Ten reasons England suck/it went wrong
- Thread starter Owzat
- Start date
I worry about these proposed teams for the summer that have Stokes as part of a 4 man seam attack, the keeper batting at 8 and no specialist spinner. There's no doubt Stokes should be in the side now, but he has to bat at 6, and we need a keeper that can bat at 7 (Buttler, Bairstow or Davies are well capable of doing that). When we had a fit and firing bowling attack( like the summer of '11) we could get away with a four man attack. However, we'll certainly need 5 now that we have no quality spinner, and a couple of the quicks looking ineffective.
If people really don't feel there is a more productive spinner than Ali or Root, then we should pick an extra seamer, have Stokes as a 5th, and create green tops throughout the summer. Moeen Ali can come in and bat in the top 5.
Isn't there also an argument to say that Borthwick's batting skills slightly outweigh Ali's bowling potential? In which case we could just have Borthwick batting at 8 and doing a job similar to the one that Vettori did for many years. Scoring more runs than a number 8 should, and improving his bowling with every match he plays. Wouldn't totally rule out Kerrigan either. He's a quality bowler. We need to see if he really is weak in the head by giving him one more series.
If people really don't feel there is a more productive spinner than Ali or Root, then we should pick an extra seamer, have Stokes as a 5th, and create green tops throughout the summer. Moeen Ali can come in and bat in the top 5.
Isn't there also an argument to say that Borthwick's batting skills slightly outweigh Ali's bowling potential? In which case we could just have Borthwick batting at 8 and doing a job similar to the one that Vettori did for many years. Scoring more runs than a number 8 should, and improving his bowling with every match he plays. Wouldn't totally rule out Kerrigan either. He's a quality bowler. We need to see if he really is weak in the head by giving him one more series.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I'm not sure what I think about Prior, I remember the praise lauded on him when he hit that 100 against new zealand earlier this year, so his form's not gone. he's 32, so by the time the next ashes he'll be the same age as haddin who's been probably amongst the best 3 or 4 players in the series.
I just feel maybe wanting him to to move on is getting too excited about imagining the future of some all conquering wicket keeper. he can still play an effective innings from the 7 spot and his keeping doesn't draw many negative comments. He's easily got 4 more years in him, I couldn't imagine buttler being much more effective in that period and I don't think having players dropped in and out would be good for consistency, something that would happen if Buttler played a few stinkers (due to inexperience) and Prior was still regarded as a decent option. buttler will be 27-28 before Prior is truely out the picture and as most people have said, picking 28 year old is something they want to avoid, plus I'm sure everyone will have moved on to the next big thing by then anyway.
I remember the hassle england had with keepers before prior and it wasn't pretty. maybe he's burnt out, but he should be given some rest period before we jump to the conclusion it's a permanent thing. he's one of englands stand out players, someone who is definitely world class.
the england team isn't that old, a few players moving and bring in a couple of guys in their mid 20s in and they'll be set. surely someone about that age could open, and I've already said I think Ballance would be better in the team instead of stoke.
people forget there was this whole debate about age with swann, he was "too old" for england at 29, but he came in and did a magnificent job for them over the last 5 years.
I just feel maybe wanting him to to move on is getting too excited about imagining the future of some all conquering wicket keeper. he can still play an effective innings from the 7 spot and his keeping doesn't draw many negative comments. He's easily got 4 more years in him, I couldn't imagine buttler being much more effective in that period and I don't think having players dropped in and out would be good for consistency, something that would happen if Buttler played a few stinkers (due to inexperience) and Prior was still regarded as a decent option. buttler will be 27-28 before Prior is truely out the picture and as most people have said, picking 28 year old is something they want to avoid, plus I'm sure everyone will have moved on to the next big thing by then anyway.
I remember the hassle england had with keepers before prior and it wasn't pretty. maybe he's burnt out, but he should be given some rest period before we jump to the conclusion it's a permanent thing. he's one of englands stand out players, someone who is definitely world class.
the england team isn't that old, a few players moving and bring in a couple of guys in their mid 20s in and they'll be set. surely someone about that age could open, and I've already said I think Ballance would be better in the team instead of stoke.
people forget there was this whole debate about age with swann, he was "too old" for england at 29, but he came in and did a magnificent job for them over the last 5 years.
