Date: 2008-07-30 05:33 pm (UTC)
There's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on. Broad is a better choice than Collingwood, because he's performing better with bat and ball. But Harmison is a better choice than Broad because of his bowling, and Collingwood is a better choice than Harmison because we desperately need a proper batsman at 6.

So it boils down to what shape the team should be. I guess the selectors are scared of Flintoff/Ambrose at 6/7, whoever comes after. But since Collingwood wasn't good enough to keep them at 7/8 at Headingley, I don't see why he's the man for the job at Edgbaston: if we aren't prepared to call Flintoff or Ambrose a batsman, then we should pick someone in form for number 6.

Then again, I like all-rounders anyway, so I want to give Broad every chance to turn into a good one, even if it does mean Flintoff at 6. If he really is fatigued, fair enough, we have to rotate him. Since we don't have another Test all-rounder it's a tricky choice. I'd understand replacing him with either a bowler (Harmison) or with a batsman (Shah? Ramprakash!), but having sent Collingwood away to find form, declaring that he's done so less than two weeks later because he had a good one-day knock is just bizarre.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

undyingking: (Default)
undyingking

March 2012

S M T W T F S
     123
4 5678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2025 04:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios