I think the trend of talking of wks' batting abilities, rather than
glovework, is here to stay. Best for Eng to do is retain the same team
and tell them, "You got us in the state we're in. Now you get us out of
there!"

Ramapriya

declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Harmison bowled poorly, but at least has the potential to improve
> quickly, so I'd roll the dice and persevere with him for Adelaide.

Not serious about all this talk of dropping Harmison, surely??

> Panesar has to come in.

Playing both MP and AG would make the attack too one-dimensional, even
for Adelaide.

> Something like this p'raps...
>
> Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Giles, Read,
> Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar (12th man, anyone who can field like Gary Pratt).

Doesn't matter. It'll be a draw with 1400 runs scored :)

> Secondly, the "lovely fluid strokes" - there was no pressure at all and
> it was easy to score. I think the media is going on a bit too much with
> the 370 score - highest 4th innings Gabba total in donkeys years etc
> etc blah blah. Yes 370 is a better effort than 157, but 370 compared to
> 602/9dec & 202/1dec on a batting paradise doesn't say much. They had to
> bat out 2 days, and were skittled in 100 overs.

Batting paradise? The cracks on that pitch were real huge! And similar
to your 370 was their 202/1 - no pressure at all, thus not really
reflective of the pitch.

Ramapriya

"Richard Dixon" <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164627748.058377.89870@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Most likely Anderson out, Panesar in? Personally I'd drop Harmison !!
>
> Was quite encouraged by G Jones last night, some lovely fluid strokes
> before he got the one that kept low from McGrath. Admittedly though
> there wasn't much pressure yesterday and the field was very attacking.
>
> Richard
>

The problem now is we have to win a game to retain the Ashes, before the
first test Fletcher chose to try and hang on for a draw picking steady
players. We are not going to win matches playing Giles, Jones etc we need to
take wickets and let the batsmen score the runs. I have to include Jones
with Giles because he's liable to do a couple of vital things which will
cost us dearly. I also feel that Read would not have done worse, batting
wise, than Jones.

Rio

Now we'll see what he's made of.

Ramapriya D wrote:
> declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Harmison bowled poorly, but at least has the potential to improve
> > quickly, so I'd roll the dice and persevere with him for Adelaide.
>
> Not serious about all this talk of dropping Harmison, surely??

Yes surely. I'd keep him for Adelaide, but if he doesn't perform flick
him. I think Lee should be dropped from the Oz XI, so I'm hardly
inconsistent...

> > Panesar has to come in.
>
> Playing both MP and AG would make the attack too one-dimensional, even
> for Adelaide.

In what way? It has to be either MP or MP&AG, not AG only. There is no
way in the world England can obtain 20 Oz wickets with AG only, and 3
seamers (Harmison, Hoggard & Anderson) who are only moving the
kookaburra ball two ways (up and down).

> > Something like this p'raps...
> >
> > Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Giles, Read,
> > Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar (12th man, anyone who can field like Gary Pratt).
>
> Doesn't matter. It'll be a draw with 1400 runs scored :)

The last time Australia lost a match in Adelaide there were more than
1500 runs scored, and 36 wickets fell. I think there will be a result
in Adelaide. If I recall correctly there has only been 1 draw there
since sometime in the 1980's. If England can't get 20 wickets, this
Ashes series will to all intents and purposes be over. Getting the
right XI for Adelaide matters big time.

> > Secondly, the "lovely fluid strokes" - there was no pressure at all and
> > it was easy to score. I think the media is going on a bit too much with
> > the 370 score - highest 4th innings Gabba total in donkeys years etc
> > etc blah blah. Yes 370 is a better effort than 157, but 370 compared to
> > 602/9dec & 202/1dec on a batting paradise doesn't say much. They had to
> > bat out 2 days, and were skittled in 100 overs.
>
> Batting paradise? The cracks on that pitch were real huge! And similar
> to your 370 was their 202/1 - no pressure at all, thus not really
> reflective of the pitch.

Absolute batting paradise for anyone playing straight, and prepared to
let the ball go. Most of the 20 English wickets to fall were due to
very poor shot selection.

