undyingking (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
undyingking) wrote2009-08-04 11:12 am
undyingking) wrote2009-08-04 11:12 am
Entry tags:
OK then, what about changing a drawing team?
Last week I wondered whether England would change the team that won at Lord's, and concluded that they should but probably wouldn't -- which was correct, apart from them being forced to replace the injured Pietersen with Bell. This week, perhaps a trickier question: that team drew at Edgbaston, so will they keep them the same for the match starting at Headingley on Friday?
Looking first at the batting, we wondered last week whether Bopara would be dropped for Bell. The case for dropping Bopara is even stronger now, as he did certainly no better -- but now that Bell is in the side anyway, that would mean finding yet another likely candidate. My feeling is that they won't want to rock the boat any more, and will persist with Bopara in the hope that he will come good at some point. I tend to agree, not because I think he deserves to stay, but because it's not obvious that anyone brought in to replace him would be an improvement.
The bowling -- and the lower-order batting, as we seem to have now come to rely upon it -- is more complicated. Flintoff, who is clearly pretty severely injured, reversed his perfomance of Lord's -- this time, he was great with the bat, but hopeless with the ball. He went back to bowling far too short, his old bad habit which has kept him from taking wickets throughout his career. I can't imagine him being left out unless his leg is actually falling off -- for morale reasons if no other -- but he can only be counted as half a bowler, which is quite a luxury at number 7.
Anderson and Onions have looked the only bowlers capable of running through the Australian batting -- admittedly, only when the conditions favour swing, but we have to make the most of those opportunities. Broad, whom I've criticized steadily, actually bowled his best all summer in the last innings -- and, of course, batted very well. Swann bowled dreadfully (have you ever seen so many full tosses in a Test?), but holds down the spinner's place by default it seems.
If Flintoff is ruled out, it's easy: move Broad, Swann and Anderson up a place, and bring Harmison in. It makes a potentially collapsible tail, but gives the best chance of taking 20 wickets whatever the conditions might be. If Flintoff stays, it's more difficult. Bringing in Harmison for Broad would severely weaken the batting, so it would be a gamble on conditions being dry and bouncy enough to really suit his bowling. A damp forecast might mean he could be brought in for Swann, but I can't see this England management risking being without a spinner -- and if we're definitely expecting swing, Sidebottom might be preferred in any case.
But my prediction is that it'll be an unchanged team. Unless they actually lose a match, they will be very wary of disturbing things. Harmison may feel hard done-by, but if we win the series without him, I don't care about that. If we do lose at Headingley, on the other hand, he'll be ideally placed to storm back at the Oval -- surely the ground which best suits him, anyway -- and prove his detractors wrong by winning the match for us.
Looking first at the batting, we wondered last week whether Bopara would be dropped for Bell. The case for dropping Bopara is even stronger now, as he did certainly no better -- but now that Bell is in the side anyway, that would mean finding yet another likely candidate. My feeling is that they won't want to rock the boat any more, and will persist with Bopara in the hope that he will come good at some point. I tend to agree, not because I think he deserves to stay, but because it's not obvious that anyone brought in to replace him would be an improvement.
The bowling -- and the lower-order batting, as we seem to have now come to rely upon it -- is more complicated. Flintoff, who is clearly pretty severely injured, reversed his perfomance of Lord's -- this time, he was great with the bat, but hopeless with the ball. He went back to bowling far too short, his old bad habit which has kept him from taking wickets throughout his career. I can't imagine him being left out unless his leg is actually falling off -- for morale reasons if no other -- but he can only be counted as half a bowler, which is quite a luxury at number 7.
Anderson and Onions have looked the only bowlers capable of running through the Australian batting -- admittedly, only when the conditions favour swing, but we have to make the most of those opportunities. Broad, whom I've criticized steadily, actually bowled his best all summer in the last innings -- and, of course, batted very well. Swann bowled dreadfully (have you ever seen so many full tosses in a Test?), but holds down the spinner's place by default it seems.
If Flintoff is ruled out, it's easy: move Broad, Swann and Anderson up a place, and bring Harmison in. It makes a potentially collapsible tail, but gives the best chance of taking 20 wickets whatever the conditions might be. If Flintoff stays, it's more difficult. Bringing in Harmison for Broad would severely weaken the batting, so it would be a gamble on conditions being dry and bouncy enough to really suit his bowling. A damp forecast might mean he could be brought in for Swann, but I can't see this England management risking being without a spinner -- and if we're definitely expecting swing, Sidebottom might be preferred in any case.
But my prediction is that it'll be an unchanged team. Unless they actually lose a match, they will be very wary of disturbing things. Harmison may feel hard done-by, but if we win the series without him, I don't care about that. If we do lose at Headingley, on the other hand, he'll be ideally placed to storm back at the Oval -- surely the ground which best suits him, anyway -- and prove his detractors wrong by winning the match for us.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This suggests to me that the current plan is not to change the team. I don't see how they can play Trott, Flintoff and 3 other bowlers, since that's a dodgy leg away from "3 bowlers". So I assume this is some kind of contingency where if Flintoff can't play, they drop Broad and take Trott and whoever looks likeliest in the conditions.
Replacing Broad with Harmison or Sidebottom seems risky as you say. On current form you might just as well replace Bopara with a bowler. But if Broad's not performing with the ball and Harmison is, then Harmy's bowling is worth more than Broad's 30 average, so it might be the right thing to do anyway.
no subject
"3 bowlers and Collingwood", to be fair. And Trott for Bopara would be courageous, to say the least, which is why I'm assuming Trott is there as an optional 6th batsman, not as a threat to the current batting order.
no subject
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/8182609.stm
no subject
Let's not forget that Bopara bowls too -- not all that well yesterday, but he has 100 or so first-class wickets, and nearly got another. Together with Collingwood, he can take a bit of pressure off in the four-bowler scenario.
I suspect the management won't shed too many tears over Australia reaching 350/2, if that's happened because of lack of movement in the air -- as their bowlers will also largely rely on swing to get our own batsmen out.