5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval Aug 21-25, 2013

[midgetwars]

The Australia series is going to be tough for Australia.

I HIGHLY DOUBT that Cook, Trott, Prior will not fire. Three players didn't perform. They don't even have to be at their best if they just perform, we're doomed in the Ashes.

Unless of course, Harris and Pattinson are the causes for their lack of form. But England's player of the year, best batsmen and best no.3 didn't do anything and they still won 3-0.

 

[barmyarmy]

I don't think anyone denies that Clarke out-captained Cook but this is only Cook's second series and the hope has to be that he will get better.
Ultimately Australia performed above expectations and England below yet it was still 3-0. I see plenty of hope for Australia in the return series but if England play at their potential England will win.

 

[whiteninness]

Thank you, I'm going mad over the amount of people sticking up for Cooks captaincy. His success is simply down to having the better team end of story. Can anyone honestly say if his and Clarkes roles were reversed that the scoreline would have been any different because hes a superior captain?

Saw a few composite XIs made and they all had Clarke as captain despite having Cook in the team as well.

As much as I think he's a ----, Stuart Broad would make a very good captain.

 

[barmyarmy]

Really? He captains the T20 side but I'm not sure. Swann is widely accepted to have the best tactical brain in the team.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Broad wouldn't make a good captain, certainly not under Flower. he's too volatile. He's a walking 20% of match fee fine.

 

[barmyarmy]

He also sulks when things aren't going his way. As a personality I find Broad worse than KP.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

He also sulks when things aren't going his way. As a personality I find Broad worse than KP.

I find it hard to believe that he is 27 with 50+ tests under his belt. Thought he'd grow out of being petulant.

I don't think any blame can be laid at the feet of the umpires or clarke, the rules and regulations are as they are, and have to be adhered to.

Obviously the rules and regs need improving, and i think we all know who is to blame for that.

----------

Actually, it's a bit ludicrous that in a time when we have day/night ODIs/T20, and are discussing day/night tests you can't play in poor light for a few overs. the artificial lighting should be good enough.

 

[whiteninness]

Really? He captains the T20 side but I'm not sure. Swann is widely accepted to have the best tactical brain in the team.

Okay perhaps Swann captain, Broad vice.

Swann has the brains, Broad has the balls. England is a good test side but if they want to be the best I think they need more daring captaincy than Cook.

 

[Chief]

Okay perhaps Swann captain, Broad vice.

Swann has the brains, Broad has the balls. England is a good test side but if they want to be the best I think they need more daring captaincy than Cook.

Cook has the total respect of his team. He's level-headed, fair, stoic and a genuinely lovely bloke.
If you have a great team, sometimes that's all you need for a figurehead...

 

[barmyarmy]

I'm still astonished to discover that he averaged less than Jonny B in this series.

 

[Rayr27]

He also sulks when things aren't going his way. As a personality I find Broad worse than KP.

No to mention the fact that he never believes he's out or that his appeals or not out. Giving him the captains calls on reviews could be a major gamble!

On a side note, Lancs playing Essex in 40 over game today. Essex 297/4(40) @ 7.42 rpo (Bopara 130 off 102). Kerrigan by a distance the most economical bowler on show 8-0-45-1 (Ec 5.62). Picks his moments...

 

[Spickery]

I don't think it's fair to say Clarke complaining to the umpires breaks the code of sportsmanship. It was much darker than at any other time of any other test, when they had gone off much earlier before. If he had not complained then they may not have gone off and that would have been actually farcical. He is well within his right when his fielders are struggling to see the ball in the outfield.

Regarding overrates, everyone knows that they need to be controlled better, but most of the delays this series were by English players, bowling 12 overs an hour.

----------



But in what capacity? Given our weak batting lineup he's probably not strong enough as a batsman to at in the top 7 and I'm not sure if his bowling ability is yet good enough to play as a front line bowler when we have Bird, Harris, Pattinson, Starc (overrated) and Siddle.

If we bat Faulkner at 7 then does that mean we have to pick a bowler at 8 partially based on the ability to bat well, e.g. Mitchell Johnson? I'd say no as I don't like having to make two changes to just fit in one player, like what England did with Kerrigan and Woakes.

When Australia have a batting collapse having one batsman at number 7 generally isn't going to help us much. It is up to the top order to do their jobs. When our batsman have done their jobs though Faulkner can be very in handy in making quick runs with the bat at number 7. The selectors should pick the best bowlers who they think can take 20 wickets, the bowlers batting ability shouldn't come into consideration. Faulkner has also showed he can be a wicket taking bowler, from taking 6 wickets in his debut match for Australia. Having Faulkner in the squad provides Australia with a point of difference at number 7, with someone who is an extra bowling option and can bat.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

The Australia series is going to be tough for Australia.

I HIGHLY DOUBT that Cook, Trott, Prior will not fire. Three players didn't perform. They don't even have to be at their best if they just perform, we're doomed in the Ashes.

Unless of course, Harris and Pattinson are the causes for their lack of form. But England's player of the year, best batsmen and best no.3 didn't do anything and they still won 3-0.

Mate to be honest, I thought we were well below par in this series as far as batting is concerned... yet still beat you 3-0 ( would've probably been 4-0 had the Rules allowed the Umpires to show some common sense).

 

[ste_mc_efc]

When Australia have a batting collapse having one batsman at number 7 generally isn't going to help us much. It is up to the top order to do their jobs. When our batsman have done their jobs though Faulkner can be very in handy in making quick runs with the bat at number 7. The selectors should pick the best bowlers who they think can take 20 wickets, the bowlers batting ability shouldn't come into consideration. Faulkner has also showed he can be a wicket taking bowler, from taking 6 wickets in his debut match for Australia. Having Faulkner in the squad provides Australia with a point of difference at number 7, with someone who is an extra bowling option and can bat.

This argument doesn't work really. A lot of sides go in with 4 bowlers at 8,9,10,11. With 6 batsmen and a w/k, with one or more batsmen being a very average part-time bowler.

If he's going to be part of your first four bowlers, then you'd have a point. But he isn't.

 

[TheW]

guts keep in mind Andrew Strauss only started being awesome and a great player/captain halfway through his captaincy