1st Test: England v Australia

[pcfan123]

The English attack is a joke. It was hyped up so much before the Ashes started. Only Flintoff bowled well but you cannot expect him to take anything more than 2-3 wickets an innings. I do not even remember the last time he took a 5fer. Anderson is a good bowler but for some reason he was bowling way too many bouncers and his line was completely wrong. No way we can take 20 wickets with this attack. Bring in Onions for Broad and either Sidebottom or Harmy for Monty. Keep Swann since he can actually field, and his batting is not too shabby either.
If they keep producing these pitches we will always be behind as Aus batting is too strong and our bowling needs assistance from the pitch to do anything.

Anyone think that Bopara should be dropped for Bell? We might have to go back with experience, especially if we lose this one tomorrow.

 

[irottev]

Anderson bowled well in the 1 spell where he got the 2 wickets. He wasn't too bad. I really think the spinners - both of them - let England down. They were friendly conditions for them.

And no, I wouldn't bring in Bell.

I agree about the pitch. All pitches these days seem too flat. The bowlers are going around the park in T20's and ODIs and in tests they have to bowl 2+ days straight. It's not fair on them. I've spoken about this before.

 

[pcfan123]

Colly actually bowled really well, he was throwing down some great offspinners!

 

[RoboRocks]

I'll give Broad another chance a Lord's. He has been improving over the winter and he can get runs down the order but I'll certainly replace Panesar for Onions. Onions should have played in this first test really since Panesar is simply not the bowler he used to be. Its been a steady decline since the SA series last year.

 

[Ollie_H]

I'll give Broad another chance a Lord's. He has been improving over the winter and he can get runs down the order but I'll certainly replace Panesar for Onions. Onions should have played in this first test really since Panesar is simply not the bowler he used to be. Its been a steady decline since the SA series last year.

Is he a bowler or an all rounder? If he is a bowler then we should be looking at his actuall bowling and wicket taking rather than the lower order runs because if he is taking the wickets then we shouldn't need his runs. But at the moment he isn't taking wickets so his runs are keeping him in the team.

I'm all for him as I think he is a very good talent but at the moment he isn't doing his job and that is taking wickets.

 

[iridescentt]

Wow looks like I didn't miss much

England losing some of their top order batsmen in quick succession.

 

[Ollie_H]

I don't know why everyone is claiming the aussies are so good with their 4 centuries in that innings, sorry lads but we beat you, We got 5 centuries in that innings!!

 

[Cricketdude]

I don't know why everyone is claiming the aussies are so good with their 4 centuries in that innings, sorry lads but we beat you, We got 5 centuries in that innings!!

Lol, if you really think like that no wonder England lose.

 

[RoboRocks]

Is he a bowler or an all rounder? If he is a bowler then we should be looking at his actuall bowling and wicket taking rather than the lower order runs because if he is taking the wickets then we shouldn't need his runs. But at the moment he isn't taking wickets so his runs are keeping him in the team.

I'm all for him as I think he is a very good talent but at the moment he isn't doing his job and that is taking wickets.

Oh no, he needs to take wickets, I'm just saying his runs are a good bonus and add to the tail. I don't think he should be dropped after one bad test. He wasn't the only one who was ineffective.

 

[Ollie_H]

Oh no, he needs to take wickets, I'm just saying his runs are a good bonus and add to the tail. I don't think he should be dropped after one bad test. He wasn't the only one who was ineffective.

I agree but an average of 37 from a new ball bowler isn't one who is taking the wickets. He only has one 5 wicket haul and has played two series a peice against West Indies and New Zealand and with an average of 37 even against those two sides doesn't particularly show a world beater.

 

[RoboRocks]

He is improving though. He averaged over 40 at one stage. We should stick with him at Lord's and then if he continues to be poor, replace him with Sidebottom.

 

[Cricketdude]

Cool, so that's 2-0.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Broad shouldn't have played a test yet for england.

he could have been blooded in ODIs to get used to the international scene. I understand that there is this theory of "experience" being beneficial to a players career, but broad is quite some way away from have the required skills to play test cricket. IMO, if you don't have the skills, how can you get experienced? he can't learn when to bowl slower balls, or what areas on the pitch work best in which conditions etc etc if he can't bowl disguised slower balls and hit a length consistently in the first place.

it's like making a 12 year old run a marathon to get experience of when to hold your sprint, when to break away, he couldn't keep pace anyway so the experience would be useless. Which is why they race young athletes against each other at shorter differences.

rant over.

feel sorry for guys like onions, tremlett, kabit ali, who could maybe have used the oppertunity broad has been given better.

 

[pcfan123]

maybe we should recall that Pattinson fellow

 

[OffCutters]

Replace Broad for Onions. Broad looked like a hopeless prick at the 1st test, he isnt ready for test cricket yet.