Slitherine

ShrubMiK wrote:I've no idea whether Cook is a gentleman, and not sure I'd want to go and try to find out

I will say that I saw him in Guildford a few years back, signing some book or other for a queue of (largely female) admirers just inside one of the bookshops. It took me a little while to realise who he was...he had a strange sort of glow to him, he really stood out amongst the members of Joe Q Public.

Clearly he's an alien of some sort, but hey I'm not complaining.

Anderson is a good point. So let's see who of the current England team would be playing if the selectors had heeded massed public calls to bin them after one bad series.

Hmmm. Finn, who's not been around long enough for that. Swann. And that I reckon is about it.

And quite a few of the others have been dropped but forced themselves back into the frame.

So, back to Bopara...we'll see

Swann hasn't had a bad series yet? Bopara has had plenty - he won't be coming back to the test team. Might have a future in the one day side.

There are just too many others in front of Bopara in the pecking order. He has come in had 10 tests, on the face of it a reasonable average of 33, however in four tests against Australia he scored 133 runs at 19 and in three test against Sri Lanka scored 74 runs at 15.

He scored a shedful of runs against a West Indies team that would have struggled to beat my local pub team, but that just doesn't cut it. Shame really, he certainly had the talent.

Not many players come back after having played 10 tests and then have a two year rest!

Well put Dave R.

Bopara (like Shah) had his chance and fluffed it mightily. He should not be within 100 miles of an England dressing room unless its to clean someones spikes/bring on the oranges/make the tea.

With players like Morgan and Trott who can construct innings and time their play beatifully who needs Bopara. Yes he has flair, but he doesn't have the temperance or patience to play test cricket and get under his opponents skin. Cook and Trott have really frustrated the Aussies. So what if its a mediocre bowling attack - thats their problem not ours.

>Swann hasn't had a bad series yet?

Er yes. I think if you think a bit more about it you'll discover that was precisely what I was saying there.

Bopara has had 2 bad series, the one against Sri Lanka he was forgiven for, came back and did very well against WI, and then had a stinker against Australia. "Plenty" is perhaps a small exaggeration?

Now, go look at Bell's first 3 series. A promising start against a weak WI team. Making hay against Bangladesh. And then a performance only slightly better against Australia in 2005 than Bopara's (avge 17 vs. Bopara's 15). (And on that latter figure - Dave, you're wrong ) Does that sound a bit familiar?

And then a couple of other real stinker series for Bell, averaging in the 16s in successive part-series vs. WI and NZ in 2008/2009. And guess what, there was a clamour of voices from Joe Q public around that time saying almost exactly the same as you are saying about Bopara now. Flair but no temperament for the big game. etc. etc. etc. Should never be considered for England ever again.

Claiming Morgan as clearly above Bopara in the pecking order of hopefuls both now and years into the future seems a bit rash, since to my eyes he seems to be in exactly the same boat. A flair player who has had some (but limited) success at test level, then dropped out of the team, hoping he might get another chance in the future to make his mark and convince that he is ready to be counted on.

Not sure what "temperance" has to do with playing cricket?

Leaving aside the selection issues, how long do folk reckon England should bat for on Monday ?

I'd say go hammer and tongs for about 75 mins and then declare.

guthroth wrote:Leaving aside the selection issues, how long do folk reckon England should bat for on Monday ?

I'd say go hammer and tongs for about 75 mins and then declare.

There is the argument that as things will be starting 30 minutes earlier and there has been rain that we could hope to make a dent in their top order right from the get go.

It will be a difficult decission.

ShrubMiK wrote:Bopara has had 2 bad series, the one against Sri Lanka he was forgiven for, came back and did very well against WI, and then had a stinker against Australia. "Plenty" is perhaps a small exaggeration?

Now, go look at Bell's first 3 series. A promising start against a weak WI team. Making hay against Bangladesh. And then a performance only slightly better against Australia in 2005 than Bopara's (avge 17 vs. Bopara's 15). (And on that latter figure - Dave, you're wrong ) Does that sound a bit familiar?

Bopara's test series v Australia
Bat 1 Bat 2
35 1
18 27
23 -
1 0

That totals 105 runs and with seven outs that gives an average of exactly 15. Repeat after me - Dave is Right.

And then a couple of other real stinker series for Bell, averaging in the 16s in successive part-series vs. WI and NZ in 2008/2009. And guess what, there was a clamour of voices from Joe Q public around that time saying almost exactly the same as you are saying about Bopara now. Flair but no temperament for the big game. etc. etc. etc. Should never be considered for England ever again.

