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."

Apparently, KP's leadership was so good he was reduced to shouting: F**king bowl, f**king straight over and over again during the 2008 tour to India.

Now sure what's wrong with Cook. In under a year he's defeated India in India (first time India have lost at home since...2004), and battered Australia 3-0 (the biggest winning margin for England in an Ashes series in over 25 years).

Duty281 wrote:  
Now sure what's wrong with Cook. ).

 
few shortcomings.....Defensive, Boring...plays percentage cricket....nothing innovative ...can't take Eng to No.1...i think already with India's win, Eng dropped to no.3
 
rest is all OK

ONE defeat in SIXTEEN Tests, not too shabby?..  Success is ultimately what sport is about.  We all, at the end of the day only care about success.

To come 2nd is just the first loser.

skyeman wrote: ..  Success is ultimately what sport is about.  .

that's an important question...what's sport about?

it's atleast as much about entertainment if not more........as it is about success.

so the best teams and captains are ones who win with flair, style, panache and grace

KP_fan wrote:

skyeman wrote:  ..  Success is ultimately what sport is about.  .

that's an important question...what's sport about?

it's atleast as much about entertainment if not more........as it is about success.

so the best teams and captains are ones who win with flair, style, panache and grace

TOSH,  Winners are remembered, not the losers.

OK to lose then as long as you lose with flair.

But we would all like both.

skyeman wrote:
Winners are remembered, not the losers.

 

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  
Now sure what's wrong with Cook. ).

 
few shortcomings.....Defensive, Boring...plays percentage cricket....nothing innovative ...can't take Eng to No.1...i think already with India's win, Eng dropped to no.3
 
rest is all OK

Captaincy record:

Test Matches - P16 W9 D6 L1

Test Series - P5 W4 D1 L0

Shameful leadership. We'll never get anywhere if we beat what's in front of us!

Or maybe we will.

Ponting having a go at Clarke, Warne on everybody, Chapple on Bailey/Watson. Worried?

All good.


Covers coming off. Cook/Carberry retired out and others continuing to bat. ??

So NO bowling for England in this match which kind of suggests that if any of Rankin/Finn/Tremlett get the next game. That player will be the choice for the 1st Test unless a complete mare ensues.

Hope it will be Tremlett, fitness permitting. Christmas spirit, anyone?

So here he is Chrissy Tremlett,
Bowling fast for England.
He's got a future now,
The convicts on the runnnn...

All credit to the Barmy Army.

Duty281 wrote:Hope it will be Tremlett, fitness permitting. Christmas spirit, anyone?

So here he is Chrissy Tremlett,
Bowling fast for England.
He's got a future now,
The convicts on the runnnn...

All credit to the Barmy Army.

Rankin for me, looked the best of the three recently.


Not much of a ryhme there Duty. How's about:

So here he is Chrissy Tremlett,
Not quite a "Clarrie" Grimmett,
But he's got just enough.
To put the Aussies right in it.

skyeman wrote:So NO bowling for England in this match which kind of suggests that if any of Rankin/Finn/Tremlett get the next game. That player will be the choice for the 1st Test unless a complete mare ensues.

Hi skye - assuming the weather allows enough play, I would expect us to declare at some point so as to give the England bowlers a go. I feel the aim will be to get a few overs under their belts without over stretching them. Particularly thinking of Broad and Tremlett.

Hi Gb, yes probably right, if no further interuptions 79 overs left. Bat for 30-40 then a wee bowl to clear the cobwebs in match conditions.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:  
Now sure what's wrong with Cook. ).

 
few shortcomings.....Defensive, Boring...plays percentage cricket....nothing innovative ...can't take Eng to No.1...i think already with India's win, Eng dropped to no.3
 
rest is all OK

Captaincy record:

Test Matches - P16 W9 D6 L1

Test Series - P5 W4 D1 L0

.

thats is the part I meant "rest is all OK"

skyeman wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

skyeman wrote:  ..  Success is ultimately what sport is about.  .

that's an important question...what's sport about?

it's atleast as much about entertainment if not more........as it is about success.

so the best teams and captains are ones who win with flair, style, panache and grace

TOSH,  Winners are remembered, not the losers.

winners with flair, style, panace and grace are remebered by popular memory and rise to folklore.
simple dour winners are rembered only when stats are dug-up.

Warne is talking about and trying to push towards the first category......

Think someone mentioned this earlier - here or somewhere : but when Cook took over England had just come off an awkward Asian winter of touring and a loss to SA : no wonder he started conservatively.
But he won in India - first in 28 years. And beat Australia 3-0.

