barmyarmy said:
I think I said I'd have preferred Strauss, can't remember, think I did though.
I doubt Freddie would try to overpower the coach that much though, just doesn't strike me as that kind of person...
England in Australia
- Thread starter andrew_nixon
- Start date
I think I said I'd have preferred Strauss, can't remember, think I did though.
I doubt Freddie would try to overpower the coach that much though, just doesn't strike me as that kind of person...
plympilgrim
International Coach
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
i would have picked strauss, in my eyes he would be one of the first on the team sheet and has consistently performed well, since he has started playing
http://www.stickcricket.com/feature257.html
Brilliant
'You were Warned"
And the vids are great too
http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php
Good too.
Brilliant
'You were Warned"
And the vids are great too
http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php
Good too.
A_Whitey
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
My thoughts:
a) Strauss should have been captain. He and Fletcher work well together, and his batting was excellent when handed the extra responsibility. He can get his team to work to plans and is well-organised. While Flintoff can be talismanic, he does not have the strategical and organisational nous to be an Ashes-winning captain. He increases the pressure on himself to 'lead from the front' in batting, bowling and being in the slips.
b) I'm not entirely sure about the whole Jones/Read debate. Jones came back to first-class cricket with the intent on getting his confidence back with big scores. Jones averaged 28, 6 less than Read but still decent. But why, after Read is excellent behind the stumps and is getting good scores in front of them, is GoJo suddenly thrown back into the Test arena. It does nothing for team spirit as the players see him get back in simply because "he might be able to handle the pressure better than Read" (Fletcher). It does nothing for Reads confidence as he loses his place on the back of a couple of poor ODI scores. It mystifies me.
c) But not as much as the Monty/Giles decision. Giles has played no first-class cricket in a year prior to the Ashes tour. Monty Panesar has shown excellent talent and appears to have the ability to be a wicket-taker, something Giles has never been. To win a Test match, you need to take 20 wickets, so you need wicket takers. Monty is one of those.
Yes, Giles might be a better all-rounder (though he's still prone to dropping a catch, as Ponting and Hoggard can testify), but he represents an England team who are saying - "Alright, we'll take a drawn series". Australia sense that England do not believe they can win, and the defensive pick of Giles reflects this. We still would've lost to Australia (although Panesar might have made it a lot more difficult on a day 5 pitch), but we'd have made a positive decision in picking an attacking player who is young and has gained experience.
These are the mistakes we made at the start of the series. It is unlikely that we would have played much better, but we'd have served a far more potent threat to Australia than the one that we presented in them scoring 500+ two matches in a row.
a) Strauss should have been captain. He and Fletcher work well together, and his batting was excellent when handed the extra responsibility. He can get his team to work to plans and is well-organised. While Flintoff can be talismanic, he does not have the strategical and organisational nous to be an Ashes-winning captain. He increases the pressure on himself to 'lead from the front' in batting, bowling and being in the slips.
b) I'm not entirely sure about the whole Jones/Read debate. Jones came back to first-class cricket with the intent on getting his confidence back with big scores. Jones averaged 28, 6 less than Read but still decent. But why, after Read is excellent behind the stumps and is getting good scores in front of them, is GoJo suddenly thrown back into the Test arena. It does nothing for team spirit as the players see him get back in simply because "he might be able to handle the pressure better than Read" (Fletcher). It does nothing for Reads confidence as he loses his place on the back of a couple of poor ODI scores. It mystifies me.
c) But not as much as the Monty/Giles decision. Giles has played no first-class cricket in a year prior to the Ashes tour. Monty Panesar has shown excellent talent and appears to have the ability to be a wicket-taker, something Giles has never been. To win a Test match, you need to take 20 wickets, so you need wicket takers. Monty is one of those.
