Quote:
> Your prediction sucks. What did GA Gooch make on his debut? A pair as
> I recall - at least a first innings 0. You can't expect Lathwell, after
> only a couple of county seasons at Taunton, to make 100 before lunch on
> his debut. I thought he played well, setting a positive mood (and so
> did G. Boycott & I. Chappell), and outscored Atherton. He looked
> unlucky to be out too - I couldn't see a worthwhile deflection on the
> replay. Atherton was unlucky too - he seemed not to have hit the ball. Given
> that it was a mistake for Gooch to move down the order, and break up a good
> opening partnership, I think it went well. I would rather see Gooch
> open, and Lathwell come in at 3. Gooch at 3 might make one opener feel
> he is expected to fail. Lathwell needs a good run - he looks a quality
> player, and needs help over the transition.
Though I agree with the fact that England needs to groom it's young players, I
disagree with the modus operandi totally. What England should have done was
stick with batsmen like Hick and Gatting who were beginning to look good,
saved a couple of tets and then talk of introducing fresh ***. Losing
another couple of tests in a row isn't going to help in any way! It will just
put more and more pressure on the new batsmen and I really dont see any of
them settling to be confident young batsmen that way(Especially considering
the fact that their next series is against the WI!). On the other hand if they
were batting in situations where the tension was less and more in form
experienced batsmen around them, they could be more natural and would probably
play more confidently and successfully. This always works when you are on a
losing streak. Remember when Aus were 3 down against the WI in 85. It was an
experienced batsman from the past , Andrew Hilditch, who held out and saved
the Melbourne test for them. saving that match gave them enough confidence to
go on and beat the mighty WI in the last test at Sydney.
Quote:
> Thrope (sic) also needs to find his feet. Coming in at 159-4, he may
> either have felt that he should hang around with Gooch, as the innings
> faced a midlife crisis, or that 159-4 is a great position by England
> standards, and he should play shots. If I were captain (there's a
> thought) I would ask a debutant to play his shots, worrying about his
> innings and not that of the team. What is needed now for England is not
> a great victory but a firm foundation for a new side,
I personally feel that the last thing they need now is another crushing defeat!
and the sooner
Quote:
> Lathwell, Thorpe, Hussain, Caddick, Ilott and McCague settle in and
> become Test Cricketers the better. It doesn't matter if they bat for 4
> hours for 50, bowl 30 overs and take 1-45, or whatever: they just need
> to show that they belong on the Test stage.
The thing is, you may think so, but the selectors wont. A couple of more low
scores, a few more bowling performances below par and these guys will be
history. That is what will really suck, to borrow a term from you.
Quote:
> The same is surely true of Julian. He produces occasional good
> deliveries, and rather too many loose ones. With the right coaching,
> and more experience, he will become mighty useful. He has a big chance
I think the major point on wwhich we disagree is whether a side should be
picked for the present or for the future. I beleive in picking the bst side a
country can produce at the moment, which would mean that you win more test
matches at the present, which in turn would produce the right environment to
groom young players for the future. You beleive in picking a side for the
future which ensures mediocrity in the present and hope that they become good
enough to win test matches in the future. Just a difgference in our points of
view , I guess. Which is more successful in the long run, only time can tell.
Quote:
> in the absence of McDermott, and little pressure given Australia's
> postion. I can't agree either that may didn't bowl well as a stock
> bowler. 11 overs for 34 is worth having when batsmen are occasionally
> threatening to break through. Better still, his second 8 overs cost
> less than 20. Good bowling. OK, so Warne and Merv made the inroads -
> but then they are the stars. Credit where it's due to the supporting cast.
Hey, I'm getting confused here! Are we playing a one-day match here or a test
match? And 8 overs for 20 without a wicket are NOT particularly good figures
for a spinner in a test match, especially against this England side.
-Balky
Quote:
> It was interesting to see Ken Palmer (I think) turning down a few of
> Warne's appeals, apparently for too much turn. He must have been
> watching that demise of Gatting on TV!
> Good day's play though, and looks to be a good Test in the making.
> Bill.
by