Luke Curtis wrote:

> AJ Strauss
> AN Cook
> IR Bell
> PD Collingwood
> KP Pietersen
> A Flintoff
> C Read
> S Broad
> S Mahmood
> MJ Hoggard
> M Panesar

Problem is you can't see either Mahmood or Hoggard running through the
order - but at the moment Mahmood is a better bet than Harmison! I'd go
for total raw unfettered youth and drop Hoggard for Rashid :-)

Who would Vaughan replace if he came back in though??

Richard

Richard Dixon wrote:
> Luke Curtis wrote:
>
> > AJ Strauss
> > AN Cook
> > IR Bell
> > PD Collingwood
> > KP Pietersen
> > A Flintoff
> > C Read
> > S Broad
> > S Mahmood
> > MJ Hoggard
> > M Panesar
>
> Problem is you can't see either Mahmood or Hoggard running through the order


We won a Test in Adelaide some seasons ago. The very unlikely Agarkar
it was who caused the match-winning damage in the second innings,
running through a very powerful lineup, so there's probably some help
to the Hoggard or Anderson-type bowler! I still think Adelaide will be
a boring, high-scoring draw.


> Who would Vaughan replace if he came back in though??

Well, which of your batters is better than Vaughan? :)

Ramapriya

Ramapriya D wrote:
> Richard Dixon wrote:
> > Luke Curtis wrote:
> >
> > > AJ Strauss
> > > AN Cook
> > > IR Bell
> > > PD Collingwood
> > > KP Pietersen
> > > A Flintoff
> > > C Read
> > > S Broad
> > > S Mahmood
> > > MJ Hoggard
> > > M Panesar
> >
> > Problem is you can't see either Mahmood or Hoggard running through the order
>
>
> We won a Test in Adelaide some seasons ago. The very unlikely Agarkar
> it was who caused the match-winning damage in the second innings,
> running through a very powerful lineup, so there's probably some help
> to the Hoggard or Anderson-type bowler! I still think Adelaide will be
> a boring, high-scoring draw.

Australia scored 556 (just 46 less than the most recent match)
in the first innings of that match and lost. Because of the second
innings collapse

On 27 Nov 2006 03:42:28 -0800, "Richard Dixon" <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Most likely Anderson out, Panesar in? Personally I'd drop Harmison !!
>
>Was quite encouraged by G Jones last night, some lovely fluid strokes
>before he got the one that kept low from McGrath. Admittedly though
>there wasn't much pressure yesterday and the field was very attacking.
>
>Richard

AJ Strauss
AN Cook
IR Bell
PD Collingwood
KP Pietersen
A Flintoff
C Read
S Broad
S Mahmood
MJ Hoggard
M Panesar

Send home Harmison, after being publicly humiliated by Fletcher
yesterday he is a liability, Giles looked useless and is lacking match
practice, Pietersen looked a far more threatening spinner than Giles
in T1
As much as I like Anderson he is simply so lacking in match practice
he can't play.


Also Vaughan is playing in a one day game for the academy side if he
comes through that we *desperately* need him for T3

David North wrote:
> "Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164646834.958535.247960@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Panesar has to come in.
> >
> > Playing both MP and AG would make the attack too one-dimensional, even
> > for Adelaide.
>
> And four right-arm pace bowlers doesn't?

The two left-arm spinners are more or less identical in type. You can't
say that about the quickies. Harmison and Flintoff probably but Hoggard
is different and so's Anderson. Spinners are often most effective when
bowling together, which is why sameness is especially not preferred in
spin pairs.

Ramapriya

<declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164630305.629428.133830@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I think the media is going on a bit too much with
> the 370 score - highest 4th innings Gabba total in donkeys years etc
> etc blah blah. Yes 370 is a better effort than 157, but 370 compared to
> 602/9dec & 202/1dec on a batting paradise doesn't say much.

I suspect that both side's scores would have been rather different if they
had been facing their own bowlers though.
--
David North

"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164646834.958535.247960@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Panesar has to come in.
>
> Playing both MP and AG would make the attack too one-dimensional, even
> for Adelaide.

And four right-arm pace bowlers doesn't?

