clearly England aren't playing enough twenty20.
----------
then you are mental.
anyway, I think a 4 man pace attack is the way to go but not just picking someone because of raw pace. Australia thought that would be a good idea, remember the threats of "chin music" when they unleashed Tait on india? he was promptly spanked to all corners and australia lost their record match winning streak.
Well, may be I am. As a test bowler, in his full pomp I'll pick Anderson always. I've not seen very many fast bowlers come to India and have Indian batsmen who are masters of their conditions be all at sea against a fast bowler. Steyn is amazing, but Anderson just pips him for my money. His craft with the old ball is just astonishing. The last person who did that, who instantly springs to mind is Wasim Akram. He himself, said that he felt Anderson was the best test bowler. Johnson is quite an enigma. He's lethal, but I assure you, that even at his best, world class batsmen will handle him. If I had to pick a 3 man pace attack all over the world at the moment, it would be Steyn, Anderson and Johnson. However, Jimmy is clearly worn at the moment. I said it on this very forum during the previous Ashes as well, it made no sense for Broad and Anderson to play the last test. Not that one odd instance makes a difference, but when you see the total, the work load will get almost anyone.
Just to compare it to some of our Indian bowlers for Indian fans : There's a saying that our fast bowlers can't bowl 140-150 after their first two years in the sport - Well how can they? We make them play every meaningless T20, ODI, Test possible, not to mention the sinful IPL matches.
----------
Well Carberry has been unlucky not to get a run in the side much earlier in his career. They've gone to him now because they think he's likely to hang around, and apart from a couple of crap shots that's pretty much how he's looked out in the middle.
Compton looked well organised though, and he's not been given a great deal by the selectors.
I thought Stokes did well with the ball while England were still in the match in the first innings. He was a few yards quicker than the other seamers and he bowled straight, and I felt he was applying pressure. But for the no ball he'd have had the breakthrough.
He looked a decent bat to me as well. Solid technique, footwork was ok. I didn't see much of his second innings but he didn't look in any immediate danger and he hung around for 90 deliveries. He may not have made that much of a contribution in the match on the scorecard but he did more than make up the numbers.
I don't think Cook is a "truly great" batsman, tbh, although he's undoubtedly a great run scorer at his best. He's just there to grind it out for as long as possible with a very limited range of strokes. He's got a scorching pull shot on him, though.
As a captain I think he's tried to be a bit more creative and aggressive this series, and I'm happy to see that, but he's still essentially a grinder, much as Strauss was. I agree that it's not the most entertaining brand of cricket. Not a grinding fan, personally.
If he was having technical difficulties I might consider dropping him, but he clearly isn't. You can't guarantee he won't keep failing, but I still think he's a better bet than the alternatives.
----------
Yeah the problem with genuine quickies is that if their radar is off they will haemorrhage runs, and for a side that likes to work by applying tight control that's not a great bet. If he doesn't come off they'll effectively be a bowler down.
Good post.
Ben Stokes excites me. He gives me a very Freddy vibe about him, just that my gut says he's going to be fitter. He's got a long way to go before that.
As for Cook? I think he's pure class. I don't believe much in stats either, but he's just a run machine. Dips in form happen, and he's having a lean year by his standards. I remember Michael Clarke in an absolute rut in the Ashes in Australia prior to this one. People were calling for his throat, and even debated if he could take over from Ponting? I hope, England don't get cute with him. The guy has got runs in all conditions and most impressively as an opener.
His captaincy? That's another matter. He's a poor captain and as much as the English fans will bring up his numbers, the struggle today is also a result of his leadership. Why?
Modern day captains are very different to captains of the old. Because of the media and the internet, captaincy today is a lot more than astute fielding positions, declaration timing and taking responsibility with bat or ball. Michael Clarke is widely regarded as the best captain today. I don't tend to agree. He's the best tactician in our game today, no question. But, he's pathetic at man management. Just like his old coach. It's why they bought Lehmann in. Cook is excellent at that and in my eyes, he's the best in the world at it along with MSD. I think, Smith is by far the most balanced and best captain in tests in the world. Cook and Dhoni, simply allow the game to drift way too often. England could really do with Swann as captain. KP I believe is also a very good thinker of the game, but his ego and captaincy would probably ruin England.
