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

Mitch mainly has got out the late middle order and the tail. He hasn't taken many wickets of 1-5. He's spread panic for sure. I'll look up who has got the top five out after my bath...

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Mitch mainly has got out the late middle order and the tail. He hasn't taken many wickets of 1-5. He's spread panic for sure. I'll look up who has got the top five out after my bath...

Specialist batters:Carberry,Trott,Joe,Trott,KP,Cook, Cook

All rounders - Ben

Bowlers wickets excluded.

clubcricketeradi wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Mitch mainly has got out the late middle order and the tail. He hasn't taken many wickets of 1-5. He's spread panic for sure. I'll look up who has got the top five out after my bath...

Specialist batters:Carberry,Trott,Joe,Trott,KP,Cook, Cook

All rounders - Ben

Bowlers wickets excluded.

I meant in this match. He caused chaos amongst the top order at Brissy. Only Cook at Adelaide. Once Cook carves him to all parts of the WACA, he may even find himself dropped for Melbourne





I can hope, can't I?

As I've said before by selecting a large squad of players the seeds of uncertainty were sown, not just in the heads of the fringe players but everyone including Andy Flower. They left England with three young aspirants for the number 6 position and after 4 warm up games and two tests that position is still not settled. Something similar can be said about the third seamer which is now complicated further by having at least four vying for that role, five if you include Stokes. Having a dressing room with 18 players trying to to squeeze their way into an eleven man team was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Seven disappointed cricketers in any dressing room is far too many.

hopeforthebest wrote:As I've said before by selecting a large squad of players the seeds of uncertainty were sown, not just in the heads of the fringe players but everyone including Andy Flower. They left England with three young aspirants for the number 6 position and after 4 warm up games and two tests that position is still not settled. Something similar can be said about the third seamer which is now complicated further by having at least four vying for that role, five if you include Stokes. Having a dressing room with 18 players trying to to squeeze their way into an eleven man team was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Seven disappointed cricketers in any dressing room is far too many.

Should a player give up after two tests none selection, I would question his mentality anyway. I think its more a problem that at no stage in this tour has a commitment been shown to either role, the 3rd seamer and the number 6 batsman swapped after one test, I think in both cases for players who had not played all the warm ups. Bresnan will probably play in the next test so further changes, and we will probably go from Tremlett to Finn.

Its policy on the fly. Flower was hoping for divine intervention rather then executing an actual plan in this tour.

Jamie Overton has got the skills to succeed.

sussexpob wrote:

hopeforthebest wrote:As I've said before by selecting a large squad of players the seeds of uncertainty were sown, not just in the heads of the fringe players but everyone including Andy Flower. They left England with three young aspirants for the number 6 position and after 4 warm up games and two tests that position is still not settled. Something similar can be said about the third seamer which is now complicated further by having at least four vying for that role, five if you include Stokes. Having a dressing room with 18 players trying to to squeeze their way into an eleven man team was always going to be a recipe for disaster. Seven disappointed cricketers in any dressing room is far too many.

Should a player give up after two tests none selection, I would question his mentality anyway. I think its more a problem that at no stage in this tour has a commitment been shown to either role, the 3rd seamer and the number 6 batsman swapped after one test, I think in both cases for players who had not played all the warm ups. Bresnan will probably play in the next test so further changes, and we will probably go from Tremlett to Finn.

Its policy on the fly. Flower was hoping for divine intervention rather then executing an actual plan in this tour.

That's the story of the tour.

Two months ago you would never have believed Carbs would be opening, that we'd take 3 tall fast bowlers but play two spinners instead, that Stokes would take 1-111 and score 32 runs and then be selected for his debut or that a fit Bresnan would miss Adelaide, which reverses, but probably come in on possibly the fastest track in the world. that, at a quick Gabba wed play Tremlett who may have been quick 3 years ago but now bowls blancmanges..

Kim wrote: That's the story of the tour.

Two months ago you would never have believed Carbs would be opening, that we'd take 3 tall fast bowlers but play two spinners instead, that Stokes would take 1-111 and score 32 runs and then be selected for his debut or that a fit Bresnan would miss Adelaide, which reverses, but probably come in on possibly the fastest track in the world. that, at a quick Gabba wed play Tremlett who may have been quick 3 years ago but now bowls blancmanges..

Which leads to the very uncomfortable conclusion that, although Flower and his staff have a 76 page book on food, they havent seen a county game in recent memory. I mean Tremlett and Panesar bowled pants this year, the former with an injury hit past, the later getting sacked from his club this season for having a public meltdown and boozing. And Ben Stokes a test match number 6 in a team struggling to make 200....

In my own thread before this series I talked of the "invisible" quality of Flower's England, and we are seeing it again. Names picked on a team sheet expecting the best of careers that are at their lowest ebb, from unreliable sources anway.... average performances on both fields picked on account that the expectation is they perform to a higher level..... ignorance

sussexpob wrote:Which leads to the very uncomfortable conclusion that, although Flower and his staff have a 76 page book on food, they havent seen a county game in recent memory. I mean Tremlett and Panesar bowled pants this year, the former with an injury hit past, the later getting sacked from his club this season for having a public meltdown and boozing. And Ben Stokes a test match number 6 in a team struggling to make 200....

In my own thread before this series I talked of the "invisible" quality of Flower's England, and we are seeing it again. Names picked on a team sheet expecting the best of careers that are at their lowest ebb, from unreliable sources anway.... average performances on both fields picked on account that the expectation is they perform to a higher level..... ignorance

And the selector who did see a Div one game every season is now the one day coach - so doesn't.

