When will we LOSE the Ashes tonight?

[Zesh Rehman]

Without S. Jones SWINGING the ball, and Michael Vaughans WORLD CLASS captaincy, we are NOT an international force.

agreed

and

Monty should have played instead of Giles

and

Geraint Jones was the right choice in my opinion.

 

[Chesney Christ]

Nope.
Actually, i'm a bit sick of some of the repetitive moans I keep hearing.
e.g:

"F*CK OFF Giles you useless c*nt" - Well, wasn't he one of the heroes of the previous Ashes series? Read in the paper that his wife has got a brain tumour, so he's gone home. Poor sod

"F*CK OFF Fletcher you useless c*nt, PLAY MONTY" - After the complete disgrace of the first two tests. Fletcher then plays Monty...who takes 5 wickets in an innings. This results in more "F*CK OFF Fletcher" moaning, despite the fact that Fletcher is one of the main reasons we've had so much SUCCESS in recent years, compared to the shambles of the mid/late nineties, where we were a DISGRACE constantly.

Monty plays, and we still get BATTERED. Everyone needs a scapegoat, so who takes the abuse? Geraint Jones. Because of course, Chris Read has done so much in his previous test matches to make his absence completely BAFFLING! Of course, had Read played, the result would obviously have been so much difference, because he might have scored an extra 18 runs or so, which would obviously mean us winning the series 5-0.



Yeh, right.


At the end of the day, our team is full of out of form players who aren't good enough, and haven't had any decent preperation for a TEST series. Without S. Jones SWINGING the ball, and Michael Vaughans WORLD CLASS captaincy, we are NOT an international force. This disasterous series really shouldn't have been unexpected.

(awaits moaning at moaners abuse)

Nonsense. With Monty in the side and Geraint Jones OUT we are comfortably better than anyone in world cricket other than Australia.

 

[tedebear]

Lose, lost - its all the same to me

 

[Chesney Christ]

Everyone needs a scapegoat, so who takes the abuse? Geraint Jones. Because of course, Chris Read has done so much in his previous test matches to make his absence completely BAFFLING!

No, it was baffling because Jones was dropped for the Pakistan series, Chris Read came in; scored runs, kept well and was then dropped for absolutely no reason. Thats whats baffling about it!

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

No, it was baffling because Jones was dropped for the Pakistan series, Chris Read came in; scored runs, kept well and was then dropped for absolutely no reason. Thats whats baffling about it!

Baffling that may be, what difference would it have made?! Read's batting average is actually LOWER than Jones. Neither are world class, they are just 'half-decent' keepers (although Read arguably more reliable with the gloves - but Giles is the only man who's dropped a test-changing catch in this series)

Nonsense. With Monty in the side and Geraint Jones OUT we are comfortably better than anyone in world cricket other than Australia.

So that makes Fletcher/Jones/Giles pricks does it? That's what everyone seems to be saying! Absolute balls. Even with the said changes, we'd still have got TONKED. Harmison is one of our best bowlers, but he's been all over the place. Flintoff had a good start, but his bowling lacks any consistency at the moment. And don't get me started on Anderson/Mahomood....

 

[Chesney Christ]

So that makes Fletcher/Jones/Giles pricks does it? That's what everyone seems to be saying! Absolute balls. Even with the said changes, we'd still have got TONKED.

I'm honestly not sure we would have, and we'll never know will we? The choice of Giles and Jones was so negative and defensive, and it sent out a message to the Aussies saying: "we're utterly petrified of you, and the best we can hope for is to desperately cling on for a draw. Thats why we're playing a spinner who can't bowl and a keeper who can't keep."

By starting with Read, and more importantly Panesar, it would have been a signal that we trust our top 6 to do their job, and we trust our bowlers to bowl sides out. You saying "well, we picked Panesar and we still lost" is irrelevant (in my opinion) because by the time we finally picked him the tone of the series had already been set and we were low on confidence/morale, and The Aussies were on fire. If we'd started with Panesar, I think it would probably be either 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 (to Australia) or 1-1, with something still to play for, rather than the series being over. Don't forget that Monty took 8 wickets in this test match. How useful would that have been in Adelaide?

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

I'm honestly not sure we would have, and we'll never know will we? The choice of Giles and Jones was so negative and defensive, and it sent out a message to the Aussies saying: "we're utterly petrified of you, and the best we can hope for is to desperately cling on for a draw. Thats why we're playing a spinner who can't bowl and a keeper who can't keep."

By starting with Read, and more importantly Panesar, it would have been a signal that we trust our top 6 to do their job, and we trust our bowlers to bowl sides out. You saying "well, we picked Panesar and we still lost" is irrelevant (in my opinion) because by the time we finally picked him the tone of the series had already been set and we were low on confidence/morale, and The Aussies were on fire. If we'd started with Panesar, I think it would probably be either 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 (to Australia) or 1-1, with something still to play for, rather than the series being over. Don't forget that Monty took 8 wickets in this test match. How useful would that have been in Adelaide?

That's a fair argument I suppose. However, i'd argue that we were already low on confidence and morale following the disasterous Champions Trophy and one-day warm up matches. Look at how we set the tone in the Twenty-20 at the Rosebowl in 2005, and compare it to the shocker we had in the one day internationals. The Aussies in comparision had won something like 10 tests from 13, and were high on confidence, whereas we were fairly inconsistent even in our test matches.

Then again, that might just be my pessimistic nature talking, as I was convinced we'd be spanked long before Harmison bowled that god-awful first ball......

 

[Chesney Christ]

That's a fair argument I suppose. However, i'd argue that we were already low on confidence and morale following the disasterous Champions Trophy and one-day warm up matches. Look at how we set the tone in the Twenty-20 at the Rosebowl in 2005, and compare it to the shocker we had in the one day internationals. The Aussies in comparision had won something like 10 tests from 13, and were high on confidence, whereas we were fairly inconsistent even in our test matches.

Then again, that might just be my pessimistic nature talking, as I was convinced we'd be spanked long before Harmison bowled that god-awful first ball......

All fair points. Monty or no Monty we would have lost this series. I just can't help but feel that we may have put up more a fight with the added edge that he brings to the side. Like I say though, we'll never know.

 

[Brovion]

I think some of the criticism of Fletcher is justified, but even if we'd done everything that his critics had demanded - showed loyalty to Read and Panesar as opposed to dropping them at the first opportunity to bring back the 'old boys', having Strauss as captain not Flintoff, having more warm-up time befpre the first Test, etc, etc, I still think a lot of it is on a par with arguing that red stripey deckchairs would have been better than blue stripey deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Blue stripey deckchairs every time.