English Cricket
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: English Cricket
Whats the big deal? You win some, you lose some. There's always next time.
-
shock the monkey
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: English Cricket
You obviously never watched english cricket in the 90's. Losing at home to New Zealand was a much bigger low (at that time).
Let's examine the evidence.
-Weaker english team
-Bowling with the Kookaburra ball instead of the Duke which is far less conductive to reverse swing, which Australia couldn't play last time around.
-No Simon Jones, England's best reverse and most accurate swing bowler.
-A Fit Glenn McGrath
-Australian home advantage
-They took England a lot more seriously this time
-No Michael Vaughan, meaning Flintoff spread himself too thinly.
-Australia played to their capabilities which is better than anything that English touring party could put up
Let's examine the evidence.
-Weaker english team
-Bowling with the Kookaburra ball instead of the Duke which is far less conductive to reverse swing, which Australia couldn't play last time around.
-No Simon Jones, England's best reverse and most accurate swing bowler.
-A Fit Glenn McGrath
-Australian home advantage
-They took England a lot more seriously this time
-No Michael Vaughan, meaning Flintoff spread himself too thinly.
-Australia played to their capabilities which is better than anything that English touring party could put up
-
shock the monkey
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: English Cricket
Flintoff can't do captain, batsman and bowler. Too much pressure. Botham couldn't manage it either.
I can't see a way back for Trescothick or Giles now. Giles has had his time. Monty is far more agressive and likely to get wicket on turning pitches. Apart from one occasion in my mind, Giles has always been a containing bowler.
If Cook gets another century then Tres. shouldn't be asked back. Ignoring the personal issues there are fundamental technique errors that too many bowlers now pick on and it's probably too late to change.
Fletcher probably should leave after the world cup. He took England from second bottom to joint second in the rankings. His effect on the limited overs has been minimal as we continue to struggle. Four years is long enough regardless of how England perform in the last two tests.
I can't see a way back for Trescothick or Giles now. Giles has had his time. Monty is far more agressive and likely to get wicket on turning pitches. Apart from one occasion in my mind, Giles has always been a containing bowler.
If Cook gets another century then Tres. shouldn't be asked back. Ignoring the personal issues there are fundamental technique errors that too many bowlers now pick on and it's probably too late to change.
Fletcher probably should leave after the world cup. He took England from second bottom to joint second in the rankings. His effect on the limited overs has been minimal as we continue to struggle. Four years is long enough regardless of how England perform in the last two tests.
-
tommy dickfingers
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: English Cricket
we have a younger side than last year while the aussies have visibly looked much older,this was their swansong i doubt we will see these players again they may have some good younger players to come but ours are playing right now,cook 21,panesar 24,bell 25,with stuart broad to come as well gaining experience in test cricket,ashes coming back 2009.
Re: English Cricket
The fundamental problem is that there are far too many overseas players and coaches in the county game. They are blocking the new young potential from coming through!