aussies go in 1-0 up, England now very much worried about their batting as they failed to register 200 in either innings and without Trott.
Selection issues include who to replace Trott with, much talk of including Stokes although the five bowler approach in 06/07 with Flintoff filling that role resulted in a 0-5 whitewash
England are nearly done on their two day warm-up game against a Cricket Australia Chairman's XI. Worries for England batting continue as Root makes just 22 & 1, Carberry made 6 1st innings but is currently 30no. Bairstow kept wicket, a quite sensible move to test him and let Prior bat, he made 31no but whether his form will be enough to displace Prior I doubt.
Prior made just 19 batting up the order, new boy Ballance made 55 1st innings and is 8no 2nd time around. Stokes made a decent but not particularly persuasive 28 from 54 balls and bowled just 13 overs.
Neither Rankin nor Finn made a strong case for inclusion in the 2nd Test XI, 1/52 and 0/61 respectively as the spinners did the rest of the damage
Can't help but think of the aussie debates over playing an extra bowler when the batting was struggling in the summer. For me the main difference is more the potential of the batsman/all-rounder to make a big score, while I might not rate Compton say, I would rate his chances of making a hundred many times ahead of those of Stokes.
So while Stokes might rip through the middle order, the chances are he would only bowl a lot if England were struggling to take wickets and I'd be happy if he made a 30 or 40, delighted if he could make a decent fifty. For me Stokes should be/have been playing more ODIs before we put him in the Test XI.
As powerful and destructive a batsman as Flintoff was, he did not score many big scores. He made just five hundreds, two of them batting at seven, and not one in his four years of Tests after his 102 against the aussies in the 2005 Ashes series. Two were against the West Indies, one against New Zealand and only two against top sides in Australia (102) and South Africa (142)
The point of that Flintoff hundred summary? He was about as rounded an all-rounder as we've had in recent times, fully capable, and still didn't produce as many runs as we might have hoped. While his career average might have been decent, it was on a par with that of Hick whose batting was considered overall a disappointment/failure.
His hundreds don't maketh the batsman, but do point towards a crucial missing element from him as does his lack of 10wm and poor return of 5wis. In fairness his split against top sides isn't too bad, but he was capable of so much better if maybe he'd done like Broad and used his bowling ability.
vs SAF/IND/AUS/PAK/SRL
99 inns, 2671 runs @ 29.03 (HS 142, 100 x2, 50 x19)
167 wkts @ 34.97 . SR 70.71, ER 2.97 (BB 5/78, 10wm x0, 5wi x2)
vs BAN/NZE/WIN/ZIM
31 inns, 1174 runs @ 40.48 (HS 167, 100 x3, 50 x7)
59 wkts @ 26.61 . SR 53.27, ER 3.00 (BB 5/54, 10wm x0, 5wi x1)
Point overall is will Stokes even remotely fill Flintoff's boots and if we couldn't make runs in 06/07 with Flintoff in the side, what chances with Stokes holding a role and making 6-11 vulnerable?
Selection issues include who to replace Trott with, much talk of including Stokes although the five bowler approach in 06/07 with Flintoff filling that role resulted in a 0-5 whitewash
England are nearly done on their two day warm-up game against a Cricket Australia Chairman's XI. Worries for England batting continue as Root makes just 22 & 1, Carberry made 6 1st innings but is currently 30no. Bairstow kept wicket, a quite sensible move to test him and let Prior bat, he made 31no but whether his form will be enough to displace Prior I doubt.
Prior made just 19 batting up the order, new boy Ballance made 55 1st innings and is 8no 2nd time around. Stokes made a decent but not particularly persuasive 28 from 54 balls and bowled just 13 overs.
Neither Rankin nor Finn made a strong case for inclusion in the 2nd Test XI, 1/52 and 0/61 respectively as the spinners did the rest of the damage
Can't help but think of the aussie debates over playing an extra bowler when the batting was struggling in the summer. For me the main difference is more the potential of the batsman/all-rounder to make a big score, while I might not rate Compton say, I would rate his chances of making a hundred many times ahead of those of Stokes.
So while Stokes might rip through the middle order, the chances are he would only bowl a lot if England were struggling to take wickets and I'd be happy if he made a 30 or 40, delighted if he could make a decent fifty. For me Stokes should be/have been playing more ODIs before we put him in the Test XI.
As powerful and destructive a batsman as Flintoff was, he did not score many big scores. He made just five hundreds, two of them batting at seven, and not one in his four years of Tests after his 102 against the aussies in the 2005 Ashes series. Two were against the West Indies, one against New Zealand and only two against top sides in Australia (102) and South Africa (142)
The point of that Flintoff hundred summary? He was about as rounded an all-rounder as we've had in recent times, fully capable, and still didn't produce as many runs as we might have hoped. While his career average might have been decent, it was on a par with that of Hick whose batting was considered overall a disappointment/failure.
His hundreds don't maketh the batsman, but do point towards a crucial missing element from him as does his lack of 10wm and poor return of 5wis. In fairness his split against top sides isn't too bad, but he was capable of so much better if maybe he'd done like Broad and used his bowling ability.
vs SAF/IND/AUS/PAK/SRL
99 inns, 2671 runs @ 29.03 (HS 142, 100 x2, 50 x19)
167 wkts @ 34.97 . SR 70.71, ER 2.97 (BB 5/78, 10wm x0, 5wi x2)
vs BAN/NZE/WIN/ZIM
31 inns, 1174 runs @ 40.48 (HS 167, 100 x3, 50 x7)
59 wkts @ 26.61 . SR 53.27, ER 3.00 (BB 5/54, 10wm x0, 5wi x1)
Point overall is will Stokes even remotely fill Flintoff's boots and if we couldn't make runs in 06/07 with Flintoff in the side, what chances with Stokes holding a role and making 6-11 vulnerable?
Last edited:
