Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Flintoff was a terrible captain, but he didn't have the best bowling resources at his disposal, as you point out. Jimmy was undercooked and struggled (it would be two more years before he matured into a high quality bowler, Mahmood was just terrible, Harmison blew hot and cold at the best of times and didn't tour well (on exceptional trip to the West Indies notwithstanding), and Freddie himself was unfit and burdened by captaincy (and perhaps the bottle as you suggest). Giles was also coming back from injury and should never have been picked, as it had been established at that point that Panesar was a better spinner (and he didn't do too badly under the circumstances on pitches that offered little to hit). Only Hoggy was actually reliable as a quick in that series.

bigfluffylemon wrote:Flintoff was a terrible captain, but he didn't have the best bowling resources at his disposal, as you point out. Jimmy was undercooked and struggled (it would be two more years before he matured into a high quality bowler, Mahmood was just terrible, Harmison blew hot and cold at the best of times and didn't tour well (on exceptional trip to the West Indies notwithstanding), and Freddie himself was unfit and burdened by captaincy (and perhaps the bottle as you suggest). Giles was also coming back from injury and should never have been picked, as it had been established at that point that Panesar was a better spinner (and he didn't do too badly under the circumstances on pitches that offered little to hit). Only Hoggy was actually reliable as a quick in that series.

Does anyone ever understand why Giles got picked those first two tests? Its been 12 years, and the question still burns inside my head.

They wanted his batting and better fielding. It was part of Fletcher's blueprint to have 3D players. Monty wasn't a Fletcher type player. It was Duncan who called time on (the 1D) Tufnell and brought in Croft and Giles.

I thought Freddie bowled well in that series. Too much was expected of him.

England were unfortunate that the 05 side fell apart in a year.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I thought Freddie bowled well in that series. Too much was expected of him.

England were unfortunate that the 05 side fell apart in a year.

Figuratively and in some cases literally. Things might have been different if Vaughan, Tresco and Simon Jones had been fit and able to play, (not least because Freddie would not have been captain) and Monty had been picked for Adelaide. I suspect England would still have lost, but we might not have been whitewashed.

Still, we'll never know.

Anyway, back on topic. No news of the Australia squad yet - seems they are waiting on Paine's fitness. For India Shaw has been in training again according to reports, but is unlikely for Perth. Should be back for Boxing Day though.

bigfluffylemon wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I thought Freddie bowled well in that series. Too much was expected of him.

England were unfortunate that the 05 side fell apart in a year.

Figuratively and in some cases literally. Things might have been different if Vaughan, Tresco and Simon Jones had been fit and able to play, (not least because Freddie would not have been captain) and Monty had been picked for Adelaide. I suspect England would still have lost, but we might not have been whitewashed.

Still, we'll never know.

Anyway, back on topic. No news of the Australia squad yet - seems they are waiting on Paine's fitness. For India Shaw has been in training again according to reports, but is unlikely for Perth. Should be back for Boxing Day though.

Best good news post of the year.

Prithvi back for 3rd tests solves one of our issue. I thought he would miss all 4 tests.

Some bad news for you though, Adi: both Ashwin and Rohit are out of the Perth test.

Ashwin has a side strain, and Rohit jarred his back on the last day.

I expect India to go 4 quicks with Vihari coming in as the spin option

that was the suggested option on CA's website - where I read the news of the outs.

GarlicJam wrote:Some bad news for you though, Adi: both Ashwin and Rohit are out of the Perth test.

Ashwin has a side strain, and Rohit jarred his back on the last day.

Big blow with Ashwin. Australia will be given themselves a decent chance to get back into the series.

and they have just told me that Aus are going with the same lineup as the Adelaide test.

GarlicJam wrote:and they have just told me that Aus are going with the same lineup as the Adelaide test.

Probably have to stick with the batsman for a series or two. The exception would have been the Marsh brothers, but Shaun's second innings 60 might buy him another 5 tests in the current environment. Is there any younger guys floating around the Shield that can come in? Id definitely have picked Renshaw myself, but he might actually be 12th man, no?

the squad was picked for the first two tests, I don't think Renshaw was in the 14 was he? Who was there, Mitch3, Siddle, and ..?

GarlicJam wrote:the squad was picked for the first two tests, I don't think Renshaw was in the 14 was he? Who was there, Mitch3, Siddle, and ..?

Apparently not. A quick google search reveals his 4 day form this season has been a bit of a disaster. Which is a shame for him, because I guess that form came at the wrong time for his chances. If he knocked a couple of runs before the first test, I guess he'd been comfortably in.

It annoys me when selectors show crossed thinking though. He isnt considered for this series on form, but when his FC form was good (top shield scorer last year, hit 3 100s for Somerset in the UK summer in about 5 match stint) they didnt pick him anyway. If good form doesnt matter, why then do you drop him on bad form? It makes little sense to me, to the selectors really think Harris is better? Surely you just give him 10 tests in the side and tell him to cement his future place. He's 22, hes touted as the next solid batting option. It makes no sense not to pick him (as it didnt dropping Handscomb, imo).

Renshaw was harshly discared, as was joe Burns after the SA test to be honest...