4th Test: Australia v England at The MCG, 26-30 Dec

[bigred]

I agree that there is no point in playing Panesar. I've never rated him, and it seems now that Cook doesn't rate him. However we'll have to play a spinner in Sydney. If they've got any sense they'll give Borthwick a go. Tom Fordyce's report for the BBC is exactly right. This is the death of a team. Let's move on and pick some new players. Let's give Robson, Ballance, Ali, Bopara, Stokes, Buttler, Borthwick, Finn, Rankin and Overton a two series run in the side. It will probably get worse before it gets better, but we can't continue like this.

As for the captaincy, I'm not sure what they should do. If you get rid of Cook it would have to be Bell or Broad. Bell is definitely not up to it and Broad is an arrogant t**t.May have to stick with Cook for a while.

 

[barmyarmy]

The only player in the side I ever thought of as having enough of a tactical brain to be captain was Swann. I guess we just have to hope that Cook learns his trade; when attack, how to attack etc but it's painful watching his field placings and bowler changes at present. Strauss was just as guilty of it but he got away with it because his team was playing better.

 

[fk915]

Monty and swann started their test careers around the same time but for some reason swann given more chances than monty. Even he saved one test as a batsman in 2009 he was dropped after that . I was surprised . Imagine if it was swann insread of monty, would they still drop him?
And why cant KP be the next captain? Kick out all players who oppose him, make him captain.

Monty Panesar describes 'nerve-racking' fight to save first Test | Sport | theguardian.com

 

[MUFC1987]

Cook just looks to be done as Captain. So many strange decisions with Panesar and Broad. If he doesn't rate Panesar enough to bowl him, then why was he selected for this tour and playing as the second spinner to Swann earlier in the series? He's a decent enough bowler on a pitch offering a little bit of turn, so why not give him a go? Strange decision like I said.

It would be crazy too if they wanted to play either Borthwick or Tredwell as the main spinner. Tredwell was shocking most of last year in First Class cricket, while Borthwick is just a part time spinner. He could probably do a decent job batting at 6 or 7 and bowling some spin, but to go with him as a first choice spinner would be crazy, even if he would improve the batting down the order.

So many questions after this series though, I just hope that someone, be it the coach or Cook if he carries on, has the guts to drop a few guys and give some others a go. There's plenty of talented guys around that deserve a go at the highest level, so show what they can, or can't do.

 

[War]

Doesn't matter what team ENG play in SCG, same team or untried squad players. They are completely broken and just need to get out of AUS ASAP & start preparing for the 2014 home season vs SRI/IND.

 

[War]

The only player in the side I ever thought of as having enough of a tactical brain to be captain was Swann. I guess we just have to hope that Cook learns his trade; when attack, how to attack etc but it's painful watching his field placings and bowler changes at present. Strauss was just as guilty of it but he got away with it because his team was playing better.

KP lets not forget has a pretty good tactical brain - he showed that during his captaincy stint circa 2008/09. Only reason he ever lost captaincy was the fall out with Peter Moores.

So if in this new era, the hope is to get a very good tactical captain - KP is the best choice really. I don't know that Bell ever had captaincy credentials & Broad as T20 captain has never really stood out.

I agree that there is no point in playing Panesar. I've never rated him, and it seems now that Cook doesn't rate him.

Yes this is eternal problem with Panesar. He has only been bowling well in the last year because Swann was around & masked his deficiencies. He cannot be trusted as the sole spinner in the test side on a consistent basis.

This is why IMO, in the near future ENG should focus on building their attack on the fast bowlers & use a spinner selectively.

Unless they take the controversial option & raid Ireland again for George Dockrell services - their is no young spinner in ENG worth investing in currently

 

[Owzat]

England captains just pass down bad habits from one another, go defensive way too early, unable to handle five bowlers which is why I feel England were best when the captain only had four bowlers to juggle.

Of course now Swann has quit, and I think there is more to it than is public ie think it is internal issues come politics within the camp, most will retire after a series.

I think England need to move on, start bringing in future stars and dump Cook as captain. I wouldn't give it to Broad or Pietersen, wrong personalities and frankly the last thing Pietersen needs is an ego boost.

As for who should take over, hard to say although I'm unconvinced the captain is that big an influence so maybe give it to Bell in the interim until the side has at least got more players in form.

I won't say five bowler theory is the cause of England's downfall, but in four crucial knocks Stokes has made just 52 runs, the 120 and 28 coming in a lost cause and the one 2nd innings could have made a difference he made 19. Add to that the combined keeper making 138 runs @ 17.25 and Broad and Bresnan 117 runs @ 10.64. Not exactly what you want from 6-9 in the order when batting one light, taking aside that Stokes did make some runs when it didn't matter

Broad is the only bowler who has made any impression for England, Pietersen and Bell have both had weak series but are the only two proper batsmen to average over 30 while Stokes' average is artificially boosted, his bowling not really doing enough to warrant inclusion - 7 wkts @ 47.29, although frankly Anderson isn't faring much better and at least Stokes can make some runs albeit not when it matters.