Last edited:
I don't think many people are saying that Prior should be dropped just due to his age. There were a few of us who said after the home series that although he didn't play well, there was no way he should be dropped. His ability the last few years earned the right to play this series, to see if he could hit the heights once more. He hasn't done that though, he's looked poor again with the bat and made some errors with the gloves just to top it all off.
I'm against Buttler too though. He's young and very talented, but he's not a Test quality batsman yet. Looked a lot better in First Class cricket last year, but needs another season or two of 4 day stuff to really push on. We do have two good candidates though, in Steven Davies and Craig Kieswetter. Both are good batsmen and decent 'keepers (Just like Prior was when he was first picked) and either are ready for a chance in the side. Plus I think they'd both be capable of batting at 6, meaning that Stokes can then slot into 7.
We are kind of loaded with guys who could bat at 6, with a bit of part time bowling to add to that. Moeen Ali, Scott Borthwick and Stokes himself all fall into that, but it's hard to see how to get two of them in the side without taking a big risk by putting them up the order, or being defensive by batting one at 8.
On the spinners though, Panesar will be fine as the lead spinner for a couple of years at least, we just need to get someone like a Kerrigan into the side when two spinners are used, to gain experience and try to improve. I think we'd be better off putting some faith in a younger guy than trying to turn Tredwell into a Test match spinner. After all, he's probably going to be getting a lot of games in ODI and T20 stuff anyway and he's no where near as good as Panesar in the longer form of the game.
I'm against Buttler too though. He's young and very talented, but he's not a Test quality batsman yet. Looked a lot better in First Class cricket last year, but needs another season or two of 4 day stuff to really push on. We do have two good candidates though, in Steven Davies and Craig Kieswetter. Both are good batsmen and decent 'keepers (Just like Prior was when he was first picked) and either are ready for a chance in the side. Plus I think they'd both be capable of batting at 6, meaning that Stokes can then slot into 7.
We are kind of loaded with guys who could bat at 6, with a bit of part time bowling to add to that. Moeen Ali, Scott Borthwick and Stokes himself all fall into that, but it's hard to see how to get two of them in the side without taking a big risk by putting them up the order, or being defensive by batting one at 8.
On the spinners though, Panesar will be fine as the lead spinner for a couple of years at least, we just need to get someone like a Kerrigan into the side when two spinners are used, to gain experience and try to improve. I think we'd be better off putting some faith in a younger guy than trying to turn Tredwell into a Test match spinner. After all, he's probably going to be getting a lot of games in ODI and T20 stuff anyway and he's no where near as good as Panesar in the longer form of the game.
C Boomer
Club Captain
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
My England line-up for the fourth Test !
1. Cook
2.Carberry
3.Bell
4.Pietersen
5.Root
6.Stokes
7.Bairstow
8.Broad
9.Finn
10.Tremlett
11.Rankin
I hope the above team will be the one the England selectors pick, time to unleash the 'giants' on the Aussies and fight 'fire with fire'; a bit hard I know dropping Monty but the Australia batting strips don't suit his style and Jimmy Anderson has been impotent on this tour.
Bell has a very important role to play at No.3 in that he must lay a platform, scoring heavily himself and just as importantly, this will act as a great foil to KP allowing him to come in at 4 and play his natural, attacking game which is when he is most effective.
Prior also looks jaded and should now be omitted, Jonny Bairstow needs to be given fresh impetus, enough hanging around for this young, talented player, give him the gloves and his batting will also flourish!
Of the three incoming fast bowlers Big Boyd will get extra bounce and has the pace to rattle the opposition, this will inspire the others to bowl with aggression and venom, something sadly omitting from any English bowler on this tour thus far!
Good luck !
1. Cook
2.Carberry
3.Bell
4.Pietersen
5.Root
6.Stokes
7.Bairstow
8.Broad
9.Finn
10.Tremlett
11.Rankin
I hope the above team will be the one the England selectors pick, time to unleash the 'giants' on the Aussies and fight 'fire with fire'; a bit hard I know dropping Monty but the Australia batting strips don't suit his style and Jimmy Anderson has been impotent on this tour.