Perhaps somewhat unfairly, English batting is a lot stronger now than it was when Ian Bell entered the team - Ian Bell also had the knack of producing a big innings just when it looked likely he was about to get dropped. Indeed Bell has been dropped on more than one occasion.

Claiming Morgan as clearly above Bopara in the pecking order of hopefuls both now and years into the future seems a bit rash, since to my eyes he seems to be in exactly the same boat. A flair player who has had some (but limited) success at test level, then dropped out of the team, hoping he might get another chance in the future to make his mark and convince that he is ready to be counted on.

Morgan is clearly above Bopara in the pecking order, as is James Hildreth. Morgan was brought in to have a go at Test Match Cricket, had a reasonable start, made a big 100 against Pakistan and then had a few poor scores. Still averages 32 though, which isn't bad after only six tests, all of which were in England. Morgan is also clearly favoured by the selectors as he is only 24 and has a bigger future than Bopara who has been discarded.

Not sure what "temperance" has to do with playing cricket?

Everything. According to Shane Warner, Nasser Hussain, David Lloyds, Ian Botham, Mike Atherton, Michael Holding ...

nikgaukroger wrote:Worth noting that in our last 2 innings we are 834-3 so far ...

Now 1068-5

hammy wrote:

guthroth wrote:Leaving aside the selection issues, how long do folk reckon England should bat for on Monday ?

I'd say go hammer and tongs for about 75 mins and then declare.

There is the argument that as things will be starting 30 minutes earlier and there has been rain that we could hope to make a dent in their top order right from the get go.

It will be a difficult decission.

Weather forecast is, I think, for disruption over the next 2 days but I'm not sure how much. IMO if it looks like it might swing put them in straight away and let Jimmy at 'em, otherwise maybe 45 - 80 mins of thrashing and then get them in.

I would bat if the light looks poor and put on runs (never take your foot off the throat of an Aussie while he is still breathing). If the light looks good, get out there and bowl at them from the off, hoping the extra mosture allows some swing. If we are going to win the test match we have to take 20 wickets and this looks a good track so need some time to do it.

one day minus one over should be enough to bowl the Aussies out again

I would bat until lunch, the Aussies have been in the field for the best part of two days - another morning will surely tire them out even further. This effect cannot be under-estimated when deciding when to put another team in. If the batsmen are tired, they won't be able to concentrate as much as they would normally.

Give Anderson and Broad a six over blast before luch. If we get a wicket then the Aussies will be panicking over lunch.

Mental disintegration at it's best

I think England would be best served batting again this morning (should it be clear and fine) to force the Aussies to think they might face yet another day in the field. England should then declare an hour before lunch to provide maximum unease to already tired batsmen.
England cannot lose this test but they need to maximise their chance of winning.

Paul.

I think that England should really get their clog down, flay the Australian attack all over the park and then declare then they get a lead of, ooh, let us say 375 runs

dave_r wrote:I think that England should really get their clog down, flay the Australian attack all over the park and then declare then they get a lead of, ooh, let us say 375 runs

Now if it wassn't for the time stamp on that post Mr Ruddock I would have said that you were psychic

hammy wrote: Now if it wassn't for the time stamp on that post Mr Ruddock I would have said that you were psychic

Psychotic I'd agree with

TMS & The Saffers allow us overseas types to listen to home games via the internet, but not so ABC, bastards....

It's looking like an early night, for once.

Great result !

Roll on the 3rd test.

A good morning - as we cleaned up quickly I was able to get up, watch a replay of the whole session and still get to work early

Six out, all out seems to be the motto

Wonder who we'll pick to replace Broad - I think I'd go for Tremlett on balance.

Aussies need to replace Katich at the top - not sure they have anyone of any quality there - find a proper spinner, and will probably change their pace attack again. So 2 changes after the 1st test and 3 more after the 2nd probably means they'll have to keep some other under-performers for continuity. Reckon they need big runs from Punter to stand any chance now ...

They need twenty wickets more than anything and I can't see it with this attack. It's like being savaged by a hamster.

To have any chance of getting the urn back the Aussies need a lot more than big runs from Punter. They need to take 20 wickets in a test twice and they have not managed to take 20 in two tests so far

Now we need to see if Punter goes down as the only Aussie skipper to lose three Ashes series. I think we can be pretty sure that the Ashes will still be ours come the new year.

Just wish I could have afforded to make the 250K bet on us wining the series that someone reportedly placed.