You don't get runs or wickets awarded for collecting "style points".

I would expect England to display a bit more panache as they grow in confidence , assuming they do , as the slightly rebuilt team gels.

In the meantime , I'll happily take the wins...

alfie wrote:Think someone mentioned this earlier - here or somewhere : but when Cook took over England had just come off an awkward Asian winter of touring and a loss to SA : no wonder he started conservatively.
But he won in India - first in 28 years. And beat Australia 3-0.

You don't get runs or wickets awarded for collecting "style points".

I would expect England to display a bit more panache as they grow in confidence , assuming they do , as the slightly rebuilt team gels.

In the meantime , I'll happily take the wins...

Alfie - I agree again.

With regard to not getting runs or wickets awarded for collecting ''style points'', I'll throw in a wise football adage: ''Great goal scorers don't score great goals.''

It's like " If I don't have style......style is not important"
 
That said I agree......at least win-without-style is better..... than no-win-no-style...or even style-but-no-win

Whilst i don't necessarily agree, just got a feeling that they are leaning towards Tremlett for the first Test, probably based on the previous tour to Aus. But? does his recent form justify this. Next game will tell more.

Finn hasn't been his usual self since the mismanagement of his run-up. He doesn't seem that confident. Perhaps they'll give him and the Ireland lad a run in the next game and then take a call. Tremlett? Well, I'll think of him only if Stokes plays at 6.

Are Australia on self destruct?

MICHAEL Clarke has given a rare insight into his tense relationship with teammate and former vice-captain Shane Watson.

Writing in his Ashes diary, which is released today, Test captain Clarke revealed he summoned Watson for a private talk in the aftermath of Dave Warner's bar-room scuffle in Birmingham during Australia's ill-fated Ashes campaign.

Warner was suspended for punching rival player Joe Root in a Birmingham nightclub.

At the time it was claimed that Watson, who had been stood down from the third Test in India for not submitting team homework, felt team management's initial inaction over the Warner incident was tantamount to double standards.

Sensing potential disharmony within team ranks, Clarke called Watson to his hotel room for a private meeting.

''In the last few days I've received phone calls from guys in the one-day squad and from staff referring to Shane's attitude around the group,'' Clarke wrote

''Shane has strong opinions, which is his right as a senior member of the team, but sometimes there's a right way and a wrong way to put them.

''I wanted to know if everything was okay with him, to hear how he was feeling in his own words, rather than through others.

''I didn't want people talking about anybody in the team behind their back. Whatever I heard, I wanted to hear from Shane himself, so that I could help.''

The Test skipper's revelations add an intriguing new twist to the fallout of the recent Ricky Ponting's book. Ponting was criticised by former Australian captain Mark Taylor for airing dressing room secrets in the public domain.

Clarke wrote that the fallout from the Warner affair was not the first time he sought Watson out for an ''honest conversation.''

''We've had honest conversations, which is fantastic,'' Clarke writes.

''We've had to do this before, in India. Before the first Test in Chennai, I called Watto into my room for an hour and a half. We got a lot of things off our chests and thrashed it out and I think that from that point our relationship has been extremely good.

Seems like very odd timing to prove that all is not well with the captain and Watson.

you've got to wonder how suspending a player that punched a rival player could be seen as double standards... What on earth have these boys in green been doing?

Good question, Raf. They are living in Fantasy Land.

Even more worrying news for us today.

Apparently Clarke has said that "the team picks itself". He can't be serious, can he? Who's he kidding?

Australia is in an utter state of disarray... under-prepared (players either injured or rested) with the 1st Test about 10 days away.
No amount of 'positive talk' or Warnie's 'spin' can change the fact that Australia is heading for a consecutive home Ashes defeat.

The fans (what's left of them) are being treated with complete disdain in these 'media bites' and no amount of wool-pulling over our eyes will obscure the real situation.

Funny, we've had less than 50mm rain since March (i.e. bone dry, above ave temps pushing 40 deg C on a few occasions, drought and fires) Now the heavens have opened up and there's been 100mm of rain in some places not far from Sydney in less than 24 hours.
It looks like more rain Fri, Sat, Sun but maybe some play on Wednesday for the Invitational XI v England XI at the SCG.
Not good preparation for both sides but England have the mental edge and look far more cohesive as a team.

I also worry when MC starts calling Warner "Davey"... something doesn't feel right!

Heck, a quick ton/50 n.o. against a relatively weak Vic side doesn't necessarily mean he will perform well against Jimmy and Broad.
In fact, they will no doubt have him covered by a simple plan and he will rise to the bait.

