"It's pretty humbling, isn't it? For an old fisherman and surfer in Queensland, who now and then plays a bit of cricket." Matthew Hayden is overwhelmed at being Usain Bolt's favourite cricketer Aug 21, 2008
You may have disagreed strongly with the idea of Tim Ambrose batting at number six, but the thing is, it’s done now.
Whenever you mess around with something as fragile as a batting order, you unsettle a team. England undervalued a generation of world-class batting talent in the 1990s by shuffling their batsmen around on a fortnightly basis. Stewart opens. Hick at three. Stewart drops down. Smith opens. Ramprakash at three. Ramprakash at six. Crawley at three. Hick at five. Knight opens. Hussain at three. Butcher opens. Butcher at three. Hussain at four. Ramprakash opens. You get the idea.
Which is why some of the press speculation in the aftermath of the Headingley defeat has the whiff of the knee-jerk about it. We armchair experts can pontificate at great length about the changes we would make if we were in charge, without ever having to engage with reality. To move Ambrose back down to seven would be the simple short-term solution, but counter-productive in the long-term: the weak, cowardly act of a ditherer. And as any opinion pollster will tell you, ditherers hardly inspire confidence - either within their own ranks or among the public.
Far better, surely, to give Ambrose more than two innings to bed down in his new position. And remember that Ambrose outscored Strauss, Vaughan and Bell at Headingley. And remember further that with Broad and Anderson at eight and nine, there’s some lower-order insurance there should it be required.
Pattinson can go - no worries about that. But England’s selectors should resist the urge to tinker with their middle order yet again.
It’s funny how things are working out… Broad may be offering lower order insurance (and indeed regularly churning out half centuries) but is he really filling his place as a frontline bowler? He seems to be bowling nicely enough, but is rarely looking like actually taking a wicket….
Broad the bowling all rounder isn’t bowling so well and Flintoff the batting all rounder isn’t batting so well…
I guess they balance each other out and at least England has a decent slipper in place again.
The selectors have enough backtracking to do without moving Ambrose around again, I agree.
Bell’s going to need to graft some hard runs soon otherwise his recent effort will be dismissed as a fluke… and bloody Anderson … every time I make my mind up about him being either good or bad he goes and confounds me the next match.
I think Vaughan should be under the pump a bit. He’s averaging something like 26 or 27 for 2008 so far, against some ordinary attacks. Yet it seems that he’s untouchable because he’s an Ashes winner. I understand what you’re saying- that consistency in selection’s a good thing- but they could easily drop Vaughan, put Bell in at 3, put Shah or Prior or someone else at 5 and make Strauss the captain, and England wouldn’t really suffer for it.
Marcus - I agree with you. But I offer you Mark Taylor in 1997 in return. He must have been on the verge of being dropped following a dreadful run of form played himself back into form with a ton at Edgbaston and never looked back. Indeed he made 334 in Pakistan the following winter I believe.
I think it is was precisely because he was such a good captain that he was given a longer leash and I think exactly the same is the case with Vaughan.
The only change I’d make for Edgbaston would be to bring back Sidebottom for Pattinson and if he wasn’t fit I’d bring in Simon Jones.
Too many changes would be unsettling - Vaughan hinted at this in his post-match interview and he would want only the change suggested by Sean.
The real problem at Headingley wasn’t selection but performance. England played terribly on day one, imagining demons in the pitch that weren’t there. South Africa weren’t hooping it about everywhere, but the batsmen were just too loose and attacking.
Ambrose should be retained for the rest of this series, although I believe Flintoff is still more capable of building an innings at number six than the keeper is.
One other thing, Freddie bowled 40 overs - what happened to the short sharp spells and his protection in a five man attack?!
Posts
Loading ...
and at least England has a decent slipper in place again.