Bell has a very important role to play at No.3 in that he must lay a platform, scoring heavily himself and just as importantly, this will act as a great foil to KP allowing him to come in at 4 and play his natural, attacking game which is when he is most effective.
Prior also looks jaded and should now be omitted, Jonny Bairstow needs to be given fresh impetus, enough hanging around for this young, talented player, give him the gloves and his batting will also flourish!
Of the three incoming fast bowlers Big Boyd will get extra bounce and has the pace to rattle the opposition, this will inspire the others to bowl with aggression and venom, something sadly omitting from any English bowler on this tour thus far!
Good luck !
Last edited:
NathanScott45
Club Captain
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Seriously? He isn't the bowler he was 10/11, not even close. Besides, Anderson on a likely greenish, seaming Sydney wicket and a softer Melbourne one, I'd have to say the poms would be foolish to drop such a great.
Aislabie
Test Cricket is Best Cricket
I agree Tremlett isn't the bowler he was 10/11. I also agree that he should play. He's consistent, gets lift, and even if it's only at medium pace, he's still England's second most successful bowler this series.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
While i may agree that we need 5 bowlers - it doesn't necessarily mean a spinner has to always be part of it.
We don't want to be making the same mistake AUS made post Warne/MacGill retirement and turn the selection of spinners into a game of musical chairs, where by they selected a plethora of spinners who never proved in FC cricket that they were test standard.
They basically got lucky with Nathan Lyon after 13 tries, since he has basically learnt on the job.
If you recall the days before Swann, ENG played all pace attacks alot. We only settled on using Giles a defensive spinner in a 5-man attack for a couple of years. And, even then many people questioned why Giles became a fixture.
So really if Kerrigan, Borthwick is to play they really need to prove themselves on the FC scene first - as things stand they are below test standard & thus the test attack should be built around the upcoming quicks, who have done well in FC cricket.
Monty is only somewhat test standard spinner ENG have now. But even he can't be fixture because unless its the sub-continent - his effectiveness in all conditions is questionable.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
vaguely drunk (it's christmas) but my problem with stokes is surely if you're going to bat at 6 you should be a better batsman, or at least equal to, the guy you consider as wicket keeper who will bat 7.
so yeah, I read the comments about stokes, but judging from stokes first class average and his form this year he wouldn't have been picked as a wicket keeper so I don't think he'll be a good long term solution. I'm not having a go at england, I like taylor, he's been putting his name in contention for long enough now (much like trott has before he was selected) and ballance has had great form at county level. both of those guys look ready to play as batsmen for england. bowlers not taking wickets is a bowlers concern, not the the top 6.
so yeah, I read the comments about stokes, but judging from stokes first class average and his form this year he wouldn't have been picked as a wicket keeper so I don't think he'll be a good long term solution. I'm not having a go at england, I like taylor, he's been putting his name in contention for long enough now (much like trott has before he was selected) and ballance has had great form at county level. both of those guys look ready to play as batsmen for england. bowlers not taking wickets is a bowlers concern, not the the top 6.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
The highlighted for me are the most important reasons why England failed so miserable against a team they had beaten on 2 previous occasions, home AND away.
First off, not a single batsman has been consistent enough, Bell, KP and even the newcomers Root and Carberry have batted well in spurts but nothing to strike fear into the Aussie bowling side. Then we have the keepers, Prior has looked out of sort for some time now and like the rest of he team, complacency has crept in and made a nest. For 3 years now there hasn't been another keeper in the test side of things who has pushed for a place, providing Prior with healthy competition. Partly due to how good MP has been and partly due toe the England management resting on their laurels.
Moving onto England's senior bowlers, seriously, they have been average at best. Yes Broad has pulled his weight and shown some fight, in fact he has been mightily impressive all year bu Anderson has looked impotent on many occasions over the last 12 months. When there is no swing, he seems to get stuck, in home conditions he manages to pull out some tricky deliveries but away from his comfort zone he just doesn't look much a menace. It's why I've never rated him as highly as some of the other bowlers in world cricket, whereas most in the england set up were praising him to no end.