Yes, Giles might be a better all-rounder (though he's still prone to dropping a catch, as Ponting and Hoggard can testify), but he represents an England team who are saying - "Alright, we'll take a drawn series". Australia sense that England do not believe they can win, and the defensive pick of Giles reflects this. We still would've lost to Australia (although Panesar might have made it a lot more difficult on a day 5 pitch), but we'd have made a positive decision in picking an attacking player who is young and has gained experience.
These are the mistakes we made at the start of the series. It is unlikely that we would have played much better, but we'd have served a far more potent threat to Australia than the one that we presented in them scoring 500+ two matches in a row.
Marto's retirement makes selection interesting, given there's no real standout replacement. Jaques is the best of the contenders if they're happy playing him in the middle order, not that he's made many runs recently. Hodge if he returns from injury, Rogers and North have made mountains of runs this year also.
Will be interesting seeing who we go for, Cosgrove would be high on the list as he bats 4 and probably could bat lower down. Voges and Marsh also possible candidates, Voges offers handy part time bowling which could come in handy at the WACA. Jaques probably favourite with Cosgrove as the top 2 to replace him.
This may sound like a biased opinion, but I think Brad Hodge should be at the top of the lists of replacement selections for Perth. He's been very solid in the Pura Cup this season averaging 67, and the selectors know he can play well in Perth at Test level. Whoever the replacement is will most likely only have one match to prove themselves before Watson walks into the lineup anyway.
Hooper
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Location
- West Australia
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
Symonds and Voges Named in Test Squad! Shau Tait Dropped!
Symonds should get the nod because its at the WACA.
Symonds should get the nod because its at the WACA.
Told you Voges would be named 
I'd expect Symonds to play as he has Test experience and he can bowl a bit. That clearly shows that the selectors consider Jaques as an opener which isn't the case as he started off as a number 4 for NSW before being forced to open and also bats for in County Cricket.
I'd expect Symonds to play as he has Test experience and he can bowl a bit. That clearly shows that the selectors consider Jaques as an opener which isn't the case as he started off as a number 4 for NSW before being forced to open and also bats for in County Cricket.
I'm surprised Voges is ahead of North in the queue, but he certainly deserves a chance. I'm nothing short of amazed that Andrew Symonds is being let anywhere near an Australian Test team again, brilliant ODI player but he's useless in the longer form. Adds next to nothing with the ball and isn't a good enough first class batsman, no idea why we're still trying to make a 31 year old slogger into a Test cricketer. Unfortunately he'll probably be playing
Damien Martyn's called it a day. Unfortunately not many among us give him nearly as credit for his wonderful career as much the flak we tend to give him, some deserved but some not. We'll miss you marto for the sheer elegance u bring to batting. A lot of aussies have made tons of runs against the Poms and won us the Ashes, but very few , not even Ponting have managed to score runs in sub-continent and win us a test series there. I think the highlight of Martyn's career will be the defining role he played in winning us the series in India & Sri Lanka..who can forget the rearguard 100 in Chennai or the brillant 150 on a square turner in SL. Those 2, along with the 100 in the tight chase in SA would rank as some of the best test innings in latter part of his brilliant career. Thanks for the great memories and i wish him good luck with life ahead.
Last edited:
Short Leg
International Cricketer
I have little doubt that Hodge would have been first pick if he hadn't pulled up with that quad strain as he is obviously a middle order batsmen batting at 4 for the Bushrangers and making that double ton for Australia batting at the same position. Although Voges is coming off a hundred and is averaging 45 in first-class cricket i can't really see the logic in picking him ahead of a Chris Rogers, Marcus North or Cameron White who are averaging in the same ball park and have been putting on batting clinics at first-class level for years. In recent years the selectors have only looked to pick seasoned veterans of domestic cricket which is what took Hussey so long to get a gig in the side. Can't see Voges getting a game in front of Symonds anyway so maybe there just trying to give him a bit of experience around the playing squad.
BigCrickNan
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
Bring in Chris Rogers he batted like a right machine for Northants in the 2006 summer. They probably won't but theres plenty of options with Watson out.
Similar threads
