The Ashes: Second Test, Adelaide - The 100% OFFICIAL thread [Merged]

[BensGrandad]

The dropped catches have proven costly. To win a game we must carry on the same with the bat bring in Monty and practice catching. Then there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Gritt23]

That's a crucial drop by Giles, i hardly think Monty would have done any bertter though..

But the point is that Fletcher and Flintoff would appear to have left Monty out because of his inferior batting and fielding when compared to Giles - it's certainly not based on bowling! So Giles simply HAS to do better, and that means not dropping catches.

I fear that the decision to play Giles over Monty will haunt Fletcher for the rest of his career. Monty is a match-winner, and without him we simply do not look like bowling them out twice. We've spent vast amounts of time in the field already, and perhaps over-bowled Flintoff as a result. If his ankle injury brings his bowling on tour to an end, then it's all over.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Giles' bowling can often hinder our chances. To take 20 Australian Wickets, we need offensive bowling. Giles simply does not possess that in his vast array ( ) of deliveries. To leave Monty out of the next test will be suicide. I will be beside myself with anger if he doesn't pick him.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I fear that the decision to play Giles over Monty will haunt Fletcher for the rest of his career. Monty is a match-winner, and without him we simply do not look like bowling them out twice.

He has three tests to make it right. We only need to draw two and win one.

 

[Gritt23]

Has anyone anything to justify Giles playing instead of Monty yet? No, nor have I.

I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that Monty is the better spinner, so we are seeing Giles play for his superior batting and fielding. Hmm, the drop of Ponting doesn’t help his case, but I wonder if the form our batsmen are now showing (day 5 allowing) will lessen our perceived need to bolster the batting line-up. Personally, I think it was a shocking decision all-round, especially when Fletcher seemed to say it was because Tresco was going home? I think Cook was probably playing at no.3, and it was therefore between Bell and Collingwood to miss out until Banger went home, so thank goodness he did, as he hasn’t been in the form to score the runs those two guys have scored so far. But aside from that it was sheer madness (well, misplaced loyalty probably) that had us even considering Giles instead of Monty, but I think we are really paying for it.

What worries me further, is that for the sake of a few more runs and maybe some better fielding, we have at best accepted longer periods in the field, and at worst given ourselves an attack that cannot get 20 wickets. Combine this with our DIABOLICAL record at treating the injuries to our players, and on day 9 of the most important Test series we have, and our star all-rounder is limping out of the bowling attack, with a sore ankle! If we’ve had to bowl him too much, to the point where his old problem is re-surfacing already then I am going to be absolute puce with rage. I’ll hold fire for now, but if we find out his ankle is (re-)injured and he’ll “be remaining in the side as a specialist batsman” then expect a rather furious posting.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Monty will be in for Anderson at Perth, mainly because the wicket takes spin, but also Anderson looks unfit at present, which is hardly surprising.

 

[Gritt23]

Giles' bowling can often hinder our chances. To take 20 Australian Wickets, we need offensive bowling. Giles simply does not possess that in his vast array ( ) of deliveries. To leave Monty out of the next test will be suicide. I will be beside myself with anger if he doesn't pick him.

I think Giles was more effective in 2005, because the bowling attack around him was so strong. We had 4 bowlers in Harmy, Hoggard, Freddie and Jones, all of whom could skittle a side out, and the batsman had to be wary of them all. That therefore left Giles as the only bowler they felt they could get after. But attacking him, gives Giles his best chance of wickets, so he looked more effective. But now, with Harmy looking out of sorts, Anderson just coming back from an injury, batsmen can afford to just push Giles away for 1's and 2's. All very easy, and he is no threat whatsoever.

Like you BoF, I'll be livid if Monty isn't in the side for the next test, but I've been livid about 2 out of 2 test sides so far, so I'm not taking his (seemingly obviously) selection for the next test as a given.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This test is not dead yet.

England have already displayed a "safety-first" attitude in their selection, and if they take the field thinking "bat for a draw" they could be in trouble.

I believe that if there is a winner it is more likely to be Australia than England, because it is perfectly conceivable for the Aussies to skittle us out by the middle of the last day and knock off the required 200-odd runs in 45 overs.

What England must do is go into the day believing they can still win this test by batting sensibly for the first hour, upping the tempo in the last 10 overs before lunch and then launch into the Aussies after lunch.

We should be looking for a lead of, say, 290 with 40/45-odd overs to go - around the 7 an over mark. If the Aussies opt not to chase a gettable total that will boost our bowlers' confidence - if they do chase and lose 2 or 3 early wickets the pressure will really be on in the last session.

Aussie pride will mean they are likely to give anything gettable a go, and that could really ignite Harmison.

Even if we draw the test, to have the Aussies clinging on at 200-8 at the end would give the squad a massive boost for the next test.