--
David North

"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164708432.784180.282430@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Richard Dixon wrote:

>> Who would Vaughan replace if he came back in though??
>
> Well, which of your batters is better than Vaughan? :)

If their averages are anything to go by, Collingwood is the only one in the
top five who isn't. The Vaughan of four years ago has seldom been seen
since.
--
David North

"Groundhog" <ramji.nc@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1164710286.723222.308420@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ramapriya D wrote:

>> We won a Test in Adelaide some seasons ago. The very unlikely Agarkar
>> it was who caused the match-winning damage in the second innings,
>> running through a very powerful lineup,

Tendulkar also took two key wickets.

>> so there's probably some help
>> to the Hoggard or Anderson-type bowler! I still think Adelaide will be
>> a boring, high-scoring draw.
>
> Australia scored 556 (just 46 less than the most recent match)
> in the first innings of that match and lost. Because of the second
> innings collapse

The absence of Warne and McGrath didn't have anything to do with it then?
--
David North

"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4t3s1lF12agn2U1@mid.individual.net...
> <declan_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164630305.629428.133830@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I think the media is going on a bit too much with
>> the 370 score - highest 4th innings Gabba total in donkeys years etc
>> etc blah blah. Yes 370 is a better effort than 157, but 370 compared to
>> 602/9dec & 202/1dec on a batting paradise doesn't say much.
>
> I suspect that both side's scores would have been rather different if they
> had been facing their own bowlers though.
> --
> David North
>
>
Possibly. But it isn't going to happen in Adelaide either.

Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote:
>David North wrote:
>> "Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164646834.958535.247960@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > Playing both MP and AG would make the attack too one-dimensional, even
>> > for Adelaide.
>> And four right-arm pace bowlers doesn't?
>The two left-arm spinners are more or less identical in type. [ ... ]

How much have you seen of them? Giles is a controlled, defensive
bowler: over the wicket with no flight and turn only on the most
spin-friendly of pitches. Panesar is an attacking bowler (which is why
everyone's saying he must play -- it's the search for a way of taking
20 Australian wickets): around the wicket with reasonable flight and
decent turn. Maybe not *contrasting* in type, but far from identical.

(That said, I don't know if Adelaide is the right ground for two
spinners. Australia don't seem to think so.)

--
\S -- siona@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
  ___  |  "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
  \X/  |    -- Arthur C. Clarke
   her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump

declan_murphy@hotmail.com wrote:
> Richard Dixon wrote:
> > Most likely Anderson out, Panesar in? Personally I'd drop Harmison !!
>
> Harmison bowled poorly, but at least has the potential to improve
> quickly, so I'd roll the dice and persevere with him for Adelaide.
> Panesar has to come in. Giles will be needed in Adelaide, but probably
> shouldn't play from Perth onwards. I'd consider replacing Hoggard for
> Adelaide (and therefore have 3 seamers = Mahmood perhaps?, Harmison,
> Flintoff) since the only swing on the scene will be in obscure
> nightclubs. Read in for Jones. You've got to have a keeper, and keeping
> to two spinners needs a better skill set than the Jones repertoire.
> Pieterson at #4.
>
> Something like this p'raps...
>
> Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Giles, Read,
> Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar (12th man, anyone who can field like Gary
> Pratt).

Ummmmm, I would like to humbly apologise to Hoggard and flush that
particular part of this particular post down the memory tube.

And on to test 3, which unfortunately for Monty Panesar and the King of
Spain is at the WACA. Having said that, what is the point of Ashley
Giles? Replace him please. As in, please! Hoggard wins a reprieve. And
so does Harmison, even though his figures for the series are
increasingly Jason Gillespie-ish. Its the WACA, so one last chance.
Anderson gets the chop. Read simply has to play ahead of Jones. For a
wicketkeeper batsman chosen primarily for his batting, 63 runs from 4
innings at 15.75 is pitiful, even though his figures are accidently
making those of Strauss, Cook and Flintoff look less embarrassing than
might otherwise be the case.

Something like this p'raps...

Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard,
Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar (12th man, anyone who doesn't field like
Ashley Giles, especially in the outfield).