The Ashes mega thread.

[happyhippy 11]

I cannot for the life of me understand why England would want to win Ashes. It's not like any of the players have any affiliation with the poor bloke in the urn, likewise the Australian players.

 

Who is to say the person in question wanted his ashes to be passed around from continent to continent. Surely has family should have them, providing it's not his family that have donated the ashes.

 

Anyone care to shed some light on this subject please?!

 

Traditionally it they were thought to be the ashes of a bail from the 1882 Test which brought about the mock obituary in the Times. This should give you some more info.

 

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/BY_OPPONENT/AUS-ENG/HISTORY/

[happyhippy 11]

True - I almost made that point myself. This reflects something in the game which is in process of being decided - does absolutely everybody have to have two skills (as Duncan Fletcher argues), or can you afford to have a world class star batsman or bowler who is a bit of a rabbit in the other departments? I think the jury is still out on this, and the question will only be decided by results between teams who adopt the different strategies.

 

Personally I incline towards having room for one or two specialists. After all, you also need to bowl out the other team. And, arguably, if you can't get a decent score out of Trescothick (when he's well), Flintoff, Strauss, Pietersen and now Bell, then the 10.5 runs that currently separate the Test batting averages of Giles and Panesar aren't going to make that much difference.

 

Yousuf would be another example - would you drop him just because he has the throwing arm of an 80 year old granny and couldn't stop an ice cream van, or catch a bus if it waited for him? I don't think so.

 

Agree with all of that. I see it as a choice of 8/9 specialists and 2/3 either/or's, or 11 average either/or's. I'd go for the former every time. Good point about Giles and Monty's averages too, though tempered a bit by the difference in number of Tests each one has played.

[Le_Rosbif 10]

Traditionally it they were thought to be the ashes of a bail from the 1882 Test which brought about the mock obituary in the Times. This should give you some more info.

 

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/BY_OPPONENT/AUS-ENG/HISTORY/

 

 

Oh dear...

[happyhippy 11]

Oh dear...

 

Look here, I'm not feeling well .......

[carcrash 11]

You win matchs by taking 20 wickets and for that you need you best bowlers. Both Monty and giles are left arm off spin and monty is better by far. His fielding has come on a lot and i think he will win tests for us

[surfinjim 10]

We need to look forward, and the same would apply with Panesar and Giles. You'd hope that Monty is no.1 choice ahead of Giles.

 

 

Why?

 

becasue he is younger and can 'spin' more?

 

Panesar with a bat is frankly quite bad, and his fielding is not existent...

 

Why??? Giles hasn't played a game all season. Monty has been a match winner this year and we shouldn't really be looking to the tail to make big scores with the bat, should we, really. Its a nice to have if they do, but you would expect the bulk o your runs from 1 to 7/8

 

Jim:thumbsup:

[happyhippy 11]

 

Why??? Giles hasn't played a game all season. Monty has been a match winner this year and we shouldn't really be looking to the tail to make big scores with the bat, should we, really. Its a nice to have if they do, but you would expect the bulk o your runs from 1 to 7/8

 

Jim:thumbsup:

 

Agreed, but against ANY Aussie side, one looks for runs from absolutely anywhere .........

[marmite 10]

...and dodgy fielding doesnt help on our behalf (monty)

[happyhippy 11]

...and dodgy fielding doesnt help on our behalf (monty)

 

 

So if he really 'is' that bad, (and yes, he's no Ramprakash, but has improved), stick him where he'll be saving runs, not a 'major' part of the fielding side. I know that sounds daft, but it's about knowing your team's strengths.

 

To be honest, from what I saw, Monty had a reasonably happy time in the field v Pakistan (who are still dogged by infighting), but how much of that was down to the captain knowing how to set his field well, keeping Monty's lack of expertise in the field to be offset by the bowler's ability at the time?

 

From what I saw he was down at third man, or deep backward square leg, or the other side at a cow corner looking for the dolly catch, or ensuring that a shot wasn't tried. Moreover, if you're 'that' unsure of a fielder then get your bowler to make sure bugger all goes that way.

 

He's a much better spinner than Giles, the best left arm for many a year for England, and deserves a chance on the dusty tracks.....

 

But the problem might be that the Aussies can play orthodox left arm (leg) spin, because of years of watching the second best leg spinner of my lifetime, Warne (best being Abdul Qadir - he is Warne's coach - tells its own story).

 

Monty gets much more turn and is improving. I think he is more than worthy of a first team place.

[marmite 10]

He may be nice to watch, but id rather have an ugly player who can spin, field and bat reasonably well, in my opinion-Giles. Your entitled to your own opinion.

[happyhippy 11]

Congratulations to England for craftily not progressing to the knockout stages of the ICC Champions Trophy, thereby giving themselves an extra week or two of R&R or other preparation for the Ashes

 

No more fixtures between this Saturday and Friday, 10th November. Only 27 days until the First Test!

 

Heh heh! They were DISMAL performances ...... the collapse in the Aussie game was just to lull them into a false sense of security though, obviously .......

[carcrash 11]

It was good to see Flintoff getting a few overs the other day but I have concerns about the bowling attack