Night watchmen
I guess most watchers would have been diappointed that England chose to go with Jimmy Anderson at first wicket down last night when in such a dominant position. My thought was that Shah was probably very relieved as the new boy trying to cement a place but maybe a batsman more secure in the side might have been sent in or more sensibly someone like Broad or Prior who'd be able to have a whack in the morning as opposed to Anderson now having to get himself out asap.
3 comments:
I don't think it's such a bad idea having Anderson in, at least he can give it a good tap from early on, and if he loses his wicket early going for big shots then the better batsmen will be in sooner.
If he scratches around not doing much then yes it is a bad decision, but so far things seem to be going well for Strauss.
I think there's a broader issue here: why are today's England bowlers so wimpish that the captain doesn't realisticly have the option of enforcing the follow-on? We knew that Flintoff's ankle was suspect, but he now seems to have a different hip injury, and Harmison flakes out after half a day in the sun. Are they over-trained, with muscles and cartilages etc stretched to or beyond their limits before they even get on the pitch? Are they under-acclimatised? When touring sides travelled to foreign climes by ship rather than by air (yes, I am old enough to remember that!) the players gradually got used to differing climates whilst en route.
This lack of fitness could well prevent England from winning this match. Will less than a day's respite be enough to restore Flintoff (crucially) and Harmison (less importantly)? I can't see West Indies giving their wickets away with such gay abandon second time round, especially Chanderpaul.
To get back to your original post, I think Anderson can fling the bat quite effectively, so, given instructions to hit out or get out, I don't think he'll get in the way too much this morning.
The England team try to portray Prior as a batsman even though he goes in at 7 and averages over 40, so I think he would be agrieved not to be thought of in the same light as the rest of the batsmen....
Didn't watch yesterday to see how Anderson did, but I like the orginal Broad idea....
If England's bowlers really are that flakey then maybe that 4 bowler thing I posted the other day goes out of the window!
Post a Comment