Root would be "crucified" if he opens...Warne

First topic message reminder :

Warne is spot on.....the earlier England address the inevitable.....the better their series chances remain
Re: Cook's negativity......not much would change while he is winning
 
 
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/685493.html
Cook's leadership of England has thus far been characterised by a close relationship with the coach Andy Flower and a calm guiding hand rather than any great invention in the field. England's preferred approach is of a more conservative nature than that of Clarke and the Australian coach Darren Lehmann.
 
"If Michael Clarke did the same things, I'd say he was negative, but he's not. That's not the way he captains," Warne said. "Cook can be negative, boring, not very imaginative - and still win and be pretty happy. But I think he needs to be more imaginative. If Australia play well and he continues to captain the way he does, I think England are going to lose the series.
 
"I don't think he can captain like that - and I'm not working in any capacity whatsoever for Cricket Australia. Darren Lehmann is a good mate of mine, and Michael Clarke is my best friend, of course I speak to them a lot but I call it as I see it. And I'm not the only one who thinks Alastair Cook is a negative captain.
 
"He lets the game drift. He waits for the game to come to him. I don't think he can captain the side like that. For me, Michael Clarke is the best captain in the world at the moment. He just has a lot of imagination. Cook would never have a leg slip, bat-pad and leg gully, like Clarke did for Jonathan Trott in the summer."
 
To round off his serve, Warne said England would do well not to play Joe Root at the top of the order during the series, suggesting the young Yorkshireman would be "crucified" facing the new ball on Australian pitches. Warne preferred to see Michael Carberry as Cook's opening partner, with Joe Root to bat at No. 6 instead of Jonny Bairstow.
 
"I don't think Root's an opener because of his technique. Australia found him out in England, and in Australian conditions they'll find him out more. You can't get stuck on the crease in Australia because of the pace of the wickets.
 
"It could be crucifying him if he has got to face Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson on some fast, bouncy pitches. I think he's just going to nick off a lot. Besides Lord's, where he got 180, Australia really did have his number."

alfie wrote:Not sure about all this talk of "targetting" people.  Apart from press grabs , do teams really do this ?

In a word, yes.

Although it doesn't mean slogging every ball without thinking.

But yes, teams do target bowlers particularly (the concept of "targeting" batsmen is a strange one, because you try to get all the batsmen out, you don't really concentrate more on one batsman; in this context, targeting batsmen is more about specific plans, getting under their skin, identifying the key player and making him uncomfortable). The great Australian side of Waugh and Ponting used to make a habit of not letting debutants settle; recently Australia almost certainly targeted Tredwell in the ODIs.

In this context, "targeting" means applying a belief that a particular bowler represents an opportunity to score off, and trying to make the most of this opportunity. What it usually entails is being a bit more positive, but mainly playing in such a way that the bowler bowls badly; it is less a case of trying to hit the good balls for 4, but applying strategy so that you get more bad balls. E.g. using your feet to a seamer to knock him off his length, or the South African tactics of getting across on off-stump to Swann; or making a conscious effort to hit the slightly off line/length balls, so that the bowler thinks he has less margin for error. There is also the fact that if the bowler feels targeted, his first thought will then be to save runs rather than get wickets; in tests this gives the batsman quite an edge.

As with most cricket it is mostly psychologial. That doesn't mean it isn't very real.

Carberry
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Root
Prior
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Finn

Come on England.

I've certainly been in team meetings where the message has been "this guy, good bowler, goes backwards if you go after him; let's use our feet early on, he'll then start to fire it in, and we can knock him around much more easily". The intent wasn't to hit "this guy" for 70 or 80 in his 10 overs; rather it was to make it easier for us to milk him for 40-50.

I have also been in meetings where we say "this guy bowls quite a few bad balls; let's try to score even singles with intent off his good balls, then he'll get stressed and bowl more bad balls".

Oh I wasn't meaning they don't plan to deal with the opponents ...heaven knows they all research each other to death these days.
And of course these plans will involve seeking to put pressure on those thought to be most vulnerable.  Not disputing that. Though I think the idea of a concerted attack on a particular bowler is much more common in ODI s than Tests. In any case particular batsmen will fancy scoring off one bowler more than another but you aren't usually going to mess your batting order around to accommodate that. More the logical approach of adapting your approach to take advantage of perceived weaknesses. But I don't call that "targetting" , just good use of analysis ...In the same way teams will perhaps look to see off the danger bowler , etc etc...this is sensible at any level.

My reservations are more with this heavily advertised "we will go after so and so" , which really is more a psychological ploy since if the target doesn't cooperate there goes your game plan...and of course I can't disagree with Mike's assertion that such stuff can still be real.

Guess I am really just quibbling about words and emphasis ...some teams seem to go for these mind games a lot more than others.  Australia for instance , much more than England .
When they had McGrath Warne etc it seemed to work fine...lately it has seemed a bit silly.

Sorry if I over simplified.

Alfie - just seen your last post and certainly go along with that.

My earlier post might have been better if I had just stuck to why imo Australia don't need to specifically target (or whatever term) Tremlett or Finn from outset (if one of those is chosen ahead of Rankin).