Now, the best till last, Johnson, he has been on terrific form, a resurgence of the Johnson we saw all those years ago against South Africa. But, in all honesty, we know this is form and not class, before long he will revert to type...you know what they say about form and class don't you?
Now squad and team selection for England have just been so misguided. Finn has admitted to losing all confidence, and who wouldn't, they way he has been treated by the England management, Flower, Strauss and Cook over the last 4 years now. In and out of the team, dropped after some good tests for no apparent reason, guys like Tremlett and Bresnan picked ahead of him. Seriously, this young man is one of the best, or WAS one of the best young fast bowling talents in England. How often do we see lightning fast England bowlers with a hint of the Pakistani or the South African about them? Guys who crave speed and wickets and despise containment. Sadly he may just be a vegetable now.
I just want to repeat, who, in the name of all that is good, could possibly imagine picking Bresnan was a good idea???????
And now brand of cricket, which also comes down to the captaincy. Clarke has always been a so-called aggressive captain, in my eyes, he has been, for far too long, quite reckless. He seems to be one of those small kids in who school who wants to show how hard they are. He has shown disrespect to the umpires, to fellow players, to the game and to the fans. In doing so, his captaincy has reeked of inconsistency, prior to this home series anyway.
Clarke tries too hard as a captain at times and for some time he had a team incapable of bowling to the fields he'd set, leaking runs left right and center and losing out to better minds such as Dhoni in the process. But his captaincy has been flattered by an in form Aussie side, literally, men like Warner, Rogers, Watson and co. who couldn't by runs a few months back are no scoring centuries and looking like world beaters. Add to that a solid bowling unit which is doing better than their collective talent should allow, this will be Clarke's defining series. His captaincy is too crass and when he once again faces a side willing to stick it out in the trenches, we'll see him falter and fail. It might sound harsh but it's the truth.
Cook on the other hand, can be far too defensive at times but it is a tactic which he inherited from the similarly stoic Strauss. No one complained too loudly when the wins were coming, the tactic, worked on with Flower and something the Zimbabwean is proud of is this: dry up the runs and make the batsmen make the mistakes, rather than push the bowlers to invent opportunities. It was for some time, a tried and tested tactic. Now it looks stale.
There are also rumours that Cook is losing confidence amongst team mates and that loyalty is at an all time low. Just ask Swann.
It's been a comedy errors, this Ashes has
IceAgeComing
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Location
- Brussels, Belgium
- Profile Flag
- Scotland
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
You are being very idiotic if you think Anderson is going to be ditched in the summer tests. He's been bowled into the ground over this year; so for the tests against Sri Lanka he'll get played if he is fit and in form. England's dumb move with Anderson was not resting him over one of the New Zealand series; which meant that he simply couldn't be fit for the Winter Ashes. Its a very similar story with Broad, and Bresnan is still recovering from injury, so shouldn't be ruled out. England's strength in the summer was the bowling attack; and as much as I think they need to try other bowlers (they need a spinner to back up Monty and for the future, and a few good seamers to come up); the core of the bowling attack IMO shouldn't be touched because at their peak, there is very little better in the world.
Batsmen-wise; Trott will be at 3 if he's recovered from his issues. It may not be a long-term thing; especially if its a similar thing to Trescothick; but he'll be there if he is ready too. There is much less stress in an late-spring home series against Sri Lanka compared to an away Ashes series. That solves the number 3 problem for now - its a question that should be asked, but I think that its not a huge issues.
Opening-wise; Carberry hasn't embarrassed himself, but apparently he's out for the fifth test anyway so that may be irrelivant. The way he played at the MCG seemed to be a "big score or you're gone" sort of innings anyway... Cook will open even if he is ditched as captain (which he should, that's been the weakest part of England's team BY FAR) - he's not the kind of guy that would throw his toys out of the pram after being sacked. Root should open IMO; he's young, and performed well enough in the summer Ashes to give him more chances. Carberry is good, but I think that they need to look for the future.
Trott should be at number 3 if he is able - but if not, they should move Bell up there if he can't. Keep Pieterson at 4 - he's often got out in dumb ways in the past, its just more noticible when no one else is scoring. I'd take him getting out in the 30s in silly ways for those innings where he scores big. Bell should go at 5 if Trott plays; with Ballance there as number 5 if needed.