Nice gesture today though with both teams present at a Remembrance Day Service.
Australian Team is announced tomorrow morning.

BBC TMS ‏@bbctms
Australia #ashes squad for Gabba - Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Bailey, Haddin, Johnson, Faulkner, Harris, Siddle , Lyon

Bailey's in, despite being an average FC player at best...

[quote="Olly"]BBC TMS ‏@bbctms
Australia #ashes squad for Gabba - Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Bailey, Haddin, Johnson, Faulkner, Harris, Siddle , Lyon
 
Bailey's in, despite being an average FC player at best...[/quote]
 
yes if you replace Rogers with Aron  finch......that looks like a very good ODI side.
 
slog-feast on indian patta pitches not only benefitted Rohit but Bailey also and has ensured faulkner has retained his place.
 
one faulkner gives them the flexibility to replace a batsmen ora bowler in case of a last minute mishap

So we all agree then.
An OK-ish one day side at home but these guys are about to walk into a lion's den smelling of fresh blood... wearing white.

Bailey may not be the best ever batsman that Australia have ever produced, but he can't be any worse than the likes of Hughes and Kawaja. And he has a good temperament and a fabulous ODi record even before the slogfest in India.

what msp said. Khawaja looked completely at sea last series really, particularly against Swann. Bailey at least looks at home in international cricket (he batted nicely against England in the ODIs last summer too). I think it has the look of a decent team. I still reckon Faulkner could play if Watson is unable to bowl, we know Aus like that fifth bowling option to be able to keep control (and also because they think Siddel is much more effective when not bowling in the first 15-20 overs or so, meaning they need another seamer in there).

Interesting to see how Johnson is used by them too. Their good bowling efforts in England were usually built on giving the England top order very few loose deliveries, in particular Cook barely played a back foot shot all series. Johnson even at his best is likely to give the odd loose ball, so Aus may well look to use him in short bursts.

For England, I suspect Carberry has played his way into the team, which is only fair really, given his form on tour. That means Root goes back down to 6, and provided Prior is fit the only choice is who takes the third seamer spot, which doesn't seem clear-cut at all at the moment.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

For England, I suspect Carberry has played his way into the team, which is only fair really, given his form on tour. That means Root goes back down to 6, and provided Prior is fit the only choice is who takes the third seamer spot, which doesn't seem clear-cut at all at the moment.

Personally I agree with that entirely although another option would be to leave out Carberry or Root and bring in Stokes. That would lessen the significance of the third seamer by giving us in Stokes a fifth bowling option and someone who shouldn't look too out of place at number 6. There are though strong arguments against this (public display of lack of faith in the third seamer coupled with a change of the established ''4 bowlers approach''; unfair on Carberry or Root; is Stokes good enough?) which I would expect to prevail. However, if one of the batsmen should be unfit for the first Test I wouldn't be too surprised to see the selectors turning to Stokes and perhaps also giving a small sigh of relief as they ink in Tremlett's name.

I'd be surprised guildford TBH. Stokes was batting 8 in the recent ODI series, and everything seems to point to England seeing him more as a bowling all-rounder than a batting one (something I agree with having seen him in said ODI series). I don't think Stokes is quite ready for Test cricket yet, and I'm almost certain he isn't good enough for the n°6 spot. It would be an option to move Prior up the order to n°6 and have Stokes at 7, but that would mean deviating from the successful formula of four bowlers.

As an aside, was anyone else laughing when Michael Vaughan at the Oval said something along the lines of: "4 bowlers has worked so well for England in the past, not sure why they've changed that here"? I mean, this is the same guy who has been banging on about the 5 bowlers idea for years now .

Back to the England team selection. For me noises from the England camp suggest Carberry to open with Root at 6, but they're not giving much away on the third seamer spot.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
As an aside, was anyone else laughing when Michael Vaughan at the Oval said something along the lines of: "4 bowlers has worked so well for England in the past, not sure why they've changed that here"? I mean, this is the same guy who has been banging on about the 5 bowlers idea for years now .

Vaughan was lucky enough to have Flintoff at his disposal so no idea why he would go on about it in the first place. But you are right, he does go on about it along with the dinosaur Aggers and then when they do it and it doesn't work it is suddnly the terrible idea that they knew it would be. I think what I am saying is they both spout reactionary nonsense.

MfC - I think we're pretty much as one. I was really speculating on possibilities rather than advocating Stokes' selection.

