Bangladesh tour of England, May-July 2010
- Thread starter drainpipe32
- Start date
That's disrespect to the rednecks. He is best friends with the guidos
TumTum
International Cricketer
Your attempts to try to stir me up are futile, coming from you it could even be a compliment :laugh
Was it a surprise to see Sidebottom drafted into the squad to replace double-o-zero? Not really. I think it will improve the bowling attack no end, Finn, Sidebottom, Anderson and Swann make up a decent quartet - on paper. If Collingwood were in the side then you'd have him, KP and Trott as handy part-timers, I wish England would use Trott more and maybe even find out a part-time spinner who could do a more than handy job. Just someone bowling SLA and able to pick up the odd wicket and maybe even 3-4 in an innings every now and then would be handy. But English batsmen tend to be medium pace trundlers or off-spinners. Testing out a part-time spinner here could pay dividends in later series, rather than rushing to beat the bangles in 3-5 days, look at the bigger picture.
The only really useful practice England are getting against the bangles is when they are going long periods without taking a wicket, if we can't take their wickets regularly without big partnerships then how will we fare against better batting sides!?!? In those situations the captain needs to rotate his bowlers more often, keep them to short spells to keep them fresh and change it for the batsmen so they don't get too settled against one bowler, and use the part-timers more. Why use the part-timers (and spinner) more? Because it also pushes the new ball through quicker, we normally end up reaching the new ball and one bowler (or more) has been used in too long spells so who takes it is often decided for us. You might argue that is poor captaincy, but I say keeping spells short when you aren't taking wickets keeps all the bowlers as fresh as possible and at their most effective. While a long spell might get them in a rhythm, it also makes them more tired, demoralised and the batsmen get more used to them so they become easier to play. Fresher they will have a "little extra zip" for starters, like having half-time or an interval.
Had I been selector back in the 90s I would have had Hick in the side and not dropped him. Not because he did anything outstanding with the bat, although longer runs in the side might have added to his average, but because he was a better than handy off-spinner and excellent (slip/out) fielder.
The only really useful practice England are getting against the bangles is when they are going long periods without taking a wicket, if we can't take their wickets regularly without big partnerships then how will we fare against better batting sides!?!? In those situations the captain needs to rotate his bowlers more often, keep them to short spells to keep them fresh and change it for the batsmen so they don't get too settled against one bowler, and use the part-timers more. Why use the part-timers (and spinner) more? Because it also pushes the new ball through quicker, we normally end up reaching the new ball and one bowler (or more) has been used in too long spells so who takes it is often decided for us. You might argue that is poor captaincy, but I say keeping spells short when you aren't taking wickets keeps all the bowlers as fresh as possible and at their most effective. While a long spell might get them in a rhythm, it also makes them more tired, demoralised and the batsmen get more used to them so they become easier to play. Fresher they will have a "little extra zip" for starters, like having half-time or an interval.
Had I been selector back in the 90s I would have had Hick in the side and not dropped him. Not because he did anything outstanding with the bat, although longer runs in the side might have added to his average, but because he was a better than handy off-spinner and excellent (slip/out) fielder.
riz7khan12
Panel of Selectors
I thought bell secured his place in the side didn't he? his international career has been on and off and been in question since the start.
There's no point in playing two keepers, and no point in dropping a specialist batsmen. So if Kieswetter does come in it will have to be at Prior's expense.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Kieswetter is not good enough to bat in the top six in the test team and is extremely unlikely to get into the team on his batting alone considering we have Key, Denly, Carberry, Taylor, Bopara and Collingwood (because he isn't in this series) who'd be ahead of him on the list.
Kieswetter is atleast a year away from test matches for me; now he's back on the county scene he needs a solid season averaging over 50 in first class cricket to get his hat into the mix.
I think its important that we don't start blurring the line between Test and Twenty20s and thinking that good performances in one are necessarily transferable to the other format. There may be certain occasions where you can take a successful Twenty20 into the test team but only under cirumstances where the player has proven he has the capabilities to thrive in test cricket ala Morgan who has displayed characteristics that abode well to a test career.
Kieswetter is atleast a year away from test matches for me; now he's back on the county scene he needs a solid season averaging over 50 in first class cricket to get his hat into the mix.
I think its important that we don't start blurring the line between Test and Twenty20s and thinking that good performances in one are necessarily transferable to the other format. There may be certain occasions where you can take a successful Twenty20 into the test team but only under cirumstances where the player has proven he has the capabilities to thrive in test cricket ala Morgan who has displayed characteristics that abode well to a test career.
Robot Bowler
School Cricketer
England have won the toss and have chose to bat first. Amjal Shahzad to make test debut for England.
aus_maestro
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2009
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Marvelous.
Who will lead Bangladesh then?
Ashraful's batting has gone to ruin by taking up captaincy. He was dropped in between in fact.
Who will lead Bangladesh then?
Ashraful's batting has gone to ruin by taking up captaincy. He was dropped in between in fact.
I don't know enough about the players, but not Shakib or Ash.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
You can't just have an aggressive captain and nothing from the bowlers. There's got to be a reason to it and a plan behind it, otherwise the random chance of a wicket will most likely evade your catching field. Shafiul has been top class, but Shahadat's bowling suffers an affliction that is all too familiar for Bangladesh.
