C/WMark Please! Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) Freddy Flintoff is to retire from Test Cricket after the Ashes. Â I'm not surprised that he is going to retire, his body is slowing down due to age and the injuries he has suffered. Â Flintoff should be used in one day games, he's great with the bat 60% of the time. Edited July 15, 2009 by feelthebang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 15, 2009 This was inevitable. Looks like England are going to have to start nurturing the likes of Stuart Broad and Adil Rashid as all-rounder replacements pretty quickly.  Do you reckon Tony Greig fancies a game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Was a cracking end to the match, every ball was tense. Im no expert, so can someone explain to me why Ponting was using two spinners at the end? Especially against Monty, shouldnt he be have at least one pace bowler attacking him? Had he just lost confidence in the pace men? Â The reason he was using 2 off spinners was that both Monty and Anderson are left handed, and as the off spinner goes away from the left hander he was trying to get them out caught, either by the keeper or the slips. Add in the fact that he would also get through his overs quicker than the fast bowlers, and that Mitchell Johnson (who is normally good against left handers) was bowling rubbish I can understand why he did it. I agree with using two spinners in the last few overs when they were desperate to get through them, and Siddle had been played well by Panesar. Although one over from the more accurate Hilfenhaus might have been all they needed. But I thought he should have bowled Clarke instead of North. Spinning it away from the left-handers is the right plan against proper batsmen, but against tail-enders you've surely got to get it coming in at the stumps. Spinning in from the rough would have been far more dangerous than spinning away from the stumps and giving them a chance to leave, and they weren't going hard at the ball, any nicks could have just gone to ground. Bat-pads or forcing them onto the back foot would have been more likely to get a wicket. Â As regards Flintoff, does anyone else think it was ridiculous how he bowled just as many overs as everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Windham Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Assuming Freddie Plays what would everyone's teams be tomorrow? I'd just change Panesar for Onions. If Flintoff didn't play i'd swap him for a batsman and have Bell, not much other choice with reserve batsmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricc1PW Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I'd play Harmison - Monty would be unfortunate to miss out, but Swanny has been terrific leading upto the first test, and is also more proficient with the bat. Â if Flintoff doesn't make it, then Harmy and Onions come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted July 15, 2009 Author Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 This was inevitable. Looks like England are going to have to start nurturing the likes of Stuart Broad and Adil Rashid as all-rounder replacements pretty quickly.  Do you reckon Tony Greig fancies a game?  I think we'd be more likely to be settling for Derek Pringle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted July 15, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2009 Was a cracking end to the match, every ball was tense. Im no expert, so can someone explain to me why Ponting was using two spinners at the end? Especially against Monty, shouldnt he be have at least one pace bowler attacking him? Had he just lost confidence in the pace men? Â The reason he was using 2 off spinners was that both Monty and Anderson are left handed, and as the off spinner goes away from the left hander he was trying to get them out caught, either by the keeper or the slips. Add in the fact that he would also get through his overs quicker than the fast bowlers, and that Mitchell Johnson (who is normally good against left handers) was bowling rubbish I can understand why he did it. I agree with using two spinners in the last few overs when they were desperate to get through them, and Siddle had been played well by Panesar. Although one over from the more accurate Hilfenhaus might have been all they needed. But I thought he should have bowled Clarke instead of North. Spinning it away from the left-handers is the right plan against proper batsmen, but against tail-enders you've surely got to get it coming in at the stumps. Spinning in from the rough would have been far more dangerous than spinning away from the stumps and giving them a chance to leave, and they weren't going hard at the ball, any nicks could have just gone to ground. Bat-pads or forcing them onto the back foot would have been more likely to get a wicket. Â As regards Flintoff, does anyone else think it was ridiculous how he bowled just as many overs as everyone else? Â The trouble was bobbins, that by that stage the wicket was as flat as a witches tit, and to get the ball up at chest or throat height that you would need to get them out you would have to have bowled so short that they would have had time to duck out of the way. Â As for tomorrow, the changes I would make would be Harmison for Broad and Onions for Panesar, providing that Flintoff is fit. If not then Bell for Flintoff and Onions for Panesar. Onions is the leading wicket taker in the country at the minute, with a better strike rate and economy rate than Harmison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Was a cracking end to the match, every ball was tense. Im no expert, so can someone explain to me why Ponting was using two spinners at the end? Especially against Monty, shouldnt he be have at least one pace bowler attacking him? Had he just lost confidence in the pace men? Â The reason he was using 2 off spinners was that both Monty and Anderson are left handed, and as the off spinner goes away from the left hander he was trying to get them out caught, either by the keeper or the slips. Add in the fact that he would also get through his overs quicker than the fast bowlers, and that Mitchell Johnson (who is normally good against left handers) was bowling rubbish I can understand why he did it. I agree with using two spinners in the last few overs when they were desperate to get through them, and Siddle had been played well by Panesar. Although one over from the more accurate Hilfenhaus might have been all they needed. But I thought he should have bowled Clarke instead of North. Spinning it away from the left-handers is the right plan against proper batsmen, but against tail-enders you've surely got to get it coming in at the stumps. Spinning in from the rough would have been far more dangerous than spinning away from the stumps and giving them a chance to leave, and they weren't going hard at the ball, any nicks could have just gone to ground. Bat-pads or forcing them onto the back foot would have been more likely to get a wicket. Â As regards Flintoff, does anyone else think it was ridiculous how he bowled just as many overs as everyone else? Â The trouble was bobbins, that by that stage the wicket was as flat as a witches tit, and to get the ball up at chest or throat height that you would need to get them out you would have to have bowled so short that they would have had time to duck out of the way. I'm very confused. I wasn't suggesting that Michael Clarke bowl bouncers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted July 16, 2009 Paid Members Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about Hilfenhaus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about Hilfenhaus. Well surely Hilfenhaus would have been bowling at the stumps. Â Anyway, great first morning for England. Johnson all over the place meant they could just leave Hilfenhaus alone. Amazing that Cook has managed to race to 60-odd despite looking in bad nick. With the Australians not firing and Flintoff unfit, it looks like another draw unless Broad, Onions and Anderson can get the ball working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted July 16, 2009 Author Paid Members Share Posted July 16, 2009 That's the thing about Cook - he NEVER looks in good nick but he is a real tough nut to crack as long as he doesn't give his wicket away with a horrible waft. Â Yes, great start though. You can tell these Aussie bowlers have never played at Lord's, they've been terrible. VERY flat pitch though, England will need 500+, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Ouch! He won't be using that hand for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Windham Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Overall been great viewing so far today. Cook played well and it's a shame he couldn't go on but his front foot technique has been a problem for a good 1-2 years now and his something he hasn't put right which does make him look vulnerable almost any point. Speaking of vulberable there's something about Pietersen at the minute which is making him look very vulnerable. Â Strauss has played very well and glad he got the ton before tea. Hilfenhaus has bowled very nicely since getting the ball swinging and set Bopara up a treat, other than that the Aussies bowling has looked pretty awful, not helped by Hauritz nearly seeing his finger go for six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted July 16, 2009 Author Paid Members Share Posted July 16, 2009 Have to be careful here, England, having lost three wickets. At least all three wickets have been to good balls rather than crap shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Make that 6. It's the traditional middle order batting collapse that signals our usual abandonment of any intent on winning a test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.