Stokes needs to get another chance at 6 - I'm not sure of his abilities either side of the game, but he's definately been the best performing of the England players overall this series. In terms of the wicketkeeper, I'm not 100% sure about this; but they need to keep Prior in the loop; but also consider someone for now (Davies probably) and someone for the future (Buttler/Kieswetter? Both of those options depress me...)
Pace bowlers are where you are all wrong. Suggesting that an attack of Broad/Finn/Tremlett/Rankin would be good is a nonsense idea because the latter three are all very similar (tall, bang it in, not a great amount more). They need to give Rankin a shot (although part of me thinks that he became English just to allow Giles to have another overseas player for Warwickshire...); Finn is similar to MJ only much slower so he doesn't have the speed to be dominant. IMO; they need to get him back to his county and allow him to fix his action at that level (England can't do that stuff, look at Anderson). Tremlett is older, and much slower now so sadly probably isn't international level now. That leaves us with Anderson (who has a few years yet if England don't keep bowling him to the ground), Broad (similar really), Bresnan (rushed back from injury, but is useful at times in a Siddle-like way of being not very exciting but effective, plus also lengthens the tail if he's batting) and then someone like Onions (who really should have got a shot in Australia; because again he's something different). I'd go for something like Anderson/Broad/(Bresnan/Rankin depending on conditions)/Stokes for the pace attack; because its still the best thing that England has.
England needs a spinner in the team. Sure, he's not going to be as good as Swann, but its a useful thing to have to support the pace attack. Panesar is good enough for the short-term - look at India last year to show what he can do. It needs to be a guy picked for his bowling; so a Borthwick would need to greatly improve the bowling, especially since he hasn't bowled a lot at county level recently. Kerrigan is key - give him a few, low-pressure home tests against Sri Lanka, and we'd have a better idea what he can do without the pressure of an Ashes series; and let him build up to that. The captain needs to trust the spinner; and actually use them rather than go for Root all the time.
Captain-wise; Cook is too negative and too blah in the field to have a go; so they should move to someone else. Who that is, I don't know! Pieterson shouldn't be offered and wouldn't accept; which means that the future, appropriate long-term captains are really Bell and Broad (a few months ago you'd have said Trott, but not now...) You need someone who will actually control things in the field; and be assertive rather than what Cook is doing...
NOTE: I'm not 100% familiar with the county game outside of the games they show on Sky or what I hear; so I may be ignoring decent county players. I'd argue that's not a bad thing - look at all of the squads suggested for Australia before the series started that were Clarke + 10 random Sheffield Shield players; which would not have done as well as Australia did. You shouldn't chuck everything out; but you need a new, more positive captain and a completely new backroom setup (which means no Giles in a dream world).
Batsmen-wise; Trott will be at 3 if he's recovered from his issues. It may not be a long-term thing; especially if its a similar thing to Trescothick; but he'll be there if he is ready too. There is much less stress in an late-spring home series against Sri Lanka compared to an away Ashes series. That solves the number 3 problem for now - its a question that should be asked, but I think that its not a huge issues.
Opening-wise; Carberry hasn't embarrassed himself, but apparently he's out for the fifth test anyway so that may be irrelivant. The way he played at the MCG seemed to be a "big score or you're gone" sort of innings anyway... Cook will open even if he is ditched as captain (which he should, that's been the weakest part of England's team BY FAR) - he's not the kind of guy that would throw his toys out of the pram after being sacked. Root should open IMO; he's young, and performed well enough in the summer Ashes to give him more chances. Carberry is good, but I think that they need to look for the future.
Trott should be at number 3 if he is able - but if not, they should move Bell up there if he can't. Keep Pieterson at 4 - he's often got out in dumb ways in the past, its just more noticible when no one else is scoring. I'd take him getting out in the 30s in silly ways for those innings where he scores big. Bell should go at 5 if Trott plays; with Ballance there as number 5 if needed.