I'm probably over emphasing Stokes' batting abilities. I saw him play only as a batsman for Durham at the Oval this summer (he had a back back which prevented him bowling) and that might be influencing my thoughts too much.

The third seamer may of course not be a weakness but there is certainly a risk attached (whoever he turns out to be). My gut feel is that the selectors would like to pick Tremlett but still don't have full confidence in his strength and fitness (neither do I).

Difficult.

Stokes could always bat at 7 with Prior or Bairstow at 6, but I doubt that'll happen.

Agger's tweeting the team for the final warm up doesn't include Tremlett but Finn and Rankin do play

Cricket Australia Invitational XI v England XI at Sydney

Eng going with : Cook Carberry Trott KP Bell Root Bairstow Broad Swann Finn Rankin. Looks like Tremlett will miss the Gabba now.

Eng win toss and bowl.

Olly wrote:Agger's tweeting the team for the final warm up doesn't include Tremlett but Finn and Rankin do play

I think that's significant. Bearing in mind the understandable concerns about Tremlett's fitness and ability to withstand a five day Test, I would have expected the selectors to have wanted the reassurance of seeing him come through this final warm up match if he was strongly in contention for a place in the first Test.

Suggests the third seamer spot is for Finn or Rankin to win or lose. Correct call in my view.

Rankin to take the new ball with Broad...

Little signs...

You would think Tremlett is out of contention yes Guildford. Might be an option for one test like Perth or something tho

Found a decent live pic of the game, at this moment in time the whole outfield is a mixture of grass and sand, looks like a parks football pitch.

New stand going up, Skye. It's a race against time but it will all be completed by late December for the January Test.

Same with Adelaide. New grandstands... and a new drop-in pitch now.
No-one knows how it will play. Probably a bit 'dead' at first; similar to when they did the same thing to the MCG. A little sad really, given all the history of that old AO pitch but that's the way things are these days.

Finn has taken a couple of wickets. But the way they've been treating the lad, even 5 wickets may not be enough.

Think it will be the import from Ireland who'd be taking up the 3rd seamer position.

msp83 wrote:Think it will be the import from Ireland who'd be taking up the 3rd seamer position.

The import comment is starting to get a bit tedious to be honest.

A couple of wickets for Finn, still the most expensive bowler though. Going at 40 runs for those two wickets

Rankin hasn't taken a wicket and going at 3 an over isn't exactly McGrath or Pollock like economy either.

Morning all.

I too think England will go for Rankin. In a 4-man attack they will be swayed by Finn's high economy rate (which isn't to say that Rankin has been particularly economical, but in both games so far he has been significantly more so than Finn). With the circumstances as they are currently that may well be the correct call, however I do think the England management have really messed Finn around in the last year or 18 months. When he came into the side in India (ahead of Broad) he looked for all the world like a world beater; now he looks like a Mitch Johnson style player: capable of terrific spells, but all too often erratic. All started with the change of run-up (which neither Finn nor Angus Fraser were particularly keen on) and has spiraled on from there.

The way forward for Finn IMO is a period out of the national side altogether (and not on the fringes, being picked, then not being trusted, being dropped, made 12th man, being picked, etc.) to go and figure out his action again away from the pressures of international cricket. He is still very young, and let's remember that Jimmy Anderson was similarly messed around early on in his career and has come back strongly.

Carberry has made an unanswerable case to be picked as an opener. Whilst I remain unconvinced of his ability to make the step up, he seems to have a decent temperament, and his lack of scoring options shouldn't be such a hindrance in the test arena. If he leaves the ball well and stays patient, then waits for Australia to bowl into his areas (either wide, or too straight) then he could have some success.

In any case I prefer Root at number 5 or 6, so the switch could work for England, provided the message sent to him doesn't knock his confidence (after being backed publicly before the previous series, being sent back down the order on the back of Carberry scoring 150 in a warm-up match could be quite demoralising). In general, Root has gone through a bit of a tough period since the ashes started (his ODI form was poor also), so it will be interesting to see how he bounces back. Quality player clearly, but we know how fickle fans and the media can be.

The move to make Carberry open and put Root down at 6 has undoubtedly been made easier by the continued struggles of Ballance and Bairstow. I have it on record that Ballance looked all at see during his 4 off 17 balls in the previous game, and it seems that particular gamble hasn't paid off. Shouldn't be too big an issue, unless Carberry fails and then what? Root back to open, Bairstow at 6? The exact combination which England have just moved away from...

Prior's injury is potentially a problem, because I don't think England are comfortably with Bairstow with the gloves for a whole test match.