Kim wrote:Two months ago you would never have believed Carbs would be opening, that we'd take 3 tall fast bowlers but play two spinners instead, that Stokes would take 1-111 and score 32 runs and then be selected for his debut or that a fit Bresnan would miss Adelaide, which reverses, but probably come in on possibly the fastest track in the world. that, at a quick Gabba wed play Tremlett who may have been quick 3 years ago but now bowls blancmanges.

I agree that tour selection should be re-examined for mistakes. But some deviation from the plan is a good thing. It's rigidity of policy that leads to things like the bowling attacks in Ahmedabad and Dubai. Flower is rightly criticised (in my opinion) for a lack of flexibility. But then it seems he is criticised for changing his plan. I don't think there was a problem with selection for this Test. Other possible problems, to do with mental preparation, risk of burnout, perils of micro management... are difficult to get at if you're watching from the boundary. Probably you can say England didn't have enough practice, and it seems at least possible that they weren't prepared for the challenges they have faced.

The main problem has been the performances of established players, not so much whether they picked Bresnan, or two spinners. And it is difficult to know why these things happen. If it is to do with players being put under pressure continually to frack just another one or two percent, then how can we know? I can only see the symptoms, that senior players have looked enervated for some time. And in the two Tests so far, their shot selection has been difficult to understand.

Flower didn't pick the touring squad, Miller, Whitaker and Giles did. Flower isn't responsible for Tremlett (or Panesar, who is our second best spinner, however his season went). You can Flower shouldn't have picked Tremlett in Brisbane. But if Miller waved through Tremlett's tour selection on Flower/Saker's say so, knowing that he wasn't right for the tour, then it's Miller error that Tremlett is there. If all Miller was doing was second guessing what Flower wanted, he wasn't doing his job either. Flower can't be expected to watch CC, he relies on others to produce the best squad available.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Flower didn't pick the touring squad, Miller, Whitaker and Giles did. Flower isn't responsible for Tremlett (or Panesar, who is our second best spinner, however his season went). You can Flower shouldn't have picked Tremlett in Brisbane. But if Miller waved through Tremlett's tour selection on Flower/Saker's say so, knowing that he wasn't right for the tour, then it's Miller error that Tremlett is there. If all Miller was doing was second guessing what Flower wanted, he wasn't doing his job either. Flower can't be expected to watch CC, he relies on others to produce the best squad available.

I do blame Saker for Tremlett - and remember they first called him up for training on 17 July so they had ample time to assess him - but its very difficult for a selector to refuse a specific request for a bowler from the bowling coach Id imagine. I'm pretty sure Flower has a decent say in selection - it would be odd if he didn't - and there was no one selected who hadn't been with England squads - and so subject to scrutiny - before. (I think though I haven't checked).

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Kim wrote:Two months ago you would never have believed Carbs would be opening, that we'd take 3 tall fast bowlers but play two spinners instead, that Stokes would take 1-111 and score 32 runs and then be selected for his debut or that a fit Bresnan would miss Adelaide, which reverses, but probably come in on possibly the fastest track in the world. that, at a quick Gabba wed play Tremlett who may have been quick 3 years ago but now bowls blancmanges.

I agree that tour selection should be re-examined for mistakes. But some deviation from the plan is a good thing. It's rigidity of policy that leads to things like the bowling attacks in Ahmedabad and Dubai. Flower is rightly criticised (in my opinion) for a lack of flexibility. But then it seems he is criticised for changing his plan. I don't think there was a problem with selection for this Test. Other possible problems, to do with mental preparation, risk of burnout, perils of micro management... are difficult to get at if you're watching from the boundary. Probably you can say England didn't have enough practice, and it seems at least possible that they weren't prepared for the challenges they have faced.

The main problem has been the performances of established players, not so much whether they picked Bresnan, or two spinners. And it is difficult to know why these things happen. If it is to do with players being put under pressure continually to frack just another one or two percent, then how can we know? I can only see the symptoms, that senior players have looked enervated for some time. And in the two Tests so far, their shot selection has been difficult to understand.

Have to agree to differ - 26 wickets out of 32 fell to seamers and our spinners took 4 for 380 - though to be fair the dropped catches had a part to play so its hard to assess. Not sure Ive ever critisised Flower for rigidity (may have tho as memory not what it was) which is maybe why I find this tour confusing for reasons mentioned above. Agree that the failure of established players is a bigger factor but its the combination of all this that has given me a bad feeling about this tour ever since the first Test. It just seems vaguely out of control which is really unFlower like.

I think most of the dropped catches came off Monty. There was at least an opportunity there for England to get on top in the first innings of the game. And then the spinners would have had the opportunity to bowl on a wearing pitch second time around. Certainly, I don't think there was much for the pace bowlers. Swann (and Lyon) didn't bowl that well. The failure of the batters and the fielders really let down our bowlers, fast and slow.

Fast bowlers 8 wickets, 98 overs.
Spinners 4 wickets, 96 overs.

The difference is more than wiped out by the drops. And then there's the assumption that a third choice pace bowler would have done better than the first two, who statistically are a long way ahead of any potential third choice. I don't think the team selection went as well as it could, but I still think it was the right one. Bresnan has a bit of a habit of going wicketless in big scoring innings. I don't think you can presume he would have done better than Stokes.