Stokes needs to get another chance at 6 - I'm not sure of his abilities either side of the game, but he's definately been the best performing of the England players overall this series. In terms of the wicketkeeper, I'm not 100% sure about this; but they need to keep Prior in the loop; but also consider someone for now (Davies probably) and someone for the future (Buttler/Kieswetter? Both of those options depress me...)
Pace bowlers are where you are all wrong. Suggesting that an attack of Broad/Finn/Tremlett/Rankin would be good is a nonsense idea because the latter three are all very similar (tall, bang it in, not a great amount more). They need to give Rankin a shot (although part of me thinks that he became English just to allow Giles to have another overseas player for Warwickshire...); Finn is similar to MJ only much slower so he doesn't have the speed to be dominant. IMO; they need to get him back to his county and allow him to fix his action at that level (England can't do that stuff, look at Anderson). Tremlett is older, and much slower now so sadly probably isn't international level now. That leaves us with Anderson (who has a few years yet if England don't keep bowling him to the ground), Broad (similar really), Bresnan (rushed back from injury, but is useful at times in a Siddle-like way of being not very exciting but effective, plus also lengthens the tail if he's batting) and then someone like Onions (who really should have got a shot in Australia; because again he's something different). I'd go for something like Anderson/Broad/(Bresnan/Rankin depending on conditions)/Stokes for the pace attack; because its still the best thing that England has.
England needs a spinner in the team. Sure, he's not going to be as good as Swann, but its a useful thing to have to support the pace attack. Panesar is good enough for the short-term - look at India last year to show what he can do. It needs to be a guy picked for his bowling; so a Borthwick would need to greatly improve the bowling, especially since he hasn't bowled a lot at county level recently. Kerrigan is key - give him a few, low-pressure home tests against Sri Lanka, and we'd have a better idea what he can do without the pressure of an Ashes series; and let him build up to that. The captain needs to trust the spinner; and actually use them rather than go for Root all the time.
Captain-wise; Cook is too negative and too blah in the field to have a go; so they should move to someone else. Who that is, I don't know! Pieterson shouldn't be offered and wouldn't accept; which means that the future, appropriate long-term captains are really Bell and Broad (a few months ago you'd have said Trott, but not now...) You need someone who will actually control things in the field; and be assertive rather than what Cook is doing...
NOTE: I'm not 100% familiar with the county game outside of the games they show on Sky or what I hear; so I may be ignoring decent county players. I'd argue that's not a bad thing - look at all of the squads suggested for Australia before the series started that were Clarke + 10 random Sheffield Shield players; which would not have done as well as Australia did. You shouldn't chuck everything out; but you need a new, more positive captain and a completely new backroom setup (which means no Giles in a dream world).
ste_mc_efc
Chairman of Selectors
Trott's issues, if my understanding (assumptions, i suppose) of what they actually are is correct is definitely a long-term thing. as in it's a thing that he will have to deal with for life. taking "happy pills" won't solve it like a course of anti-biotics or 6 weeks of living in an oxygen tent.
Another potential problem is that the england management simply won't know if Trott is up to playing. It could well be that Trott says all the right things simply because he wants to be able to play and doesn't want to let people down, but then when it comes to showtime it all falls apart. It's a very messy situation and I think the best way for the england set up to manage it is to assume he won't play again and prepare that way. If everything does come good and he comes back then great for him personally and great for england, but having half of your hopes on him is not a good idea.
----------
As for the captaincy issues it's an odd one. bell hasn't ever really been in contention, bit like Kallis in a way. I don't want Broad to get it as I simply don't trust him to use his head. He'll enforce a review everytime it's his bowling. Maybe he could do it but I think he's simply too hot-headed/emotional.
I'd like to see Bell get it. Clearly Cook is not a good captain, but with so much uncertainty now in the line up, and those who have certain places being, to put it delicately, being massive toolboxes Cook is likely the best of a bad bunch.
I would sum that up in a nutshell, no pun intended, by saying the last two England players to withdraw from England cricket with similar issues never played again.
Trescothick and Yardy both packed it in, went back to domestic cricket. I'm not too surprised, other than Yardy being picked for England, playing such intensive cricket for so much of the year with little time for family, respite or even to pause, must strain even those who don't succumb.