Who would have thought it after the 3-0 in England eh, 0-4 down and facing another whitewash? Well I can say I kinda pointed at the omens by asking if the 3rd Test of that series was the turning point, suggesting a swing in fortunes even if they didn't immediately pay dividends.

Swann was right about players whereabouts relative to the bit they sit on, all too complacent the likes of Cook, KP, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann himself and Anderson. Living off their own legend, few actually playing to half the standard they believe they're at

----------

Monty and swann started their test careers around the same time but for some reason swann given more chances than monty. Even he saved one test as a batsman in 2009 he was dropped after that . I was surprised . Imagine if it was swann insread of monty, would they still drop him?
And why cant KP be the next captain? Kick out all players who oppose him, make him captain.

Monty Panesar describes 'nerve-racking' fight to save first Test | Sport | theguardian.com

Monty first played in India in 2006, Swann two years later also in India. Monty was never going to make the place his long term without taking lots of wickets, when they dried up the focus would zoom even further on his fielding and batting - or lack of in the ability department.

Swann was what England wanted, a Giles that could bowl, bat and field. They got that wish, while Swann's batting has been a tad disappointing and so comparable with Giles, his bowling flourished.

While Monty started off ok, did well at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, then against West Indies, he declined enough to let Swann in and is held in reserve and for tours of India/Sri Lanka and to play Pakistan in UAE.

Even then his record in India and Sri Lanka is fairly ordinary, 28 wkts @ 38.25 in India, 10 wkts @ 50.60 in Sri Lanka. You can't carry a non-batsman like that without him being a very good bowler, Monty is no more than ok.

Swann on the other had took 28 wkts @ 28.96 in India, 16 @ 22.19 in Sri Lanka. Overall he's been better than most England spinners, but nowhere near as good as the hype

 

[barmyarmy]

Anderson has said that having a 5th bowler allows him to put more into his spells and bowl quicker knowing he will get a longer rest.

 

[Owzat]

Anderson has said that having a 5th bowler allows him to put more into his spells and bowl quicker knowing he will get a longer rest.

I never cease to be amazed what sportsmen say that means absolutely nothing.

He's put more into his spells and done nada, woohoo!

The captain should be reassuring him that he will get rests and only bowling two spells per session, after all with three sessions and a bowler only expecting to bowl say 24 overs in the day, he shouldn't be bowling much more than 10 in a session unless England are pushing to finish the innings off anyway

And I don't buy it anyway, England have been playing four bowlers for ages when he's bowled better, it's as likely to be excusism as anything else. With Stokes in the side for three Tests Anderson's "more into his spells" has added up to 1/85, 2/19, 2/60, 0/105, 4/67 and 0/26 so nine wickets in three Tests, not a convincing argument.

The problem has been Anderson not really bowling at his best, nor Swann, and no matter how much resting or indeed how many bowlers you throw at the opposition, you can't win matches when only one or two bowlers are firing at best, and the batsmen are not scoring enough runs.

When England won down under last time around, England utilised four bowlers except Anderson took 24 wickets, Finn 14, Bresnan 11, Tremlett 17 and Swann 15. Also Cook, Swann, Pietersen, Bell, Strauss and Prior were all scoring runs. What's changed? Pretty much everything, but apparently they're now bowling worse because rest is helping them "put in more to spells".

Sorry chief, like a number of the England set up, Anderson's lips are moving but he's talking out of his ar................................ Sports people should focus on doing, not talking. uncle buck and moronho are two fine examples of why interviews with managers should be abolished, likewise in cricket.

 

[PackenHols]

So you want KP to hold one end up when the English lower order & tail can't even manage 10 runs. The last 5 English wkts this series have hardly done anything of note and if KP had remained unbeaten something tells me you would have been on his back calling him out as not being a "team player". Damn he does, damn he doesn't.

I just said that I believe that some of his shots are not run scoring shots but "I'll just have swing and see what happens.". I would rather Pietersen was hitting the ball along the ground. I must admit that he wasn't in the kindest of situations when it comes to batting with the tail. But you have taken the extreme of him being an over aggressive batsman, and changed it to him scoring no runs at all. Which wasn't what I said I wanted from KP.

The last bit of your statement is untrue. I wouldn't criticise him for being nor out at the end of the innings. I can't prove it though, because he hasn't been in that situation recently.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Unless they take the controversial option & raid Ireland again for George Dockrell services - their is no young spinner in ENG worth investing in currently

remember back nearly 3 years ago when you thought I was mental?

(boyd rankin? I know him from somewhere too )

and well, it's already known England are interested in Dockrell seeing as Rashid is going nowhere. Of course, the point is they are keeping the ireland team down NOW, not in the future so they can pick at imaginery talent. If ireland are kept out of the world cup 2015, it's almost a given Paul Stirling and Dockrell will make themselves available to england at the earliest possible opportunity. suits england fine I think.

