| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. [http://s8.zetaboards.com/ratetheref/register//]Join our community![/url] If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Second Test Match; Headingley 25-29 May 2007 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Monday, 21. May 2007, 12:12 (833 Views) | |
| crispy | Monday, 21. May 2007, 12:12 Post #1 |
![]()
|
Apparantly, Michael Vaughan has been named captain for the 2nd Test, so you would suspect that means he is playing for definitely!!
:P Good captain, good player - but should he have to prove his fitness in County Cricket? I think Shah has to go, that is the easy one IMO - he has had a poor test. IF Freddie is fit, then who else gives way? Will Hoggard be fit? Is this side a little adventurous, and perhaps a bit "batting heavy"? (assuming Hoggard not fit) Strauss Cook Bell Vaughan (capt) Pietersen Collingwood Flintoff Prior (wkt) Plunkett Harmison Panesar If Hoggard is fit, and Freddie is fit, then the selectors have a problem with who to leave out IMO. I fear it could be Cook or Bell, and that would be extremely unfortunate on them. Strauss is probably the man least in form, but would they drop the captain (and presumably now the vice-captain) from the first test? |
| |
![]() |
|
| crispy | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 12:59 Post #2 |
![]()
|
The XIII announced yesterday include the 11 shown above, plus James Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom. For me, the 11 originally shown should play, dependant on fitness. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The Bull | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 13:30 Post #3 |
![]()
|
I think the team for Second test will be: Vaughan (capt) Cook Bell Pietersen Collingwood Flintoff Prior (wkt) Plunkett Harmison Panesar Anderson This a rather long tail but I think they will almost certainly take 5 bowlers to be on the safe side for Freddie's fitness mainly. I would personally rather see Vaughan go away and play quite a bit of county cricket and score some runs before he is put back into the team. He is IMO the best captain in the world at the moment but he should not be getting into the team for this reason alone. He has not been properly fit and scoring runs for a couple of years now and I think he needs to do this in county cricket before being considered. However, I do think they will pick Vaughan and therefore I can only see them dropping Strauss as all of the other batsmen have just scored centuries in the last game. But IMO the bowling is a serious concern, we need Simon Jones back to full fitness and taking wickets at county cricket and also Hoggard back quickly and then these two would replace two of Anderson/Plunkett/Harmison (Harmison is very short of form and needs to improve or he will soon be considered not good enough!!) (crispy: just amending spelling errors on player's names!) |
| There's no I in team, ....but there is in winning!! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 14:16 Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
I agree with The Bull's team. The rest of our top order picked up a century at Lord's, we can hardly drop any of them. Strauss was out of favour before the test and nothing he did at Lord's can have changed that. |
|
|
| The Bull | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 14:21 Post #5 |
![]()
|
Thanks for letting everyone know that!!! |
| There's no I in team, ....but there is in winning!! | |
![]() |
|
| crispy | Wednesday, 23. May 2007, 14:26 Post #6 |
![]()
|
TBH, the tail isn't any longer than it was at Lord's. Plunkett was #8 there as well. Whilst I agree 100% with the squad, I don't think it will happen. IMO, the selectors will do one of two things: 1) Strauss in for Anderson (assuming Freddie is fit) - bringing us down to 4 bowlers (it might mean Collingwood gets a decent bowl!) 2) Strauss in, and one of the batsmen (probably Bell) will drop out. If one of those two does happen, and I hope it doesn't, then I would prefer option #1. To drop Cook, Collingwood, Bell, Prior [not that dropping a WK will happen!] or Pietersen would be an absolute disgrace IMO. Time will tell.........., but I fear the worst.................... |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Thursday, 24. May 2007, 01:31 Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Flintoff is confirmed as out, so I think it'll have to be: Strauss Cook *Vaughan Pietersen Collingwood Bell +Prior Plunkett Harmison Panesar Anderson I would be highly surprised if Sidebottom played, or if any additional cover call-up was in the XI. |
|
|
| crispy | Thursday, 24. May 2007, 09:42 Post #8 |
![]()
|
Courtesy of Cricinfo:
Personally, 5 bowlers looks better than 4 as we did look very short of bowling at Lord's (Hoggard's injury obviously didn't help) Although, this pushes (presumably) Vaughan to open with cook, Bell to #3,, then Pietersen and Collingwood. Prior moves up to #6, then commence a very long tail with Plunkett (at 7) :| , Harmison (at 8) :-O , Anderson (at 9) :'( , Sidebottom (at 10) :'( and Panesar (at 11). :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :| :| WI will be very happy once they have 5 wickets I'm suspecting! |
| |
![]() |
|
| greeny | Thursday, 24. May 2007, 20:16 Post #9 |
Member
|
Plunkett is capable of runs, and Harmison can hit a cricket ball well on a good day, but Anderson and Sidebottom are inept, Panesar less so. |
![]() |
|
| crispy | Friday, 25. May 2007, 08:46 Post #10 |
![]()
|
Yeah, they are - but you would be surprised if they put more than 80 runs on between them. A quality #7 you would like to score those runs himself. Plunkett aint ever going to do that!! Weather for Headingley looks to be set fair for today and tomorrow, with the last 3 days set for some rain (particularly Sunday and Monday). Have England been watching the weather forecast after the last test. |