I would imagine by comparison county cricket is a walk in the park, all played in this country and like someone having played say PES (Pro Evolution Soccer) intensively at the highest setting for all the waking hours of a month suddenly playing it only at the weekends and on the easiest setting.
You'd find so much more time for family, to do other things, travel so much less. Just consider the distances involved on any tour other than of England.
England most definitely haven't played well enough, no application when batting, not enough wicket threat when bowling, and allowed Johnson to not only set up camp in their heads, but throw a party and invite his friends.
But to look at the outcomes of when the two sides had good spells or were looking on top :
- ENG 1st Test : had Australia 83/4 and 132/6, Haddin led a recovery to more than double the score to 295.
+ AUS 1st Test : took the wickets of Cook and Trott, then just kept on taking wickets with no partnership higher than the opening partnership of 28 (two of 27, 26 for the last wicket and 6/9 in the middle)
- ENG 1st Test : had Australia 75/2, a lead of 224 and conceded 158 for the third wicket to end any hopes in the Test.
+ AUS 1st Test : had England 10/2 and 72/3, swept in to finish England off with the last seven wickets going for 49 runs
- ENG 2nd Test : had Australia 174/4, Clarke and Haddin led the aussie recovery to 570/9d
+ AUS 2nd Test : had England 66/3, despite last wicket resistance finished them off for 172
- AUS 2nd Test : first minus for the aussies, couldn't capitalise on having England 20/2, but steadily picked off wickets to force a comfortable win
- ENG 3rd Test : had the aussies 143/5, Smith, Haddin and Johnson led the recovery to 385
- ENG 3rd Test : 85 opening partnership and 136/2, didn't double the score from there as wickets fell pretty regularly to fall for 251
- ENG 3rd Test : recovered from 76/3 to reach 296/5 before losing the last five wickets for 57
- ENG 4th Test : recovered from the loss of Cook on 0 to reach 96/1 and 173/3, lost the last seven wickets for 82 runs
+ ENG 4th Test : first positive for England, got the aussies 62/3 but managed to force them to 164/9 before the last pair added 40. Still put England on top with a lead of 51
- ENG 4th Test : from 86/1 England managed to lose three wickets for one run, and from 173/5 managed to lose their last five wickets for six runs opening the door for another aussie win
Eight decent positions England put themselves in, only one did they take advantage of and even then they tossed it away in the second half of the match.
The aussies on the other hand converted 3/4 of their good positions, on top of those positions not included where the innings was mundane and neither side had to really fight ie there was no crucial or turning point
----------
The people who don't have a bee in their bonnet about him................. I'm no fan of Bresnan, but can appreciate he offers something. I'm guessing you're the same one slating him as offering little with ball or bat in another thread.
Well he's not done a lot with the bat so far, not many in the side have with the supposed "deep batting" line up failing on top of the daft decision to go five bowler theory and include Stokes.
Bairstow : 31 runs @ 15.50
Prior : 107 runs @ 17.83
Broad : 83 runs @ 11.86
Bresnan : 34 runs @ 9.50
Swann : 36 runs @ 7.20
Broad and Swann have a not out in there to boot which makes their efforts even worse, about 10.5 and 6.0.
The only two bowlers to perform this series are Broad (17 wkts @ 26.82) and the bizarrely dropped Tremlett (5 wkts @ 30.00) Anderson has taken twice as many wickets as Bresnan, but at six runs more apiece.
But aside the failings of pretty much the entire England team, the reason Bresnan was picked was because he can bat and bowl, and two key performances against the aussies furthered his claim
ENG vs AUS 2013 : 103 runs @ 25.75 & 10 wkts @ 29.60
AUS vs ENG 10/11 : 39 runs @ 9.50 & 11 wkts @ 19.55
Despite a poor series so far, he still averages 17.60 with bat and 27.58 with ball against the aussies, compared to Anderson's 36.93 with ball and still better than Broad's 29.92
So whether you like him or not, that he didn't perform, there is a reason for selecting him which, if you're the same poster, you're choosing to ignore for the second time, or simply don't get.