Their is no guaranteed that Dockrell & Stirling will make themselves available for ENG even in that scenario. They could do like Ryan Ten Doescate & be happy with life in county cricket, possible other options in other domestic competitions around the world & maybe an IPL deal if they improve & are deemed good enough.

Plus their is no guaranteed either than England will go after them. England have a young talented left-arm spinner by the name of Danny Briggs who has been impressive, who England could also conceivable prefer to pick him instead of going for the foreign option in Dockrell. Since ENG selectors in recent years have been known to be reluctant to pick even Kolpak/S Africa players since Pietersen given how it looked i.e Nic Pothas & how long they took to eventually pick Johnathan Trott.

Same thing can be said about Stirling. ENG got a talented young aggressive opener by the name of Alex Hales, plus of course we all know about Kieswetter & Davies.

ENG where interested in Rankin recently also. But the recent influx of impressive English born fast-bowlers that have emerged in the last year, has rendered his chances of playing for ENG irrelevant.

So basically their is enough young talent in ENG coming through to ignore those couple talented Irish players IMO.

 

[fk915]

[/COLOR]

Monty first played in India in 2006, Swann two years later also in India. Monty was never going to make the place his long term without taking lots of wickets, when they dried up the focus would zoom even further on his fielding and batting - or lack of in the ability department.

Swann was what England wanted, a Giles that could bowl, bat and field. They got that wish, while Swann's batting has been a tad disappointing and so comparable with Giles, his bowling flourished.

While Monty started off ok, did well at home against Sri Lanka and Pakistan, then against West Indies, he declined enough to let Swann in and is held in reserve and for tours of India/Sri Lanka and to play Pakistan in UAE.

Even then his record in India and Sri Lanka is fairly ordinary, 28 wkts @ 38.25 in India, 10 wkts @ 50.60 in Sri Lanka. You can't carry a non-batsman like that without him being a very good bowler, Monty is no more than ok.

Swann on the other had took 28 wkts @ 28.96 in India, 16 @ 22.19 in Sri Lanka. Overall he's been better than most England spinners, but nowhere near as good as the hype

I agree most of what you said. Its too late for monty , he is pretty much done like the rest of the team. Their paths are now separate. Even when the rest of the team piss on the pitch, he goes and piss off the pitch.

 

[angryangy]

Stokes did make some runs when it didn't matter

How do you differentiate? England have been so mentally bankrupt that no one player's score has ever mattered at any point in the series. Any substance has always been outweighed by the rush to the exit. The only way to make such scores "count" is for the team to collectively inflate their performance.

 

[War]

remember back nearly 3 years ago when you thought I was mental?

(boyd rankin? I know him from somewhere too )

Uhhhh i don't really recall that discussion or how it started. But judging by the link there, it seems as if you were suggesting back then ENG were trying to keep "Ireland down". I don't believe the ECB does that at all.

Lets be clear my suggestion for "ENG to raid Ireland for Dockrell" was a bit in jest . I doubt the ECB would try to poach him - he would have to do like Rankin & quit Ireland for ENG. However if he doesn't i'm fairy sure ENG won't pursue him & will deal with whatever spin options that emerges on the county scene.

 

[Owzat]

How do you differentiate?

Easily, the situation is VERY different to runs scored in the first innings' and often the third. The aussies were pushing for victory, field settings were set to look for wickets not nearly as balanced between taking wickets and not conceding runs.

Sure he applied himself, but at the end of the day runs didn't really matter, it was about survival. So yes he survived, you can credit him for occupation of the crease, but I would rank a 100 scored 1st innings when needed and when it matters way above any runs scored on the brink of defeat.

Or put another way, England were 121/4 when he came to the crease, still around 380 runs from an incredibly unfeasible win and the aussies closing in on the win themselves. They weren't looking to stop him scoring a hundred, they were looking to take wickets and while he scored 120 out of the 215 runs added before he was dismissed, the aussies weren't thinking "oh no, Stokes is going to win this game from us".

Helped of course they were 2-0 up so wouldn't have mattered too much had they lost, but if you don't appreciate the distinction between runs scored with games in the balance and those scored when the game is over then I can't help you

England have been so mentally bankrupt that no one player's score has ever mattered at any point in the series. Any substance has always been outweighed by the rush to the exit. The only way to make such scores "count" is for the team to collectively inflate their performance.

Of course it made so much mental difference that England went and capitulated in the only match they were in, Stokes making a huge 19 runs when it mattered. All bowlers will pick up cheap wickets, these are what you might call cheap runs, made when runs don't matter to the bowling side.

I doubt England got much out of it, Stokes got a personal milestone and the side might have hoped for more, but when battle recommenced even with the aussies victorious in the series, the lack of England impact would have negated any psychological lift.

Now if England could have forced their upper hand when the aussies were 164/9 in this Test, maybe there would have been some gain. Instead England collapsed from 86/1 to 87/4 and careered on downhill from there.