SA Footy

This is a major problem for England. I feel a bit sorry for G.Jones, in that Read is no better a batsman it seems, and that the only reason people where hot on Jones' hammer was that he was in there for his batting over Read. Read is the better keeper, but that has done almost nothing extra for England - they are still getting caned.

Why on earth have they persisted with 4 bowlers all the way through the series is beyond me. In each Test one of them does nothing at all to improve their attack - they don't get any wickets and seem to have no impact at all; and their whole lower order batting is shocking.

But their main weakness is the lower order; have a look at this for a comparison between the bottom five of each team in the first innings in this Test:

England:
Read: 2
Mahmood: 0
Harmison: 2
Panesar: 0
Anderson: 0*
Total: 4

Australia:
Gilchrist: 62
Warne: 71
Lee: 5
Clark: 35
McGrath: 0*
Total: 173

The Melbourne Test is not much better, even combining both of Englands innings:
England:
Read: 3, 26*
Mahmood: 0, 0
Harmison: 7, 4
Panesar: 4, 14
Hoggard: 9*, 5
Total: 23, 49 72

Australia:
Symonds: 156
Gilchrist: 1
Warne: 40*
Clark: 8
McGrath: 0
Total: 205

It might seem a little unfair to include Symonds in there, but take him out; it's still 49, which was what England got in the 2nd innings when the game was all over.

England are bad enough with the tail end and keeper that they've got comparing it to Australias lower order, so I'm kind of at a loss to understand why they've got to have 4 bowlers like we have.

The England best tailender effort of the series was the first innings in Adelaide.

The general rule of thumb when picking a side is 6 batsmen, keeper, 4 bowlers. If you are lucky enough to get some allrounders or a tail that can bat, good for you. The Windies used to have a 4 or 5 prong pace attack because they knew their batsmen could make runs. The fault isn't with Englands tail but their top order.

Very valid point about England's tailenders but there are a few bunnies at the top of the order too.

Between them, Strauss and Cook haven't made a half-century stand in the Tests all summer. Admittedly they are up against some extremely good bowling but you'd have expected a bit more obduracy from Test-class openers to at least hang around for more than 15 or so overs to ease the pressure on the other batsmen.

Their body language has indicated that they are just expecting to be dismissed at any time.

spell_check wrote:The Melbourne Test

Australia:
Symonds: 156
Gilchrist: 1
Warne: 40*
Clark: 8
McGrath: 0
Total: 205

It might seem a little unfair to include Symonds in there, but take him out; it's still 49, which was what England got in the 2nd innings when the game was all over.

You should include Lee's 0 rather than Symonds' 156 - we are talking about batsmen PICKED at 7-11. But your point is still valid.

McAlmanac wrote:

spell_check wrote:The Melbourne Test

Australia:
Symonds: 156
Gilchrist: 1
Warne: 40*
Clark: 8
McGrath: 0
Total: 205

It might seem a little unfair to include Symonds in there, but take him out; it's still 49, which was what England got in the 2nd innings when the game was all over.

You should include Lee's 0 rather than Symonds' 156 - we are talking about batsmen PICKED at 7-11. But your point is still valid.

Lee was given a chance to move up the order!

McAlmanac wrote:

spell_check wrote:The Melbourne Test

Australia:
Symonds: 156
Gilchrist: 1
Warne: 40*
Clark: 8
McGrath: 0
Total: 205

It might seem a little unfair to include Symonds in there, but take him out; it's still 49, which was what England got in the 2nd innings when the game was all over.

You should include Lee's 0 rather than Symonds' 156 - we are talking about batsmen PICKED at 7-11. But your point is still valid.

Adding Lee instead would keep that 49.

A bigger problem has been England's bowling.

Flintoff's puzzling field placements haven't helped.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many runs they score.

They might have to many bunnies,

BUT

when you are 5 for 100 you are not going to win to many games.

The top order do the hard work early but then they dont go on with it. or when one of them make a score they dont get backed up.

Reid should have played in front of Jones right from the start, if you have a Batsman/Keeper like Gilly who will add more with the bat than he will lose with the gloves its ok, but to have Jones who hardly made a run you might as well have your better keeper playing.

The reason the poms are playing 4 bowlers is that Freddy is not fit and can not be a part of a 3 man pace attack, and they dont have enough faith in thier spinners to bowl enough overs. It could be said that the reason they dont have faith in thier spinners is the Gilies didnt spin it, and then they dont know how to set a field for Monty.

As well as this when you look at the "bunnies" in the team you ask what else do they offer? and the story is bugga all, I would take a bowler who cant make a run any day if he could take 5-for.

Bottom line there is only one spot that they have beaten Aust and that has been Freddy V Symonds and even here they have allowed Simo to find some form.

I wouldnt even think Freddy has beaten Symonds. Even Money id say. Fred bowled really well under duress and dont be surprised if he doesnt play the ODI's and returns home for ankle surgery. His batting has been the difference in this series. In 05 he was pivotal in getting England to 350-400 consistently!!