Only Tremlett of the England (main) bowlers used has a better average with the ball against Australia (24.62), Swann's is an unremarkable 39.98, Stokes 47.29 and Panesar 53.64. Considering he was picked for the above highlighted Ashes performances before this series, there is every reason someone (other than yourself and others like'minded') someone might pick him.
But to look at the outcomes of when the two sides had good spells or were looking on top :
- ENG 1st Test : had Australia 83/4 and 132/6, Haddin led a recovery to more than double the score to 295.
+ AUS 1st Test : took the wickets of Cook and Trott, then just kept on taking wickets with no partnership higher than the opening partnership of 28 (two of 27, 26 for the last wicket and 6/9 in the middle)
- ENG 1st Test : had Australia 75/2, a lead of 224 and conceded 158 for the third wicket to end any hopes in the Test.
+ AUS 1st Test : had England 10/2 and 72/3, swept in to finish England off with the last seven wickets going for 49 runs
- ENG 2nd Test : had Australia 174/4, Clarke and Haddin led the aussie recovery to 570/9d
+ AUS 2nd Test : had England 66/3, despite last wicket resistance finished them off for 172
- AUS 2nd Test : first minus for the aussies, couldn't capitalise on having England 20/2, but steadily picked off wickets to force a comfortable win
- ENG 3rd Test : had the aussies 143/5, Smith, Haddin and Johnson led the recovery to 385
- ENG 3rd Test : 85 opening partnership and 136/2, didn't double the score from there as wickets fell pretty regularly to fall for 251
- ENG 3rd Test : recovered from 76/3 to reach 296/5 before losing the last five wickets for 57
- ENG 4th Test : recovered from the loss of Cook on 0 to reach 96/1 and 173/3, lost the last seven wickets for 82 runs
+ ENG 4th Test : first positive for England, got the aussies 62/3 but managed to force them to 164/9 before the last pair added 40. Still put England on top with a lead of 51
- ENG 4th Test : from 86/1 England managed to lose three wickets for one run, and from 173/5 managed to lose their last five wickets for six runs opening the door for another aussie win
Eight decent positions England put themselves in, only one did they take advantage of and even then they tossed it away in the second half of the match.
The aussies on the other hand converted 3/4 of their good positions, on top of those positions not included where the innings was mundane and neither side had to really fight ie there was no crucial or turning point
----------
The people who don't have a bee in their bonnet about him................. I'm no fan of Bresnan, but can appreciate he offers something. I'm guessing you're the same one slating him as offering little with ball or bat in another thread.
Well he's not done a lot with the bat so far, not many in the side have with the supposed "deep batting" line up failing on top of the daft decision to go five bowler theory and include Stokes.
Bairstow : 31 runs @ 15.50
Prior : 107 runs @ 17.83
Broad : 83 runs @ 11.86
Bresnan : 34 runs @ 9.50
Swann : 36 runs @ 7.20
Broad and Swann have a not out in there to boot which makes their efforts even worse, about 10.5 and 6.0.
The only two bowlers to perform this series are Broad (17 wkts @ 26.82) and the bizarrely dropped Tremlett (5 wkts @ 30.00) Anderson has taken twice as many wickets as Bresnan, but at six runs more apiece.
But aside the failings of pretty much the entire England team, the reason Bresnan was picked was because he can bat and bowl, and two key performances against the aussies furthered his claim
ENG vs AUS 2013 : 103 runs @ 25.75 & 10 wkts @ 29.60
AUS vs ENG 10/11 : 39 runs @ 9.50 & 11 wkts @ 19.55
Despite a poor series so far, he still averages 17.60 with bat and 27.58 with ball against the aussies, compared to Anderson's 36.93 with ball and still better than Broad's 29.92
So whether you like him or not, that he didn't perform, there is a reason for selecting him which, if you're the same poster, you're choosing to ignore for the second time, or simply don't get.
Only Tremlett of the England (main) bowlers used has a better average with the ball against Australia (24.62), Swann's is an unremarkable 39.98, Stokes 47.29 and Panesar 53.64. Considering he was picked for the above highlighted Ashes performances before this series, there is every reason someone (other than yourself and others like'minded') someone might pick him.
SpitfiresKent
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Location
- England
- Profile Flag
- England
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
Stats...stats everywhere.
Similar threads