The England management claims that they are pretty clear as to who would take the 3rd seamer position for the first test. From this cricinfo article, it seems that Chris Tremlett is a lot closer to resuming his test career than many of us thought.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/current/story/689639.html

Yeah Saker pretty much said none of the 3 seamers really impressed that much (which is true), and it'd probably come down to who was bowling better in the nets.

Dave Tickner ‏@tickerscricket
Tour stats:
Finn 11 wkts @ 33.36, Econ 4.44
Rankin 7 wkts @ 33.57, Econ 3.21
Tremlett 1 wkt @ 146, Econ 3.94

You'd still think it'd be one of Finn/Rankin based on that tho

Agreed. However if England start making decisions based on stats now, it would only lead to further questioning over why Onions was overlooked for the tour wouldn't it? Particularly if all 3 fail to fire given the chance.

well of course England know what their likely team will be for the first Test, I mean they've finished their warm-up games, so you'd expect them to have made a decision. From what I see though, the only reason Tremlett is being touted is his success last time, and the fact he was seen bowling in the nets with Jimmy during the last warm-up game, nothing really in that surely? Certainly no noises coming out of the England camp to suggest they've decided on him (or indeed on any of the other two candidates).

The other thing you pick up on that article is that England see Bresnan as very much first choice still. Suspect KPF will enjoy that

Tremlett appears to be the strong favourite for the starting XI in the media. Would be the right call as well.
Can't wait for Wednesday evening/Thursday morning!

I can't wait for the return of trundler Timmy MFC!!!

By being unavailable, Bresnan has become Malcolm Marshall.

I'm hoping the third seamer, whoever it is, takes wickets, cause Bresnan although determined isn't going to take too many.

My immediate reaction is to go along with MfC and emphasise it would have been bl**dy odd if Tremlett had not been seen bowling in the nets with Jimmy given neither were playing in the final warm up match. However, the media do seem convinced he'll get the nod.

I'll cover all bases and say that whilst his selection (assuming that's what happens) may prove to be a masterstroke by England's management, there is most definitely risk attached. Based on my watching him at Surrey this year, he is only capable of bowling in short spells and is normally only at his peak in one of those per day. I really hope I've got this wrong but my concerns over his fitness and strength mean I'm sceptical about his return to five day Test cricket. As mentioned recently, I don't believe Australia will need to specifically target Tremlett - play out his limited good balls and let things take their natural course with the rest, which in turn will put more pressure and workload on the other frontline bowlers and probably see us having to resort more than we would like to a Trott / Root part-timer.

I would also mention that Tremlett is a poor fielder, lacking mobility and slow to get down to the ball. That's something I haven't seen mentioned in all the assessments and comparisons of those vying for the third seamer role.

Of course, risk would also apply were Finn or Rankin to be picked. The risk with Finn is that he'll be expensive and release pressure on the batsmen whilst Rankin is totally inexperienced at this level and may not be sufficiently penetrative.

I would go with Finn as I think he's the most likely to take wickets. Furthermore, if he does that'll boost his confidence (which appears to be a specific issue with him currently) and take him nicely into the second Test. Very useful player that Bresnan is, I suspect it will be asking a lot for him to slot straight back into Test cricket then even if the medics give him the all clear.

I go with the consensus.

There is nothing in that article which directly suggests Tremlett is going to play - the closest the journalist can come to it is a description of him bowling in the nets during a game he wasn't playing in (well there's a surprise!). I haven't heard anything directly from the England camp which suggests that Tremlett will play.

On the other hand the media collectively do seem convinced of it. The media do sometimes get this things wrong, usually because someone convinces himself that what he has seen is more significant than it actually is (in this case, Tremlett working with Anderson), makes a story from it, and the other media guys don't want to seem like they're less "in" or less clever, so pick up on it and pretend they've got the same story. The story thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, even though entirely false. This does happen and has happened, but rarely. Usually when the media is collectively convinced of something they tend to be right.

I am not sure that "England clear on their final XI [a couple of days before the start of the match and after all their tour matches have been completed]" is much of a story though. I would be concerned if by now they were still tossing things up.

There are arguments in favour and against picking any 3 of the contenders. In that respect the selectors will have made the call based on all the factors, some of which we don't have, and almost certainly their call will be the right one. Whether the outcome of the match then vindicates the decision or not we don't know, but that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong or right decision anyway - you don't select by hindsight.

I am reminded of an excellent Mourinho quote, when asked whether it was particularly pleasing to make a substitution which "worked" (i.e. the guy he put on scored, or made an assist, I can't recall). His answer: "my substitutions are always brilliant, it is just sometimes the players who make them less good". His point, whilst flippantly made, is somewhat valid, although there are decisions which are taken due to illogical reasoning, and those can rightfly be labelled "bad decisions". This is not one of those cases though: each of the 3 candidates has things going for them, and England will have weighed up all the options carefully, before deciding.

Not sure if this is an underhanded compliment or not from Harmy but well done to KP for 100 Tests.

"Kevin is the best player ever to wear an England shirt," he told BBC Sport.

"He's not the best English player to play for England because he's not English, he is South African, but he is the best player ever to wear an England shirt.