5 August 2009

A tale of two bowling attacks

While everyone but the Aussie selectors seems to think Stuart Clark should have played all along, there are still no hints that Australia's top wicket taker in the last Ashes will play at Headingley. Jason Gillespie reckons he should play, and I've added a comment agreeing with him. While it's great that Australia aren't playing their best team because England have a better chance of winning The Ashes, it's also frustrating because I'm not doing well in Ashes fantasy cricket because I keep picking Clark, refusing to believe the Aussie selectors could not pick him again, and he keeps scoring 0!

But there seems to be plenty of people who reckon Lee will play - I'd find it surprising given his track record if he was played as soon as he was fit. It's not like he's *that* good - if it was Warne or McGrath maybe, but Lee is a long way off that. If I were the Aussies, I'd play Johnson, Hauritz, Clark and Hilfenhaus, dropping Siddle. And I wouldn't make Watson bowl unless he's fully fit - watching the guy trundle into the crease and bowl so badly was painful, even as an English supporter.

So that brings us to England's bowling attack. Sidebottom has been solid all season for Notts and I did think when England brought in Harmison for the last Test squad that Sidebottom must be considering himself unlucky. Many think England's bowling attack will differ based on Flintoff's fitness - if he is they can go with the same but with Sidebottom coming in for Broad and Swann batting one place higher; if he isn't then they could play Harmison to open the bowling with Anderson, and still drop Broad while playing an extra batsman. But to be honest, I think that's a risk given Harmison's up and down form on the big stage and I'd personally go with Sidebo as it's a 4 man attack - given Harmison's County figures this season most would disagree with me on that. I wonder if the reason Bopara bowled a few overs in the last Test was to assess his bowling in case they needed to go in with 4 specialist bowlers...?

If Flintoff isn't fit and England do go with 4 bowlers, the question is then where to bat Trott. I suspect he'll go in at 6 above Prior if he plays, but if I was naming the batting order I'd move Collingwood to 4 and Bell to 7, leaving Prior and Trott to bat 5 and 6. I don't think it matters greatly which way round they bat, but I'd marginally give 5 to Trott based on the fact that it'll be a vote of confidence batting him higher, and because - despite his high strike rate - Prior averages 36 in this series and that's not worthy of top 6, let alone top 5.

In fact, when you look at the runs and wickets in the series so far, they make scary reading for England. Australia have 5 of the top 6 run scorers and 4 of the top 5 wicket takers. Maybe we shouldn't be counting our chickens in England just yet....

3 comments:

Pete said...

Ed, I can't believe that you have launched this vicious attack on Matt Prior's batting!
If an average of 36 is not worthy of top 6 then where does that leave Cook (Ave 28.60) and Bopara (Ave 20.80)? Not only that but Prior sacrificed at least one innings, at Lords, for the team when chasing quick runs. There was a ton there for the taking but he unselfishly went for quick runs and was unluckily run out.

idw said...

I wish he hadn't played ! Although having said that I think we could have got out to any of their bowlers not just him.

Ed said...

Yes, lots of the England batsmen have struggled and Prior's done better than most. If you're in the top 6 batsmen in the country then your worthy of your place in the top 6, no matter what your average, and he has given his wicket away unselfishly - fair comment. Bopara and Cook have definitely done worse and I've been alarmed by how bad Bopara has looked, although I also feel sorry for him given that he's had two wrong decisions from 7 innings.

As I type Prior is batting well and I hope he can prove your point by getting a big hundred! He's doing much better than some may have expected, but he's not the finished article yet who might, for example, fill the problem number 3 spot.