England in Australia

Harmys picked up a wicket, but by the looks of his figures is being very erratic. Again they've gone with Jones ahead of Read for the warmup game. Looks like Fletcher is desperate for Jones to do anything that could allow him to pick him for the first test. Even if he fails again on both counts he'll probably play him :(

Also says on Cricinfo that the Aussies have 120 overs maximum for batting, so no way they can bat for all 3 days.
 
Just heard on the radio Katich was dropped by Trescothick with Flintoff coming around the wicket. Perhaps it may be a repeat of 05 with Flintoff coming around the wicket and troubling the Aussie left handers.
 
Flippin' Heck Harmy, sort yourself out! Going at 6 an over in an unlimited overs contest is just unnacceptable at this level.
 
NSW at 1/103 rusty bowling from England, Jaques unbeaten half century. Tourist's bowling looks quite harmless at the moment.

ABC radio has LIVE commentary
 
The great Phil Jaques knocks up another 100 against the English :)
Cowan was going at a rate of knots until he got out, and Mr Giles has 2 wickets :p
Pup is still in there but hes running out of support.
 
Appaling start from the England bowlers, but good to see that they've begun to regain some sort of control over the run rate and total. I am however getting really scared that we will see Giles and Jones start the first test. If it happens I will unfortunately no longer have any faith in Fletcher but will still obviously get behind the team and hope they prove me wrong!
 
Looks more than likely that will be the case given Read hasn't been given a go in the tour matches. Giles has got 2 wickets so that probably will tell the selectors hes going better than Panesar.
 
I guess we always knew it would be the case. Even if Read had scored back to back 100's against Pakistan and Panesar had taken three 10 wicket hauls the moment Fletcher had the choice with both of them on tour, he was always going to revert to his favourites. Still I will hold out hope that he makes the right decision, as I would hate to be posting on here in a few weeks time saying "I told you so".

I thought this was a good article by Tim De Lisle in his Ashes blogg on cricinfo.

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/ashesbuzz/archives/2006/11/dont_do_it_dunc.php

"Despite being possibly Test cricket?s most defensive slow bowler, Giles is actually less good at defending than Monty, who prefers to attack."

He talks about how going for the Giles option as a safer route in bowling terms is just completely flawed.
 
I think Henriques should have gotten a bat before Smith. The kid is a future Aussie all-rounder, so lets so what he can do against an international team.
 
I guess if you take runs with the bat into account then Giles would probably come across as the more defensive option, but it's wickets that win you test matches, and if England enter this Ashes without a mindset to attack the Aussies, then they will just get comfortably picked off.

edit - oops was trying to tack this onto my last post!

To carry on, I actually think Giles is the better option on a first day pitch but only just. Yet as the match wears on, Panesar becomes the far more useful bowler with so much more versatility in terms of bowling either side of the wicket.
 
Last edited:
Sounds about right, just look at Murali. Hes one of the hardest bowlers to get away and the most attacking in the World, the harder you are to play the harder it is to get runs away. Same case here Giles is much more easier to get away than Monty so it's obvious who will be the better defensive and attacking bowler of the two.

cricketmad09 said:
I think Henriques should have gotten a bat before Smith. The kid is a future Aussie all-rounder, so lets so what he can do against an international team.

NSW are really taking it slow with him, hardly ever bowl him and always bats low. Doesn't do much for his batting when hes the last recognized batter left.
 
Exactly.

In test cricket, what would you prefer?

A bowler with 0/50 off 30, or a bowling with 3/80 off 20?
 
Well that's a no brainer Cricketmad, but even if you gave the first guy a wicket, you'd still want the second guy :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top