| |
![]() |
|
| crispy | Friday, 25. May 2007, 12:52 Post #11 |
![]()
|
So, Strauss retained his place, and James Anderson misses out. That's fine if Strauss gets a decent score, but it might as well have been Anderson opening the batting after Mr Andrew Strauss makes another failure, scoring the grand sum of 15. Vaughan looks to be making heavy weather of getting in, but he seems to be fit, and gradually accumulating runs. I, for one, am very happy to see Sidebottom in the side. A bit of variety, left arm bowlers are not too prevalent in the game, and they are definitely worth their salt - if they are good enough. Time will tell with Ryan. |
| |
![]() |
|
| crispy | Friday, 25. May 2007, 15:13 Post #12 |
![]()
|
Got to say, I love the way the records work. Vaughan and Pietersen have just (by scoring a 100 partnership): scored the Highest Partnership........ ......for the 3rd wicket...... .........against West Indies...... ............at Headingley...... i.e. that's the 12th test between WI and England at Headingley - just makes me laugh the way they actually think it's a significant achievement!!! :unsure: |
| |
![]() |
|
| microscopist | Friday, 25. May 2007, 18:20 Post #13 |
|
Member
|
Spare a thought for James Anderson - carries bags around for the best part of a year when he's hardly allowed to play for Lancashire, gets to bowl on the most batsmen friendly pitches in Australia and then gets dropped for Perth. Gets called out of the Lancashire match to stand by in case Flintoff isn't fit - Flintoff isn't fit and yet he still gets sent back to Lancashire; called up again and not selected. But I don't hear complaints and he always gives it his best shot - OK there are a couple of better bowlers but for attitude (except when he's led astray by Flintoff in the middle of the night) I don't think you can fault him. |
| AKA Cassandra | |
![]() |
|
| Mackem ref | Friday, 25. May 2007, 18:50 Post #14 |
![]() ![]()
|
Pietersens innings has to be one of his best in a while. Must say the last couple of overs were extremely tedious! |
| Life's a bitch, and then you die | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 26. May 2007, 12:18 Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
Pietersen has finally beaten his best test score of 158, lets hope he betters it by a sizeable amount. Prior has also made a 50 as we continue to motor along nicely towards another huge 1st innings score. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Saturday, 26. May 2007, 16:24 Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
WI 77/4 last time I looked. Anyone reckon we could be looking at an innings win? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 27. May 2007, 11:46 Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
:oops: |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 27. May 2007, 12:09 Post #18 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would be highly surprised if he lost his place
Judging by the performances so far, I think it matters diddly quit what the tail is!! |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 27. May 2007, 12:29 Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
At risk of being wrong again, I would be highly surprised if he retained his place when Fred and Hoggy return. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 27. May 2007, 12:35 Post #20 |
|
Deleted User
|
So would I, although maybe they'll keep him in place of Plunkett, for example. |
|
|
| crispy | Tuesday, 29. May 2007, 13:28 Post #21 |
![]()
|
That was WI's biggest EVER test defeat. That really put the selectors in a quandry. Vaughan, who might have been one to miss out scored a valuable ton. Now, has got to be the time for Strauss to go if Freddie is coming back (although looking doubtful for the third test) Bowling wise - another dilemma - can Sidebottom be dropped after that performance? Not in my opinion. So then we look to Plunkett or Harmison if Hoggard comes back in (again, 50/50 for the third test) It's a nice position to be in, but I just hope the selectors make the big decisions, and those players who look to be indispenceable are actually considered for the axe. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 29. May 2007, 13:38 Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
Looking at matches recently, I'm just wondering whether Strauss is kept because he does a goob job in the field? Other than that, I'd agree with getting rid of him and bringing Freddie back. But as for the bowling attack, do we really need to change it? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 29. May 2007, 14:35 Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
I think Hoggy should come back in, especially in these early summer conditions. I agree we can't drop Sidebottom after that performance (in spite of my previous comments), meaning one of the 2 Durham lads would have to drop out, probably Plunkett. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 29. May 2007, 17:54 Post #24 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'd be tempted to drop Harmison. From what I've read and heard he hasn't been firing on all cylinders lately and it'd be a good more for the future to give someone else a chance. Or has Plunkett been around longer than I think he has? |
|
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 29. May 2007, 18:18 Post #25 |
|
Deleted User
|
They're both as inconsistent as each other really. The point has been made by some experts that Kerplunk would benefit from a bit more time with Durham, and I think that's probably fair. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Cricket · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









1:47 AM Jul 11