| 
Posts and words
Loading ...I dont see why Pietersen and Thorpe cant play in the same team as Shane Warne said. Whats the harm if Thorpe bats at 5, Pietersen 6 and Flintoff 7 ?? I see no need to include 3 seam bowlers other than Flintoff – 1 of them – almost definitely Simon Jones (or James Anderson or whoever) is going to be underbowled and wasted.
So I would go with:
Tresco, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Thorpe, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Hoggard Harmisson
D-day (or “A-Day!”) tomorrow for Pietersen
By Will 5 years ago, mid-July Add your comment below
Tomorrow, the ECB will announce a selection of England’s finest players to take on the Australians in one of the oldest sporting contests in the world, The Ashes. It is D-Day – or should that be “A-Day!” (Ashes-Day for those unfamiliar with my sense of humour…)
Ah, The Ashes. Those two short words conjure so much for so many. But tomorrow, either one of Graham Thorpe or Kevin Pietersen will not wish to hear them uttered again. The squad can only include one of them – will it be the young talent, or the old war horse? Just before posting this, I was dead-set on backing Kevin Pietersen…but I’m still not sure. England’s batting capitulation in the NatWest Challenge matches could tempt Graveney into going back to Thorpe – with the emphasis on “back,” for it would certainly be a backward decision. And this is my, and the rest of England’s dilemma; Thorpe could provide reliable, stodgy runs and a hundred or two. But we all know he’s retiring come September. Pietersen, on the other hand, has the ability to hit a hundred in a session and, whilst he’s still young, he has the aggression and talent to succeed.
The announcement is due tomorrow morning at 11.30 – I’ll post more then, or soon after.
Tags: australia, david-graveney, ECB, england, graham-thorpe, kevin-pietersen, kevin-pieterson, selections, the-ashes |
9 Responses to “D-day (or “A-Day!”) tomorrow for Pietersen”
July 14th, 2005 at 2.07 am
July 14th, 2005 at 3.34 am
Gaurav, why change the combination of the bowling which has worked so well for England for the last one and half years in the crucial first test of the Ashes?
July 14th, 2005 at 5.19 am
I think that’s a great idea, Gaurav.
Pratyush – why make a change now? Because England need batting depth against Australia. If they can bat all the way down to Jones at 8, then that’s quite a potent mix.
July 14th, 2005 at 6.23 am
A significant part of England’s success over the last year or so has been due to each of the bowler’s chipping in with two or three wickets. It’s been fairly rare that just a couple of them have run through batting line ups. They’ve really bowled as a team, which inclines me against going in with only four bowlers. There’s also concern about overbowling Flintoff, of course.
Myself, I’d go with Thorpe and Pietersen. Thorpe is as good a bet as any to make valuable runs and Pietersen is hard to resist. Seems like the selectors have decided runs against Banglandesh have earnt Bell a place though.
July 14th, 2005 at 7.34 am
England can play both Thorpe & Pieterson.
Tresco
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Thorpe
Pietersen
Flintoff
Geraint Jones
Simon Jones
Hoggard
Harmisson
You need five bowlers to beat Australia. Giles bowls tight but will be innefective in terms of taking wickets.
July 14th, 2005 at 7.42 am
it is a toughie, darryl. Theyneed the batting depth, yes. But if they wish ti win against the Aussies, they really need to take those 20 wickets.
Dropping Bell would mean the selectors admitting that he needn’t have been picked in the Bangla series. They’d do so only if they really felt KP’s case was that
July 14th, 2005 at 8.32 am
Gaurav I think Warney’s suggestion is great. Especially for the first test, because I dont think Eng should try too hard for a win at Lords. Its going to favour Aus more because of their batting (in the current form) and also because McG and Warney can do their stuff on almost any surface in any condition. So they should go for longer batting in first game, play a little safer. Doesn’t mean they shouldnt play for a win in the game itself. Just be aware that for Eng, its the series that matters more than a game.
And I dont see why Flintoff cannot be treated as a complete bowler, unless he is still carrying remains of the injury ? And btw, I feel Vaughan should use himself more in bowling.
July 14th, 2005 at 10.50 am
It is a tough one. Sides very rarely choose one of their batsman as one of their front line bowlers, and i think there’s a good reason for it (yes, i know that because there aren’t many Flintoffs around has a lot to do with it)But you have to be careful not to ask too much from one player. If Flintoff was to bat a whole day then have to do a lot of bowling the next day it would be safe to say he’d be fair buggered.
Do England want to be wearing this bloke out?
On top of all that, England do need 20 wickets because i doubt ponting will be doing in unruthless declarations. Although, if you english are confident of bowling Australia out for under 400 without Giles or Jones then go ahead because an extra batsman would be a great asset! I’m undecided, but if anything i agree witht Worma. If the only reason you want to keep Jones in for either KP or Thorpe out is because you are afraid of not being able to get the Australian’s out, you might as well get rid of Giles because he won’t be taking a hell of a lot of wickets and the extra batting that would be provided would probably out weigh his excluded bowling. And for all those who want giles for variation…i don’t really think that’s going to matter at all.
July 14th, 2005 at 11.26 am
Picking 7 batsmen never seems to work for England. It’s almost as if subconcsiously the players think there’s always another batsman to get the runs. By all means have bowlers who can bat but 7 specialists rarely works IMHO.
I know you shouldn’t pick a team thinking a bowler might get injured but knowing the track record of the England team that is also a possibility.
The ability to do something with a ball 50 overs old must also be a factor. Simon Jones can take wickets with the old one and would be worth his place for that alone. Yes Jones has been underused lately. But that has as much to do with Bangladesh not being able to bat for more than fifty overs. I can’t see Australia being skittled in less than 3 1/2 hours a la Bangladesh, so the more bowling options the better as far as I’m concerned.
Doesn’t really answer the Thorpe v Pieterson question though!!
Comments
« I’m famous | Main | Graham Thorpe misses out to Kevin Pietersen »