Stokes is a good player, and could get a chance if Carberry fails, at number 7 (behind Prior probably), but I can't see England moving away from their 4 bowlers formula unless things go terribly wrong or right.

Australia have picked the squad most people expected them to. I commented on the Bailey thread that he seems like someone who knows his game, and can hardly do a lot worse than the likes of Khawaja and Hughes (I still have some hopes for Hughes, but he too has been messed around a bit; Khawaja just doesn't seem mentally up to test cricket). Watson will bat 3 (he made 170 in his last test match, and Australia and Lehmann view him and Clarke as their main batsmen) and will get an extended run there; I suspect he has been told he has to start making serious runs more regularly, or Australia will look elsewhere (probably Doolan, or maybe Finch or Maddison).

The only question is really whether they play Bailey or Faulkner. I suspect that will depend on whether Watson can bowl; Australia want to play 5 bowlers, particularly with Mitch Johnson in the side. Haddin at 6 and Faulkner 7 is a bit risky for me personally, but I have no doubt that's the way they'll go if Watson can't bowl.

Big series for Warner who needs to be a bit more consistent. Finch has a lot of attributes and is breathing down his neck.

I will be very surprised if Phil Hughes has any sustained success as a test cricketer. Far too many weaknesses in his technique so that he'll be found out more often than not on proper wickets. I like Faulkner and had called for his inclusion over the likes of Hughes and Khawaja during the last Ashes. But I like Bailey too, and think he'll be a better prospect for Australia as a test batsman than the likes of Hughes and Khawaja. I hope both of them will have a part to play for Australia in this series.
As for Root, I wasn't a greater fan of him being moved up the order for the last series, but since they made the call, they should have stuck with him. But the poor form from Ballance and the other option of Bairstow not being very exciting means that Root can go back to the middle order where I believe he'll be a better option than at the top. But I am not too sure about Carberry as a test opener. They clearly don't like Compton, so if not Carberry, will they go back to Root, or will they be giving an opening for Chopra or someone else? If the call has to be made in this series, then it'll be Root, but if they are to take the call in the summer, it could be someone else.

Seems a lot of support for Rankin about ...based on what ? Can't be from any great impression in the tour matches so far unless along the lines of "best of a bad lot "

I may be way off but I would have thought he was the least likely of the candidates : no strong previous Test record , not a huge future prospect given his age ... Not to write him off , but I would think if England want a cutting edge (albeit at risk of bleeding runs) then Finn will be the man ; while Tremlett gets a lot of favourable press here , probably because of the damage he caused last time , and it wouldn't shock me if England still went for him despite his not playing in this match. They might feel he couldn't be much less effective than bowlers who were unable to break a sixth wicket partnership between a couple of fringe first class players.

To be truthful this third bowler matter looms as a problem for England in this series. A lack of warm up time due to the weather and some ordinary displays suggests England will be leaning heavily on Anderson and Broad , at least at first.

Alfie, Rankin's ODI displays for England in recent times might have convinced a few people. As I said, Finn does remain my pick, but as Mike pointed out, he's not in a very ideal space right now with his confidence, and even technically for that matter. And Tremlett is a good but fragile option who hasn't had a lot of bowling under his belt in recent times, and the last English season didn't convince many that he was back to anywhere near his best.
So Rankin who has been good in ODIs recently might get the go ahead, at least to start with. And then England would be hoping that Tim Bresnan will be playing the 2nd test.

I'm not saying picking Rankin is the right call, but I think England like the look of him. They helped convince him to end his Ireland career, he has been in Lions squads, and was the pick of England's bowlers in the ODIs this summer. He has marginally been the pick of the 3rd seamer so far in the warm-up matches.

I reckon England had rather hoped that Tremlett could play, but like guildford I agree that his non selection for this match probably means they feel he's not match fit and it is now a straight shoot-out between Rankin and Finn.

I also reckon England feel Rankin offers more control, and that's primarily what they're looking for in their 3rd seamer (and the formula which worked for them in the last ashes). remember they first dropped Finn in Aus last time because in spite of his wickets he was leaking too many runs. I feel they will stick with their preferred formula of keeping things tight, attacking with the new ball and reverse swing, and picking up the odd wicket from frustration. As things are, England aren't looking for that "cutting edge" which Finn provides.

All this is pure hypothesis. It is how I think England are looking, which is why in my eyes, at the moment, Rankin is heavy favourite to start in Brisbane. England will want Bresnan back ASAP mind. Not saying it's right or wrong, mind, but the reasoning does have merit.

If only the Australians could bat a bit would England realize the value of a bowler who provides them that cutting edge.