 

[cheeseroll]

I think Giles was more effective in 2005, because the bowling attack around him was so strong. We had 4 bowlers in Harmy, Hoggard, Freddie and Jones, all of whom could skittle a side out, and the batsman had to be wary of them all. That therefore left Giles as the only bowler they felt they could get after. But attacking him, gives Giles his best chance of wickets, so he looked more effective. But now, with Harmy looking out of sorts, Anderson just coming back from an injury, batsmen can afford to just push Giles away for 1's and 2's. All very easy, and he is no threat whatsoever.

Like you BoF, I'll be livid if Monty isn't in the side for the next test, but I've been livid about 2 out of 2 test sides so far, so I'm not taking his (seemingly obviously) selection for the next test as a given.

Point taken and very well made.

I think the feeling was to make sure that we didnt lose this test was far more important than to go after a possible win. Also Fletcher couldnt of course be sure to win the toss and have so many runs to have a go at them like we can see in hindsight.

I am looking forward though to seeing Monty play some meaningful part in the rest of the series.

 

[Gritt23]

Point taken and very well made.

I think the feeling was to make sure that we didnt lose this test was far more important than to go after a possible win. Also Fletcher couldnt of course be sure to win the toss and have so many runs to have a go at them like we can see in hindsight.

I am looking forward though to seeing Monty play some meaningful part in the rest of the series.

Make sure we didn't lose? But it was the same XI that very much lost in Brisbane. The best way to avoid defeat is to give yourself the best chance of winning.

You are absolutely right that we didn't know we'd bat first, and had we batted first in Brisbane that test would have been closer, BUT who's to say Monty can't be effective in the first innings. First day at Brisbane I saw some prodigous turn, but it was coming from Pietersen and not Giles. I think Monty has a good enough action, that over the next decade, we will regularly see him get turn out of pitches that no-one else gets, and we'll see it from day 1. We saw it last summer, against some very highly rated spinners.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'm still trying to understand the logic of the 'Giles over Panesar' selection.

Firstly, Giles stats against the Aussies are poor - before this tour he averaged 16 with the bat and 55 per wicket with the ball. In his first 6 inns against them he amassed 19 runs at an average of 5. Before Brisbane he reached double figures against them in tests just once. And he's approaching 34 years old...

In terms of creating pressure the Aussies were always going to have an England bowler that they could go after with come comfort in Anderson / Mahmood. As Harmison was so under-cooked in Brisbane it was also likely disciplined batting would milk him for runs in Adelaide, at least in the first innings.

The long and the short of it is that in order to take 20 wickets and win the match all 3 of Hoggy, Harmison and Flintoff would have to have been at their very best, and this on a batsman's paradise.

 

[London Calling]

This test is not dead yet.

England have already displayed a "safety-first" attitude in their selection, and if they take the field thinking "bat for a draw" they could be in trouble.

I believe that if there is a winner it is more likely to be Australia than England, because it is perfectly conceivable for the Aussies to skittle us out by the middle of the last day and knock off the required 200-odd runs in 45 overs.

What England must do is go into the day believing they can still win this test by batting sensibly for the first hour, upping the tempo in the last 10 overs before lunch and then launch into the Aussies after lunch.

We should be looking for a lead of, say, 290 with 40/45-odd overs to go - around the 7 an over mark. If the Aussies opt not to chase a gettable total that will boost our bowlers' confidence - if they do chase and lose 2 or 3 early wickets the pressure will really be on in the last session.

Aussie pride will mean they are likely to give anything gettable a go, and that could really ignite Harmison.

Even if we draw the test, to have the Aussies clinging on at 200-8 at the end would give the squad a massive boost for the next test.

Agree exactly.

So it won't happen then.

LC

 

[Billy the Fish]

I take it no-one else is bothering, they're cirtainly not over there because the ground's half empty. 7.5 overs, 9 runs = bedtime. I don't know what I was expecting to be honest.

 

[Giraffe]

Just had a look expecting us to be over 100 by now, and they've only scored 11 more runs. What the f*** are they doing!!!!!!!!

To bed, wake up, find out we've reached a lead of 150 and then declared with an over to go!!!!

Do we want to keep the Ashes or not?

 

[Marc]

Flintoff will bat all day, he'll be happy with a draw.......oh Strauss is out

 

[Billy the Fish]

f***ing shocking decision, absolutely nowhere near the bat

 

[Marc]

as I was saying, Flintoff will bat all day (unless we get out), I mean lets be honest, even if we do set a Target beyond the Aussies can you see us bowling them out on this pitch? Hoggards been the only bowler to do anything with it, the only other one that comes to mind is obviously Monty...but thats out.




oh great a CRAP run out...we could be in trouble!

 

[Billy the Fish]

f*** sake lads, keep this up and we're in trouble